Nathan Cullen

[Natural Resources, May 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I must have missed the part where she said that we should nationalize a 65-year-old pipeline with four and a half billion dollars of Canadians' money. The Liberals do know it is not legal to smoke weed until August, right? This idea makes no sense at all.

When he was asked about why he bailed out a Texas oil company, this is what the Prime Minister said: it was “too risky for a commercial entity” to take on. What? If it is too risky for an oil pipeline company to build an oil pipeline, why is it okay for the Canadian public to pick up all that risk? Liberals have to learn one thing and one thing finally, that bailing out Texas oil companies is no way—

[Natural Resources, May 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals would dump $4.5 billion on a 65-year-old pipeline and call that an energy strategy. Only the Liberals would try to force through a pipeline, and tankers, through traditional first nations territory and call that reconciliation. Only this Prime Minister would call himself a climate change leader and then be willing to spend $15 billion on a diluted-bitumen pipeline to China.

He is about to say, “The environment and the economy must go together.” Does he know what else must go together? It is making a promise to the Canadian people and then actually keeping it.

[Natural Resources, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it would be $3.2 billion to provide safe drinking water for every kid living on reserve in this country; it is $4.5 billion to buy a 65-year-old pipeline. We have to ask ourselves what kind of priorities the Liberals actually have. When a Texas oil company shows up and needs a bailout, the Liberals cannot find a shovel big enough to pitch in. It will not stop first nations in court and it will not stop people in the street. When exactly did the Liberals decide to trump first nations' rights and title, and protecting our coast, all in favour of some Texas oil company they want to help out?

[Natural Resources, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, does anyone want to buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline? No? Wait, it is located next to schools and parks, and literally crosses hundreds of rivers.

The Liberals do, and they somehow decided that paying $4.5 billion to buy an old pipeline, and not telling us how much it is going to cost to build some illusory new pipeline, is somehow a good “investment”.

When did the Liberals decide that trampling over the rights of indigenous peoples and putting our coasts further at risk was somehow in the public interest?

[Natural Resources, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that imitation is the best form of flattery as the Liberals are being sued by a first nation.

When it comes to paying for oil spills, many Canadians want to know who picks up the costs of the environment and the economy. The City of Vancouver has been waiting three years for the federal government to show up and force the company to pay for the damage done there.

Rather than blowing billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing more pipelines and more risks, will the Liberals finally show up and force the company to pay or is this actually the Liberal oil strategy, to simply privatize the profits while socializing the risk?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am left with a bit of a challenging moment. The primary role of all MPs in this place is to be able to understand what is in front of Parliament so we can engage in debate on behalf of the people we represent. I have been here awhile, as have you, Mr. Speaker, and have certainly never seen a Friday like we had this morning. I am not sure it was the Friday you were expecting. It was not the one I was expecting. I am sure many MPs have never seen the House taken with such disorder.

The primary job of the Speaker is to allow for the lack of disorder, as it is sometimes referred to in our text, and the ability of MPs to hear one another in debate. I did not engage in any of the noisemaking, but that is irrelevant, because I was unable to hear either your reading of the motion or the government House leader's response to the motion, as I am sure was the case with many other MPs as well.

The government House leader is saying that I should have put my earpiece in, which I did, but I still could not hear what was happening. It is not my responsibility as an MP to create that order. That is, of course, your job, which we grant you, Mr. Speaker, through the election of the Speaker. That was not attained at any point in either your reading or the government House leader's response.

I have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker. We have known each other a long time. This place has, from time to time, become quite emotional and quite engaged, as it should be. We are meant to represent the passions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Having been in the House with an interest in hearing what you were saying and the government House leader's response to the motion, I find it impossible to determine that we had anything resembling order, or that I had any opportunity to do the job I am here to do.

I think it was a reasonable request by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, yet we are somehow pretending that what happened prior to question period was normal and good orders of the day. With all due respect, I find that impossible to believe, and I—

[Democratic Reform, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they are committed, but I am committed to having a luscious, full head of hair and it is not happening, either. I am wondering when the Liberals are actually going to do something about it.

There are a lot of things we disagree about in this place, and we should, yet there is one thing we should never disagree about, and that is how Canadians vote in our elections. The way Canadians vote is sacred and a foundation of our democracy. It is not a right or left issue; it is right or wrong. It was wrong when Stephen Harper forced the unfair elections act through Parliament, and it is wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

My question for the government is simple. Will it commit today, yes or no, to not move any changes to our election laws without multi-party—

[Natural Resources, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take us all back to Paris. It was December 2015, and a shiny new Prime Minister from Canada put his hand on his chest and promised the world that Canada would end the subsidies to the big oil and gas companies. If we fast-forward to today, that same Prime Minister beats his chest as he not only keeps the subsidies in place, but is actually adding on indemnification for the Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal.

Canadians and the world want to know what happened to that guy. Where is the support for the green, clean jobs of tomorrow? When are the Liberals going to finally keep their commitment and end the subsidy to big oil and big gas?

[Elections Modernization Act, May 23rd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, so that Canadians can understand what is going on here, the Liberals have proposed what they call “generational changes” to our election laws, a whole sweeping 350-page omnibus bill. In the last Parliament, Liberals moved a motion that when it comes to election bills, Parliament should never force them through with the use of time allocation as the previous government did.

Liberal members from Toronto—St. Paul's, Charlottetown, Cape Breton—Canso, Saint-Laurent, Charlotteville, Bourassa, Malpeque, Sydney—Victoria, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Wascana, Labrador, Winnipeg North, Beauséjour, Cardigan, Scarborough—Guildwood, Vancouver Quadra, Halifax West, Lac-Saint-Louis, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, and the Prime Minister himself voted that Parliament should never change our election laws if the government uses the procedure of time allocation to shut down debate in Parliament.

This is exactly what the Liberals are doing now. I am confused by what the minister just said, because today we gave the Liberal government a proposal that would have avoided this. It would have allowed proper study at committee and allowed Canadians to have their say on a bill that belongs to them, not to her or her government. The Liberals did not even have the decency to respond to the proposal. We suggested the number of hours at committee, the tour that we could do across the country, the study at committee, and the passage of the bill in time for Elections Canada to do its work on behalf of all Canadians. What did the Liberals do? They said nothing and then moved time allocation, which they promised in the last campaign not to do.

If this is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is. The Liberals promised not to do this; they all campaigned on not doing this. My friend did not campaign in the last election by saying that she would do exactly what Stephen Harper did. She did not campaign by saying that when it were to their benefit, they would shut down debate in Parliament. It is not for them to decide. These laws do not belong to the Government of Canada; they belong to all Canadians.

Let Parliament do its job. Pick up our proposal, say yes, say no, say something, and let us get to work on behalf of all Canadians.

[Democratic Reform, May 23rd, 2018]

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The Prime Minister had a deadline to fix the damage done by the previous Conservative government to our election laws, and for 18 months they did nothing. Now they are panicking and actually threatening to shut down debate in Parliament just hours after it started. New Democrats have made a proposal to properly study the bill, get out on the road to talk to Canadians, and still allow the passage of the bill to get Elections Canada doing its job for us.

Let us find out which path the Prime Minister is going to choose. Is he willing to work with us, or is he going to follow the dangerous one set by Stephen Harper?