Nathan Cullen

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-377, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:

““greenhouse gases” means the following substances, as they appear on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999:

(a) carbon dioxide, which has the molecular formula CO2;

(b) methane, which has the molecular formula CH4;

(c) nitrous oxide, which has the molecular formula N2O;

(d) hydrofluorocarbons that have the molecular formula CnHxF(2n+2-x) in which 0<n<6;

(e) the following perfluorocarbons:

(i) those that have the molecular formula CnF2n+2 in which 0<n<7, and

(ii) octafluorocyclobutane, which has the molecular formula C4F8; and

(f) sulphur hexafluoride, which has the molecular formula SF6.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-377, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43 on page 8 and lines 1 to 12 on page 9 with the following:

“the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the statement:

(a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the statement in the context of sustainable development; and

(b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose:

(i) the likelihood that each of the proposed measures will achieve the emission reductions projected in the statement,

(ii) the likelihood that the proposed measures will enable Canada to meet its commitment under section 5 and meet the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6, and

(iii) any other matters that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy considers relevant.

(2) The Minister shall

(a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b):

(i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and

(ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and

(b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause

“13.1 (1) At least once every two years after this Act comes into force, the Commissioner shall prepare a report that includes

(a) an analysis of Canada’s progress in implementing the measures proposed in the statement referred to in subsection 10(2);

(b) an analysis of Canada’s progress in meeting its commitment under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6; and

(c) any observations and recommendations on any matter that the Commissioner considers relevant.

(2) The Commissioner shall publish the report in any manner the Commissioner considers appropriate within the period referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Commissioner shall submit the report to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before the day it is published, and the Speaker shall table the report in the House on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause:

“NATIONAL ROUND TABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

13.2 (1) Within 180 days after the Minister prepares the target plan under subsection 6(1) or prepares a revised target plan under subsection 6(2), the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the target plan or revised target plan:

(a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the target plan or revised target plan in the context of sustainable development; and

(b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose:

(i) the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analyses used to establish each target in the target plan or revised target plan, and

(ii) any other matters that the National Round Table considers relevant.

(2) The Minister shall

(a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b):

(i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and

(ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and

(b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague. First of all, I thank him for his speech. This a matter of law and ethics. My questions will be very clear and simple. I will talk about the 2005-06 election, which was focused on ethics and scandals.

The current situation affects Conservative members in particular. This comes after years of Liberal scandals and harsh words directed at the Liberal government. After the Gomery inquiry and everything that happened with Mr. Chrétien, it is hard to believe that the Conservatives are now using the same ethics regarding law, money and public trust that the Liberals were using back then. It is the same with environmental issues. The government says one thing and does another.

I believe it is also a matter of law. How can the government say it abides by the legislation without respecting its spirit? The spirit of the current Elections Act is to make sure that everybody is treated fairly and equitably. However, at the same time, the Conservative Party believes that it is acceptable to spend more than one million dollars over the legal limit. What does the member think about the ethical value of the Conservatives' actions and their respect of the spirit of the legislation?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I would even attempt to understand the Liberal position when it comes to the environment.

I do not claim to understand the strategy or base tactics that are used when approaching this issue. I think it has been a problematic issue but that is not what I am here for. I am not here to point out the faults of the Liberals. I am sure my hon. colleague, the minister, can do that well enough on his own. Sometimes Liberals do that well enough on their own, as well.

My job is to promote the solutions in which we believe, solutions that we have verified with Canadians using the best research and intelligence that we can. We do not believe in slamming forward ideas not taking account of the shifting debate that goes on with something as sensitive as this issue and that the biofuels issue is part of the solution.

The government's prescription for this, to send it through a purely agricultural lens and not take a look at it through the environmental lens and not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of what is going on, we believe is irresponsible governance. We think there is an opportunity here to do the right thing, for Parliament to work together and find a solution with which all four corners can agree.

That is what Canadians expect of us. I believe it is what Canadians expect of us and I believe it is what Canadians hope from us.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the government brought the biofuels bill to committee, it received very little to no scrutiny whatsoever. I believe motions were brought forward that the debate should be limited, if at all. For a bill that will impact Canadian farmers and Canadian food prices and now with the increasingly a global concern on what has happened with commodity shares and prices around the world, there is an important element and a lack of transparency in what the government is attempting to do.

We have to understand, and it is fundamental, the government is choosing to use policy and taxpayer dollars to push a certain solution from its perspective. Any solution proposed to the complicated issue of climate change, we all know, needs to be given some thorough scrutiny. It needs to be addressed, analyzed and understood for what it is or is not.

With the bill, the government is essentially asking for a blank cheque from Parliament and Canadians to go forward and spend money on biofuels, be it corn, ethanol or others, without the scrutiny of Parliament and without the scrutiny of the Canadian people. There are many issues to choose from on which Canadians have lost faith with the government, but if any issue represents it best, it is the issue of the environment.

When we ask Canadians do they trust the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and his so-called Minister of the Environment to deal with the environmental challenges we face, the overall answer is no. Whether it was specific climate change legislation that did little or nothing to affect the tar sands in northern Alberta or whether it was announcements like we heard this weekend, which get at only a small fraction of the problem and the government pretends it has solved the whole thing, Canadians are right and justified in feeling skeptical about the proposals that come forward from the government. It has a track record. In two and a half years, we have had little to no legislation to deal with the environment. I am my party's environment critic and I know. We have waited for legislation to come forward. We have waited and pushed initiatives with the government. We have said that this issue is too important to lay at the feet of the political spin doctors. This has to be dealt with by Parliament in a conscientious and sincere way. Instead, we have seen this thing being used as a ping-pong ball, back and forth.

I can remember the environment minister saying that all he had to do was be a bit better than the former environment minister, now leader of the Liberal Party, or to perhaps inoculate the debate politically. These are not exactly high aspirations for a government when dealing with one of the most important issues to Canadians. All considerations are political. All considerations are partisan. This has to stop. We have to find ways that Parliament can work together, and the NDP has proposed, on several occasions and on several different issues, ways to do that.

The process was used for the bill is important. Clearly, it is identified as climate change legislation. It is identified as a potential solution to the debate, and biofuels have a role in the debate on climate change. Biofuels are evolving and changing as we speak. The information we are learning about them and the global awareness of the issue is increasing. I believe Canadians are onside and want to encourage governments to join with them in partnership, to join with them to find these solutions.

Let us look at the way the government has handled the bill. First, it takes an environment bill and moves it over to the agriculture committee, similar to its immigration bill that was shuffled to the finance committee. At some point, people have to ask what exactly is the government trying to hide when it does not use the obvious and logical choice for sending these bills to the places that matter, where the groups that are involved, the advocates and the members of Parliament who are most familiar with the issue can deal with it instead of this shell game that goes on back and forth.

The connection between using certain food products in fuel is one that needs to be debated and discussed. That is obvious. The analysis has to be done. We need to have a full and proper understanding of what it means. In that connection, it is important for us to establish what the actual assessment is by government, what the effect will be on our economy and what the effect will be on the producers who raise food for our tables, on both sides, not just the grain producers but, on the other side of the equation, those who purchase grain to raise livestock.

When we ask the government to do simple greenhouse gas assessments, if this is supposed to be some sort of panacea or big part solution, we will spend a lot of money on this.

The government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this, billions in fact. That is no small thing. That is money collected from hard-working Canadians and given to the government in some form of trust, although it is a trust that is being eroded, to get to the solutions that are necessary.

One would think that a government, a party like the Conservatives that pretended to run on accountability and transparency, particularly when it comes to tax dollars, would welcome the open invitation from New Democrats to have a fiscal analysis, to have a greenhouse gas analysis of what their bill actually proposes.

Instead, the government has said absolutely not. It will not analyze this thing on environmental terms, on financial terms, or on the impact to the market. It will throw this in and see what happens later. That just seems irresponsible at a fundamental level.

Take this in comparison to the bill that we finally got out of the environment committee, a climate change bill proposed by the leader of the New Democrats, which was filibustered for six weeks by the government: day in and day out, hour after hour of talking out the clock just to avoid the bill having a free and fair democratic vote.

At the end of the day, the piece in the bill the Conservatives filibustered, which is interesting, the piece they delayed, was the piece on transparency and accountability. It was a clause written into the bill to say that the government must come forward to Canadians, present its plans in an open and transparent way, and also be held accountable for any of the actions in spending that it did over the previous five years, going back on a forward looking plan.

This is something that has been lacking, whether it was Liberal administrations or this Conservative one. Canadians are lacking and losing faith in their government's ability to deal with the environment. They simply want us to find the solutions, use common sense and not pick political favourites on our path to those solutions but to use what every Canadian household does when spending a dollar. It is one choice or another. Do we get the kids a new soccer ball or do we put more money on the mortgage? Do we buy a little bit more expensive food or do we use something else? Those are assessments Canadians make every day. It is a natural thing. Every business makes those assessments, understanding the risk versus the benefit.

Yet, an enormous expenditure of Canadian tax dollars on this issue is changing week by week. This issue, eight, nine, ten months ago, was in a very different place as we have seen the market start to respond to the huge subsidies, particularly coming from the U.S., but also being modified in Europe. It is becoming one of the contributing factors to what is happening on the global food shortage.

Clearly, with strong condemnation from leaders and advocates of the international community for the government, one would think that it would welcome the opportunity that the New Democrats are offering, which is to say: “Give this a better look”. Maybe, when the bill was drafted, there were different circumstances. Maybe markets were responding in a different way.

However, let us get this right because if we get it wrong, if we continue to get it wrong, if the Conservatives and Liberals continue to vote for things that do not pan out in the end, Canadians are throwing up their hands in a more consistent basis and saying, “Maybe there is not a role for government in this”, and that is a true shame.

Industry has said to us time and again, even the oil and gas sector, the highest polluting sector of the country, “Just give us the fair and competent rules by which we can live by, address and to which we can adapt”, as opposed to this wavering target, this moving target of an ambition.

At one point the Conservatives talked about ambitious targets that meant nothing. They have to realize that at the end of the day, there are so many millions and millions at play. I see the environment minister encouraging me to send this to the environment committee. I think that is a wonderful idea. I would encourage him to join me in this. After six weeks of his filibustering of a real climate change piece of legislation, one would think that he would not come into the House with the hubris to say that New Democrats are doing anything but advocating for real and serious environmental change.

When it comes to the end of the game, the minister will be remembered as somebody who either did something or delayed and played games. It is coming to the end of the day when Canadians are counting on the government and Parliament and will be asking, “Did we do the right thing? Are we getting the right thing done?”

We must use our collective intelligence to promote solutions in which we can be confident. The amendment speaks to that. It should be encouraged by all parties. The bill should be given further consideration and understanding to know its true implications.

[The Environment, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if a person rents a car and does not make the payments, the car will be repossessed. If a person does not pay their mortgage, the house will be repossessed. If a person does not pay their credit card bill, they will be cut off and action will be taken against them. Why? Because there is a contract. The agreement was broken and there are consequences.

Why does the government refuse to follow Sheila Fraser's advice? Why is it ignoring the penalty it must pay for Kyoto?

[The Environment, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is sounding the alarm in Le Devoir today. She said that signing and ratifying an international agreement means we have to live up to it or pay the penalty. Sheila Fraser said that the price of failing to meet Kyoto should be included in the Conservative federal budget, but it is not.

Will the finance minister heed the warning of Canada's Auditor General, or does he plan to stick future generations with a bill for his government's failure on climate change?

[Northwest British Columbia, April 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the northwest of British Columbia is a land of partnership and a deep collective spirit. For millennia people have worked with the environment and continue to hold true to that value today.

A coalition of first nations, commercial fishermen and sport fishermen, municipal and environment groups, and every day citizens joined together to fight the provincial and federal governments' plans for open net fish farms at the mouth of the Skeena. Friends of Wild Salmon fought alongside northerners and we won.

Even as we celebrate this victory, we must turn our attention to another threat. Shell's plans to drill for coal bed methane in the Sacred Headwaters bringing the threat of irreparable damage.

We are a hunting and fishing people. We work to be stewards of the land. Northerners will work with those companies willing to work with us, like Galore Creek and Blue Pearl Mining.

If not, we will unify. We will organize and we will defend our rivers and our way of life for future generations to come.

[Transportation, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the sinking of the Queen of the North off B.C.'s north coast was an avoidable tragedy. B.C. Ferry Services asked for and received safety exemptions from the federal government.

Other single compartment vessels had sunk prior to the sinking of the Queen of the North.

Has the government taken any responsibility for this disaster, or even attempted to apologize to the families who were devastated by this tragedy?

[Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. As a political leader, he formed a lesson for us all, of what it is to have a dream and to sacrifice on behalf of that dream.

During the course of his political life, Dr. King was firebombed, stabbed, threatened, harassed by his own government and eventually tragically assassinated. We must all learn to act against injustice wherever we see it. We must, as political leaders, have the courage of our convictions and fight on behalf of others, not ourselves.

King's legacy was that we all must bring our nation together and not separate it along lines of region, race or religion. To quote Dr. King:

If physical death is the price I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from the permanent death of the spirit, then nothing could be more redemptive.

We all owe Dr. King a great honour.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the issue of an immigration policy in Canada stirs much energy from my hon. colleague and from others around this place.

I think the question is about what the government is actually proposing and how it is that it is proposing to make these drastic changes. Some have called them the biggest changes in Canadian immigration law ever, if not in the last 40 years.

It seems to me that in previous administrations the rule and policy was “Who you know in the PMO”. This had great effect as to which groups and which particular cases were given attention. We saw incident after incident under the Liberals where connections were more important than the quality of the actual immigration application.

We are now switching over to a system in which, by fiat, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under the current Conservative government, which is obviously at the Prime Minister's discretion, will pick the winners and losers. I think there is some interest for Canadians that the bill is being promoted by the finance minister and will go to the finance committee where suddenly immigration has become a purely financial and economic matter and nothing else. It is ironic in a country that prides itself on being a refuge and a place built on the energy and enthusiasm of the immigrants who have come here.

I think the reason we have so much passion in this place for this issue is that so many of us are, like myself, the sons or daughters of immigrants or immigrants ourselves. It brings forward great passion to think that families, like my own who came to this country, would no longer be accepted because they would not fit through this narrow financial consideration, which the Minister of Finance is somehow now in charge of immigration policy, an immigration policy that is made through budget measures. How ridiculous is that?

I am interested to know if my hon. colleague can give us some proper accounting. He indicated today that he would vote against this measure. I wonder if he actually will show up to vote and express his lack of confidence in the government as New Democrats have? Does he have any assessment or understanding of any other Liberals in this place who may also rise on their feet and express non-confidence in this immigration policy and in the government? Where does the Liberal Party stand?