Nathan Cullen

[Petitions, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition is from a group similar to my friend's across the way, a number of people from Smithers and the Taku region of northwestern B.C., asking the House of Commons and Parliament to amend section 223 of the Criminal Code on the definition of life.

[Pensions, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the Conservatives want to hide the facts from Canadians. Every known report on old age security indicates that the program is viable and that the retirement age does not have to be raised to 67. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the OECD and Canadians all agree.

Is the real reason why the Prime Minister does not want to release this report because it would confirm that the program is already viable?

[Pensions, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, six years ago when the Prime Minister was out on the campaign trail, he promised Canadians he would not cut OAS. Back then he said, “fully preserve old age security and all projected future increases”. Now we learn the truth. Conservatives were always planning to cut OAS as far back as 2007, yet never once did they come clean with Canadians. Canadians pay faithfully into their pensions. Canadians paid for this report.

Will the Conservatives stop burying their cuts in their Trojan Horse budget bill and stop burying this report?

[Pensions, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for months now Conservatives have refused to come clean about their plans to cut old age security. The finance minister claimed that the only projections he has seen have come from the media. Now we learn that the finance minister has been sitting on a report about the future costs of OAS for nearly five years, but refuses to share it with Canadians. Two elections, four budgets, one big cover-up.

Why are Canadians only now learning the truth?

[Business of the House, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government.

We have now seen the government shut down debate in this House 20 times. Secretive committees in the legislature are becoming the norm. A 425-page omnibus Trojan Horse bill gutting the environment, taking $12,000 out of the pockets of seniors and fundamentally changing how employment insurance works in this country without any consultation or mandate from Canadians is just the most recent and egregious example of their undermining of our democratic values and institution.

In addition to the schedule for the week following the constituency week, my request for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is this. Do the government members have any concerns whatsoever about how their constant and steady erosion of democratic values in this place undermines all our work, both theirs and ours?

[Points of Order, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my practice to raise these particular points. Today seems to be a particularly difficult day in the House, as you observed.

On two occasions members of Parliament, from the Conservatives and the Liberals, accused other members of being stupid and ignorant. Clearly, in our orders around this place, in order to have some sort of civility in approach to debate, using such terms to refer to another hon. member of the House, whichever direction it is guided toward, is beneath contempt for a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, you heard the comments clearly. It is in your guidance to suggest that members do not use this language when referring to another member of the House. It is very difficult, near impossible, to imagine the situation improving when members accuse others of being stupid and ignorant. I hope that you will rule on this.

[Points of Order, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall in question period when our member for Alfred-Pellan asked a question of the government. The member for Vancouver South heckled our member and our side a number of times in a most improper and unparliamentary way. Mr. Speaker, you may have thought that this had come from a protester in the galleries. That is understandable because the type of incendiary language used in the attack on the member of Parliament for Alfred—Pellan was inexcusable.

The Conservatives, on many occasions when there have been protests in galleries, have described themselves as feeling afraid, persecuted and unable to sit in their seats and do their work as members of Parliament. I would hope that the Conservatives would apply this same standard when a member of Parliament from their side attacks one of ours in asking a decent and reasonable question.

I can understand that the member is a certain distance from your chair, but if we tolerate this type of behaviour by members of Parliament towards other members of Parliament, there is no possibility of decorum and there is no possibility of civility in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you demand from this member an apology to the House.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is disappointing and discouraging, but not surprising from the government. It has shut down debate on 13 different bills since being election, and eight since January alone.

I think the most powerful thing in politics is to repeat back principles that people once had before they were in government. Therefore, they can understand why we may be frustrated and why Canadians may be frustrated.

I will to quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages who said:

These things do not build confidence with Canadians. The government also has a lack of respect for free votes in this place and the treatment of private members' bill.

I would ask government members to remind me if this sounds at all familiar to them. It has a lack of commitment to a democratically elected Senate. It has muzzled political free speech in is own backbenches as it invokes closure yet again.

The Minister of Public Safety said:

If the bill was the right thing to do, why did the Prime Minister do the wrong thing by invoking closure?

Lastly, I will invoke the words of the Prime Minister who said:

The interests of all of Canadians must be served, not the interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political self-interest.

Invoking closure in this manner on such an important bill is wrong. The government knew it when its members sat in opposition. However, they seem to have forgotten those principles about the need to have fair and democratic debate in this place. That is our job. That is the work we do for Canadians. Shutting down debate is wrong. They used to believe that. I would ask them now why they still do not.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there two points my friend concluded with that I would like him to address a little bit further, to understand what the government's approach has been towards Iran.

The first point is on the support of democratic institutions, that these things are not built within an election cycle or a year. Certainly they are built up over time. I am a bit confused by a government that out of one side of its mouth talks about the need to support democracy and rights, collectively, abroad, and out of the other side of its mouth talks about and performs an act that destroys the one Canadian institution that is doing this, called Rights and Democracy.

My second point is a sensitive question, but I would like the member's thoughts on it. To what effect is the so-called sabre rattling done by the government and others around the world almost seeking not to provoke war but certainly to continue to rattle those sabres and, to the regime in Iran, put a series of ultimatums? What effect does that have on the peace-building process, on the democratic process within Iran, which needs our support, not the effect that the government is potentially having when it does rattle those sabres?

[Business of the House, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government does not want to listen to Canadians, does not respect parliamentary conventions and does not want to split Bill C-38, the Trojan Horse.

This bill will gut environmental protections, take money out of the hands of pensioners and further reduce the powers of the Auditor General.

I am wondering what else the government has in store for Canadians.