Dennis Bevington

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly go back at it. Once again, we see here the minister taking on the authority for laying out different conditions under the law, for making changes to things that people hold very valuable without consulting them, without having a process of appeal. This is wrong.

This is a process that goes against our very democratic nature. It goes against the sort of strong feeling that people have for our river systems across the country. There are millions of people who use those river systems for navigation in small boats and canoes. These people have rights, too.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill, a bill that covers a budget which really has no vision or direction. It is a budget that represents a scattergun approach to stimulating the economy, one which, at the end of the day after a considerable sum of taxpayers' money has been spent, will not have accomplished what is needed to be accomplished.

It was clear from the very beginning with the economic statement in December that this type of situation would happen, that we would be faced with a budget that simply would not do the job. We cannot expect Conservative ideology to turn around in two months. I am sorry, but that will not happen. We cannot expect that people who have built their dogmatic behaviour around the confines of neo-conservatism would use the finances of this country to provide what Canada needs.

We in the NDP knew that. That is why we formed the coalition in December. We knew very well that in January we would not get what was needed for this economy. Today we hear the Liberals say the same thing. They supported the Conservatives last week for political reasons, but today they are saying the same thing, that the budget is not adequate, that it is not enough. We knew that before. We did not have to wait until the budget was presented. We understand the Conservatives after three years in opposition to them in Parliament.

Once again we saw the mean-spiritedness of a government that would create a budget bill designed to stimulate the economy and get the economy working full of measures that have nothing to do with that, measures that really preserve the Conservative ideological base in this country, to pander to that type of support. We see that so clearly.

Bill C-10 attacks women through its assault on pay equity. It really provides nothing for women who are out of work. We do not see any improvement in EI. We do not see a more understanding nature around child care. We do not see any of that vision that people who are going to be most disenfranchised during this downturn in the economy need to have.

It tears up collective agreements. My inbox was full of emails from RCMP officers in my riding in the Northwest Territories. They said that not only did the government cut the collective agreement for all of Canada, but it also picked on the extra money that is provided as support for the RCMP in carrying out law and order in very isolated places.

I wish the Prime Minister and his cabinet would have gone into a grocery store in Inuvik before the election and looked at the prices of goods for northerners. Perhaps then they would understand what it means when there are cutbacks for the professionals who come in to take care of our communities and provide the services which we hear the Conservatives talk about so eloquently when it comes to taking credit for anything they do.

This budget weakens control on foreign ownership, especially Air Canada. The aviation industry is so transportable. Many of the workers can be replaced by people in other countries. The maintenance work can be done in places that will provide no benefit to our country. We need to hold on to the ownership of our aviation industry. That is not happening. This budget would actually change that.

It attacks student loan recipients. How low do we want to go? How low do we take this?

Today I am going to move away from that and talk about how the bill attacks the environment through its changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I was in committee the other day when the minister took great pains to say how old this act was, that it dated from the time of our first prime minister. He seemed to have disdain for it because of its age, that this was a good reason to move on from it, to change to something different.

The fact that this law is one of the oldest on the books says to me how important the protection of Canada's waterways is. The role of a national government in protecting its waters dates well before Confederation. There were provisions in the Magna Carta protecting against the construction of fish weirs across the rivers in England. We know that from day one it is so important to look at how our rivers are being taken care of.

Despite this historic precedent as to how important the role of a national government is in protecting water systems, the government wants to eviscerate protection for Canada's waterways. Under the changes the Conservatives want to make, rivers would only be considered navigable under the sole discretion of the minister. There would be no consultation, no forewarning and no appeal, not even any limitation on the type of waterway which could be excluded.

Under these amendments, it is conceivable the minister could declare that the St. Lawrence is not a navigable waterway. What kind of power and authority are we turning over to the minister in this regard? What is this about? We would also turn over to the minister the sole discretion to determine whether any proposed work would have an impact on navigation, once again without prior consultation, no warning and no appeal. With this type of amendment, large structures, such as dams across a river, depending on where they are located and which river they are on, could be considered as not having any impact on navigation.

The amendments give the minister the authority to change at any time the criteria used in assessing whether a waterway is navigable or whether a type of work may interfere with navigation, once again without the ability of Canadians to say anything about it, without any ability to appeal these types of decisions on these waterways which so many Canadians hold sacred.

Canadians identify with their rivers. They identify with the land, the water. Nature is so important to all of us. Why would Canadians want this type of legislation put in place?

The minister said that these changes need to be made because the law has been holding up vital infrastructure projects. Can the minister name one project that has not gone ahead because of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

Why has the Conservative government put this odious change to the laws which protect Canada's natural environment into a budget bill? Could it be because the Conservatives know Canadians will oppose these changes and will voice strong opposition? The Conservatives sneak it in through the back door knowing that the Liberals will support it in order to get the budget passed. This is how they are working.

When the Navigable Waters Protection Act was reviewed by the transport committee in the last Parliament, the committee recommended more consultations, especially with aboriginal people, recreational users, anglers, canoeists, tourist operators, cottagers, and river advocacy groups. Only one group like that was represented in the committee discussions.

The government likes to say it is here for the people, but if it does not listen to the people, it is not here for them.

Another way the government is not listening is in its approach to stimulating the economy of the Northwest Territories. For years the people and the Government of Nunavut have been calling for a deep sea port at Iqaluit. Instead, the government is pouring $17 million into a harbour in Pangnirtung, on top of the already existing contribution of $8 million last year.

After the budget was released, the Premier of Nunavut asked about the funding and was told to use it or lose it, that a port in Iqaluit would take too long. Pangnirtung needs a small craft harbour and it should get an excellent one for $25 million, but all of Nunavut needs a harbour in Iqaluit as well, and that funding could have gone toward making that a reality. Why did they not do it? The Conservatives think they know better than the people of the north.

Another example from the north is funding for an Arctic research institute.

I will sum up by saying that this budget does not work and we are not supporting it.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his outline of the economic situation vis-à-vis Canada and the United States.

However, he missed probably the most important factor in the relationship of our trade, and that is the relative positions of our currencies. Right now we are in a situation where the U.S. currency has been artificially enhanced through the falling commodity prices and the falling equity market.

We are likely to see the situation reverse. As the commodity markets improve, we will see the U.S. dollar fall and the Canadian dollar go up.

When we look at what is happening in trade between the countries, if we do not examine where the puck is going to be in a year or two with the currency, with the relative ability of Canada to sell into the United States, we are putting ourselves in a degree of difficulty.

When we talk about trade and protectionism today, it may be that we will want a different solution down the road when the economies of the world settle down, when commodity prices rise, when the U.S. has to bear the incredible burden that it has created for itself with its huge payouts to banks and with its huge stimulus program. These are factors that we have to consider today in determining how that relationship should work, whether protectionism or free trade, rather than simply looking at the situation today.

Does my colleague not agree that we need to look at where we will be? This very important factor that determines our trade and our ability to feed into the U.S. market is one of the things that has to be very much on our minds?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation to the Eighth Conference of Parliamentarians to the Arctic Region, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, August 12 to 14.

[The Economy, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the economic downturn of the past six months has skewered the manufacturing heart of our country. The falling of commodity prices from their heights of last spring is chewing up the economies of all regions across our country.

Northern Canada is no exception to this. From diamond mining to exploration for new minerals, from the service industries to aviation, trucking and expediting of the oil and gas work in the Mackenzie Valley, the situation is grim and getting grimmer. Our laid-off northern workers are facing higher northern costs of living and unsatisfactory employment insurance benefits. Our businesses are struggling to stay alive.

Unfortunately, an upturn in commodity prices may not be the panacea we are hoping for. Higher commodity prices mean a higher Canadian dollar and downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Higher energy prices will spur inflation not only here but also in the U.S.

The failure of this government to be honest with Canadians has hurt us already. Let us be realistic. Free market ideology will not provide leadership. It is time for Parliament to lead Canadians forward with a clear plan for the economy.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I very much agreed with my hon. colleague at the end of his speech when he talked about the need to come out of this recession in a positive fashion. I just do not happen to see this in the budget today. I see very little that will lead to a new economy that we anticipate will come from the convulsions that we are seeing in the world economy now.

Quite clearly in the United States we are seeing a plan for the new energy future. We will see increased pressure from the United States to clean up our tar sands. We will see increased pressure from the United States to expand the volume of renewable energy used on the continent.

The opportunities to be engaged in the production of renewable energy are not addressed in the budget. The opportunities to move ahead are simply not there. In fact, what the government has done is cut the eco-initiatives, which will reduce the amount of money available to expand our wind industry. A billion dollars over five years may go into renewable energy but much of it might be foisted off on to that boondoggle of the carbon sequestration.

How will the budget deliver a clean energy future for Canadians?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to compliment my colleague on his speech. He addressed many of the issues that we in our party have found to be unacceptable in this budget. The unacceptable nature of the vision of the budget, where we are going in this country, how we are getting there, and what the end result will be after an economic recession has ended in the world and in this country are questions that have not been answered.

We are going into a budget that is going to set a direction for us. Likely that direction will carry on for at least 18 months, before the next budget can be introduced and before any of the effects from that budget can enter into the Canadian economy. The hon. member has pointed out many of these shortcomings.

We had a chance to change directions here. We recognize that there was a need for a direction change. What would it have taken for him to see the requirement for the Canadian economy to change, and how can he say that it even starts to show up in this budget?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and also for his concerns about people in this country, about training, and about the direction the budget is taking. I thought he might be interested in something pointed out to me by a number of my constituents regarding the development of a highly skilled workforce in the budget. This part of the budget would invest $87 million over three years. Some of it would go to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, some to the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and some to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for scholarships for a variety of students.

However, the government has said in the budget that “Scholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be focused on business-related degrees”. In other words, the government has once again degraded the whole aspect of academic learning by saying that the important thing right now is business, where truly to all Canadians the requirement for knowledge and understanding in all aspects of our society remains and in an economic downturn, even becomes more important.

We must first understand how to deal with problems. We have trained professionals, people working in the humanities field to understand the problems that Canadians face, and to provide solutions to the problems that Canadians face. What does the government propose in this one sentence? Because it would eliminate the possibility of these people getting support for their work and improving their ability to deal with Canadians' problems. How does my hon. colleague feel about this?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about Newfoundland in the way she did with respect to its future.

All of us here when looking at the budget think of the future. We do not think of today or six months from now. We do not think of positioning ourselves for an election in the next year. We think about what is good for the future of the country. Certainly this budget, which not only affects Newfoundland this year but for the next three years with the change in equalization, is a very serious blow to that region of the country.

The previous Liberal speaker indicated that somehow we are not standing up for Canada in that we do not support the budget. To me, standing up for Canada means that I think of the future of this country, not of political expediency. I was willing to go into a coalition with another group in this Parliament and work together for the future of this country.

I do not see that right now from the Liberal Party. I see the Liberal Party accepting expediency once again as the way it works in this Parliament. I would like to know how my hon. colleague feels about this.

[The Budget, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister does not believe in his own budget. In fact, in 1995 in the Calgary Herald, the Prime Minister said that infrastructure programs are a waste of time and a drain on long-term job creation.

The shared cost program leaves our mayors between a rock and a hard place. Either they raise property taxes, something they cannot do, or say goodbye to much needed infrastructure money. Why has the government set up an infrastructure program designed to fail our municipalities?