Nathan Cullen

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague. But first, I want to say that it is difficult for me to speak French, but I will do my best.

The people of Montreal have elected no one on the government side. However, because a need existed, the Prime Minister had to provide someone an opportunity to be a cabinet member.

I would like to hear the hon. member on that. There was a movement in Montreal, saying that it was necessary for the Prime Minister to have someone as a voice in government. The system has allowed someone to be appointed to the Senate, but that person does not sit here, in the House. That person cannot take part in debates or discussions or interact with other members.

Is that acceptable to the people of Quebec?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have always appreciated the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on such issues.

I need to follow up on the glass houses and stone throwing that I watched a little earlier in this place. No member of the New Democratic Party, as a principle, sits in caucus and in the Senate. This measure of accountability, and it is a stretch to call it that, in terms of placing an unelected person first into that other place and then into cabinet, while there might have been some process that the Liberals and former Conservatives have used in the past, I do not understand why he is able to associate himself to that in clear conscience knowing that is not an accountable house.

I have had many discussions with him and his colleagues about the lack of accountability and success that place has had in directing this country and having any bearing on the public policy or debate that goes on in this country, such as the effectiveness every once in a while of gophers popping their heads up and complaining about the GST or some other thing.

The idea that such a vital department as his is to be represented by somebody to whom I am unable to ask an accountable question on the floor of the House of Commons, the place where the Canadian people are represented, I still cannot square the circle and understand how that represents anything other than a moment of hypocrisy in this accountability push.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on the tome that we are now debating. I would like him to explore a couple of places where I did not hear much commentary and that is with respect to access to information.

We spent time on the environment committee last year trying to understand the plans of the government of the day around climate change. We are unfortunately in the same scenario now. We are left with no plans whatsoever from the current government other than some George Bush inspired made in Canada plan.

When I look through this massive document with all sorts of opportunity and extensive consultation that the parliamentary secretary referred to, the access to information component of this proposal is so thin as to be insulting. Many of those groups that were consulted by the government have publicly declared since the issuance of this bill that the access to information is not substantive, is not substantial enough in order to find out the information that MPs need to do their work, that average citizens need to strengthen their requests for information from the government, and not receive those requests back as we did under his former government, unfortunately, with massive blackouts in the documents. There was a great inability to actually access the information required to make sound judgments about the way the government was heading.

Canadians need to know whether he and his party support the level and depth of access to information reforms that are listed here or not.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings great credibility and integrity to the House. It seems to me that in the somewhat self-congratulatory tone that was taken in terms of the previous government's actions on accountability, we are having this debate because of the reprehensible actions of the previous government. We had scenes in Quebec that led Canadians to disparage the will and direction of the nation that were done on behalf of his party and it needs to be recognized in this debate.

I have a specific point with respect to this bill. It concerns the lobbyist aspect in which lobbyists are meant to note and keep track of meetings and phone calls, but omits one of the most common forms of communication in this place and others, which is e-mail through BlackBerries and other means. I wonder if the intention of the government is true to actually have some exposure and transparency in the way that lobbyists communicate with members in this place. Could he comment as to why something like e-mail has been left out of the mix?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the bill, which is such a weighty matter before the House in both substance and ideas. I have two central questions for the hon. member with respect to how his government intends to enact the bill.

First, in calling it the accountability act, one would imagine that accountability to voters would be of pre-eminence in the government's mind, that the sacred trust we hold in the act of voting in an election has some merit and meaning for the new government. Yet when I cast through the 317 clauses, I cannot find one that addresses the notion of floor-crossing, the notion of accountability to the constituents and voters, who cast their ballots, in that most sacred act. Could the minister comment on its noticeable absence? It seems to me that if one wants to be accountable and wants to present an accountability act to the Canadian people, who we all intend to serve in this place, why is that absent?

The second issue is around fiscal accounting. There is the creation of a number of officers, offices and positions within government. How much will this cost? How much has the government accounted for and put aside for the implementation of the act and what are the Canadian taxpayers expected to pay for its implementation?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is most impressive in its size and breadth. It calls upon the government to stop pillaging the employment insurance fund for other purposes and to actually have a fund that works for average working Canadians and their families.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. One demands that the government set up at long last a recycling program for the automobiles that are manufactured in this country. As we head into talks around climate change this seems most apropos for us to finally have an auto strategy.

[Youth Entrepreneurship, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for far too long our young people have been forced to leave their northern homes and families, not because they want to but because there is an overwhelming lack of good jobs and training opportunities. As we send our best and brightest to points south, we also export our future. I have committed myself to helping reverse this trend. Together with key economic partners like the credit unions and community futures development corporations, we have come up with a program intended to encourage our youth to stay and flourish in the northwest of British Columbia.

I would like to talk about Daron Miller, a 22-year-old owner and operator of Clarity Communications, who sells, installs and repairs VHF mobile radios that are critical to safety in the logging industry. Daron was the first winner of the Youth Entrepreneurship Award, which will provide 10 $1,000 awards to young people in communities across the northwest.

The YEA embodies a new sense of optimism that is emerging in northwestern British Columbia and which must be fostered. We are turning the corner and northerners, especially young northerners, need even more programs like the YEA to ensure that they can prosper in their home communities.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in a brief reply, the Auditor General, through the commissioner of the environment, has noted a number of times the government's addiction to announcements. However, it is gone, in her words, before the confetti has hit the floor. It is almost like a child with attention deficit disorder who cannot seem to focus long enough on an issue to see it through to the end of the day and to its proper conclusion.

I suggest the first nations issues as well as the environment and many others are very similar to this.