Nathan Cullen

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Prime Minister before, laud the conditions that are attached to the approval of this project. Many of these conditions, like how they clean up a spill, are not actually followed through by the National Energy Board, as was reported in an audit by our environment commissioner. He studied many of these pipelines, asking how many of the conditions the government attaches and tells Canadians not to worry about are actually followed through on. A little less than half the conditions are actually ever followed. Anyone who is placing bets on the Liberals' assurance on these conditions should know that, given recent history, about half of them will never be implemented or used by the company.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals stand up and say that we are standing in the way of first nations' prosperity, while they are ignoring the rights and title of first nations people to be self-determinists and to make decisions for themselves, with their inherent rights and title intact, as promised in section 35 of our own Constitution. It is a section the NDP fought for, against the wishes of Trudeau senior, who did not believe that there was any need to recognize individual, and particularly first nation, rights and title. When they say to first nation people, in what has been described by their own officials as a “paternalistic” way, that this is the way forward, that we do not have to acknowledge or take into full account the rights and title of first nation people, does he not understand that it continues the colonial spirit that has so often undermined the full value and potential of this country?

Of course, there are first nation people interested in this project, as there are first nation people opposed. However, one does not get to selectively quote and then say that the problem must be a wash. That is not how rights work. Rights work in our courts and in our fundamental belief in the inherent strength of our Constitution. We either believe in it or we do not. We do not get to selectively choose which part and who speaks for it. That is why the B.C. government has backed up that first nation claim. That is why the Prime Minister, who claims to believe in UNDRIP, should be doing the same thing, as opposed to what he is doing right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate, which is an emergency debate, as many have called this situation with the Kinder Morgan proposal a crisis. For many Canadians, it does represent a crisis. Actually, from both sides, if we want to take at least two sides of the issue, it is a crisis.

For those who are in Alberta and in the energy sector seeking to move product to market, particularly Asian markets, this represents a crisis of uncertainty and frustration with a process that was promised to be different. This actually unites them with the people on the other side of this issue, who were promised a better process and more clarity about rights and title for indigenous Canadians, about protection for our environment, and about some understanding of how the environment and the economy go together, which the Liberals constantly talk about.

I represent northwestern British Columbia, and for many of the people I represent this is a movie they have seen before. When northern gateway was first proposed, it met with stiff and consistent resistance, as the voices of those who had legitimate questions about the project and about the safety of our rivers and our ocean environment were rejected and refused. They were not allowed to testify. In fact, they were called, by their own government, enemies of the state and foreign-funded radicals. Do we hear some similar rhetoric brewing up again, that those who dare to ask questions or pose significant concerns over something that potentially threatens their lives and communities are somehow un-Canadian?

Now, the Liberals came in on a promise to do better than Stephen Harper. When it comes to the environment in particular, that does not seem like it would be all that hard to do. When Stephen Harper was in office, he gutted some of our most fundamental environmental protections, which had existed for decades. The bar was set very low. He put in place climate change targets that the Liberals called ridiculous and unsatisfactory, the same climate targets that the Liberals cannot even meet now, and the environmental process that these pipelines were going through rejected the claims of first nations and ignored significant and basic concerns.

I say to my colleague and friend, the natural resources minister, that he and his government cannot answer a question such as whether bitumen sinks when it hits salt water or fresh water, and how, for God's sake, one cleans it up if it does. They cannot answer that question. They could not answer it when northern gateway was proposed in northern British Columbia. They still cannot answer it, years later, when they are pushing their Kinder Morgan project forward in the south of British Columbia.

How dare the premier of my province pose such questions? In the event of an oil spill like the Kalamazoo spill, or an accident on the sea like that of Nathan E. Stewart, or the one that happened in Vancouver harbour, where it took 14 hours to find booms, when my premier asks how exactly we clean up an oil spill when it hits our coastline, that is his jurisdictional responsibility as a premier. Does everyone believe in the rule of law? Yes, we do. Is it the premier's responsibility to protect that on behalf of British Columbians? Yes, it is. Would the Liberals like to go to the Supreme Court and clarify that? No, they would not. “Let us not clarify those questions," say the Liberals, because they believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, except for the parts they do not want to observe and acknowledge.

We find this frustrating, because this new bitumen proposal would move almost 900,000 barrels to our coast, with 12 new pump stations, 19 storage units, and a 700% increase in oil tanker traffic through a place we all recognize as a precious and important part of the world. It is as if, when British Columbians stand for place and pride of place and home, they are somehow less Canadian. To my Alberta friends and colleagues, to my family from Alberta, we understand pride of home, defence of family, and hope for the future. That is exactly the same conversation we are having in British Columbia.

The Prime Minister, who came in on the hope and aspiration to unite and not divide, says that of course the Liberals would rather do it with the provincial government, but they will do it whether the provincial government likes it or not. His minister says that they will not tolerate opposition in the House of Commons. They would rather work with the provinces, but if not, they are going to do it anyway.

The Liberals say that they believe in the rights and title of first nations individuals. However, when the Minister of Natural Resources himself gets a briefing in January from his own department that tells him that consultations with first nations in British Columbia have been “paternalistic”, “inadequate”, and “unrealistic”, the Liberals are suddenly surprised that they are in court with first nations over this little tack-on consultation process. Some of the first nation communities were not notified until after the consultation had moved through their communities. This was the consultation process, and this is what is being challenged in court.

I have news for the Liberals. They are going to lose that challenge. The Delgamuukw, Haida, Sparrow, and Tsilqhot'in have tested this question time and time again. Governments in Canada insist on relearning the lesson over and over again and somehow blame first nations for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is the government and the Liberal Prime Minister who said that there is no more important relationship to Canada than that with Canada's first nations people. I challenge that. I do not believe him anymore. I did believe him at one point.

When asked specifically on tape what he would do with the Kinder Morgan project, the Prime Minister said the review would be redone. Two and half years later, we have omnibus environmental legislation that has somehow unified environmentalists, oil activists, and first nations in their dislike of this bill. Congratulations, there is some unity bone within the Conservatives. I mean the Liberals. Excuse me. I am confused tonight as I watch them violently agree with one another as to who is the best promoter of a project that has significant and real consequences, significant and real risks that the people of British Columbia face on behalf of all Canadians. All Canadians like coming out to B.C. The Prime Minister loves to surf. My Alberta family loves to fish. We love welcoming Canada to British Columbia and our beautiful coast. We love talking about how much British Columbia has to offer.

This question of reconciliation, a word that falls so easily from the lips of the Prime Minister but is so rarely enacted with any kind of meaning or effectiveness, is frustrating to people in British Columbia, because we believed him when he said he would redo the process. We believed him when he said the government would set more ambitious climate targets. We believed him when he said he was going to work to unite the provinces, not seek to divide. He is actually making the claim that by posing significant questions about an oil pipeline, the Premier of British Columbia is somehow ruining the climate change program of the country. Only in Canada could an oil pipeline for almost 900,000 barrels a day be vital to a climate change program. Only in Canada could the Prime Minister stand up to a premier who was duly elected on the promise to raise these questions and to raise the voices of British Columbians. We have a country and a situation in which we are somehow less than.

This question goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. If we want to do better and achieve what we set out to do to bring the country together and finally and fully reconcile with first nations people, then we have to listen. They should not list off the number of meetings and then ignore what people said. They should not list off the word “consultation” over and over again, yet not abide by the serious concerns or address and answer legitimate and important questions put to the government.

It is our coast, and we will defend it. If the government has any doubt in its mind about the seriousness, diligence, and determination of the people of British Columbia, it is beginning to find out. I ask it to not find out any more and to listen and refer the question to the Supreme Court. Work with the Premier of British Columbia, stop bullying him, and understand that when we stand up for our coast and for future generations, we are standing up for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share similar passions as my friend when I talk about home, about families that we represent, and the hopes and ambitions we have for ourselves and our children. One of the hopes and ambitions people had when they looked at the Liberal offer in the last election was a very specific one when it came to this project.

The Prime Minister, when asked directly, and it is on tape and everyone can see it, if Kinder Morgan would have to go through a new and enhanced environmental assessment process because the general consideration under his government was that the environmental assessment regime in Canada had been so eroded that so many of the important and necessary tools to judge whether a project was safe or not had been taken out by the Stephen Harper government, the now Prime Minister, then candidate, said yes, that it would go through a new process.

One of the key elements for the people whom I represent was around the notion of cleaning up a potential spill, which we all have to contemplate. The product we are talking about today is diluted bitumen. My question is very simple. Is my friend aware of our capacity today, 2018, to clean up a diluted bitumen spill in a river or in an ocean environment? What percentage would be the expectation of a cleanup under such an event?

[Natural Resources, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last year the people of British Columbia elected a government truly committed to our coast. More than two years ago, the Liberal government promised to completely redo Stephen Harper's failed assessment of the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. However, because the Liberals broke that promise, the people of B.C. have taken to the streets and to the courts to defend our beautiful coast and our legal rights.

However, it is not just the Prime Minister who is betraying that commitment. Every single Liberal MP elected from B.C. broke that promise too. My question is simple. Is there just one B.C. Liberal MP who has the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister? Is there just one who will stand with British Columbians—

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I looked forward to the budget to find out where the Liberal Party stood. One of the questions was around the general sense of integrity, a promise made. It seemed we had to drag the Liberals to their promise of lowering the small business tax. For those who know their parliamentary history in debates over this issue, it was first proposed by Jack Layton and resoundingly rejected, until it was accepted by the Liberals as a good policy. We are always happy to lend good ideas to the Liberals to see if they will actually implement them.

Another promise was to close the stock option loophole. This was something the NDP proposed. We brought a motion forward in Parliament. The Liberals supported it and then campaigned on it. Canadians may not be familiar with this, because the vast majority of Canadians do not use stock option loopholes to avoid paying taxes, most of the people in the middle class or those working hard to join it, as the Prime Minister used to be fond of saying, have never encountered or enjoyed the privilege of stock options as their source of income, where they then pay a much lower tax threshold.

We proposed, in the last campaign, the idea of closing that loophole, and the Liberals eventually supported it. It is between $800 million and a billion dollars a year as forgone revenue from the government and shows very little economic benefit. My friend talked about opportunities and economic benefit. The Liberals promised to do this. The Liberals have said, as the Prime Minister did just recently, that we cannot fully support veterans because we simply do not have the means to do it. We cannot support more seniors, to lift them out of poverty, because the government says we do not have the means.

If the Liberals thought this was such a good idea that they campaigned on it, all as individual MPs in their ridings, and the finance minister said he was into it, where is it in the budget and why did they not do it?

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is a curious debate. We are talking about parental leave and opportunities for women and men in the current economic context. A Liberal points out that they need to bring in this program to allow women to stay at work, and perhaps the father could take paternity leave, because of pay equity realities and the lack of pay equity in this country. The Conservatives argue against that philosophy, and the Liberals argue that philosophy.

One would maybe look to the budget to see what the Liberals have done about pay equity, if that is the problem, which they admit and identify. There is nothing in the budget to address pay equity in Canada, where women do not receive equal pay for equal work. There is not even money to study the issue, which was the most basic request from the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Liberals identify the problem but do not want to do anything about it. The Conservatives do not identify the problem at all and say it is all about choice. Canadian women are wondering where they are actually going to get someone to put legislation forward to make it illegal to pay women less than they pay men for equal work of equal value.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose some Canadians may have been looking for affordable child care or pay equity in this budget, because they were promised that by the Liberals.

However, one of the things Canadians did not anticipate at the time of the last federal election in Canada, although a few of us did, is that we would have Donald Trump as President of the United States. Now that it is the reality, one of the expectations of this budget was that the so-called “plan B” would be unveiled with respect to what would happen if a trade war were to be initiated by our largest trading partner. The budget has an anticipation quality to it. It lays out the plan for the next year. We have seen the threat and then the temporary withdrawal of major tariffs on aluminum and steel by the Trump administration. However, I have not checked Twitter in the last five minutes, so they could be back on the table. We do not know. That is what we are dealing with.

Obviously that is not within the control of the federal government in Canada. However, what is in its control is support for those industries that are particularly threatened by a volatile president sitting in the White House. There is no contemplation with respect to what would happen if NAFTA were to be abrogated or torn up by that president and Canada was only left with the free trade agreement between the two of us.

The lack of planning is the concern. Many thought the budget would present what that plan B would look like. I am wondering if my friend, in the 300 pages of the budget, was able to find what the Liberal plan B is, if our trading relationship were to fundamentally change with our largest trading partner, the U.S.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, over many years, probably decades now, wonderful things have been said in the House about the importance of an issue like pay equity. We have pay equity here in Parliament. Every MP is paid an equal amount regardless of gender, yet we do not have pay equity legislation that exists across the country.

My friend's party, I would argue, has never been a champion for pay equity legislation. The Conservatives had many years in office, both the previous administration and prior ones, but did not move the needle forward. The Liberal government came in with much promise to do something about this for women who, on average, are making 75¢ on the dollar for what a man does for equal work. These are the statistics we have, and my friend can argue alternate facts, but the reality for many women in the workplace right now doing the same job as a man will, on average, is that they will be paid less.

Here is the opportunity for the federal government, who alone has this power, to regulate federally directed industries, telecoms, the banking sector, and other jurisdictions. Now, this allegedly feminist Prime Minister said, “I got this.” He put hand on heart and told Canadian women and men that the Liberals were going to do something about it. The natural course two and half years into the government to do this, the vehicle, was the budget. However, not only did the Liberals not do anything to legislate pay equity, they did not even fund a pay equity commission to get to legislating pay equity.

Can we at some point get to a confirmed and unified position in this House that legislation directing federally regulated industries to require equal pay for equal work for men and women become the law in Canada, yes or no?

[The Budget, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her speech. It is always good to try to find the good within the not so great to start with.

I think that the government's final decision to admit there is a funding gap between first nations children and non-first nations children is important, and that the gap will then be filled so Canadian kids are given an equal opportunity regardless of who they are. This affects the place where I come from very much, northwestern British Columbia, which has 35% or 38% first nations. The disparity between opportunities for young people is stark, and it manifests in many ways.

The government has committed to filling that gap so that kids have equal opportunity, but it will not tell us what the gap is. There is a commitment to doing something, but without telling us what that commitment will look like is important, because there have been so many broken promises over the years, as members and first nations people know all too well.

My specific question to my friend is, now that the government has committed to filling the gap so it is equal for all, will the government simply tell us what the gap is so we can hold it accountable, and first nations families and all Canadians can know whether it succeeded or failed in keeping this promise?