Nathan Cullen

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at long last I am able to speak to what has become known as a travesty on the high seas: the Conservative Party's attempt to, in its words, reform the Fisheries Act. Unfortunately it has led to greater concern and more stress and frustration in fishing communities across my riding.

When I am back in Skeena in the northwest of British Columbia talking to the fishing communities that I represent, both first nations and non-first nations, there is an inordinate amount of concern for the future of our communities and for the future of the industry.

When the Conservatives put together this package, true and sincere consultations with the groups that would be most affected by the act were not taken up. When I asked the fishing industry groups, the recreational fishers, the residential fishers, people who are connected to this public resource, what level of consultation they enjoyed, the reply was often “none”. They had no idea what was in the bill until it was presented.

People were stunned to see aspects that were absolutely contrary to the interests of fishing communities and families that depend upon those resources. They were mystified as to how a government could even pretend there were consultations. They realize that these things were done behind closed doors and with the input of very few people whose interest is to further privatize what has to be seen by all members of the House to be a national public resource, one that needs to be managed in the interests of the public good and not some corporate narrow interests of a few.

There are a number of significant things in this bill, a number of parts of the legislation that are contrary to the interests of wild fish stocks, in particular. In the brief time that I have this afternoon, I will go through some of the most significant issues for people in the northwest of British Columbia.

To place into context the importance of the wild fishery to us, it is the absolute foundation, the bedrock of our culture. Communities have relied on a wild fishery for thousands of years. According to historical data, going back more than 12,000 years in the Pacific northwest, the original aboriginal communities in North America relied on a viable wild fishery. It led to some of the strongest and most brilliant examples of human organization. The fish were abundant and returned with some consistency. The proud nations of the Haida, the Haisla, the Taku River Tlingit, the Tsimshian, nations which across the river at the Museum of Civilization are represented to the world in their art, in their culture, in their history, have always relied upon the wild fishery resource to sustain themselves, to maintain their cultures and vivid communities. These communities have been in threat for a long time.

Year in and year out the mismanagement of this resource by the federal and provincial governments has gone unabated, with very few positive reforms. Unfortunately, that legacy has continued today but we are attempting to address that and to reform this deeply flawed bill.

Support for this bill is scant. I have looked around the country for the validators, for those fishing groups and people who are most intimate with the issue and who know the history of the issue. Of the environmental groups that work on ocean issues, I cannot find a single one that is willing to support this bill publicly, that is willing to do anything other than condemn it to the highest heights. Among the industry groups that I work with on the west coast that are seeking consultation, that have sought input, I cannot find any that are able to support this bill either.

One of the essential tenets of the bill is to further privatize a resource that has gone through far too much privatization already. A resource such as salmon that moves across boundaries and across jurisdictions and is international in its scope needs to have oversight. Someone needs to be looking at the long term viability of what it is that our future generations will enjoy.

Unfortunately, we have seen with the DFO that these so-called test fisheries, these quota systems that are meant to run for only a year and then be seen against the traditional use are not tests. This is an ideology that has been pushed forward and presented year in and year out to ensure that those who are catching the fish, those who rely on the fish for their resource are no longer able to even own their own vessels in many cases and certainly not the licences under which they operate.

The minister should have taken the time to look at owner-operator principles. The person who owns the licence should actually operate the licence. The people who are on the water and who rely on this resource and who have a vested interest in ensuring its long term sustainability are those who are actually catching the fish. They should own the licences as opposed to the system that the current Conservative government and the previous Liberal government before it wants. The government seems hell-bent on expressing the idea that licences can be purchased like any stock on the stock market. They can be stacked up and then divvied out. When fishermen talk about delivering a pound of salmon at the dock and only receiving a dollar in actual pay, one starts to wonder about the long term viability.

Clearly, the Conservatives have very little interest in engaging in that conversation. They would rather engage in other conversations aside from those that affect the fishing communities, particularly in British Columbia, but all across this country. They seem interested in engaging in work of other interests in this country rather than the communities that have built our nation, rather than the outlying and port communities that absolutely depend on this resource for survival. The government seems to be infatuated with other interests and engaging in other conversations. It is symbolic that that is what is going on here today also.

When consultation is considered by government, one of the absolute essentials is that the conversation and the consultation actually affects the proposed law. I asked the fishing communities in my region how much input they had on the bill. I asked how supportive of it they could be and what changes they wanted. They were deeply frustrated with the flawed process that had allowed them no access in the first place.

The environmental groups that are considering the long term sustainability of this resource are deeply concerned about the viability of our oceans. I asked them how much input they had. They too expressed frustration and dismay that the government continues to act with belligerence when it comes to this issue, as if all the answers somehow exist within the thin benches of the Conservative caucus as opposed to the wider community, those who are engaged in the issue on a daily basis. One has to wonder why the government would not consult the people who are most interested, most aware and most concerned with the issue. Why would it only consult with a select few?

It lowers the credibility of the legislation before it is even out the door. There is a tension that has to exist between conflicting views, between conflicting visions and opinions as to where our fishery will go. That tension is necessary in the creation of the law as opposed to a more narrow, one-sided approach.

I look at the efforts of the government to promote unsustainable fishing practices and use of our oceans to date, and it is well founded that Canadians lack trust in its ability to take care of the long term interests of our oceans.

No trust can be found for a government that randomly and recklessly adopts the notion that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic on the west coast suddenly. By some sort of arbitrary decision made during a mild conversation the Conservatives must have had over coffee, they will reverse a 35 year tradition in the history of the federal government to oppose, through moratorium, the idea of tanker traffic moving into the central and northern west coasts. Is this some kind of benevolent dictatorship that can decide and not decide when a moratorium exists and when it does not?

When the people of British Columbia are asked whether they seek to maintain this long held practice, they are in overwhelming support of it across political interests. The entire House, all of us, particularly those of us who come from British Columbia, represent people who are deeply disgusted with the notion that what happened in the case of the Exxon Valdez, what happened in the relatively recent B.C. Ferries tragedy could happen again.

The reason the moratorium was put in place in the first instance was to avoid the imminent catastrophe that could happen when a tanker spills. The margin of error is so slight on our coastal communities that a major oil spill hitting our coastal waters would be economically and socially devastating. That is without a doubt. The evidence is clear on this.

Not only is it enough for the Conservative government to willy-nilly deny a moratorium exists, but DFO documents support it. We have had briefings from up and down this department and others claiming that they arbitrarily change the rules as they see fit.

I remember the Minister of Natural Resources said in one of his very first statements upon being made minister that his top priority was to open up drilling in our coastal waters. What a magnificent statement from a minister who had consulted with nobody. I am sure he did not think of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He simply decided that coastal drilling in British Columbia, which 80% of British Columbians in consistent poll after poll oppose, is suddenly at the purview of the federal government to decide. All this is taking place in light of a government that has committed to planning.

For Canadians watching and trying to understand this issue, when we ask what the plan is, oftentimes when we are dealing with land based issues, particularly in British Columbia but in other provinces as well, there is a long tradition of planning the competing interests over those resources. They plan the interests of conservation versus mining, the interests of forestry versus community development. That happens on the land base all the time, and we have great success with that.

One reason we do that is so government can weigh the options and give priorities to the various ideas being presented, while balancing the public interest and allowing the public to inform themselves and through the process communicate and change the course of government and change their immediate environment, their surroundings, their communities.

We do not do this in the oceans when it comes to ocean management and the planning. Whether the government is pushing for a pipeline, or coastal drilling, or more tanker traffic or open net fish farms, which it seems enthusiastically willing to support in regions such as mine, where the absolute and overwhelming opinion of bringing in open net fish farms into the northwest of British Columbia has decidedly been no, another issue that goes across partisan interests, it is not be for political reasons. It must not be for some reason such as the government's attempt to gain more votes.

In the last number of elections in my riding, as the Conservative candidates pop up like gophers promoting unsustainable fishing practices, the public pounds them with a little hammer and asks them how can they be so thick? How can they be so obtuse as to continue to suggest things that the people do not want, when there are other things they do want such as sustainable energy and micro-lending for business enterprises? On the things that we want, the candidates remain so silent. It seems strange to me politically, but ideologically it might make sense.

I remember one of my first meetings here. It took place in the lobby. My esteemed colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore might remember it. It was a couple of years ago when the Liberals were in power. A minister had been named and we gathered around the table in the government's lobby to discuss issues with department officials. I remember this fondly because I was new to the House and very interested in how this all worked. The dismissiveness of the DFO officials toward elected members of the House was astounding.

Later a ministerial official quietly described to me, when I left the fisheries and oceans committee hearing, that when a new minister came in there was a certain amount of training required by the department. There is a certain amount of indoctrination, letting the minister know how the DFO works because a unique and strange culture exists. There is this fortified mentality that it is the DFO. If on the water fisheries officers are cut, the enforcement officers who are meant to enforce the few rules that we have on our fisheries management, and more positions are moved to Ottawa, that is somehow a good thing. This has been done by the current government and the previous one.

I have not seen any fish counters on the Ottawa River lately. In terms of the productivity of a fishery, comparing the Ottawa River to the west coast, one of the few and most abundant fisheries left in the world, it seems to me that the balance of these positions and the balance of effort from the government should be where the fish are. They should not be where the bureaucrats have easy access to the politicians and to each other. If more of the decisions were being made on the ground in the communities that care about these issues, better decisions would be made.

Instead we see the blinders being slapped on, the policies getting spit out and the communities being left high and dry with a fishery in continued decline and with more boats off the water and lower catch rates.

We can take the recent non-run of the eulachon fish in the northwest of British Columbia. For those not familiar with British Columbian history, there is a grease trail, a traditional trading trail, that runs all through British Columbia. One of the essential commodities traded was eulachon grease. It was absolutely precious and seen as one of the most advantageous things to access, either directly or through trade.

The eulachon do not return any more. These fish represent the foundation for what is to come. They are the indicator species. They show us what is about to happen. There is a total disregard for the collapse of this fish stock because folks in downtown restaurants in Toronto and Vancouver do not eat it. This again shows the arrogance and the lack of insight as to what is really going on in the water, what is really going on with communities.

The Mifflin plan pops out and we lose 75% of our fleet in the northwest of British Columbia. One would think that a 75% decrease in an industry would be a red flag for governments. We would think governments of all stripes, of whatever inclinations and indications, would come forward. If 75% of the oil and gas industry shut down tomorrow, we can bet the Prime Minister would be there front and centre, wondering how to fix things. However, that is not the case in this instance.

Instead, the motivations are shown to be different. We see it manifested in the bills that are presented to us. The corridor concept for pipelines, with no cumulative impact assessment at all, is being suggested as a viable option from the government. The notion of introducing open net fish farms into regions that do not want them is a viable option for the government.

Regarding breaking and running moratoriums, it is almost like the government is running blockades and hoping nobody notices, with these little tests it keeps running. Another ship goes in with no consideration of a moratorium, which survived eight prime ministers. Progressive Conservatives, and that might be part of the problem, and Liberals alike defended the moratorium. They have said that this thing existed. It is in cabinet notes of all stripes.

The government kind of woke up one day in office and said that it would decide what the public policy would be, with no consultation, no consideration and with not a lot of public fanfare. Lord knows, usually when the government announces something, it tells us about it until it is blue in the face. It announces it seven times and re-announce it another seven, just to ensure we heard what little is getting done. However, when it comes to busting up a moratorium and allowing tanker traffic through to the coast, that is another consideration. Maybe that one is done a little quieter because of the interests at play.

When we talk about the stewardship, that is truly what this resource is about. It is about managing the resources for the foreseeable future and beyond. We must act as a generation of which the generations to come will be proud.

We have the most recent experience of the absolute collapse and devastation of the east coast fish stocks and the communities that relied upon them. We have that experience. It is salient. It is real. It is practical. There are members in the House who went through it and are living through it still.

With that experience at hand, we have a government willing and interested in perpetuating a similar scenario and disaster on the west coast. For the life of me and the people of the northwest of British Columbia, we cannot understand it.

Regarding first nations consultation, we had the Haida and Tlingit court case a year ago. It demands in law, as a ruling by the courts, that in any major consideration, the government of a natural resource in which the first nations are implicated has a duty and obligation to consult. Was that done in this case? Were first nations consulted on this new fisheries act, which is incredibly important to the 30% of my region that are first nations? No, not at all.

That seems to me in contrivance to the law. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has told the government explicitly that it must reform its policies because it is based upon our Constitution. Yet the government, for some strange alchemy, has decided that it has to do it another way.

If the government will not stand up against high seas bottom trawling at the international level, if it refuses to promote the types of practices that we need and consider a co-management model, which we are promoting in the northwest of British Columbia, then we demand, we beg, we plead that it adopt some humility, learn from the mistakes of others and allow other voices at the table.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I almost rose on a point of order to allow the Conservatives a chance to read the bill that has been rewritten and revised. The parliamentary secretary, who I thought was there during the process, seems to have missed the critical elements, the fact that air pollution standards are set out as national standards, not vague objectives as they were originally written. The national binding standards cannot be undone, for NO_x SO_x, VOCs, particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxide, gaseous ammonia and mercury, all within the bill. Somehow he has invented some new fiction as to what happened and did not happen, but the bill exists. It is in the government's hands.

If he would like to have an option for Parliament to choose between his government's performance on the environment and the one that all parties wrote together, I encourage him to bring both of them forward, but he will not do it.

The Liberal failure on the environment is no longer an excuse for Conservative inaction and delay. That is just not a valid excuse for this. Limiting debate on this most critical issue from eight hours to two hours is not good governance. Canadians want to know what the government's plans are on climate change and they want the government to give Parliament the option of voting for a real climate change act.

The leading threat to our economy right now, as seen by many countries around the world, is the impacts of climate change. When we asked Finance Canada and Environment Canada officials if the government engaged any type of analysis either on the impacts to our economy of climate change or the benefits to our economy in creating a green and truly sustainable economy, it had not done a whiff of it. It has not even looked at the issue. It has not done any serious analysis since 1992.

Could the parliamentary secretary justify not even looking at the issue of the impact of climate change on our economy and the health of Canadians? Second, would he take the time to read the legislation that we rewrote together on air pollution, on indoor air quality and on climate change? All members of the House had input into.

Why has he not bothered to take the time to read it and why does he continue to mislead this House as to what is in the bill? It is there in black and white. It is there for him and all Canadians to read, that the national targets and standards are set. They are put into law. They cannot be undone by cabinet behind closed doors. They must be redone by a Parliament, which no Parliament in its right mind would ever do in the future.

It finally sets Canada on the path so real standards are put in place and so a sustainable economy can be created. The polluter pay principle is enshrined into law in Canada. Polluters can no longer get off the hook, as is the suggestion in the new Conservative plan that allows the oil sands to increase their volatile organic compounds by 60%, when every other industry in the country has to reduce.

There is no more justification for this. Will he bring the bill back for a fair and open debate? If the Conservatives are so into democracy, present their bill. We will present the bill that was issued by all members of the House and will allow a democratic vote to decide. This place exists for that. That is why people sent us here.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Martians are next.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the continuation of these theories is incredible. Despite what the First Nations Forestry Council in British Columbia is saying, despite what the environmental groups are saying, and despite what the scientists within the department of the government are saying, somehow the theory is that the pine beetle devastation is due to a handful of environmentalists in British Columbia.

That is what is happening. Those members are not realizing the truth of the matter, which is that we must fundamentally change course in this country. We must alter the economic reality for this country and start to build the type of green economy that Canadians have been asking for.

Bill C-30 would allow us to do that. Why the government refuses to listen to the will of Parliament, just like the Prime Minister used to call for when he was in opposition, is beyond me and beyond Canadians, but the Prime Minister will feel the retribution when it comes.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, where to begin? First, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, unfortunately there was a contribution made to our national average right there and it was unhelpful of the member from Prince George. This grassy knoll theory that the environmentalists are somehow to blame for Canada's poor record on the environment is fascinating. What a strange confabulation.

When the B.C. First Nations Forestry Council comes to Ottawa, perhaps the member from Prince George should attend the meetings and find out that it is the forestry council that makes a direct link between climate change and the pine beetle devastation going on in our province right now. He should pay attention to the foresters and leave his grassy knoll theories for another day.

In terms of action, what studies? Perhaps he should read the resolution for today. The NDP is calling on the government to act on the bill that we created together in Parliament. It is a minority Parliament, I will remind the government, which means that a 200 page manifesto on how to disrupt committees is unhelpful.

What is helpful is to actually listen to the work of the committees whose members work together to solve an issue that does not have a right and a left, but that does have a right and a wrong, and the government is wrong on this issue.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

I think it might actually be in the guide, Mr. Speaker. There apparently is a 200-page guide available to the Conservatives. It may be 500 pages according to the parliamentary secretary.

While there might be some fun to be had with this, this is also a serious issue. This describes a government unwilling to face the key issues of the day, the issues that Canadians are calling on us to address with most haste.

There has been a general agreement that there must be a calling for a state of the nation for Canadians when we realize what is happening to our planet, what is happening as a result of our actions on climate change.

Due to the Liberal's failure and the current government's continued denial, delay and inaction, Canada finds itself at least 35% above our international obligations under Kyoto. Government officials, the minister himself, and others have admitted to the fact that we will not meet our obligations by 2008 or 2012, but perhaps we will meet them by the year 2025.

It is incredible to me and to other Canadians, when we look at our international competitors in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and the United States, that we find Canada performing worse than all of them. Canada has given itself a record to the world saying that we will not abide by our signature on an international agreement, and we will not play a full role. We are telling the world that we will not pull our weight or contribute our fair share to battling what has truly become an international problem.

We received one important piece of testimony from witnesses when we were debating the clean air act. They asked us to consider the Kyoto framework and the protocol as an economic pact rather than simply an environmental one. This is an important designation for all members to realize here today.

The government has been asked to assess the threat of climate change to our economy and to the health of Canadians, and yet there has not been a single study performed by the Conservative government, or previous ones, to understand the impacts and the threats to our country with an increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There has not been a simple understanding of what that impact will be like on all of our communities.

As we have watched the pine beetle devastation roll through our communities in British Columbia, devastating community after community by attacking the forests, a source of livelihood, we realized once and for all that the affects are real, that we must do something about it, and the time for inaction has long since past. The forestry councils of British Columbia have directly related this to the impact of climate change.

I would contend that every generation is met with a great challenge, whether it is seeking rights for all individuals, whether it is the emancipation of slavery, or whether it is fighting great despots in foreign lands. Every generation is judged by future generations as to the quality of handling that challenge. How did we respond to that challenge? How did our forebearers respond to the challenges of their day?

Every Remembrance Day we stand with pride and recognize the service of our veterans. We recognize that when that generation was met with a challenge, they faced that challenge. We look to previous generations and wonder how they responded to the challenge of finding the right spot for first nation women and minority groups.

Our generation's challenge is finding a way to conduct ourselves, conduct our economy, to live our lives in such a way that we do not do harm to ourselves or to our planet. I would contend that by the actions of the previous government and by the continued delay and denial of the Conservative government, future generations will hold us to account.

Future generations will decide when they look upon our record that it was simply for another CEO's bonus cheque in a Calgary office tower that we were unwilling to take the appropriate actions, that we were unwilling as a generation to move in the direction that was most needed and most called for by our children and their children.

Clearly, this issue of the environment and climate change must not be all that important to the Liberal Party as members can attest by their overwhelming attendance here this morning. It is an important issue for the New Democrats. For New Democrats this issue for our leader from Toronto—Danforth has been front and centre year in and year out, as we have seen governments bend to the will of inside corporate lobbyists rather than to the interests and needs of Canadians every day.

When the government first brought Bill C-30 forward, the clean air and climate change bill, and it was simply called the clean air bill in those days, that was one change we had to make quite quickly, it was dead on arrival. I remember standing in the foyer with all the media and the then environment minister who has since been replaced to much fanfare and much expectation that this bill would be the solution. This would be the silver bullet and finally some action.

As I flipped through the bill, as did other Canadians, we found that there was no serious action on climate change until the year 2040, as if we somehow had the luxury of time, the luxury to delay even further into the future.

The bill was dead on arrival. It met with no support from any other party in the House. There was no consultation with any other party in the House and there was not a single environmental group or a group of interest in the country who supported it in its measures.

I can also recall the day when the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the New Democrats, stood in his place in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister to move the bill to a special committee. I recall the Conservatives guffawing and slamming their desks and laughing and calling out names of derision.

The Prime Minister stood in his place and said, “All right. Let's let a minority Parliament do its work. Let's let a process happen whereby each party will contribute their best ideas”. It was suggested that we bring forward the best witnesses we can from across the country and that no single party would win, but the best ideas would be allowed to win. Here was a novel concept for Canadians watching politicians, one of the most derided forms of occupation that could be had in this country, that they would somehow put aside partisan interests for a moment and allow a process to go ahead where every party would be allowed to move amendments, make changes and recommendations. Lo and behold, that is what happened.

Every party in this place made recommendations to the new revised bill. Every party voted for a majority of the sections of this bill. Yet here we find ourselves. All the media and the lobbyists and members of the government said that this could not be done, saying this simply cannot be done. But we got it done. We were able to find a place of consensus where everyone got something and everyone gave up something.

It is an old adage in negotiations that a good agreement is one where everyone gives something up. That is exactly what happened when we rewrote this bill and then renamed it.

The minority government's response to this has been to simply pretend it never happened, as if Canadians did not witness this experience, as if people are uninterested in the issues that we brought forward and that all the time and money that Parliament spent in good faith rewriting this bill simply did not exist. That is simply not true.

There was all sorts of sabre rattling as we entered into the spring session with the Prime Minister ready to go to the polls and, lo and behold, his numbers slipped in those very same polls and we do not have an election.

The Conservatives scrambled about the place and brought in another green plan. They stepped up to the plate for their second opportunity and it was another dud. Not a single environmental group in the country, not a single group, is interested in this at all.

The results of moving forward and what we were able to accomplish in a new and revised clean air and climate change bill were that national housing standards have an absolute lead and national targets for the first time have been placed into law that the cabinet cannot undo.

There are industrial targets for each sector and allowing those industries to use every tool available, unlike the government's bill which restricted the use of tools available.

Air pollution standards for the first time in this country will have national standards placed in the bill. The bill provides the ability to build the best vehicles in the world, the best cars and trucks for Canadians to drive, with the lowest emissions and the highest quality. This is what Canadians expect from us and this is what we delivered.

The government should bring the bill back to the House for a fair and free democratic vote today.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, given the desire of Canadians that this Parliament meaningfully address concerns about air quality and climate change, the government should call Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, for debate and decision at Report stage and Second reading as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Victoria this morning on this most important and imperative debate.

We have seen much chicanery and seen the government playing with time. As we know, the government has chosen to reduce the hours of debate on this important topic from eight hours, which has been the tradition through most of Parliament's history, to two hours. This is a choice the government has made for--

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments with respect to the fairness of the tax policy. He is a recently arrived member, so I know that he will not recall some of the debates we have had in this House previously, but I am wondering if he could comment on seeking tax fairness in combination with the northern living allowance.

This is something that happens in some of the rural sectors of our country, but in a seemingly selective way. This bill seems to seek to redress some of the imbalances of the tax system, yet how taxes are applied in some of the more remote or far-flung regions of our country seems to be hit and miss, and it seems to be more politically motivated than it is structurally motivated in regard to changing it to a fairer and more balanced system.

My question is very specific. If the member agrees with the measures in this bill, does he also agree with the concept of taking a basket of goods, let us say, and using that as a measurement for how we allow the northern tax allowance or the rural living allowance to be decided in this country?

A number of my constituents, particularly in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii and some of the more remote communities, get frustrated and confused about why their cost of living is so much higher for transportation to services, hospitals and the like, as well as for just the basic living commodities such as home heating and food. However, a basket of goods is a way to measure where tax allowances should be made in this country rather than having some meandering political line across our country as it is right now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 14th, 2007]

That is a true shame.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his lengthy and tireless work on behalf of veterans. Year after year the member has stood in the House with great passion and conviction. I recall that even a few weeks ago in question period all members congratulated him for his support for veterans.

It seems there is a certain democratic deficit being displayed by the current regime and the Prime Minister. While in opposition the Prime Minister often spoke of the need to have the will of the House expressed and then supported by the government of the day. Yet suddenly and quickly, as quickly as a member can cross the floor or someone can be appointed to the Senate, those convictions and principles, if we can call them that, changed.

A principle is not a principle when it is tested and found wanting. That is political opportunism. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister did this, because my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is talking about our veterans. It seems to me the government seems more excited and fixated by votes on the Afghan mission, declaring triumphalism and supporting the George Bush style of tactics, than by actually supporting our veterans when they return home.

The veterans first charter that passed through the House is the most glaring example of this. That charter was supported by the House, including the Conservatives, but then the basic elements in the veterans first charter were ignored by the government. There was the program for the widows, the VIP, and there were others that my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned.

When the fixation and focus seem to go in that direction, with chest thumping, getting all excited and slamming their desks, the Conservatives are there, but they are not there when it is time to support our veterans, to put money on the table, to make sure that when they come back money is not stripped away from their disability programs and the other options we give them. It is a contract, such that when the Government of Canada asks soldiers to serve, they will be supported, both in the field of operations and upon their return home.

We have seen this in living conditions in regard to the lack of support when veterans return to their communities. The government has failed them and their families. It is truly a tragedy that the government continues to pretend to be a supporter of the military yet when the time comes for true support, when the mission is finished and our veterans' term of duty has been served, and when the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore brings this motion forward and is supported by all members of the House, the government still ignores the will of Parliament, to the detriment of not only our democracy but in particular our veterans.