Nathan Cullen

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 29th time that the Conservative government has moved closure on a piece of legislation since the last election. It is seeking to break a record that no government should seek to break.

Let us find out what the justification is for shutting down debate in Parliament on this particular piece of legislation. This is a free trade deal with Panama, which in 2011 represented a staggering 0.03% of our overall global trade. However, the House leader claims that this is a critical piece of trade negotiation and without it the Canadian economy would certainly falter and fail.

This is the Conservatives' excuse. This is their reason for once again limiting debate in the House of Commons, which is something they used to deride when, as members of the opposition, they fought for MPs to be able to their jobs.

The central piece in this particular trade deal that is causing Canadians much concern is not about the amount of trade going back and forth between our two countries, but the fact that Panama remains a serious tax haven for corporations and individuals to hide their money and not pay their fair share of taxes. The NDP is trying to convince the government that this needs to change in the bill.

The response from the Conservatives is not to make those changes but instead to shut down debate. They shut Canadians out of the process and say that if we do not move 0.03% of our trade up to say 0.05% of our trade, clearly millions of Canadians would be thrown out of work. This does not make sense. What makes sense is to actually improve legislation. Let the House of Commons do its work. Allow MPs to actually earn their pay, which we do on this side. However, on the Conservative side, they seek time allocation, almost 30 times now since the last election. These guys are breaking records no government should ever seek to break.

Will the government House leader realize that improving legislation is something that the House ought to be engaged with and not with these draconian shut-downs of Parliament's work?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

My friend now heckles me to say that we did not vote for it. However, neither did he. How this place actually works is that from time to time, it gets along and Parliament decides to pass legislation by voice votes. Parliament decides to pass legislation together.

My friend would like to make a distinction without a difference. He did not stand in his place and vote for this trade deal. In fact, no member of Parliament stood in this place and made the trade deal. He would like to present that as somehow true, that we did not stand and support this particular trade deal. He knows it to be false. He spends enough time in this place to know how it works and he knows that the NDP supported this trade deal at committee stage and then finally at the last stage in Parliament. If that were not the case, then we would have opposed it like we have opposed other bad trade deals, like we are opposing the China foreign investor protection agreement that is selling out Canadian resources.

To my friend, he might wish to stand and correct the record and be honest with all of us here about how it works and what the NDP's intentions and actions actually were with respect to trade. We seek fair trade, not this ridiculous neo-con free trade that the member so much promotes and that his government did when the Liberals were in office, allowing 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers to happen without once—

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern for my friend, who seems to have cribbed much of his notes from the Conservative Party's talking points regarding the NDP and trade. The fact is that under previous Liberal regimes, 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers were approved without one single rejection. Not once in all of those years and all of those takeovers did the Liberal Party think that standing up on Canadian sovereignty issues and the rest was important.

To clarify the record, because I know my friend is very keen on records, I would point out that when the motion was presented by the members for Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose with respect to some trade negotiations and trade legislation, particularly around Bill C-23, the act with Jordan, that act was passed by this place.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to assist my hon. colleague in making sure he always seeks the highest principles in this place, which is to tell the truth. A number of times in his speech he repeated something that the record shows not to be truthful.

On June 4, 2012, the NDP did in fact support a trade deal.

[Foreign Investment, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will be seeking to table, in both official languages, a document that refers to the comments made by my friend across the way a moment ago.

I know the members opposite would never wish to lie in this place but the things they said just are not true. I want to help them out with the facts because they may have them wrong.

Equating a cap and trade system with a carbon tax is like apples and oranges: apples, a carbon tax down the way; oranges, cap and trade. To review, carbon taxes were proposed by them, cap and trade was proposed by us. The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister actually presented a similar cap and trade.

Therefore, the document I wish to offer up, in both official languages, is the Prime Minister's own speech from London in which he proposed a $46 billion cap and trade program for Canada.

[41st General Election, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guide also says that ministers must stand and be accountable for themselves to Canadians but, still, nothing from the minister.

The last election was also tarnished by voter suppression from that party. The Minister of National Defence stood in this House and said that the culprit had been caught. Michael Sona's name was leaked and he was thrown under the bus.

Who in government leaked the name? Was it a Prime Minister's office staffer or a ministerial staffer? What evidence did the minister have in leaking the name? Who is next to be thrown under the bus by the government?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

The truth also hurts.

Where is the letter of thanks from Elections Canada to the Conservatives? Oh, wait, they do not have one. They pled guilty and they are now in front of Elections Canada again.

I will quote from the Prime Minister's accountability guide. It reads that all ministers are held “to the highest standards of conduct for all their actions, including those that are not directly related to their official functions”.

Will the minister finally stand in his place and account himself to Canadians?

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear something up for my confused Conservative colleagues across the way.

Elections Canada actually thanked the New Democrats “for the full co-operation it has given to Elections Canada in order to resolve the issue promptly and effectively”.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

There are now even more allegations of campaign violations against the minister. His campaign cashed a cheque for $5,500 from a construction company.

Where do I start? First, one cannot accept a donation for more than $1,200 from anybody, and $5,500 is more than $1,200. Second, one cannot accept a donation from a private firm. Is there something that I am missing?

Is the minister willing today to rise in his place and explain himself to Canadians?

[Business of the House, November 1st, 2012]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and my friend will get to his campaign soon enough.

Communication is the key in all of these relationships, so perhaps the House leader can update the House. What is the actual plan with respect to their enormous budget implementation act, and, number two, will they allow committees to finally, not only study the bill in a realistic timeline, but also make amendments so Canadians can know that legislation that moves through this place actually helps this country?