Nathan Cullen

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is with no great joy that I rise today to again address questions to the government about the need to invoke closure and shut down debate in the House. A record is being set. This is the 24th time the government has invoked such a motion to shut down debate and discussion in Parliament, the very name of which means a place where members discuss things.

Just because the government has the power to do this, which it does in its majority position, does not mean that it should invoke this power with such frequency and, if I may suggest, such joy. To continue to shut down discussions on such important things as pensions before there can be an actual debate about it shows a certain lack of courage by the government.

I will read a quote in my question for the parliamentary secretary. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages stated:

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party [which was in power at the time] on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Conservatives used to believe when they were in opposition about invoking closure on important public policy debates.

If the government has the courage of its convictions and believes that it has the evidence on its side, why the need, for the 24th time, to invoke closure on Canada's Parliament? Why the need to shut down debate, to shut down open and transparent government for the 24th time?

[National Defence, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, from the helicopters to the F-35 fiasco, Canadians are well aware of the Conservative' litany of failures and half truths on military procurement. On the F-35, costs were lowballed. The process was rigged from the start. Now the government is doing damage control because of a scathing Auditor General's report.

Now we learn that the entire Conservative defence plan has been mismanaged and is over budget. The minister was told last year by his own department that his plan was “unaffordable”. Why did the Conservatives hide the fact that their defence plan was unaffordable from the public?

[National Defence, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised ships, planes and vehicles for the Canadian armed forces. They promised to repair search and rescue craft in British Columbia. The Conservatives knew full well that they could not keep those promises. They did not have the money to keep them. National Defence officials had made that clear to them.

Why did the Conservatives not tell the truth about their military procurement strategy? Why did they fail to respect taxpayers?

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following very worthwhile and sobering motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders or usual practice of this House, the motion for the third reading of Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use), standing on the order of precedence on the order paper, be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, June 6 at the end of government orders.

[Business of the House, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there has been much laughter around the House today. I applaud your efforts at seeking to restore decorum. We will do our best on this side not to provide any material to the government that would allow the disruption of the House of Commons. We are doing our best each and every day.

My question for the government House leader is to understand the calendar for the rest of this week and to look through to Wednesday of next week. Also, I believe the government now has in front of it a unanimous consent motion that it will be moving quite shortly and then a second one to follow.

[The Environment, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast and across the political spectrum are concerned about environmental protection that the government is tearing up. Despite the Conservative attempts to intimidate all opposition, thousands upon thousands of Canadians are speaking up in defiance of these reckless attacks.

On June 4, a group of committed charitable Canadian organizations will be blacking out their websites in protest, Oxfam, Amnesty International, supported even by the former vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition. New Democrats will proudly stand with them.

The question is this. Will the government actually listen?

[The Environment, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic for New Democrats to have to defend the environmental record of a former Mulroney Conservative government against this very new and different breed of Conservatives.

There was a time when the Conservatives believed in protecting the environment. However, the Conservatives across the floor believe that this protection should be reduced. These changes will even allow cabinet to overturn National Energy Board rulings. The Conservatives are putting politics ahead of science.

Why are they afraid of transparency and science?

[The Budget, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, former Conservative fisheries minister Thomas Siddon is again sounding the alarm on the Conservatives' Trojan Horse bill. Last night he testified that he deplored this attack on environmental protection and that rushing these changes through is “not becoming of a Conservative government”.

His message to the Prime Minister was clear, that he should take his time and get it right.

Will the Prime Minister take the advice of his Conservative colleague? Will he split this reckless bill and allow for proper study?

[Points of Order, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period today.

The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla raised a point about a bill that he has been moving through the House. We have made offers to the Conservative Party to switch his bill to allow it to pass before the summer. I am unclear as to which part of yes the Conservatives cannot take for an answer. We have offered everything we can do to move the bill through expeditiously. That is what would happen if the hon. member would agree. I do not understand why the government is continuing to disrupt the hopes and dreams of winemakers right across this country and those who enjoy it. No one shall say that New Democrats do not like wine as much as the next party.

[Resignation of Member, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I await my call from the Premier of Alberta, but it is a long time in coming.

As my friend receives salutations and congratulations from many of our colleagues around the House, he can look at the blues later for my comments. I consider him a friend, and do so much because of the way he just responded and told us about his life and experience here.

I thank him for his many invitations to the Calgary Stampede. We now all have one for the centennial, which is great.

I also must commend him. This life and work are not often kind to us, and for somebody who can reflect back to days with former prime minister John Diefenbaker, I must say the time has been remarkably good to my friend from Calgary Centre. He is looking great. We wish him the very best from the New Democratic Party of Canada and from all the citizens we represent.