Dennis Bevington

[Transport, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, pilots responsible for inspecting safety practices on airlines said that because of the government's move to have the industry oversee its own safety, Canada is no longer meeting international aviation standards. The proposed safety management systems will remove Transport Canada from its important role of inspecting planes and enforcing safety regulations.

How can the government continue to allow the industry to police its own safety when it knows doing so puts Canada's air safety below world standards?

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes back to a question of ideology. We heard the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He talked about the necessity of people being responsible for their own future. That is the Conservatives' mentality. They want to cast people out into the sea of sharks and let them swim.

Perhaps they could take along a survival document when they go into that sea of sharks but that is about all they are going to get. They are going to get a website and that will protect them from the sharks. That is not what we need. We need some decent work here in Parliament.

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the urgency of the problem. This goes back to the previous budget and my major problems with it. There was no vision for the future. There was no acknowledgement of the problem.

The only one who has provided leadership on acknowledgement of the problem has been President Obama standing up and saying that greed has driven us to where we are at. We need those kinds of declarations here.

We need to give Canadians the understanding of where the problems come from first. We need solutions that can stand up for Canadians in the short-term but as well we have to have a vision of where we want the country to go after the recession is over, how we can recover from the recession, and how we can move forward with an economy that will work for Canadians in a new and better fashion.

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the NDP opposition day motion. I would like to indicate that I am sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I am sure he will have much to add to this debate in his indubitable fashion, as always, as our international trade critic, who understands the issues facing Canadians at home as well.

As I stand to speak about consumer debt and credit cards, I would like to put it in the context first of myself. I have to admit that I have never had any personal debt throughout my whole life. I have always operated on the positive side of the ledger. In later life when I finally obtained a credit card, I always made sure that the payments were made on time and that interest would not accrue. My wife was very diligent in ensuring that happened. I want to thank her today because her hard work in ensuring that our family remained out of debt has made it possible for me look forward to a good life in my retirement.

That is the message I want to deliver to all Canadians. What we have seen in this country and the world has been an explosion of debt over the last 25 years that has driven the economies of many countries into rack and ruin, but it has also driven Canadians and other consumers throughout the world into great hardship.

Yes, there are problems of financial literacy, as the hon. member from the Conservative Party pointed out, but there is a far more important issue. That is why the New Democratic Party can look south of the border now with some degree of confidence when we hear the new president of the United States and his new administration talking about new ideas to bring the American economy around. That is why we can look there and ask whether they have good ideas that we can pick up on.

Does the United States have ideas within its administration or Congress that Canada can take advantage of? In fact, in some instances we are probably able to move more quickly than the United States in putting forward legislation for change, and more likely in the future to offer up solutions to the United States. With the economy that exists now in North America, we have to understand that it is very integrated.

For us to take ideas from other legislators in this grand continent I do not think is inappropriate. We are going to be seeing more of that in the future from the New Democratic Party, because the President of the United States sounds more like a New Democrat than I have heard from anyone there before. There is someone in the United States who we can count on to provide us with advice. George Bush is not there anymore, whose policies and directions were totally repugnant to the New Democratic Party and to most Canadians and our supporters across the country.

This is a different time and we have the opportunity to pick up new ideas. The New Democratic Party right now is the mainstream of economic reason in this country.

I had the opportunity the other day to speak with John Rodriguez, who was the financial institutions critic for the New Democratic Party in the 1980s. What did he say? He said we fought long and hard against the Conservatives and the Liberals to ensure that the banks in Canada did not expand their scope beyond what needed to be; our financial institutions were kept in line. That work is playing out today.

For the party opposite or the Liberals to call us, in the NDP, Luddites is nonsense. We have been standing up for Canadians' financial security in Parliament the entire time that NDP members have been here. Whether there are five members or 30, we stand up for Canadians to ensure their interests come first and are protected. That is what we are doing here today with the introduction of this motion by the hon. member for Sudbury.

In this time, when we look to the future and at what people need in this country, do we need our consumers continuing their path of greater and greater consumer debt in this country? No, we do not. We do not need that. That is not good for Canadians. That is not going to work for Canadians.

The fallacy of the extension of debt among consumers in Canada has come home to roost. It was apparent to every individual in this country. Why does the Conservative Party not recognize that the importance of these issues to consumers and to Canadians is paramount?

I really want to congratulate the member for bringing this motion forward. We need to bring sense back into the lives of Canadians. We need to take the institutions that provide them with financial resources and make them understand that their job is to ensure that their customers are well protected with their financial dealings with those companies.

The concept of a bank as being a secure and good place to get financial advice, to understand how to use credit and to ensure that the people who run the banks have the concern of their customers first are concepts that we have to go back to and that should drive the economy once we come out of this recession.

We do not want to look back two years from now and consider that nothing was really wrong with what we were doing, that nothing was wrong with the extension of consumer debt to a point where there were no savings left in this country, there was no security for individuals in what they were doing with their money. We want to change that and move forward so that Canadians will progress, so they will gain after the downturn is over, and so they will have a new economy that will be less reliant on their personal suffering and more on a system that delivers them the resources they require, that can make their lives work and that they can afford to use in their day to day practices.

To talk about consumer debt and credit cards, and to understand the nature of what is happening with this system, I think for some of us is very difficult. Of course it is, but it is not difficult to understand when someone pays his or her credit card down at the end of the month, misses $10 and ends up paying interest on the whole amount. We understand how usurious that is. It does not take a degree in economics to understand that that is not fair.

That is one of the things we are working on here, to limit abusive fees and penalties, to ensure that credit cardholders understand the terms and conditions of their contracts, and that the terms and conditions of their contracts work for them as well. That is the job of the regulatory agency, the government of this country, to provide that assurance to consumers that what is offered as a basic method of payment for so many different products in this country has the terms and conditions that can work for both the consumer and the lender.

What we are working with here is a good resolution. It has many parts to it. It is something that Parliament should take hold of and work for. The government cannot simply increase the font on the back of the credit card application form as its step toward ensuring the health and well-being of the financial future of Canadians. That is not good enough.

We need to understand where we want to go in this country with credit. We need to understand that credit can be just as much of a problem as alcohol or drugs.

We need to protect consumers in the long-term from what has happened to them. That has not been the case for past 20 years. That is why we are in the situation that we are in today. We need to change. We need to move forward.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 3rd, 2009]

Did the government intervene in any way in the complaint against Dr. John O'Connor of Fort Chipewyan in Alberta, laid before the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons and, if so, (i) in which way, (ii) for what reasons, and (iii) which departments were involved?

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

He should read the transcripts, Mr. Speaker. That would indicate where my dialogue was. We do not need to play silly games.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more I can add to what I have said already. I trust we can move ahead with this motion, we can do the work that is required and that should be enough.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I find that statement to be a bit absurd. The legislation was on the order paper for a later time. We had considered putting amendments at the report stage. The Conservative government moved the bill ahead very quickly on the order paper. In fact, it delayed the work it was doing on Bill C-2 today in order to push the bill forward so our amendments could not come forward in the proper sequence, which would have been as the bill came forward.

The question of how the bill is in front of us now is an issue. Quite clearly, in the last committee meeting, we had a lot of testimony that was not correct, and the witnesses had to agree. That is in the transcript of the committee meeting.

When it comes to offering up amendments, the hon. member across had the opportunity in the committee meetings to provide amendments to my amendment and the members chose not to even talk about it, partly because the information the government officials were providing to the committee was incorrect. Therefore, we had a problem.

Now it is in front of the House and we have to have this debate, which is fine. Canadians can hear a bit about what we are doing in the House. We are not trying to slow down this legislation.

Perhaps some of these questions would be better dealt with at a Senate committee meeting, where the Senate could ship it back to us once it had amended it.

What we should do is get the work done in a correct fashion, as I pointed out.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really think the Conservatives have failed here. This is not a question of fail or pass. This is a question of production of good legislation. It is a complex business. Sometimes we want to move things ahead because we have other agendas. Perhaps we have concerns about things like the Olympics that say this has to be done and if we allow the other parties to interfere with the process, it might not get done.

We are not talking about interfering with the process here. We are talking about sending the bill back to committee so that we can top it off with a couple of days on the one item alone, so that we can deal with it in a good fashion and ensure that it is completely correct, that all the committee members understand how this works, that the government understands how it works, that we do not get fed information that is not correct from the government witnesses, and that everything is lined up in good fashion. That is my feeling about it.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to see that we are actually debating this in more detail. Some of the questions raised deserve more attention. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar pointed out that many witnesses were before the committee. There were a few witnesses in front of the committee, but I might jog her memory about some of the witnesses who talked about the amendments.

I have committee transcripts from Tuesday, March 10, where the government representatives presenting evidence to the committee on the amendments that I put forward did not understand the amendments and had to admit in the transcripts that they had it wrong on two out of three of the amendments. In fact, when they presented the departmental view on the amendments, it was an incorrect view. It did not speak to the actual substance of the amendments. Officials had to retract those statements and agree with them. So what we saw was a lack of interest on the part of the bureaucrats in this process in informing the committee members of the nature of the amendments.

The member for Portage—Lisgar said we did a very detailed job on this. This is not the case. Quite clearly the transcripts show what happened in the committee meetings. We did not give this enough time. We did not see enough witnesses.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar brought up the point about farmers and the fact they are protected under regulations. Are they protected under statutes which can hold them free of the conditions that the minister could apply to them under the statute we are passing? When we talk about the farming industry, we were not presented with information at committee. There is no mention of farmers at committee. That issue was not dealt with. Quite clearly, once again, we have more work to do.

The issues raised in the House of Commons at the time of this debate are actually very serious issues when we are talking about the imposition of very onerous conditions that can be imposed on any industry in this country by the minister through regulations, through governor in council, without any further opportunity for parliamentarians, who are the ultimate judge of legislation. That means we have not done our job. We should take the opportunity that has now been given us, through this amendment, to go back and look at the amendments again to ensure that we get this right.

This is not a delaying tactic. This is an opportunity to make good legislation. What else do we stand in the House for other than to provide the very best of service with our thoughts and our directions as parliamentarians? I take my work seriously. I look at the legislation. My staff takes its work seriously. If we make mistakes, they are honest mistakes, and we want to be corrected. We want to ensure that what we are saying, the principles, the philosophy, and the direction the legislation applies will carry through in that fashion when it is applied to Canadians. That is our job here. There is no smaller job. There is no larger job. That is our job.

When we see that is not being accomplished, we have to go back to make it happen. We are not here simply to engage in partisan politics. This is not why we get up in the House of Commons and talk about issues like this. I really hope that perhaps we can come to some understanding on the bill through a process that would allow us to go back to the committee, allow us to continue the work needed to be done on this legislation and bring it forthwith to Parliament and get third reading done, and then moved on to the Senate in good fashion where it would not have questions about it. Let us get it out to the public where the public is satisfied with what we have created. All those things are the work that we should be doing here.

As a New Democrat, as a person who has worked with legislation at a municipal level, who understands what happens when we put in legislation that is not appropriate, we have to do things right. We have a chance to do things right. I am very happy that my colleague has brought forward this amendment. I trust that this amendment will pass and that we will be able to deliver to Canadians, in a timely fashion, a good piece of legislation.