Nathan Cullen

[Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

There is some irony in the debate that we are seeing today coming from the Conservative government. Actually the very Conservative member, the House leader who comes from British Columbia, was the one who moved this closure debate, the one who said that we do not need any discussion around this and that we do not need to talk to Canadians about it. This is from a party that in the province of British Columbia, where I come from, mentioned this not at all in the most recent election or the one before that or the one before that, but that somehow magically believes itself to have a mandate suddenly to raise taxes and do all the things my good friend from Sudbury just listed.

Such an undemocratic process comes from the so-called House leader of the Conservatives from Prince George, where we know this tax is hated and despised because we get the letters in my office. We get the letters because his office will not return any of the calls and letters anymore.

The Conservatives are deeply conflicted about this, and we can see the discomfort, time and time again, when we talk about this issue, because they know their base does not like this. For this very reason, for the very reason that they have no mandate, for the very reason that it goes against their political mores, apparently, these folks want to sweep this thing under the carpet and get it out just before Christmas.

What a Christmas gift for folks living in Ontario and British Columbia. It is a new tax that they did not vote for and did not have a say in, and the whole debate is going to be rammed through so that no one gets a chance to look at it and find out what the consequences actually mean in their lives.

The government spent $45 million talking about its stimulus package, buying signs and renting press halls all over the place. We know that when the Conservatives have something they think they like, it is $45 million spent on a little prop seen across the country, but this time, when they have something that they know is unpopular, what are they doing? They are slipping it through and hoping folks do not notice.

They are not going to spend $45 million promoting this anywhere. They are not going to spend 45¢ promoting it, because they know it is toxic. They know that for the Canadian economy and the Canadian people, this is the worst tax at the worst possible time. They sought no mandate from the electorate on this. They are acting in the most reprehensible way.

I can only imagine when these cats were still sitting in opposition. They railed against these types of procedures when the Liberals were in power. They got up on their hind legs, talking about the arrogance of the Liberal Party in ramming it through Parliament and not listening to the will of the House.

We all remember it. The idea that this place is a democratic institution and should be respected as such might have been the one principle they had that one could agree with. Now, lo and behold, a couple of years have gone by, and they have got a little used to the trough. Suddenly they are thinking that they do not have to care if Canadians did not ask for this, that they do not have to care if four out of five Canadians who are affected in Ontario and British Columbia are saying that they do not want it. It does not matter to this Conservative Party.

The Conservatives think there is no consequence. The rules that they are bending, breaking and making up allow them to do this in this place, but there is another rule of law that applies. That is when the next election comes and the members from Ontario and British Columbia have to go out and pretend that they had nothing to do with this. They will have to pretend that the $6 billion manifested itself from some imaginary place, that Ontario and British Columbia both said that without that $6 billion in hush money, they would not be implementing the HST. If the government had not put that $6 billion into the budget, this would not be happening.

To then say that this is an orphaned child and has nothing to do with them--that it is just McGuinty and Campbell doing this--is an outright fiction. It cannot be, because the evidence points so clearly in the opposite way.

The process obviously stinks, but the actual substance of what we are talking about tonight is even worse, because as my friend from Sudbury and others from the NDP have described throughout this short, circumscribed debate, this hits people who can least afford it. The folks who are paying more for all those services, for all those goods, are paying more at a time when they can least afford to do so.

In the northwest of British Columbia, we have been hard hit over the last decade or more. We are starting to see the first faint hopes of an industry that can get started again, and what do taxpayers get to see? They see increased taxes, and this from a government that just spent all of its time, money and oxygen pretending it was going to lower taxes and in fact is now raising them.

A question has to be raised: who does this help, and who does this hinder? Who is benefited by this? Clearly the few corporations that are rolling in the dough suddenly get to have taxes taken away from them. They get fewer taxes put upon their goods, regardless of how profitable they are. There is this myth that they are going to magically pass all those savings down in some benevolent St. Nick way to the consumer, that they are going to have a line item in their budget that says they saved this much on HST this year, so they have lowered prices by this much.

That is an absolute fabrication of reality. There is nothing close to the result. It is the same argument they used on the GST when Conservatives in a previous incarnation brought that in, and the NDP voted against that as well. The government has to realize that when it does a tax shift from those who can afford it to those who cannot, the NDP is always going to stand up in this place and resist it every single time.

We have heard about this provincial choice, but the Conservative government must take ownership for something. If it is proud of this, then it should run on this issue in the next campaign. The $6 billion could have been used for other things. One has to imagine the list of other things this country could be doing with $6 billion at this moment, rather than raising taxes: affordable child care, a national housing strategy, something to get more Canadians back to work, an employment insurance program that actually worked, a pension plan that actually let seniors live in dignity. All these things are on the list of options for the government to do, but instead the government is using the $6 billion as bribe money, hush money, to encourage, entice and seduce the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario into raising their taxes and doing something that both of those provinces know is deeply unpopular as well.

This is about accountability. By resisting this draconian measure by the government, the NDP is forcing it to take some small measure of accountability to its constituents, to the Canadian population and to the people in British Columbia and Ontario.

If it can get away with this, it will be looking for more. It is going to do more. Whether it comes to issues around climate change, issues around poverty or issues around the war, if the government feels that this place does not matter and thinks it can push around the Liberals, who are out searching for new leaders, it seems, every second week, then it will take advantage of that weakness. It will take advantage to hammer through things that it deeply believes in. It is time for this to end.

My last point is in terms of this provincial authority that these guys keep talking about.

This measure actually limits the provinces' ability to make up tax policy. One of the most fundamental and important tools the government has is its choice of what to tax and what not to tax. This agreement signed by Ontario and British Columbia no longer allows them to make those choices.

Where will the choices be made? They will be made here. They will be made in the federal Parliament, not in those provincial legislatures. Therefore, let the government end the tired rhetoric that this is the provinces' authority and that we will let them make these decisions, when we know for a fact that written into the bill is the reality that indeed the provinces will have less power to run their provinces. The provinces will have less ability to set the course of their own lives. The decisions that will be made here will be draconian, undemocratic and fatally flawed. This bill should go nowhere.

[Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

What a great idea.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition with many hundreds of names on it, calling for the inquiry, which the federal government eventually relented to, on the collapse of the sockeye fishery on the west coast.

What is important about this petition effort is New Democrats have been receiving names and signatures from people right across British Columbia, and in fact across Canada, imploring the government to act with some sort of responsible management over our fishery. It has proven itself to be a fruitful exercise. Canadians, when they wrote this petition, signed it and talked about it with their friends. They were able to force the government to do something it said was not necessary.

I remember the Conservative candidate in the recent byelection said that it would be a witch hunt and that we did not even need it. The Conservatives were out of touch with British Columbians.

These Canadians who signed this petition calling for this inquiry saw the right path forward. Through pressure like this, they were able to make the Conservative government act like a proper government and force this inquiry to happen.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was an unsolicited incentive, using taxpayer dollars to raise taxes on taxpayers. I hope that corrects—

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question Canadians might have for the finance minister is why ram this through with such speed now? It was only introduced Friday, with no time for people to have any kind of conscious debate.

It is a deeply unpopular tax move. It is the worst tax at the worst possible time for Ontario and British Columbia. It shifts taxes off corporations onto individuals, and we have been hearing from thousands and thousands of British Columbians and Ontarians who are upset and furious because the government has no mandate to do this.

My hon. colleague is so craven to the idea that this is a provincial issue, why did he offer up almost $6 billion in bribe money that could have been used for something else? Why ram this through now? It is because he knows that this is deeply politically unpopular for his members from British Columbia and Ontario.

Why will he not simply face the truth that we need a debate in the House and recognize that this closure is fundamentally undemocratic?

[Nelson Leeson, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to rise to pay tribute to the great Nelson Leeson who passed from our presence some time ago.

Nelson was elected president of the Nisga'a Lisims government. He was also the co-chair of the land claims agreement coalition. Nelson was a living symbol of what true leadership and courage in politics looks like. He is a lesson to all of us who seek elected office in speaking on behalf of his people with courage and conviction.

Nelson was a rare man indeed. He had compassion for those who suffered most. He was a bridge always between the first nations and non-first nations of this country. He was always dignified in his actions.

Nelson was also a true friend and mentor to me. He revealed to me the rich and complex culture and history of the Nisga'a people. He guided me through the politics of first nations government and the treaty process.

Nelson Leeson's passing is a true and great loss for his family, for the Nisga'a people, and for the people of this country.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 23rd, 2009]

With regard to the AquaNor 2009 conference in Trondheim, Norway, in August 2009: (a) what was the size of the Canadian delegation, including the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (b) what was the duration of stay for each member of the delegation including the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (c) what was the total cost to the government for participation in the conference, including but not limited to delegate fees, accommodation, travel, hospitality and per diems of the Minister, departmental staff, personal and political assistants and all other staff paid by the government; (d) what was the amount spent on hospitality to non-Canadian delegates at the conference; and (e) what was the total cost incurred by the government relating to this conference?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wise words and comments.

The question here is somewhat of a chicken and egg debate in terms of what countries do with regard to trade. Around the world, Canada has the unique role in being able to offer countries its reputation when trading with them. When Canada signs a free trade agreement with a country, it is giving its blessing to that country's role in the region.

Colombia has struggled for many years with fighting paramilitaries, and with the increase in the drug trade and all the rest. It is now in the midst of an arms race, which I think has to be brought into this debate.

I raised with my Liberal colleagues down the way, who seem to continue to ignore it, that after almost two decades, South America is going through an arms resurgence right now. Billions of dollars in arms are going into the region, creating what could be a very volatile situation in some very unstable regimes, particularly Colombia right now.

The idea of Canada entering into the fray and creating a free trade scenario, in which arms are not even mentioned in the agreement whatsoever, brings many concerns to Colombians who are fighting for and advocating peace, and are seeking peaceful measures with their neighbours to the south and north.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on some among the Liberals. I know it is a big tent, but it is a circus tent if they allow the idea that one can both oppose and support something so volatile as a trade agreement with a country seeking an arms deal.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 5th, 2009]

With respect to sole-source contracting over the last five years undertaken by, or on behalf of, each department or Crown agency: (a) what was the total amount of such contracting, on an annual basis; (b) what was the amount and duration of each contract, (i) who so authorized the contracts, (ii) which contracts were amended, (iii) how were they amended, and what justification was given for amending each contract; (c) in each instance where the value of the contract exceeded $25,000, what was the business case for doing so; and (d) what audits were undertaken in relation to any sole-sourced contracts, (i) what was the date, title, authorship and cost of each audit, (ii) which ones raised concerns over the value for money taxpayer received, (iii) what concerns were raised and what recommendations were made, (iv) did any result in criminal charges and, if so, (v) which ones?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend, which consists of two points.

The notion of a special committee set up over the summertime was a bit of a failed legacy. It put things on time delay more than anything else. The prospects of getting together and having some sort of agreement between his party and the Conservatives on something like EI was very unlikely, at best.

I have a question about the transfer and the creation of this independent body from government, which is employment insurance now. When the transfer was made, some $2 billion were provided. One of the concerns we raised at the time was it would not be enough money in the event of any type of recession or downturn in the economy.

The employment insurance fund had been robbed of more than $50 billion over the years, over-collecting employment insurance premiums. Then when the government created this new entity at arm's-length from government, it did not transfer more than $50 billion. It transferred a couple of billion dollars.

It did not feel like insurance at all for workers in case something were to go wrong and the government seemed to lowball what might be required to be paid out. Now we have this hodgepodge measure where we have to force the government to come back to the table with more support for the unemployed.

I come from a region that has been very hard hit for a number of years, more and more unemployed in the forestry, fishing and mining sectors. I know he is familiar with such similar circumstances. Was it right for the government to have created this body and seed it with so little money compared to what the government had extracted from it? It was so ill-prepared for any hard times down the road?