Nathan Cullen

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, there was a case in which Canadian pesticide regulation on the fruits and vegetables that were produced and sold to Canadians in-house were achieving a certain level of stringency so that fewer and fewer pesticides were being used and fewer chemicals were coming into the Canadian food system and yet we received a challenge from the U.S.

The U.S. was saying that it wanted higher levels and, in some cases, it was 10 times the rate that Canadians were experiencing. What was Canada's reaction? It might be somewhat in connection to these trade policies but Canada relented and then allowed our chemical levels that were permitted on fruits and vegetables to be increased and, in some cases, tenfold.

It is perverse and bizarre. Folks back home assume that the power to set health and safety regulations and standards must rest with either the provincial or federal government. Therefore, when the government imposed this on fruits and vegetables saying that it would like there to be fewer chemicals because it knew from the studies this was harmful to Canadians, particularly to vulnerable populations such as seniors and young children, Canada did not have that power anymore.

How could we have possibly eroded such a fundamental principle in our democratic system?

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a precedence and a pattern within the government and the previous Liberal government's negotiations, particularly with the United States, but on all trade agreements. The pattern suggests that policy and legislation made within Canada's own jurisdiction, whether it is at the federal level or the provincial level, is always subject to someone else's interests ultimately, which is a confounding notion to Canadians who go to the polls, elect people to speak on their behalf, come to a place like this to negotiate and debate, come to some resolution over what the policy should be in Canada's own interest, and then have those very same governments, our own governments, subject to a foreign interest, whether it be a commercial or foreign government's interests. I am thinking of the softwood lumber dispute that we went through recently where we are witnessing Canadian lumber policy being made by a foreign national government. The federal Government of Canada does not even have that power and yet the federal Government of the United States somehow was given that power in a trade agreement that Canada signed onto.

Now we have a case with pesticide management where Quebec seeks to protect its own interests, the interests of its citizens, and somehow finds that subject to a foreign company's interests.

Does this have any sort of a chilling effect on Canadian legislators and policy-makers when we are setting up our own regulations knowing there is this 800 pound gorilla out there that can actually subvert and destroy Canada's own actions, whether at the federal or provincial level?

[Sockeye Salmon, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the government's attention to the disastrous sockeye salmon collapse in this year's fishery on the west coast, with 60% lost on the Skeena River and 90% lost on the Fraser River. All the while, the minister was off in Europe with 50 of her fish farm friends, all on the taxpayer's dime, rather than doing her job for Canada's west coast.

This was a disaster economically for a region already hard hit. This was a disaster culturally for the first nations that have depended on this fish for feasts and cultural events since time immemorial. This was a disaster environmentally for the grizzly in the great forests of British Columbia that also rely upon this fish.

New Democrats join with coastal communities in calling for an emergency summit to find out what happened to the sockeye, and most important, to create an emergency plan for next year's fishery and to make sure that the fishermen survive until next season.

We simply ask the government to do its job.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 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?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to performance bonuses paid by the government on an annual basis for the last four years: (a) which departments or Crown entities awarded such bonuses, to whom, in what amounts and on what dates; (b) who is eligible to receive such compensation, and what formula is used to determine the bonus; and (c) what is the government’s position on maintaining such bonuses?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to the $1.7 billion invested in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) over the last three years: (a) on what date, in what amount, and for what purposes, were the disbursements made; (b) what amount was earmarked specifically for repairs to the Chalk River reactor, (i) what repairs have been made, on what date, and at what cost, (ii) what repairs remain to be addressed, (iii) what is the estimated cost of fixing the reactor’s remaining deficiencies, (iv) what work plan is in effect to correct them; (c) what amount went to executive compensations, including performance bonuses, and which executives received such compensation, and in what amount; (d) what amount was spent on private sector consultants, (i) which consultants were so hired, and for what services, (ii) which contracts were the subject of a non competitive, or sole-source, bid process; (e) what amount was spent to assess future consideratons to privatize AECL, (i) if private sector actors were involved, which ones, (ii) what services did they render, and at what cost; (f) what is the business case to privatize AECL, in whole or part; and (g) what amount was spent on assessing the market value of AECL, in whole or part, (i) what evaluations were given, on what date, (ii) who undertook the evaluations on AECL’s behalf?

[Medical Isotopes, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are today the minister had the opportunity to show some dignity and apologize to Canadians suffering from cancer for her callous remarks. She did not. She could have resigned, but she is still here. She does not seem to understand how hurtful her comments are to Canadians. Does she not see that the damage done to Canadians' faith in their government to help them has been suffering by her actions? Why is she still here?

[Medical Isotopes, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has shown she cannot handle her job. She is leaving top-secret documents behind and sees medical isotopes as a career opportunity.

She just claimed the Dutch were onside with her plan, but the Dutch are not okay with her plan. Canadians are not okay with her plan.

Helping cancer patients should not be about rolling the dice. Why will she simply not resign?

[The Environment, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for years now the Conservative government has justified its own failure to fight climate change by blaming other countries like China and India. However, a new UN report shows that both countries are leaving Canada far behind when it comes to renewable energy. China alone is spending $15 billion, and still the government keeps its head buried in the tar sands.

China gets it. India gets it, as does the rest of the world. Surely the government will finally drop its dead ideology and understand that fighting climate change will create the green economy that Canadians so desperately need.

[World Oceans Day, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Oceans Day, a day to recommit to protect our oceans for the very air that sustains us, for the food that we use, and for the resources that drive our economy.

People of northwest British Columbia have lived in harmony with the ocean since time immemorial. Today, the Living Oceans Society is launching the Finding Coral Expedition, a deep-sea adventure of scientists in submarines to the very floor off British Columbia's northwest coast.

Our oceans must be managed sustainably. We should be planning and using science and leadership. We applaud this work and recognize that to understand the oceans is to come to respect and honour our planet for this generation and for generations to come.