Dennis Bevington

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my hon. colleague's speech, we get more and more the sense that this is a budget for winners and losers. Lowered tax cuts for corporations help corporations that are winners. That does not help the corporations that are losing right now. It does not provide the kind of investment in things that will bring them to a profitable state.

When we talk about the tax-free savings account, for somebody who has maxed out his credit card, which in Canada right now many people have, there is no opportunity for saving, so what we see once again is measures put in place for those who are the winners in the system.

We really have a responsibility in this Parliament to represent all people, to try to find ways in which we can bring equity to what we are doing in the country, to allow the opportunity for those who are less advantaged, whether they are corporations or individuals, to pull themselves up.

The latest budget, I would point out to my hon. colleague, seems to do none of that. How is the government being responsible to people in society? How is it being responsible when it puts forward a budget that so clearly identifies winners and losers?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be prompt with my question. The hon. member in his speech talked about the money that is put into carbon capture and storage in the budget, some $240 million. At the same time, the only new money in the budget for clean energy is about $5 million over two years under the accelerated capital cost allowance.

There is a need for some analysis of the results of some of these projects. I sit on the natural resources committee, and we did not see any analysis of carbon capture and storage in comparison to other strategies for greenhouse gas reduction in this country.

Could the hon. member tell us how the government has come to the conclusion that this investment of Canadian funds is so much better than many of the other possibilities that we have in the country to more directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions right away? Why should we be pouring money into a very strong oil and gas industry that has the resources to invest its own money in dealing with its own pollution problems?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 the New Democratic Party stopped the last corporate tax cut that was proposed by the Liberals at the time. Since then, corporations have done fairly well in Canada.

In that period, following the failure to cut corporate taxes, did we see a downturn in the economy? Did we see any corporations that were particularly hurting, or did we see many of them having record profits at that time?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party recognize that the budget follows the mini-budget in November. That is when the real errors of the government took place in making such extreme cuts to the tax regime on which the government operates. Now we are faced with a future of fiscal uncertainty in the country.

Does my hon. colleague not agree with me that there really is no way to fix this other than to move on to an election and replace the government? We could possibly get some changes in the House of Commons and we could restore the required tax regime to run the country in a proper fashion.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on a number of points. He talked about the need to raise the level of debate.

Yesterday I was troubled by the comments from the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. He suggested that for some reason the New Democratic Party was not fit to govern. He said that it had a consistent position on Afghanistan over the last two years, calling for the removal of our troops from a combat role in Afghanistan, fully supported by a convention at which 90% of the delegates voted for the motion.

In a democracy the New Democratic Party has followed a pattern of achieving support from its constituency, representing the opinion of about 50% of Canadians on this mission. We have portrayed a consistent opinion over the past two years in the face of relentless name calling and diatribes from government members and from the opposition members to some degree.

How does the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore have the nerve to say that we are not fit to government, when his party has changed its policy three times in the last two years on this very thing? Now for the very crass political purpose of avoiding an election, the Liberals have made a deal with the government. How does he stand with kind of behaviour in the House by his own leader?

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague's presentation was quite rational. He did speak about the Manley report and the fact that it did not seem to go where he wanted it to go. Quite clearly, that is the case for many of us.

Evidence has been presented that the Manley report was a compilation of ideas that Manley himself expressed before the panel was set up. At the same time, we know the writing of the document was carried out by the defence team wrote, which has given us most of the public direction on the government's policy in Afghanistan to start with.

The process of coming to an understanding of Afghanistan through the Manley report is very flawed. Would he not agree?

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, which carried the government's message. He talked about the difficulty in the decision making on Afghanistan and I appreciate his point of view. Coming from a party that has had a consistent position on the Afghanistan issue over the two years that I have been in Parliament, I too feel the incredible strain that comes with making decisions like this.

I would say for my hon. colleague that we have witnessed in some cases the demonization of people in our caucus who are standing up and speaking for about 50% of Canadians, who wish to see the mission end. Does my hon. colleague not agree that if he wants to bring some civility and clarity to this issue he must respect and his party must acknowledge the consistency and the importance of what our party says as well?

[Committees of the House, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow the line of questioning that came up earlier in regard to the question of whether we have moved along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms represents one of the most important aspects of Canadian culture. It is a defining fact of our society. We have had it in place for a fair number of years. The complexity of the decisions around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is getting more difficult. The need for court rulings on many aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is probably in some ways moving from more simplistic forms of challenges to more complex forms.

Would this not suggest that we need to put dollars toward this type of activity and that we need to support Canadian citizens in their search for rights and freedoms just as we support citizens in other countries in the world in their search for rights and freedoms?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I hope this proceeds in due course in the next while.

Examples of how the Conservative government has failed the people of the north are its much ballyhooed improvements to the funding formula for the territories and its lack of any attempt to negotiate a resource revenue sharing agreement with the public and aboriginal governments of the Northwest Territories.

The result is the GNWT is now facing budget cuts of up to 13%, with attendant losses of essential services and jobs. This is hurting the north.

When will the government start working on a fair deal for the people of the north?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, the Conservative government said that it would protect Arctic sovereignty through several means, including “improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies”.

The Premier of the Northwest Territories was hopeful last month that the Prime Minister would want to discuss devolution of governance when they met. Returning from that meeting, he said that devolution was now on the back burner.

Northerners know the Conservative government's promises are hollow. When will the Prime Minister show leadership and do the things he promised?