Nathan Cullen

[The Environment, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment introduced his brown plan. He missed another opportunity to act. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have picked up where the Liberals left off. No green legislation has been adopted and no regulations have been announced. The NDP has no confidence in this government, because it refuses to take action against pollution.

Why does the minister think that Canadians should pay, instead of major polluters?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was here listening to the New Democrat speeches that started this debate and , therefore, heard the history that it was 17 months ago that the government introduced the bill. It went to a special committee which the leader of the New Democrats asked for. There was reluctance at first but then we as parliamentarians gathered round the table, brought ideas from all sides and rewrote the legislation from top to bottom, All parties, I remind my colleague, moved amendments.

A number of months ago, the NDP brought forward a motion to the House calling upon the government to bring the legislation back. The motion carried because the majority of members in this place, including those in the member's caucus, voted to bring it back.

We all put our best efforts forward, our best ideas and our best work, to make the legislation work in order to take on the issue of climate change, which many of us talk about, and this was the action in which we could back up our talk. This is what Canadians were looking for.

What is my colleague's opinion on the government's agenda in the absence of bringing Bill C-30 back? What has the government put in its place? Has it put something better that the member feels more comfortable with? Is there any sign of hope in the government's current agenda to deal with climate change in juxtaposition to what we were able to accomplish as parliamentarians together and that was the clean air and climate change act?

[The Environment, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over 100 Canadian scientists were asked to write a crucial report on the state of climate change in Canada, which the government has tried to bury for more than a year. The report will say that Canada is in for far more droughts, landslides, extreme heat and smog and more violent and damaging storms. Communities are in deep jeopardy if the government does not act.

The Minister of the Environment must explain why he has stalled on the release of this report and what his government plans to do about it. Why should Parliament have any confidence in the government and its inaction on the environment?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will get no argument from me when discussing Liberal failures on the climate change issue.

She mentioned the Commissioner of the Environment who was in front of committee yesterday. He said that there had been far too much talk and not enough action. He was, in effect, referring to both the Conservative and Liberal administrations and he was equal in his condemnation.

There is a principle here that my hon. colleague seems to enjoy stating many times, and I have heard it from her own Minister of the Environment. Using the excuse of Liberal failure is a call to inaction by the current government, which is a failure of intellectual thought and process. Canadians simply will not tolerate it. Canadians want to see concrete action and, if not, whoever is currently holding office should be thrown from office to the furthest places of this country.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the only confusion that Canadians are faced with is what exactly the Liberal Party of Canada plans to do when a clear and concise motion is put before the House for a free and fair democratic vote.

We in the New Democrats are determined to force the issue of climate change onto the political agenda. Every member of this caucus has stood in question period, in debates in the House and in committees to say that legislation needs to be brought forward.

The lack of clarity on the part of other opposition parties is what is confusing Canadians. Leaders from other parties stood yesterday and said that while they agreed in principle, they would not agree to vote. A great rift occurs when principles do not match votes and that rift cannot be fixed by simply obscuring the issue.

We are calling upon the Conservative government to bring back the amended clean air and climate change act for a free and fair vote. If it does not do so, then we will drop the government. I encourage the member to join us.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I looked forward yesterday to engaging in this debate in this Parliament, and am pleased to do so today, because this is a rare moment in this House, in which we get to talk about the actual fundamentals and principles of what it is to have leadership in this country.

First, I would like to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for first proposing the very notion that we could take a bad piece of legislation and together make it better.

Recently I had the great honour of spending time with the Nisga'a. I live in northwestern British Columbia and represent a region that is more than 30% first nations, who have some of the longest and proudest traditions in our country's history.

At this time of year, the Nisga'a have a tradition going back thousands of years. It is called Hobiyee. It is the bringing of the light from the darkness. It is the calling back of the salmon to return to the rivers that sustain the people and have sustained them for generation after generation.

At this ceremony, I had the great honour to be brought in with the chiefs in full regalia in front of hundreds of Nisga'a dancers, singers and drummers. This ceremony going back centuries is a call to the leadership to have vision and courage and to stand up in defence of the community to provide the leadership the community needs.

That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth has done for this country in allowing this act to come back to Parliament, in demanding that its rewrite is done and done properly and that we are able to have a free and fair vote, and in saying that if this government and this House refuse, this government no longer has the confidence of this Parliament and should be taken to task.

When the leader of the New Democrats called many of us to Parliament, he gave us a very clear and simple direction. He said that while we would be on the opposition benches, we also should seek the place not simply to oppose but to propose, because there was something lacking in this country and in particular around the debate on climate change. What was lacking were consistent and serious proposals that Canadians could get behind and thus for once start to feel proud of the work of Parliament, this place.

That is exactly what the NDP did when the member for Toronto—Danforth stood in his place and called upon the Prime Minister to create a special committee in which all parliamentarians could engage, in which Canadians could see in the full light of day our best ideas, the to and fro of debate, in order to land upon and arrive at the best piece of environmental legislation to take on the greatest challenge this generation has faced.

In the deliberations, we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Some members who are in the House right now were at those talks. We heard from industry, environmental groups, first nations and labour activists. We heard all about the best pieces to put into this legislation, because we all realized at first blush that the bill when it first arrived was dead upon arrival. There was not a hope of its passage. There was not enough credibility. Canadians were simply not behind it.

Through that process and through the engagement of Canadians, we were allowed to have a fulsome debate. We realized that yes, it could be done, and yes, it could be done well, and that Parliament could finally take a lead in tackling dangerous climate change, which we are seeing the effects of each and every day in this country.

Now, let us juxtapose that with the recent experience of all Canadians in witnessing the absolute debacle of the Bali negotiations at the UN, in which our minister went forward and stood side by side with the United States in opposing any progress on the challenge of climate change at the international level.

I spoke to one of the lead negotiators from Canada at the very end of these negotiations, when Canada was completely isolated. Even the U.S. had left and had joined with the UN. Canada was standing alone. I looked down at that negotiator's lapel pin because he had a Canadian flag on it. We talked for some time. I looked at his flag and just as an offhand comment said, “That is such a wonderful flag and it fills my heart with pride just to look at it”. It is the flag standing beside you, Mr. Speaker.

He looked down at the flag and said, “Do you know how hard it is to walk around with this flag at this negotiation?” These are his words. He said, “Do you realize how embarrassing it is to represent Canada's position?”. It was the purported position of the Conservative government. I told him not to worry, for just as the Nisga'a celebrate the light coming from the darkness, we too will celebrate when this country gets back on track and represents the interests and views of Canadians on climate change.

As members of Parliament, we all share a responsibility. Many of us have stood in our places in debate, at committee, in our constituencies and across the country, recognizing what first drew us into a life of public service, to serve on behalf of the public, to understand what it is to truly represent people. In that representation is the requirement for leadership, the requirement for vision, the requirement to have the courage of our convictions to stand in our place and vote for the things we believe in, to fight for the things we believe in, and to represent the people who sent us here to get good things done.

As we talk about climate change, I note that just yesterday the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development released a report containing 14 chapters, nine of which the government showed a failing grade on. I do not know if 35% on a test is acceptable to the Conservatives, but it is not acceptable to New Democrats and it is not acceptable to Canadians.

Every Parliament is seized with scandals, with debate and with central issues. I would suggest that this Parliament has been called upon by the Canadian people to take on the challenge of climate change and to make the decisions necessary so that in some years hence, when we are all sitting back, retired and looking back on our careers, we can say that we did the right thing, the right thing not only for this generation but for the generations to come.

I am reminded again of being with the Nisga'a, listening to the songs, hearing the drummers and speaking with a leadership that goes back millennia about what is required for true leadership. The Nisga'a say it is our role to speak on behalf of others and to speak with courage, knowing that there are difficult decisions and that we must cross over partisan interests that may occupy us and seem important in the moment. We have to realize that new place where we can go to achieve something together, something in which we can all share and all be proud of. Then we can return to our constituencies and to those people who sent us here with pride in our eyes, knowing that we did the right thing. That is what this motion calls for today.

I and many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have spoken about this for many years. In 1983 the NDP was the first group to raise the issue of climate change in this place. For many years, it was shuffled off. It was put off as not being a priority. By some members who are sitting here today, it was put off as not being a reality. They said it was a complete fiction that we did not need to deal with.

Slowly but surely, the public came to understand the issue more. The science became more confirmed and the path forward for all of us became more certain. Unfortunately, we still find ourselves in a place where the narrow, short term partisan interests override the interests of the generations to come and override the interests of doing what is right for the planet, for our communities and for our country. That has to end.

The NDP has been clear today. This is as clear as it gets: the legislation, which the will of this House has supported, must be brought back to Parliament for a free and fair democratic vote, and if not, then the government no longer has the confidence of this Parliament and should be brought down.

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to participate in this debate. I am almost reminded of a game of T-ball where we see the kids who need a little help in getting a hit put the ball on a stick. They spend their time stepping up to the plate and whacking away not unlike the Liberals, who for a strange and confounded reason have twisted themselves into this perverse logic to talk about principle.

Let us talk about principle and what the Liberals have done to support the Conservatives in the last six months alone on Afghanistan. They have completely moved over their position that the leader of the Liberals said he would not move on.

On the environment, we will have a motion and an opportunity for the Liberals tomorrow to do what the leader of the Liberal Party said he wanted to do, which is to bring back the clean air and climate change act for a vote. The NDP are moving that motion tomorrow.

We offer this to the Liberals, to come with us, join with us, and do something about the environment and help save the planet. What did the Leader of the Opposition do 20 minutes ago? He walked out to the media to say he could not possibly support that on some vague Liberal principle.

When we talked about tax cuts, those folks got up and said they did not simply want the tax cuts being offered by the Conservatives, they wanted more and then they turned around to say there is not enough funding for the programs that they pretended to believe in, like child care and pharmacare.

The reason the NDP opposed those tax cuts, opposed the budget, and voted in our place was because the principles we believe in need to be manifested in reality.

There is a strangeness and a perversity in the motion, that actually pretends to talk about principle, not even to mention the promises they made while they were in government.

Another Commissioner of the Environment's report came down today, again putting truth to the lie that says that the promises made were more talk than action. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Commissioner of the Environment. The auditor's office of the country said that the Liberal Party had failed on the environment. We know that. It is in black and white.

I ask my hon. colleague, if he is going to talk about principles, will he oppose the government? Will he join with us tomorrow to bring back environmental legislation that the country needs and on principle oppose this wrong-headed government?

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest. I know my colleague has great interest in the first nations issues.

The question of this motion today, which has confounded many of us in this place, is about accountability and cause and effect. The motion is construed and tries to shift blame to other places as to the results of actions.

I think of a leader in my community, who the member might know. He recently passed away. I am speaking of the traditional chief of the Haida, Chief Skidegate (Dempsey Collinson). For 30 years, he was hereditary chief of the Skidegate Band. He portrayed, in every action and every way and everyday, that true leadership meant taking actions and taking responsibility for those actions, and the cause of those effects.

I often thought, when I spoke with Chief Skidegate, whether he could have instructed many of the elected officials in this place to realize that when there was an action, and when there was something we did, particularly when in positions of power, there had to be a consequence. True leadership means following those consequences to their ends.

I ask the member to realize and to confirm this to the House. The reason the Liberal Party was thrown from office in the end was a decision made by the electorate of our country, through a free and fair democratic vote. The reason people in northwestern British Columbia, and the Haida in particular in this case, supported my campaign was about leadership and consequence of action, being true to our word and doing what we say we are going to do. The Liberals seem to have a deep and profound problem understanding that the actions they caused had a result, and that result was their being removed from office. I wish they would get over this idea that somebody—

[Business of Supply, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very intently to the comments of my hon. colleague from Vancouver.

At one point she talked about the opposition parties putting the government into power. There is a remarkable delusion going on within the Liberal Party, and frankly the logic escapes me when looking at today's opposition day motion.

In the course of events, the prime minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, announced publicly, in a tearful plea on television to Canadians, that he would call an election if Canadians gave him a little more time, and in the course of events, Canadians had their opportunity of an election some weeks before the former prime minister's chosen date. However, he did not have the actual power in this case to call the election.

We all went to the polls. The Liberals went to an election and appealed to the voters. It is how a democracy actually functions. At the ballot boxes across the country the Canadian electorate sent the Liberal Party of Canada a clear message, which many Liberals admitted was just and we have the quotations here. The Liberals had lost the confidence of the Canadian people.

What escapes me is the delusion being perpetrated through the debate today that somehow the New Democrats were out there rigging the ballots or somehow influencing each and every voter to tell the Liberals that they would not get to govern again.

There is a break in the logic and reality, so I would ask the member if she could please try to connect those dots.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the budget that the Conservatives introduced last week does nothing to help the 10,000 people in the forestry industry in B.C. who have lost their jobs in the last year.

Communities across my riding, such as, Fort St. James, Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, the Hazeltons and Terrace have all lost because of the government's sellout in the softwood lumber negotiations. Add to that the pine beetle devastation and what we have is a perfect storm.

Tonight, when the Liberals help the government pass this bad budget and give nothing more than help to their Conservative buddies in the oil sands and across industries that do not need the help, resource communities across this country will suffer. That is why I will not be supporting this budget.

On behalf of the people who sent me here, I cannot support a budget that does nothing to meet the needs of people in northwestern British Columbia.