Nathan Cullen

[Government Appointments, May 9th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, for more than a year and a half, the Liberals knew that we had to hire a new Chief Electoral Officer and they did nothing. For more than a year and a half, the Liberals sat on a bill to undo the worst of Stephen Harper's unfair elections act and they did nothing.

Now, with less than a year and a half to go before the next election, the Liberals are panicking. Rather than work with us, they sent us a letter a few weeks ago with just one name on it for a new Chief Electoral Officer. Then just last week, they sent us another letter with another name on it, but a different guy. Canadians want to know: what happened to the first guy?

When it comes to our democratic rights, why do Liberals have such a hard time getting the job done?

[Democratic Reform, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it was so important to the Liberals that they sat on the bill for a year and a half. They just introduced a 250-page omnibus voting bill, which is kind of ironic. Coincidentally, yesterday was also Elections Canada's deadline to pass legislation so it can run our elections fairly.

After hitting the snooze button for more than a year and a half, the Liberals are now reaching for the panic button. One would think that, after betraying his promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, the Prime Minister would have at least gotten his homework in on time.

The voting system does not belong to the Liberals; it belongs to all Canadians. My question is simple. Will the Liberals commit to cross-country hearings so that all Canadians can have their voices heard?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I actually had some hope because I have noticed a number of Conservative commentators, and some Conservative politicians, over the last number of years conceding to the idea and admitting that climate change is real, and that to put a price on carbon pollution is a realistic, and maybe even a good initiative.

I think this version of the Conservative Party may be regressing back to the norm, which happens, yet over the weekend it suggested that it can meet the Paris climate target with a plan that has not yet been articulated but it will be, one day. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is completely off its Paris commitments. I will be more than curious, as Canadians will be as well.

The member's government did promise to be open by default with information about government policies. This is a pretty big government policy. A pan-Canadian carbon price is a big deal. The Liberals certainly make a big deal out of it and it is an important thing that they have decided to enact. Talking about what the carbon price will mean is a way for Canadians to digest it, because when talking in megatonnes and parts per million, it is a difficult thing for people to grasp.

I wonder if the government would move in a direction to counter the argument that it is all negative when pricing carbon, and talk about what the cost of inaction is to the Canadian economy. What is the cost of making things worse to the Canadian economy, to coastal communities like the member's and mine? If we do not act on this, and if we continue to build pipelines, for example, what is the cost to the B.C. economy when it comes to tourism and the fisheries? If we do not act on climate change, what is the cost to our families and the families we represent?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, many folks maybe would not appreciate this, seeing the member's policies and my very different set of ideas for the country, but he and I enjoy each other's company.

We agree with the principle that the Liberals ran on, which was “open by default”, that information should be available and understandable, in terms of government policies. We think that was a laudable promise the Liberals made when they were running for office. The idea of having this information about a government policy be open is a laudable one.

Earlier today we tried to modify the Conservatives' motion to suggest that the government should also be open on the cost of inaction. We have known for many years, going all the way back to the Nicholas Stern report of 2006, when the member's party formed government, that the costs of inaction on climate change to our economy and to the communities we represent were far in excess of anything anyone was proposing around the world.

In fact, there is the benefit side that often gets overlooked when carbon is priced, especially if that pricing is able to be diverted into the solutions, making life more affordable for Canadians, whether it is home heating, as the member talked about, transportation for families, or the cost of producing energy generally.

If it is reasonable to ask the government what the cost of carbon pricing across the country is for individual families, is it not also reasonable to ask the government to come forward with the cost of inaction on those same families? Those costs are real. They affect the natural resource sector, which the member is well familiar with, the fishing sector, and people's daily lives. Things become more expensive because of inaction on the part of successive governments to properly address climate change.

[Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, April 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as this bill would predominantly affect my riding in northwestern British Columbia, and as we have been dealing with this issue for more than a generation, there is some authority in terms of the people I represent and for whom I speak.

Here is a fundamental question we have been asking for years. The northern gateway pipeline, and now the Kinder Morgan pipeline, proposed to move diluted bitumen through a pipeline to the west coast. A question we have been consistently asking of the former Conservative government and the current Liberal government is what happens when this stuff gets into water and whether they can clean it up. Diluted bitumen has different properties than traditional, conventional oil, and the best knowledge we have so far is that it cannot be cleaned up because it sinks.

Does my friend have anything to reassure us, or even assure, because no one actually has a lot of assurance right now, that in the event of a spill from a pipeline or a tanker in the ocean we have current technology that would clean up even a scintilla of the oil that actually gets into the environment?

[Natural Resources, April 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is no way he even believes that anymore.

This whole fiasco of an approval process is looking more rigged than a Russian election. The Prime Minister promised the people of Alberta a credible process. He broke that promise. He promised the people of British Columbia meaningful consultation with first nations. He broke that promise too. Many people suspected the fix was in from the beginning, that the decision had already been made, and now we have the proof from leaked papers from his own administration.

If the Prime Minister wants to regain a scintilla of trust that he once commanded in the country, will he reveal all the Kinder Morgan papers once and for all?

[The Economy, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the minister is looking so confused. He is looking for support in northern British Columbia for a pipeline that runs through the south of British Columbia.

The Liberals were warned by their own officials that rushing the consultation would land them in court. Guess where the Liberals are: in court with first nations. The Texas billionaire has called again with an ultimatum of May 31. When he says, “Jump”, the only question the Liberals have is, “How high?” To get this pipeline built on Kinder Morgan's terms, the Liberals have mused about calling in the army.

How many Canadians, how many elders and young people are the Liberals willing to arrest just to meet this Texas ultimatum?

[The Economy, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when watching the Kinder Morgan saga, a lot of Canadians are asking themselves, “How the heck did we get here?” Let us review.

First, Stephen Harper guts the environmental review process and ignores first nations consultation. Then the Liberals get elected, promising to do better and have a legitimate review. They betray that promise, and now we find out why. They got a call from the CEO of Kinder Morgan telling them to hurry up and rush the process.

Exactly who is in charge over there, a Texas billionaire or the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Natural Resources, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Kinder Morgan crisis, the Prime Minister is actually uniting the country, but not the way he thinks, because whether one is an oil worker in Alberta or an environmentalist in British Columbia, everyone can now agree that he screwed this thing up right from the very beginning. There has been no meaningful consultation with first nations, no credible environmental review, and no oil spill cleanup plan.

From the British Parliament to British Columbia, folks want to know when the Liberals are going to finally keep their promise to people on the planet.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Victoria's former provincial government, under the northern gateway pipeline project, that tried to abdicate the province's responsibility to do an environmental assessment. The reason I know this is because the Christy Clark government got sued all the way to Supreme Court and lost. The court said that it had obligations and responsibilities to the people of British Columbia to fulfill its constitutional obligations.

My friend has now moved his way up to the federal scene. It used to be that B.C. Liberals were considered to be Conservatives, but now B.C. Liberals are maybe federal Liberals. We can understand why people in British Columbia are sometimes confused as to what a Liberal is actually is. Maybe the two have merged. There is a pipeline going back and forth between the two in British Columbia at least.

My friend was in the cabinet of the government that tried to move away from its responsibility to consult with first nations, to do an environmental assessment, and were sued all the way to our highest court in the land and forced into action, at which time the Christy Clark government said that it approved it too. That was her environmental assessment of northern gateway. It did not pass muster then and that project failed.

We have such a similar circumstance here now. The only difference is we have a B.C. government that is interested in performing its constitutional responsibility and is asking the federal government to work with it to clarify each of our roles and responsibilities when it comes to energy transportation.

From his experience, would he encourage his new Liberal leader to learn from the mistakes of the past and refer to the court properly so we can have the clarity that so many people from both side of the House talk about, yet so many are unwilling to do what it takes to make that clarity come to reality?