Nathan Cullen

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question. I will ask it in English, since the amendment was drafted in English.

The New Democrats have moved an amendment to this motion to allow MPs to continue to distribute this information, but to limit the information so that these so-called ten percenters do not engage in negative attacks on other members or on other political parties. This is a way to try to balance the ability of MPs to communicate, but to prevent the attacks that all of us have seen from the various political parties in the House.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what is strange to New Democrats about this motion is that we attempted, through our House leader, to move an amendment that the Liberals found distasteful for some reason. I would like my hon. colleague's opinion. We asked that the ten percenter mail-out program be continued but that it not be allowed to include the attacks that have caused so much grief.

I join with some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party who say that some of the odious attacks have been made by the government, in particular accusing my friend from Montreal of being anti-Semitic, a gentleman who has based his entire career on fighting for the rights of the Jewish people both here in Canada and abroad. I do not know if it shows a lack of thoughtfulness on the government's part or the absolute idiocy of some of its writers. For the Conservatives to attack that particular member as anti-Semitic strikes many of us in this place as the government members continuing to make fools of themselves through this program.

The amendment that the NDP attempted to move today was: That, for the purpose of communicating with the public in other ridings on public policy matters, as long as such ten percenter mailings do not engage in negative attacks on another member or their political party. Does it seem like a reasonable limit to the ten percenter mail program for my hon. colleague to would allow MPs to communicate on issues of substance with Canadians both in their ridings and outside, but limit communication so they do not become taxpayer-funded attack ads on other members who were elected honourably by their constituents?

[Petitions, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with some dozens of signatures from folks within the Fraser Lake, Burns Lake and Terrace regions in British Columbia, all in the northwest of British Columbia that I represent.

This is a petition regarding the much decried HST deal between the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia. The petitioners note that the HST will be applied to a number of products that neither the GST and PST apply to right now, thereby increasing the tax burden on folks in the northwest and right across British Columbia and also Ontario.

The timing of this tax increase is what the petitioners draw the government's attention to. The fact is that communities and families are struggling to get by as it is right now. They see an increase in taxation on some of these vital products, these are not extraneous things, as critical. There are many dozens of Canadians who have written the government to take action and to withdraw this much hated tax.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the government would join Canadians in understanding the irony of a motion put forward by the Liberal Party that talks about government waste. The party that invented and perpetrated the sponsorship scandal on Canadians and who wrote the book on government waste, unfortunately, has had some pupils in the current government who have learned too well and too quickly about the notion of hypocrisy.

On the very day the finance minister stood in this House to ask Canadians to tighten their belts and bear down, he then jumped aboard a private charter flight for perhaps the country's most expensive double-double ever in going down to London, Ontario, when there were commercial flights available. Then the defense minister implored Canadians to spend nearly $100,000 on another private charter to go the Paralympics, which he said was necessary, with no other way to do it until the New Democrats asked him not to do so and embarrassed him publicly. Then he found a commercial flight that was much cheaper for the taxpayer. We also found about out about $1,000 door handles at Public Works that were being perpetrated on Canadians.

My question for the minister is this. When this happens and $1,000 door handles and $500 switches are billed to Canadians, my constituents want to know, does the government have any notion of pursuing in court the contractors who ripped off the taxpayers of this--

[Petitions, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today around the subject of the much disliked HST. The petitioners come from the Burns Lake, Fraser Lake area. They implore the government to not push ahead with the HST with the province of British Columbia, thereby making the economy and the quality of life less sustainable and less viable in northwestern British Columbia.

Many dozens of petitioners have come forward from the eastern part of my riding to implore the government not to raise their taxes and to do the right thing by them.

[Oil and Gas Industry, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in last week's budget, the Conservatives once again chose the old energy economy over the new. Rather than new investments in green technology, they instead gave the highly profitable oil and gas companies a massive tax giveaway. This means that by 2012 the annual giveaway to just the top three oil companies will be more than all of the money the government has committed to green and renewable energy in this budget .

The government claims to believe in green but these numbers put truth to the lie.

When will the government stop the taxpayer handouts to oil companies and fund a real green future for Canada?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the choices the government has made, choices it does not like to talk about. The fact that even a portion of the tax cuts going to some of these companies were choices that the government is now preventing itself from making in terms of helping Canadians and lifting those out of poverty who most need it.

While she was speaking, I received an email from a fellow in Terrace, British Columbia named Rob Hart, who works with the United Church as a volunteer. He has for many years followed the work of the group KAIROS in its efforts to help people around the world.

I wonder if my colleague can explain the logic that is being promoted by the government in cutting all the funding to this international church-based aid group that was helping in some of the most difficult and desperate situations around the world. The government sought to eliminate all of its funding with no substantive argument at all. This fellow in Terrace is pleading with the government to offer some rationale or reason why the funding was cut to this group that is doing so much good internationally for women, children and those in the most desperate situations around this planet.

I wonder if my colleague could offer any insight into the government's hypocritical stance when it says that it is for women and children and alleviating the poverty that it has helped exacerbate by its funding cuts.

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the hon. member's comments. He called a more than $50 billion deficit a good news budget.

I could ask a question about the principle of borrowing money from future generations to provide a corporate tax cut that is not needed by corporations that are already doing all right. I could also ask a question about the handing off of environmental assessments for oil and gas projects to oil and gas companies as a fundamentally flawed principle of the government.

Specifically, I want to ask the question that follows. The hon. member mentioned the idea of helping municipalities. Does the hon. member believe that the formula of one-third from the federal government, one-third from the provincial government, and one-third from local government for projects is a good formula, if it precipitates a have-not policy for communities that cannot raise their one-third share? Those are the very communities most in need of help from the government. Does the hon. member believe in that formula which the government still promotes?

[Prince Rupert, British Columbia, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the great city of Prince Rupert, British Columbia that on March 10 will be celebrating 100 years. Rupert lies on the traditional territory of the Tsimshian Nation which has occupied the land since time immemorial.

The city began its life as a transportation, fishing and logging hub and continues this great legacy today. More than half of the people living in the Prince Rupert area are of first nations ancestry and the community continues to enrich the entire northwestern region and country.

As a vital fishing port, a key port in the second world war and a centre of transportation and commerce, the next 100 years promises to be full of promise and contribution to our economy and our region.

I wish the hard-working and generous people of Prince Rupert a happy 100th birthday.

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague about his government's efforts on poverty reduction. I would like to point out something for intellectual honesty.

I hope that the government will admit that in all of its tax cutting brouhaha, that its required increase in EI premiums is in fact a tax increase on businesses as is the harmonized sales tax a tax increase on consumers in British Columbia and Ontario. Both of these will raise the amount of taxes that the government will be receiving. I do not know why it is such an anathema for the government to simply admit what is obvious to anybody who follows the issue.

In terms of prudent expenditures, spending Canadian taxpayers' money wisely, the $35 million initially budgeted for the government's propaganda campaign about its economic action plan has now increased by another $4 million to almost $40 million. This money was spent on ads and pamphlets touting how great the government is. In terms of prudent expenditures, was it wise for the government to borrow that money in order to send its message to Canadians at taxpayers' expense?