Nathan Cullen

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is most enjoyable to watch the violent agreement going on between the Liberals and Conservatives. All day there has been much brouhaha and yelling, but on the substantive, as my hon. colleague from Wild Rose asked earlier, if the Liberals have such disagreement with the budget at a fundamental level, are they concerned more for the welfare of our country or the welfare of their backsides?

Will the Liberals vote against the budget if they have such problems with it on such a fundamental level, yes or no?

[The Environment, February 29th, 2008]

After that answer, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going to have to take a shower.

The Conservative-Liberal budget will sink hundreds of millions of dollars into polluting and unsafe industries such as the tar sands and the nuclear industry. Not only is this action morally corrupt, but it is intellectually bankrupt.

New Democrats are ready to take on the big polluters and we have a plan. It is called the clean air and climate change act. When will the Conservatives abandon their pollution agenda, bring this critical bill back for a free vote in the House of Commons and finally do something about climate change?

[The Environment, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the environment simply is not part of the Conservative agenda, as was proven in this week's budget. There is nothing in the budget to take on the big polluters. As the Toronto Star said, the Liberals have turned themselves into a “doormat” in the process.

In fact, instead of reducing pollution, this budget is going to take hard-earned tax dollars from working families and give them to oil companies in more subsidies and more tax breaks. There is nothing to protect hard-working families. When will the government finally find the courage to stand up to its oil patch buddies?

[The Environment, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this representative and this party voted against $14 billion for big oil and gas companies that are polluting our environment.

The government is not satisfied with just one toxic time bomb, now it is creating Canada's very own Love Canal in northern Alberta. The toxic tar sands project, which the Conservatives support, will spew out 60% more toxins under their watch.

The Fort Chipewyan people are here in Ottawa. The cancer rates in their community are off the charts. Will the government tell the people in Fort Chipewyan that it will clean up their environment, or will it continue to support the biggest polluters in our history?

[The Environment, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians know that toxins in our environment have a direct impact on our health, but to the Conservative government, the only thing they consider toxic is the truth.

A leaked report from the U.S. shows that toxins in the Great Lakes are spinning out of control.

Liberal and Conservative governments have identified 17 toxic sites in the Great Lakes and cleaned up exactly 2 since the year 2000. At this pace, it will be 60 years before Canadians can expect clean water.

How much longer must Canadians remain in the dark while the Conservative government dithers and delays on the cleanup?

[Petitions, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a number of petitioners from right across British Columbia, and in fact from ridings of all three of the parties that represent British Columbia, are also expressing great concern over the government's progress on the SPP, the security and prosperity partnership. They find that the more they know, the more they fear.

They are asking the government to bring it to public attention and public debate in this place, which would be a novel concept for the government, and also to cease and desist any further agreements until such a public discussion has happened, which is a very reasonable and democratic perspective.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I put this question to other members who were on this committee but I am curious as to the member's view.

What plans does the government have in place right now? What money has been allocated to look at the adaptation required for a changing marine environment due to climate change?

Many studies have been done by many different countries, many of our trading partners, to look at what the implications are for the physical infrastructure, for the physical way we do harbours and the physical way we seek to upkeep them. When we look through the government spending plans, we rarely see any sort of contingency, any insurance policy. The concern for many is that these harbours will be built in such a way that will not accommodate a climate changed future.

I am wondering if he has any details to provide the House.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this has a connection with the last question from the parliamentary secretary about choices and priorities, that when the Liberals were in power they chose to make a lot of pretenses about the effects of climate change and wishing to spend money on things. My hon. colleague from the north is feeling the effects of climate change in his constituency, yet little was done. We now have a government that has taken a long time to even believe in the science. Still, little has been done.

When I look through this report, I am trying to understand how much government is taking into account the effects of rising sea levels and increased storm activity changing the very nature of the environment around our coastal harbours and our small craft harbours. I see mention of it, but very little direct attention paid.

I know the hon. member was involved in some of the discussions. Was there any serious input into adapting our coastal harbours to a reality rather than building in things that will cause us great harm and concern later? Are there plans in the future from his committee or other committees to actually get at this question of adaptation? This is a serious and important issue that Canadians would like to see addressed immediately.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for defending the small craft harbours of her region. For those Canadians who live in the centre parts of the country, without access to oceans, there is not a proper understanding of how vital these harbours can be, not just for the recreation and the commercial requirements of the community but also for basic safety concerns.

I would like to hear the member's comments on an incident that happened some months ago on the north coast of British Columbia, which was the tragic sinking of the Queen of the North, in which a ferry ran aground and sunk quite quickly. The crew were diligent in getting almost everyone, unfortunately not everyone made it off the ship, into life rafts but they were on a relatively isolated part of the coast.

It was only through the incredible and courageous work and dedication of the folks of the Hartley Bay community that they were able to scramble enough fishing boats and people in the dead of night, on a cold night, to get out and save the lives of many travellers who did not have the clothing or any of the equipment necessary to survive the night when it is that cold.

The reason I am asking this particular question is to partly celebrate and honour the people of Hartley Bay and what they were able to do but also to recognize the lack of support which is noted in this report. We have heard the parliamentary secretary talk about it, just the basic financial and training support in terms of the infrastructure but also the emergency services, the training for people to handle situations like this for places like the central and north coast.

What does this actually mean? What are the consequences of the government not stepping up to the plate fully in a proper way?

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the study.

The member talked a little about the effects of climate change. The government has a lot of problems with that concept, and with the plan we need to counter those effects, of course. We know that on the west coast, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, there are now a lot of problems related to climate change, such as changes in sea level. What will happen 10 or 20 years from now?

My question is simple. Does the minister have an arsenal of action plans to address the future realities of climate change?