Nathan Cullen

[Search and Rescue, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' reckless plan for Coast Guard vessels is putting the people of B.C.'s coast at serious risk. Their plan to replace the Point Henry from Prince Rupert and the Point Race from Campbell River with so-called motor lifeboats must be thrown overboard.

How can the Conservatives justify their reckless cuts to the Coast Guard's lifesaving equipment? The new boats carry less than half the people, travel less than half the distance and can only stay on the water for less than a third of the time of the current ships.

Can the minister justify why she would even consider replacing these vital Coast Guard vessels with dinghies that simply will not do the job?

[Natural Resources, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, after a completely inadequate review process, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission gave the green light to ship more than 1,600 tonnes of radioactive waste through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Only a few hours of hearings were held to rush through a scheme that would impact the drinking water of more than 40 million people.

People in places like Owen Sound, Windsor, Sarnia, Toronto, Montreal and Trois Rivières are hardly fearmongering. They are deeply concerned for their own safety and the safety of their families.

The minister must step in now and stop this dangerous nuclear shipment. Will he finally listen to the concerns of Canadians and stop this radioactive flotilla?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note the set of priorities of the Conservatives and the way they have cut taxes. First, it is indiscriminate. I am sure my colleague will recognize that innovation, research and development for the education economy is critical, but tax cuts are across the board and indiscriminate. More specific, the largest corporations receive more than 50% tax cuts, whereas small businesses get less than 1%.

Why are the Conservatives so bent on only giving assistance to the largest corporations, the most profitable, and not small businesses that generate 8 out of every 10 jobs in this economy?

[Haida Gwaii Income Tax Zoning Act, December 15th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-611, An Act regarding the inclusion of Haida Gwaii as a prescribed northern zone under the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is tax fairness for the residents of Haida Gwaii who have been waiting too long for governments, one after another, that have successfully punished people living in remote and rural communities.

The bill would change the Income Tax Act to allow the remote communities in Haida Gwaii to be included in the northern living allowance.

Haida Gwaii has become famous for its powerful scenery, its incredible cultures and strong people, but it is also known to be a very expensive place to live due to its remoteness. BC Ferries and other crown corporations have been hurting the residents of Haida Gwaii, increasing the prices of everything. The government can act on this by including it, as it did for the community of Mackenzie some years ago, in the northern living allowance and allowing people in Haida Gwaii to finally have some sort of recovery ability for their economy and their communities by having tax fairness for Haida Gwaii.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Environment, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the federal government recognized the need for a national oil spill response strategy, but today the Commissioner of the Environment told us there is still no plan.

The Conservative motto must be “better lucky than good” when it comes to protecting our marine environment. There have been 4,200 spills in the last two years alone. The government does not know what equipment it has. It does not know if it even works. It has not even been trained to use it.

Tonight the Conservatives have a choice. Will they stand with New Democrats and the people of British Columbia, or will they once again side with their friends in the oil lobby?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is important because the hon. member does not ever choose to mislead the House knowingly, but he said that the New Democrats voted against the federal sustainable development bill. That is not at all true. He knows that not to be true. I would encourage the member that if he is asking a question or making a speech, he stick explicitly to the facts and maybe even address the motion in front of us today. We are dealing with tankers off of B.C.'s west coast.

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that government members still believe the pipelines that being proposed out of Alberta will be shipping oil or any sort of processed material at all. There are proposals from Husky just this week to put another $1 billion into the tar sands, explicitly to ship out raw bitumen to other countries to process there, therefore shipping jobs out of the country at the same time. What will be left behind? The legacy of the tailings ponds from the tar sands.

The government tells us to essentially trust it and the oil companies when they ship this oil because they have plans in place. Government members were talking about the Coast Guard earlier and that it was in charge of any potential spill. We know audits from the Coast Guard are saying that it does not have the capacity. It is not us saying it. The Coast Guard is saying it cannot handle a major spill. It does not have the training and its equipment is old. Companies are telling us to trust them when they put their emergency response plans in place, supposedly, but then will not make them public.

If the government is for accountability and transparency, when we talk about such high risk projects, would it not then make sense to put into legislation, along with a ban on dangerous tanker traffic, the requirement for some of these things to be made public so the public can have a look at them and determine whether they are trustworthy and safe enough for their measures?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a bit of what is spinning out of the Liberal policy shop. This debate did not start six months ago when the Liberal leader decided that this was a good idea. It started in 1972 when the NDP Barrett government in British Columbia urged the federal government to institute a ban on supertanker traffic off the north coast. The then federal government acquiesced but never wrote anything down, which is a real shame, because here we are, almost 40 years later, looking for a ban.

The government says that the coast guard is in charge of any spill cleanups on the coast and so Canadians should feel assured. The coast guard audited itself and said, “The audit paints a sobering picture of an agency that will play a key role”. It also indicated that it was unable to respond to major spills in our ocean environment.

It is no wonder the first nations of British Columbia, including the Fraser groups today, the B.C. summit, the UBCN, every major group in British Columbia is calling for what we are calling for today, which is a legislative ban on tanker traffic. Seventy-five per cent of British Columbians, when asked, said that they wanted a legislative ban.

We are trying to find out, outside of the oil and gas companies, who is resisting this ban. We know the former Campbell government in Victoria is urging this to happen, as is the Conservative government here in Ottawa, but outside of those two groups, nobody is left.

I wonder if my hon. colleague understands why the Conservatives from British Columbia in particular are still pumping this project down the throats of British Columbians? Why do they say that the inherent risks in running supertankers off our north coast and the very poor benefits are in British Columbia's interests?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, to be clear for my colleague who stands on the opposite side of this question about supertankers off of B.C.'s north coast, the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted, without dissension, that there must be a supertanker ban put in place legislatively. That was from the mayors and councillors representing communities across British Columbia. The first nations leadership in B.C. has also said this as well as every environment group and an increasing number of businesses.

When the government says it does not believe that a legislative tanker ban is important, it is standing offside of all these groups. The government is saying that it knows better than all these other groups. Every time British Columbians are asked, the people who would be most directly impacted from any kind of accident, whether it be a supertanker or a pipeline, the minimum of three-quarters of B.C. residents say, “No thanks. The risk outweighs the benefit”.

I have a clear question for my colleague from the west. When a western province, from all its leaders and communities, has so clearly said that it wants the government to respect and listen to its opinions on this, that it knows its coast and waters and knows the risk and the peril of supertankers in those waters, would he at least bend his ear and consider that maybe all these folks are right and his government is wrong?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I guess there are two fundamental questions here. The government keeps talking about how there are enough safety mechanisms in place that people should rest assured. We know, and they point to the Canadian Coast Guard as the group that is responsible for oil spills from tankers, which is true. That is the authoritative body that has to clean up the mess if any of these things spill. We hope that never happens, but we know that in the oil and gas industry accidents do happen from time to time. The consequences can be quite striking.

The question to my colleague is this. He has put his faith in the regulations, his government and the Coast Guard's ability to respond. We know from an internal audit from the Coast Guard this very year, and I am quoting here:

The Canadian Coast Guard lacks the training, equipment and management systems to fulfill its duties to respond to offshore pollution incidents such as oil spills....

This is an internal audit that was done by the Coast Guard on its own ability to handle oil spills.

We know that during the gulf disaster, the BP spill, the Canadian Coast Guard from the east coast sent down several kilometres of oil booms, which represented half of all the oil booms on our east coast. That shocked Canadians because the total was a little less than three kilometres' worth of oil booms. What was used in the gulf to try to contain that disaster was many, many times more than we have in total in Canada.

My question is this. The hon. member is trying to relieve the concern of the people of British Columbia, three-quarters of whom have said this is a bad idea. All the municipalities of the UBCM said this is a bad idea and the first nations have consistently said this is a bad idea, but the Conservatives are saying they know better. They are saying this is a great idea. This should be permitted.

The fact of the matter is that right now on our books one can ship super oil tankers off British Columbia's coast, and the Coast Guard is not able to respond. I would like the hon. member to respond to that one statement of fact. Where, then, does he put his faith regarding an oil spill happening from one of these super tankers, which are three times the size of the Exxon Valdez? On what does his faith rely?