Nathan Cullen

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in his last example, the member used a curious example of the sale and transaction of a home. I have just come from meetings involving the sale of a Crown corporation in my riding, Ridley Terminals, which is happening under increasingly suspicious terms. We cannot gain access to the government's handling of this very important file which is creating all sorts of uncertainty. All the while, the distinction does not seem to be made for the government between what is a private transaction, which is the sale of the hon. member's home, and the use of public funds in a transparent and open process. We cannot pry from the government the information required.

We heard testimony after testimony from the Information Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner. Thank goodness for Ms. Fraser's diligence in pursuing what was blown open by opposition parties and the sponsorship scandal that came from it to show the Canadian public what was happening with their tax dollars.

Why after 12 years does the hon. member and others in the party talk about that sense of urgency they have toward transparency when they have had more than a decade in which to create that transparency? Why after so much time are Canadians meant to believe that in cases like the sale of the Ridley Terminal or other cases that have gone on before the government, they should have any faith in the government's sincerity and not believe just PMO rhetoric?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for deviating so wildly from his prepared notes but I need him to address a couple of specific items when we are talking about this, as we move forward to COP 11, this important international debate.

The government took a report from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, a report that was endorsed by members of his own party, and took the maximum allotted time to respond. It must have diligently been going through its response. It responded by refusing, refuting and denying just about every recommendation the committee made.

The committee went through the issue of climate change witness by witness over a number of months. We devoted most of our time during the last sitting to make some very concrete proposals. We negotiated out from the different parties and interests across the country, along with members from all four corners of the House, and the government took the report and said, “Thanks anyway but no thanks”.

The government is now going to move over to the international stage in Montreal hoping to have some sort of ability to criticize other countries and yet, even in our own internal documents, the Auditor General and others, we are failing on our climate change plan.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I hope the government finally has a response to a point I raised on the government's record on the environment. When I raised the David Suzuki report with the environment minister, which placed Canada near the bottom of the pile yet again with the OECD, the response by the minister was quite remarkable. He said that I could not list one promise that he had not kept since he had been in office.

The whole time of this current Parliament, there have been two bills on the environment, one old bill moving Parks Canada and another bill on shipping, which has received a lot of controversy. That is it.

We have a Kyoto plan with no targets applied to it. We have had no emission requirements in an auto plan. All of it is voluntary and all of it falling in the wake of the progressive moves on the part of the government of California.

In terms the government keeping its promises, so few promises have been made when it comes to the environment. No wonder the minister can stand up and say what he did with a straight face.

Next we have COP 11. I hope the parliamentary secretary is able to address some serious concerns that the Government of Canada should have as it approaches COP 11 in Montreal. This is a meeting of the parties that have signed on to Kyoto. The world is coming together to watch Canada potentially embarrass itself. While the government likes to chastize George Bush at every opportunity, on this particular front the embarrassment of our record when it comes to the environment is second to none.

One would hope the government will first apologize and humbly seek the world's forgiveness for having made so many commitments. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will clarify this. As the Auditor General has said, the government has a particular affection for making announcements, but is usually out the door before the confetti hits the ground and does not follow through on those announcements and commitments.

How can we stand with any credibility on the world stage, calling upon other governments to get serious about things as important as climate change? Across the board, the industrial sector and on has said that this is one of the most important, if not the most important pressing issue for world security, for our environment and for our economy. We would hope the government will not be laughed out of the place. This would be rather embarrassing because Montreal is the environment minister's hometown. I am not sure where he would go, potentially back to Ottawa.

Water has been a critical issue in this House. I hope the parliamentary secretary will also address this, although I am getting suspicious now that I see prepared notes.

With respect to not having a national standard for water quality, this weekend the Minister of Health, somehow with some credibility, lamented in the British Columbia press that there was no national standard for water quality, that it was a travesty and that it was impossible to believe. It was as if someone else were in charge, as if someone else had held the pen on all this for the last dozen years or so, looking potentially to shift the blame. Perhaps the minister has forgotten he is no longer in opposition in the midst of a credible party, but now sits in government in a party that has no credibility on water issues.

The pivot of the question is focused around the government's ability to stand up with any sense of credibility on an issue like the environment. The environment minister's answer was vague and unpromising as always. I hope the parliamentary secretary will deviate from those well prepared notes and answer some of the concerns that we raise.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I think the member confuses an announcement with actual work done. Being in office for 13 years, the opportunity existed for true investment in that region but it was neglected.

Some few parliamentary weeks before an election, the government suddenly sees the light of day and expects everyone to slap it on the back for it. It leads one to a certain level of cynicism and it supports the findings of the Auditor General that the government is much more interested in announcements than it is in actually doing the work to set the economy back on its feet.

If the hon. member expects me to be not critical of the government for introducing a bill so late in the session, with so few details, where there is the potential of a huge patronage appointment set up within the bill, then he has another thing coming.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague also fails drastically on specifics. He mentioned some former members of the House that represented the region, ignoring that in the short tenure that the NDP has had in this region, it has achieved more economic stimulus and federal investment dollars than at any time in the prior 12 years.

It has been successful in finally attracting the investment that the stakeholders in the region of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and other regions have called for. They said they needed the federal government to show up with a portion of investment, $30 million, to make the container port a possibility and that arrived. The NDP delivered after 11 years of Conservative, Reform, Alliance, or whatever the flavour of the month at the time. Mr. Burton had five incantations while in office, which is an extraordinary number of different parties to represent all at the same time.

The member mentioned another former member of this place who represented the constituents of his riding, 30% of which are first nations. Yet he stood in the House day after day after day condemning the Nisga'a agreement from a party that also spoke against the Tlicho agreement and first nations finally coming to some resolution on the land terms.

I sat with a bunch of mining investors and major company officials from the mining sector some weeks ago. They stated factually that until first nations rights and titles are settled on the land base, it makes investment in the northwest of British Columbia, in a serious way, a near impossibility. Yet, for almost a dozen years there were members from that corner of the House representing a view that was contrary to the interests of first nations and contrary to the interests of people in my region.

It is very difficult for me to stand and actually offer any sort of credibility to that line of questioning while we have just begun to finally turn this economy around in the northwest and Skeena—Bulkley Valley. All the key economic indicators from key economic groups within B.C. are pointing to a resurgence in the northwest of British Columbia.

I do not expect the member opposite to offer any credit to the NDP finally having pushed those issues in our region. I do not expect to take all the credit because there has been hard work by many people in this region, but for him to stand and suggest that I do not fight for the interests of my region, perhaps we need to have another conversation after this debate.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the government has brought in legislation, at a very suspicious time in our electoral process, with little to no hope of it getting passed through. It raises a suspicion of electioneering at a time when the west coast of Canada needs sound investment and a sound strategy to actually achieve the status on international trade that we have talked about in this place for many years but have done little to support.

The Pacific gateway strategy, Bill C-68, which has been a long time coming and which was thrown together and presented on the west coast with little chance of making it through this House, leads one to all levels of suspicion. While the intent of the bill is perhaps good, the timing erodes any confidence that Canadians should have in the government's attempt to, as the Prime Minister put it, finally end western alienation as a mark of his prime ministership. I would suggest that once again he has failed the west coast, British Columbians and Canadians in general.

With respect to the vitality of these ports and shipping routes, few Canadians realize that shipping a product from central Canada or the United States via the northern route, in particular, through the Port of Prince Rupert, is three days shorter than any other known route on the continent right now. In terms of saving time, energy and money for Canadian businesses and for our American partners who want to join with us in manufacturing, this is the route to go and yet for almost three decades the Port of Prince Rupert has had to struggle to get the attention that we finally got by, I would suggest, potentially electing a New Democrat to the region, enabling the government to pay some attention, at long last, to invest in the container port in Prince Rupert. Now we have Bill C-68, which is too little too late.

I previously asked the minister what interest he had in participating in the region where much of this line through this so-called Pacific gateway will pass, a region that has been plagued by the boom and bust cycle of much of the resourced-based economies in Canada, the inability to attract the proper investment for secondary manufacturing, the inability to attract the political will to solve some of the problems that affect the region, the province and, as such, the entire country. I would point to the softwood lumber dispute, bugwood and a number of other issues that the government has found a way to ignore in its time in office.

Infrastructure in British Columbia has been neglected for a number of years. Report after report has shown us that. Whether it is the infrastructure in the lower mainland, whether it is some of the transportation around the province or the main corridors of transportation, such as the one we are talking about today through the northwest of British Columbia, we know that neglect has held Canadian productivity back and has held our ability back to truly access the Asian markets in a meaningful way.

The bill was introduced late, without a lot of specifics but with a lot of fanfare. The Auditor General recently handed down a report that the government has a penchant and excitement for announcements but is often gone before the confetti hits the floor. The actual rolling out of its decisions and strategies is a long time in coming, if we ever see them at all.

The actions this past year in the Port of Vancouver by the Trucking Associations and independent truckers show how susceptible the facilities are and how close we are with our transportation in this country to near and total shutdown. The government is unwilling to step in and start to make the investments and alleviate some of the problems that are happening in our transportation corridor. In a heartbeat we could lose that connection to the rest of the world. One of the key advantages we have in British Columbia and in this country is our incredible and close access to some of the greatest and strongest growing markets in the world.

As we explore these markets, what is also seemingly to be absent is that when our trade delegations are here in Canada, before leaving for places like China, they are strong on the human rights and environmental front and yet when they arrive in Asia Pacific, when they arrive in China, nought is to be seen. There is no improvement on the human rights issue within China. There is no official talk and calling into question the human rights abuses that go on.

A Chinese state-owned firm run by a Communist, a completely non-transparent government, recently made a proposition to buy the Noranda Company in Canada, one of our major resource companies, with nary a word of concern in the House from the government benches.

We have opened the doors to 11,500 foreign acquisitions and counting without one concept that one of those deals may actually have been bad for the people of Canada. What an incredible string of good luck. The government is suggesting that acquisition after acquisition by foreign companies, and in this case, a Communist foreign government, our government's wide open door policy is in listening to Bay Street rather than main street, reigns supreme again.

In terms of transportation, we are the only G-8 country that has no long term sustainable national highways program. We do not see the concept of actually investing strategically in our highway systems to improve on efficiency and lower some of the pollution and congestion that Canadians face every day. The government has had no real interest for 13 years and counting, unfortunately, in developing a strategy and engaging the provinces and the municipalities that are in such desperate need. Instead it makes announcements, such as the gas tax rebate, that are gone before the confetti hits the floor. We wait for the details but they never come.

The United States just committed $270 billion to improving its highway system. In Canada the silence is deafening as to how we are going to improve the efficiency and the capacity of our transportation system.

As many of the previous speakers have pointed out, the bill is very short on details . It contains broad sweeping terms about a strategy, as if somehow the idea of Asian markets and moving Canadian goods to Asian markets is new to the government, so it should set up committees to look at where the investments should be.

After so many years in office, after so many articles written and after so many delegations, team Canada trips, et cetera, now the Liberals introduce a bill to the Canadian people that is short on specifics with some notion of setting up a committee with a budget of something like $35 million to, I assume, take trips. We are meant to believe that appointments to the committee will be based on merit. I suggest that one of the key merits will be, among others, participation in the Liberal Party of Canada.The record of the government in terms of appointing people through the patronage system is deplorable at best.

The confidence we are meant to feel in the committee that will be in charge of the $35 million budget initially and then in an increased budget of $400 million in deciding where the funding spending is actually going, will be anything but transparent. It will be anything but an ethical progress through putting good decision makers in key roles to help this country. I will be very curious as to what the expenditures of the committee are going to be to rack up $7 million, particularly if there is any patronage involved whatsoever.

Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the region I represent, is the terminus point for this investment. The plans for the container port and many other port facilities within the region are the first spark of hope in a region that has experienced a loss of almost half of the population of the city. It experienced 20% and upwards unemployment rates which is absolutely devastating. It is devastating not just on the economic front, but on the social front, on the community's cohesion and on the ability to raise children in the confidence they will be able to progress through their entire education in one place. All of that has been put under threat over the last number of years. Now we have a spark of hope that this community can raise its head with confidence and pride and march forward.

The question is whether the government is willing to participate with all the other communities down the line in northwestern British Columbia who have experienced equally, if not worse, economic conditions. I was recently in Hazelton, British Columbia, a very small, beautiful, picturesque town that has consistently had upwards of 80% unemployment over the last seven years, numbers that are staggering, incomprehensible to most Canadians, and yet these people have been surviving in whatever way they could over the last number of years and now the opportunity arrives of a major corridor passing through.

My office has been working with community groups to help coordinate the conversation that has been long overdue. If this container port proceeds, which it will, and if this major transportation corridor receives the investment from the federal coffers that it should, how will communities like Hazelton benefit? How is it that they will finally start to diversify their economy? How is it that their children will start to feel that sense of hope that they can potentially live, thrive and survive in this community and potentially raise their own families and start to create that growth that is so desperately needed in a region that has just gone through boom after bust after boom after bust?

During the take note debate on the softwood lumber dispute last week the government rattled its sabre again and said how NAFTA should be respected. The Conservative Party's solution was to send a special envoy, its solution to a debate that has raged on while our American counterparts refuse to accept the deal that they signed.

The residents in my region are wondering at what point the government will get serious about the softwood lumber dispute. My constituents want the government to use the tools that we know will bring that issue home to the voters in the United States, which will then bring that issue home to the Congress and the Senate to actually get the Bush administration moving toward some sort of fairness. The U.S. government claims fairness but never moves toward it.

Instead we get the suggestion of a special envoy from the Conservatives, a vague notion of something that has little or no consequence in the circles of power in Washington. From the Liberal Party of Canada, the party that is supposed to be championing this, we get radio addresses rattling the swords but no actual concrete action to end this travesty in our trade relations.

The mountain pine beetle has been absolutely crushing to the economy of the interior of British Columbia and the northwest region of British Columbia. This infestation now has the potential to move over the Rocky Mountains into the boreal forests and perhaps it finally will get the attention in this place that it deserves. To truly diversify these economies that have been affected by bugwood they will need major investments.

These are proud and hard-working people who simply want the tools to facilitate their own growth and future prosperity. These people are not looking for handouts or government largesse. They want to do the work to put their communities back on their feet and get moving but they need the attention of the government which has focused other ways.

We saw a collapse in the sockeye fishery earlier this year, an industry that is increasingly important to the people on the west coast, but the government was not present on the issue. We made some small suggestions in order to keep the boats on the water for next season. Hope springs eternal in the mind of the fishing fleet in British Columbia despite the continued mismanagement of the fishery by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The government was completely absent from the issue. It paid no attention whatsoever in any meaningful kind of way. We are seeking local control of that fishery. We have proposed a number of options so the government can save some face. These options that would allow the people of the northwest to realize the prosperity that they need.

At some point we must decide as a nation, and I think my region is actually representative of this, to no longer simply be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. As a nation we need to make those key investments that our counterparts in the other developed nations of the world have continuously made over the last number of decades.

We can no longer rely on a low Canadian dollar and high commodity prices. We need to build together as a nation the investments that are required for those communities to rise up and to avoid the boom and bust cycles that are absolutely devastating to these small towns and communities right across the country. We need to make the investments that make sense.

Will there be an on and off ramp on this major highway going to the Asia Pacific and the mid-west and mid-eastern United States and Canada? Will there be access and opportunity? When I asked the minister this question I received a vague answer, which is similar to the bill. He said, “We encourage...it is interesting...of some note”. We need specifics.

The people of western Canada, of British Columbia, of central and eastern Canada, of Quebec and the Maritimes needed specifics. They needed to know that the government was moving and progressing toward a very specific and concrete strategy to get this off the ground. After 13 years in power it is as if the government just woke up to the idea that trade with Asia was important enough to invest in key and critical places, rather than setting up a potential patronage committee of five to seven members who will be making recommendations over some years. All of this is in a bill that was introduced a few weeks before the House rises for the Christmas break and potential prorogation, if one were to listen to the rumours flying about this place, but with no serious intent of the legislation being passed.

The government made no serious attempt to introduce the legislation at a time when this could have seen the light of day and could have come before this House for a vote. The committee could then have had enough time to hear the witnesses and experts to find out whether the bill was too vague or whether it was strong enough to actually support the investment.

I asked the minister some specific questions on security measures that are important to the port of Prince Rupert. It has been asking, for a number of months, that the investments made by the different investors in Canada and North America would be held secure, that security would be held on a level playing field with the other ports in Canada. Again, I received a vague answer back. It is very disconcerting and very difficult for those people in the northwest of British Columbia to feel confidence.

We are talking about the diversification of our economy and the inclusion of the communities in a meaningful way. I will be calling upon the government to support the efforts in the northwest for the communities to actually participate. They could help design this project and help design the container port and the routes that CN is building, so that they may actually access this and receive the investments from the massive EI surplus that the government sloughs every year into general revenue.

This remains a disgrace and a blight in this country. It remains an issue that absolutely cuts to the heart of where the interests actually lie, whether it is fairness for employees and employers or is some sort of piggybank that the government can keep going back to while regions like Hazelton, Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Terrace suffer without the proper investments that were collected on their behalf to ensure that the education and training would be there for them when it is needed.

We need to actually attract those manufacturing facilities, those secondary manufacturing places, so that the resources that we have--and we often forget that the resources are ours. There is a mantra in British Columbia politics right now that is not a right or a left; it is a debate about who these resources actually belong to, the water, the minerals, the wood of this country. Who do they belong to? Do they belong to a multinational firm making a bid on it or do they belong to the people of Canada? Do they belong to every resident within this country?

If the government actually acted that way when it was dealing with foreign acquisitions and dealing with foreign governments in attracting that type of investment, a pride would be present in those negotiations and a confidence that all Canadians would feel about this endowment, this blessing that we have, to be born in this country with the resources that are available to us. We do not want an open-door policy where a come one, come all, lowest bidder, lowest common denominator will have access to everything that we have been endowed with.

This has to fundamentally change. We need to address our trading partners. We need to look to foreign governments that have an interest in participating here with a certain sense of confidence that there is something here that they want. If there is something here that they want, they must negotiate with us on our terms. They must be willing to negotiate with us on human rights issues. They must be willing to negotiate with us on environmental standards.

Perhaps the government has a certain level of shame in this and does not want to bring an issue like human rights to the table because we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister condemning the new Iranian president's comments on Israel while at the same time deporting people to that very same government, participating with the United States and deporting people to places like Syria.

What record do we have to stand on when it comes to the environment, when report after report comes out locating Canada near the bottom of the pack when it comes to the performance of developed countries? Perhaps the government feels a certain amount of shame, then, bringing up those issues with our foreign competitors and our foreign partners. Maybe we finally hit upon the reason why they are often exempt from this discussion in any kind of a meaningful way.

The timing of this is suspect. I looked through the bill and the first nations consultation is near to absent. There is one small place for first nations and 30% of the people in my riding are first nations. The courts have spoken time and time again about the need to consult in a meaningful dialogue with first nations prior to any major development, any major action happening within their territory and yet, when I look through this bill, it is near to absent.

When I talk about first nations representatives within my region, they are considered at the very end of the process, as opposed to up front in a meaningful way. It seems the government has a hard time catching up with some of the fundamental decisions that have been made in this land, Sparrow, Delgamuukw and the rest.

There needs to be a true exchange. There needs to be a recognition that the resources that we are talking about, and are so often called upon to sacrifice to is ours. This is our place. This is our country. These are our resources. When we develop links like this, they must be done in a transparent way, where the people of Canada feel ownership over the development, where all peoples of Canada feel an empowerment to directing the government.

Introducing a bill at a very suspicious time prior to an election with little chance of the normal passage and with the government paying attention to a very key trade and western issue happens at a time that leads us to great suspicion at this end of the House.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that was a well laid out speech and interesting comments, especially laying out the history of what has happened in the long fight that B.C. has had to make, in terms of actually attracting some investment and some interest from the federal government. The member talked of the Asian markets. The importance of Asia has never really been matched by the intent of this government to focus on British Columbia. We all famously remember the Prime Minister declaring that if he did not fix western alienation, he will have deemed himself to have failed.

My question is around the timing of this announcement. We have seen an unprecedented number of visits from ministers to the west coast, oftentimes not matching the amount of hot air and rhetoric with actual spending and program funding . I wonder if the member can comment on the timing of this announcement, in the context that the government has had a dozen years to really get serious about west coast ports. On the committee and several subcommittees to be set up, what are the odds of avoiding complete failure? We have become very suspicious of patronage appointments and order in council appointments. What legitimacy will the committee have on the west coast if Liberal friends, sponsors and donors are placed on the committee? How viable is this in view of the $400 million that the committee is meant to be in charge of? How much confidence does the member have and how much confidence should the people of British Columbia have in this plan rolled out today by the government?

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I represent an area in northwestern British Columbia with the newest out surge of where Canadian goods are meant to be shipped.

I have a couple of pivotal questions for the minister. The important one, which has not yet been answered, concerns the security costs that the container port in Prince Rupert will have to bear. The security costs at other major ports in Canada have been grandfathered but Prince Rupert has been left out. This is a fundamental question with respect to the development of the port.

The second part of my question is with respect to local communities along the line that will be faced with an increased amount of rail traffic but will not benefit from this increased traffic.

I wonder if the minister would commit to funding the economic diversification we have talked about for many years in B.C.s resource sector. A number of groups are organizing a conference for interested stakeholders in the northwest. I wonder if he would commit to supporting those efforts and if he could actually be there if it fits into his schedule.

The last question concerns a proportion of the spending. The plans for the northwest port in Prince Rupert show that it will be much larger than the port in Vancouver. When I look at the spending plans I cannot discern whether all the money is headed down to the lower mainland or what the proportion of spending will be between the northern and southern routes, with the northern route needing a huge amount of money because of it being newer and having great potential and not having to fix old congestion but having a clean slate.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asks if I balk, which I believe is a baseball metaphor. I suggest he just threw all of us a wild pitch.

The question about the corporate tax cuts in general, if he would like to address that and perhaps even listen to the response to his question, I am recalling back to the last federal campaign. The Conservative Party, to its credit, actually spoke about its plan for corporate tax cuts in some measures. The Liberal Party, what I remember from the debates that I engaged in with the candidates in my riding and the national debates and the literature that went about, mentioned nothing about this. When they arrived in Parliament, lo and behold, the tax cuts were there. The Leader of the Opposition felt that he did not need to hear the whole budget speech before getting out in the middle and applauding the government on the budget and the surprising corporate tax cuts.

We put a halt to that and asked for sound investments to be made on some things that I think all members in the House agree with around the environment, for which our investment is used in this bill, ironies of ironies.

The member is proposing apples and oranges when he talks about one of the most profitable sectors of our economy. We do not begrudge them this. We congratulate them on making lots of money. However I fail to see how the $1.3 billion to $4 billion given right now in subsidies to the industry, such as the Shells, Petro-Canadas and other companies making huge profits, helps Canadians.

Why subsidize this and why ask a question when he is not willing to listen to the answer?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, obviously a debate around energy in this country at any point raises quite a bit of energy within this House and that is as it should be.

I am pleased to speak to this bill at such an early stage. It is at the early stages that we must set the foundations of this debate. We must find out why it is so important for this House to consider this issue. We must alter the fundamental direction of this country when it comes to dealing with our energy and resources and I use those expressions very purposefully because they are ours.

The endowment that we have received from the benefit of being within this country is an incredible supply of both traditional carbon based forms of energy and the energy that we need to be investing in for the future. The expression that has been used over and over again is in a post-carbon world.

I will hit briefly upon four points in the time allotted to me. First, we have the concept of investment and intelligent investments. The government needs to switch course and start to make those industries and those cycles profitable.

Second, I would like to bring this issue home to the people that I represent in Skeena—Bulkley Valley and to Canadians that live in the rural sectors of our country. They are often left out of this type of debate and often left out of the legislation such as this, especially when it is poorly drafted legislated that has been drafted on the fly. It does not address the people living in those smaller and more remote communities.

Third, I would like to talk about the Liberal record on this file and the lack of action; and fourth, there needs to be some sort of future strategy that we need to go ahead with.

With respect to investments, this country often at times cites its key competition with the United States. I would suggest we need to further expand our horizon to consider where the world is moving when it comes to energy security.

So often we fixate upon millions of barrels of oil produced, cubic metres of natural gas produced, yet we see time and again, both in the developing world, in China and India in particular, and much of the advanced world that the question has moved beyond how many millions of barrels can be produced. The question has moved to a place where the diversification of the energy supply is going to dictate the efficiency and effectiveness of the economy and the effectiveness and strength of the society as a whole. Simply relying upon traditional forms of energy will no longer suffice and continue into the next millennia. Among the major industries in our world, many of the most successful are those that are looking for the greatest efficiency.

My colleague from Windsor West pointed out quite succinctly that at the time when we had an oil and gas sector achieving reasonable profits, some would say “exceptional profits”, well and good. Is this a time that Canadians are demanding upon their government, in the same year that a company is turning a record profit, that we should also be subsidizing that company? There is a strange ideology within this government, which is supported by members in the Conservative Party, to continue to subsidize a sector in the midst of record profits.

We all understand that we need to encourage investment in those areas we wish to pursue further, particularly in those sectors that are hurting on the west coast. This past season we witnessed one of the worst fishing seasons that we have seen in decades. The cry for support and the cry for help for some small investment to keep the fleet on the water for next year goes awry. Whereas, when a sector such as the oil and gas sector is doing quite well and calls upon the government for further tax subsidies, it is well adhered to.

There is something in this bill completely lacking and that is the vehicle with which the disbursements will be allocated. It is completely ignoring the community groups and the activist groups that are on the ground dealing with low income Canadians close to the marginal edge trying to assist those Canadians to become more efficient. This bill completely ignores them.

It goes directly through CMHC. It goes through another bureaucratic mechanism and ignores the not for profit sector who are often times cited as one of the most efficient ways to deliver direct programming, particularly to those groups who they most know best, those Canadians who are closest to the edge, closest to the margin, seniors on fixed income, low income families, and those that need the support that this bill is purported to support.

I will move to Kyoto for a moment. When the government signed on to this protocol in 1997, there was so little recognition of the investments required to actually achieve a more efficient economy. There was much rhetoric, there was much spin, and there was much re-announcement of money, but the key investments that should have been made, such as having Canadian families understand how to invest in their child's education and having the business community understand how to make themselves more profitable, were not made by this government. As it scrambles and stumbles toward the Kyoto deadlines, we are meant to believe that somehow we will meet our targets.

There is very little that the environment committee heard from any of the experts we talked to on any side of the issue that held that up to be anything other than a fabrication. The Liberal record with respect to the environment and efficiency on energy is mixed at the very best. Signals are sent to both industry and consumers, and then a different signal is sent the next day.

This legislation was made in a moment of crisis, I would suggest, rather than a strategic plan. When we ask the government to paint for us a picture of what the country may look like in 10 years, in terms of our energy mix and where we are deriving the energy from to enhance our security to enhance our economy, the answer is empty.

The answer is another spending announcement, which the Auditor General herself has pointed out time and time again is money that is re-announced. It is money that is rarely dispensed, and the results that the money is meant to achieve, in this case, greater energy efficiency for Canadians, is suspect because the record is so poor on the environment.

The reason I can say this with confidence and outside out of general political rhetoric is that the numbers do not lie. Our pollution continues to go up. Our economy remains inefficient,. Our economy remains behind in productivity of most of our OECD competitors. This simply cannot continue to go on.

Legislation is made in some sort of political storm and in an intellectual vacuum. I suggest many pieces of this are back-loaded legislation, coming into force four or five years down the road. There are no specifics in this bill that we can find whatsoever as to when this money will actually be given to Canadians who, this winter, will be facing incredibly high energy costs, 30% or 40%, depending on the energy that they rely upon.

What does this mean for a senior on a fixed income or for a low income family just now making it who are having to make these impossible decisions, which members in this House, I would suggest, do not fully appreciate?

I do not believe that there are any members in this House who do not fully understand what it is to have to make those tough choices, between the kids' soccer lessons and the heating bill or between prescription drugs that one needs to survive and the heating and electricity bill. Those are profound questions that Canadians, we are meant to represent, deal with day in and day out.

There is no accounting for a piece of legislation that provides some small band-aid, and that is administered in a way that we are unsure of the results. We still do not know, over a five year program, when this money is meant to come forward. It is not as if this crisis came about all of a sudden. It is not as if hurricane Katrina and the spike in energy prices was unexpected.

There was a sound and profound knowledge that energy would continue, in its traditional forms, to get more expensive, that our supply, while being exposed, in the tar sands would begin to dry up, and that the energy demands of the world would continue to increase.

Therefore, the security of this country, the efficiency and productivity of our economy, and the security of Canadians who are just struggling to get by, depends upon us as members of Parliament making sound decisions. This represents intelligent investments in our energy and developing a strategy whereby we can describe this future to Canadians. This will allow us to describe how the mix of energy would be both sustainable with respect to Kyoto and beyond that, and climate change in general. It would also lead to a greater efficiency in economy, providing the types of jobs that we want people in this country to have, and people's children in this country to have. I would suggest that this bill does not address that in any respect.

The last point I would like to make before wrapping up is that there must be a profound understanding of who these resources belong to. In this debate, when we talk about energy, energy security and supply, we often times move to a laissez-faire market-driven mentality, which works in some instances. However, it ignores any concept of sovereignty and any concept of what it is to be Canadian. It also ignores what it means to be blessed with the land that we have been endowed with, and the incredible resources that we have, both traditional carbon and the new energy resources.

This endowment is both a responsibility and it is something to be cherished. The Canadian government, if no other body, needs to be making decisions through legislation and through investment that protects that endowment, that ensures it will continue to serve Canadians for generations to come, and this, beyond all else, should be the focus of all our decisions in this place.