Nathan Cullen

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2011]

With respect to biofuels: (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to programs supporting biofuels since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by program, recipient project (including project description) and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of biofuel projects; (e) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from biofuel projects funded by the government; and (f) how much energy has been produced by biofuel projects funded by the government?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 21st, 2011]

With respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS): (a) what is the total funding amount that the government has committed to CCS since 2006; (b) how is this spending broken down by project and fiscal year (including future spending already committed); (c) what is the contribution from the private sector and from other levels of government to each project funded; (d) what are the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions resulting from federal funding of CCS projects; (e) what is the projected rate of GHG reduction per dollar of federal funding invested; and (f) what GHG reductions have been achieved to date from CCS projects funded by the government?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 21st, 2011]

With respect to railway shipping service in Canada: (a) what analysis has the government conducted on the impacts of rail shipment rates on the forestry, mining, agricultural and manufacturing sectors; (b) what analysis does the government conduct on the impacts of the lack of competition in the railway sector on remote and northern communities; (c) has the government begun drafting legislation and regulations for the railway service industry to address the recommendations of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel’s Interim Report; (d) what is the government’s response to the request by the Coalition of Rail Shippers to implement regulatory changes immediately; (e) what is the government’s position on appointing a facilitator to assist in negotiations between railways and shippers; and (f) when will the government provide a response to the final report of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel?

[Natural Resources, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, along with the NDP and Canadian doctors, now the Confédération des syndicats nationaux also opposes the mining and export of asbestos. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc continue to support this industry for the worst political reasons. The asbestos industry is ruining Quebec's and Canada's reputation around the globe. It is time to create a transition plan for the workers in the region.

Will they put an end to the hypocrisy and stop funding the industry?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservatives around precedents.

There was a member of the cabinet in the House of Commons who was alleged to have done something wrong. She now sits as an independent. The Prime Minister removed her from cabinet and then quickly thereafter removed her from the party. Conservative senators who will be in the Conservative caucus meeting tomorrow had the public prosecutor and the RCMP banging on their door. They have been charged. Of course they have to go before a court and the charges have to be proved. Does it not seem to my hon. colleague somewhat strange, if not hypocritical, for the Conservatives to kick out some people who were under allegations and were never charged with anything, as in the case of the member who is now an independent, whereas they are comfortable having in the caucus other folks who have been charged by the public prosecutor who is an arm's-length non-partisan public official? They are being charged with defrauding the Canadian people in the midst of an election. That is pretty serious for those of us who are concerned with democracy.

Is my friend not concerned with his party's seemingly hypocritical stance on one person being alleged to have done something wrong and tossed out of caucus but two Conservative senators, who are bagmen, are being allowed to stay and advise the Prime Minister?

[Points of Order, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my comments follow on those of my Liberal colleague who has properly argued the case against the parliamentary secretary in terms of what is disallowed, whether it is in front of the courts or not.

The members of the Conservative Party know that well because they themselves brought forward motions of a similar nature when issues were before the court. When in opposition, the Conservative Party also argued for a wide latitude in the use of supply day opposition motions, because they are an opportunity for opposition members to raise questions of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the central point I wish to raise is one which I am sure you will be looking at. O'Brien and Bosc on page 854 requires that:

The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (i.e., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

The government, in preparing its submission today to try to subvert the debate on the so-called in and out scheme, has attempted to curtail the ability of the opposition to have a fulsome debate as to what exactly happened. The implication is there are members sitting within the Conservative caucus who are implicated directly by the public prosecutor in this very matter.

The issue that is being raised is an integral one for all of us, which is that when we have elections in this country, they are fought fairly and within the limits of the rules. Spending limits, for example, are not exceeded. We have very clear and strict laws on this. The Conservative Party used a procedure, a scheme, in which money went in and money went out of bank accounts, sometimes within 12 hours. We know the Conservatives knew it was wrong but they did it anyway. Now we wish to have a debate about the integrity of the election that was fought under those types of misdeeds.

It seems to us that in testing the government on supply days, which is why we are here today, a wide scope and latitude is required. We need to have that. I am sure when the Conservatives return to opposition they will be arguing the same thing. It is not for the Chair to intervene on the scope of that, again except where procedural aspects are not open to reasonable argument. That is what our directive is in this place. That is how we craft ourselves. The Conservatives had all weekend to think about this. They are only bringing the argument forward at the eleventh hour with the hope to yet again subvert debate in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we ask for your careful consideration of this, but obviously New Democrats are in favour of this debate going forward.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from folks in the Kelowna and Victoria area. This is yet another petition, with which our office has absolutely been flooded, from Canadians expressing serious and dire concern of the government's plans to allow an 1,100 kilometre pipeline for raw bitumen coming from Alberta to the port in Kitimat and then the supertankers that would carry that raw bitumen through the north coast in some of the most treacherous waters in the world. Some members in the House will be aware of the concerns expressed by people all along B.C.'s coast and into the interior.

The petitioners are calling on the government to finally enact in legislation the ban on supertankers on B.C.'s north coast, no longer providing the uncertainty both to industry and to communities.

The petitioners recognize the important and fragile nature of the north coast ecosystem, as even the Conservative government does from time to time.

The petitioners number in the many dozens.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague.

When we look at the aspect of citizen's arrest, one of the problems we have seen with the law is the time limit component, which one part of the bill deals with quite explicitly.

From the member's speech and others from the Liberals, the Bloc and certainly from the New Democrats, because it was the member for Trinity—Spadina who came up with the suggestion, and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who will be speaking soon, it seems there is agreement.

The idea was to extend the time allowed for someone to make a citizen's arrest, so that if the alleged theft happened at two o'clock and the person missed the offender right at that moment, at three, four or five o'clock the person would be able to make that citizen's arrest if the person was not able to secure some support from the police. That is the piece where we seem to have agreement from the other parties, and obviously from the Conservatives, because they put it in the bill, although they took it from the New Democrats which is fine.

Can we not simply fast-track that element of the bill that does not seem to require a great deal of study or hearing of witnesses? We could then study the other two parts that have more nuance on how they get applied. Would that be something the Liberals would support? Since the Liberals are clearly in support of the case of Mr. Chen and others like that around the country, a little more permission on the time aspect would be supported by all members in the House and we could get this bill done even before the budget is seen by this place.

[Petitions, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am adding a group of petitions to an already sizable number signed by Canadians who have written to the minister and to the government. These petitioners are from Prince Rupert, Victoria and Nanaimo.

They call upon the government to finally enact a legislative tanker ban on the north coast of British Columbia, in light of the threat of a proposed raw bitumen pipeline from Alberta to B.C.'s north coast.

The petitioners, many dozens of whom are British Columbia residents, consider this to be an area that deserves the protection and the attention of the Canadian government, which has already recognized the area for a federal park and a marine park.

The petitioners strongly urge the government to immediately legislate a ban on bulk oil tanker traffic off B.C.'s north coast.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, March 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, people should understand that there are three main parts to this bill. We are suggesting fast-tracking the third part through the process because there is little debate around it. The experts agree this is something we could do, which would be to allow more time to elapse between the crime being committed and the citizen's arrest being made. The first two parts of the bill are in need of study. That is what is likely to happen with this bill.

I have not heard too many of the opposition members speak, but the bill is likely to get through second reading. However, with the way laws work and the process we have in Parliament, that is going to take some time. The government is thereby jeopardizing its own bill, which was based on the work by the member for Trinity—Spadina. Within the next couple of weeks we will be facing a federal budget, which hangs in the balance. We do not know if it will pass or not. We do not know if there will be an election in a few weeks.

If the government is sincere about doing something about this issue, New Democrats have offered it a path forward. If it does not do that, then it is the government's choice.

However, the government says it wants to make some change happen for average ordinary Canadians. Canadians read the morning newspaper and ask why Mr. Chen in Toronto, or some other shopkeeper, was charged with wrongful confinement, kidnapping essentially, for having wrestled to the ground a fellow who came back a second time to steal more from Mr. Chen's shop. If the government really wants to make that change happen, let us do something about it. It is an error in the law and we can correct that error.

The other two parts of the bill need study. We would be happy to study those parts and bring in witnesses.

My hon. colleague from Western Arctic is right. The government is loath to bring forward evidence. On other crime bills, we ask for two things. We ask the government to show us any research to show it is going to be effective, because that is important, and we also ask what it is going to cost. Those questions are seen as reasonable ones to Canadians: is it going to work and what is the bill going to cost?

The government does not do that when it comes to crime bills. When we bring forward issues around repairing the social safety net or improving environmental regulations in this country, all the Conservatives want to know is what it will cost, but when it comes to crime, they seem to forget that mantra. They do not seem to care. We find that offensive to the intelligence of Canadians.

Those are two simple questions on any bill: is it going to work and what is it going to cost?

On crime, those guys have their blinkers on. It is ideology over any kind of intellect. That has to change for the government to gain any kind of support from other parties.