Nathan Cullen

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, through you, I have a question for my hon. colleague. I would like to return this conversation and debate to the communities that are often affected by this trade dispute. Sometimes, as the rhetoric from the government and the other parties comes forward, the people in the communities most deeply affected by this trade dispute are lost.

My region of northwestern British Columbia is among the hardest hit regions in the entire country. I would argue this with little doubt in my mind. There has been an incredible concentration within the industry. A lot of the smaller and mid-sized shops have had to close. A lot of workers have lost jobs. A lot of families have had to move out of our region and into the cities and other places, seeking other types of employment, when their preference was to remain.

I am curious about my colleague's impression with respect to Quebec and particularly the smaller communities that are affected by this situation. There is the frustration they must feel that, after so many years of this debate going on over this trade dispute, the best we can hope for, after so-called victory after victory, are the suggestions of a special envoy, continued negotiations and a 20 minute phone call to the president. I am sure that for 15 minutes of the call the Prime Minister was reminding President Bush of who he was and where he came from. The remainder of the time, I am sure, was the hard chat that he talked about.

Let us talk about the effect on the communities. The communities are tired. I have raised the issue of there being some sort of warning period for the Americans. I know that is quite contentious within the Canadian economy, particularly for those in the energy sector, but I have raised the issue of there being some sort of warning period for the Americans to suggest that this trade agreement we have is of such great importance to our economy that it must be protected and the dispute resolution must work.

I have suggested that we say we are willing to impose some sort of countervailing duty, with a warning period, a grace period, to allow the Americans to make the change, with this being done in order to affect the voters in the United States, to affect the congressmen and congresswomen and senators and get them to finally pay attention. I am sure the view in Quebec is the same as it is in British Columbia: the Americans are still not aware of how important this is to Canadians.

The Americans may not be aware at all of where Canada is at this point, but we must appeal to the American people, who have a sense of justice and a deep connection with our country. We have a long history together. Somehow they have failed to push their own politicians to react in a way to push the Congress, the Senate and the president to finally return all of the duties and to remove the Byrd amendment, which is illegal in almost any international context.

There must be a resolution from this House to finally get serious about the issue, not the Conservatives' suggestion of a special envoy nor the suggestion of the Liberals for negotiating after we have won. This is a bizarre and absolutely insane scenario in which we negotiate after we have won, which only means that we can negotiate backwards from that point of victory.

The Prime Minister would like us to believe this delusional notion that we somehow have this $3 billion plus because the trade dispute panel said so. In fact, the cheque is not there and no money is present.

Would the member comment on some of those issues?

[Income Tax Act, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I thank my hon. colleagues for this opportunity to speak on an important principle, one that the New Democratic Party supports.

Throughout the lifelong participation of Canadians in the education system, but oftentimes within government, there is a very narrow focus, a focus that includes only those times when Canadians are involved in the formal education system and not the extension of that education beyond and throughout the lives of Canadians. Report after report and study after study demonstrate the need for Canadians to involve themselves in the pursuit of education and the betterment of their lives throughout their lives.

While we support the intent of the bill, we have a number of questions that cause us some concern. I will outline a number of them as I address the bill tonight in the short time made available to me.

It is interesting to hear the call for the increase in access to education, as the member from the Conservative Party suggested tonight, while there is an intention in the opposite direction.

It is quite ironic to hear from the Liberal Party that somehow there is investment and direction from the party toward lifelong education while at the same time we are witnessing unprecedented growth in the amount of debt load being incurred by our students in this country today. Students are simply trying to improve themselves, become more viable members in our economy and make Canada once again a competitive nation.

The irony abounds. It must not go unaddressed. In the rhetoric on the promotion of education as a principle, that too must be met with action. The numbers speak loudly in black and white. Year in and year out for the last 14 years, the average debt load for a student leaving post-secondary education in Canada has been increasing by $1,000 per year. That is an unprecedented and dramatic rise in the debt load that we are asking our students to incur as they go forth into the world and try to better themselves in society.

The bill also speaks quite dramatically to the precipitous decrease in the music options and the arts in general being offered through our public education system. There is a need for me to emphasize each of those words: public education system.

At one point I had the misfortune of being in education under the Harris regime here in Ontario. I have since found myself living under the auspices of the eminent Premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell. Both of these so-called leaders brought forward an assault on our education such as has very rarely ever been seen in the Canadian political spectrum.

It was a piece by piece death. It was death by a thousand cuts to our education system and to those educators hoping to provide a sound grounding in education for our students. Music programs have eroded. Physical education has eroded. Piece by piece under conservative governments, whether in name or in action, we have been brought to a point where parents are desperate to find whatever forms of artistic education and betterment they can for their children. This must not go unchecked.

It is ironic that at a time when there are many serious issues facing our country when it comes to education we are presented with a bill that is in a sense a one-off and does not capture the debate.

The debate is about the Liberal government promise to restore to the provinces the $4 billion in social transfers that has been taken out of the system. The system has been gutted. The promise was to restore that to the provinces in order for them to be able to properly administer the education system, which they are primarily responsible for. Instead we are talking about a one-off tax credit for what is an important yet narrow field of education, as opposed to the gutting of our education system, which was initiated by the federal government and then encouraged by governments such as the Harris and Campbell governments.

We have talked a lot about the investment in our young people and investment in Canadians in this pursuit of lifelong learning, yet it comes down to the initiation of a tax credit rather than the proper funding of the public programs that are already in place. The instruments are in the room, the teachers are ready to teach, and yet we find conservative government after conservative government, supported by a federal Liberal government, willing to take the fight to the teachers themselves as opposed to taking the fight to the problem, to the challenge of preparing our teachers and our young people for the world we face.

That world we face requires the creativity and ingenuity spurned by those very musical and artistic programs that existed in our public schools but have slowly and quietly been eroded. This bill addresses some small part of that by moving it into the private sector and suggesting that this is enough, by suggesting that this is how we are going to compensate for a continual and consistent erosion of our public education system. Obviously, it is not enough.

Let me speak for a brief moment about an experience of what education in the music and the arts can bring to a community. In my northwestern community of British Columbia, a youth fiddling group started up some years ago. I had the pleasure of working with this group, developing them, encouraging them to go further afield, and watching what the principle of their education system was.

This is a small group made up almost entirely of volunteers and parents who encouraged extraordinarily young people to get involved in fiddle music, as simple as that may be. One might suggest that this was only for the enjoyment of that music, but this group had taken on the principle of what it is to be in a community, to exist within a community and within a larger family, in supporting these young people who have now toured our province and plan to tour the country.

The group has grown to almost 100 young people. The parents are intimately involved in these students' education. Their education through this music has become a vital part of these children's lives, allowing them to prosper and allowing the community and the families to strengthen. We need to encourage such initiatives wherever we can.

Without addressing this fundamental question of the role of public education in our system and the role of public education in the arts, and allowing for what is at best a well intentioned but overly narrowly focused piece of legislation, it is difficult to reconcile. It is difficult to turn to the teachers in British Columbia and to the parents putting their children in those schools, who have been watching the slow and steady deterioration of the services available to special needs children and to all children who enter our public system.

It is no longer acceptable. It is time for the federal government and all parties in the House to raise the cry and finally acknowledge that an investment at this point in a young person's life makes all other investments pale in comparison.

[The Environment, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear why the B.C. New Democrats won 33 more seats without this minister than with him.

This week the Suzuki Foundation said that Canada is at number 28 on a list of 30 when it comes to the environment. When the world comes to Montreal, the government will be thoroughly embarrassed. The only two numbers going up for Canadians are for the amount of pollution and the number of empty promises the government continues to make.

What will the minister do to finally stop failing Canada and the world? When will pollution finally go down in this country?

[Labour, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this past year seems to have been open season on organized labour disputes that are the result of an unwillingness to negotiate, a lack of political leadership, and a system that gives unfair advantages to management.

A Telus lockout in which management ignored labour board rulings went on for more than 90 days and the entire dispute many months longer than that. Currently our news is filled with threats from another Liberal leader in British Columbia to send our labour leaders to jail for standing up against unjust legislation. There are images of management running workers off the road in Brooks, Alberta. In Timmins, Falconbridge is fighting to strip workers of their benefits while signing a $12 billion deal with Inco.

It is time for the government to show some leadership and challenge the growing culture of contempt for labour in this country. Workers' rights have been won through years of difficult negotiation. The benefits help all working Canadians. What has been happening recently points to an Americanization of the system and workers across this country are suffering.

Let us stop moving away from the rights and privileges that have been gained by organized labour in this country and move toward a strong defence of our labour community.

[Breast Cancer, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the tireless efforts of thousands of Canadians across this country and their work and dedication on the Run for the Cure to fight breast cancer.

This year alone, more than 21,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and tragically, more than 5,000 will succumb to this disease.

I also rise to acknowledge the courage and love of the families facing the devastating impacts of breast cancer.

Finally, I rise to bring home the message to this ineffective Liberal government that its inaction, lack of vision and misaligned priorities are putting women at risk in this country. We are the air that we breathe. We are the water that we drink. This government has created more dirty air and more polluted water than ever before.

I call upon the government to use whatever is left of its sad mandate to finally show some leadership, take seriously the impacts of environmental degradation on Canadians' health and make the tough decisions necessary to address it. Canadian women deserve action, not more empty words.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reading clause 8 of the bill. That was the first clause I read when I was given the bill.

The member talked about expectations. I am not sure the expectations of Canadians could be any lower of the government's actions when it comes to credibility and ethics in its guidance of the public purse.

He mentioned the patronage appointments. The Conservatives seemed to have a problem earlier connecting of the dots between the allowance of patronage appointment and the allegiance of the person in that appointment to the Prime Minister or inner-party sanctum that appointed the person. This sets up a scenario in which Canadians cannot have the confidence of that officer who has been appointed. That person's allegiance does not go to the Canadian taxpayer as much as it goes to the person who put him or her in that place. We are seeing that with the Dingwall effect going through Ottawa this last couple of weeks. The responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer is eroded.

The question at hand with respect to the expectations, I can very clearly read. I can read other pieces of legislation whereby the spirit and intent of the law has not been enacted. The spirit and intent of this is clear. The member's reading of it was exceptional.

It is the credibility of the government to enforce this. The sad and strange irony of this is the day the bill was introduced we saw the firing of Health Canada officials. They were trying to do their jobs and protect Canadians from the potential hazardous effects of something like the bovine growth hormone.

We all know the enactment of these measures will be signed by the leadership at the very top. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have spoken much about the need for such things as electoral reform. We have heard so much about the democratic deficit, although we have heard much less about it these days. The intention and the credibility of the government is found wanting at best.

The only way the bill will restore faith and have some merit within the eyes of Canadians is somehow if those folks change their culture. That is what I express my doubt over. As we have seen over the last number of months in Parliament, the fixing of the democratic deficit has been one of the lowest priorities. This is merely an example of the culture which exists within that fundamentally flawed party.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for splitting his time on this important legislation for Canadians. It is important for them appreciate it and have some understanding of it. Because of the way we have operated in the House this past session and in sessions before, the erosion of public confidence in this place has been extraordinary. When we go back to our ridings and talk to average Canadians about their faith in not only politicians but also in the work that is carried out on their behalf, it is clear the erosion in faith has been steady and consistent. It is at an all time low, I would suggest.

The bill starts to move in the direction of addressing the issues. Bill C-11 is an example of how a minority Parliament can improve upon any government's unwillingness to see something through to the end of the day. The first attempt at this bill in the previous Parliament was a second class affair. The intention of the bill was at some point buried in the midst of protectionism and it became much more about ministerial protection than it did about what it was truly intended to be.

The modifications from all four corners of the House, including from the member for Winnipeg Centre and many others who have contributed to the debate, have led to a bill that has the congratulations and support from all four corners of the House. This is very important to me and to many here. We are trying to make this place work, despite the constant mudslinging and the rest that we see on a daily basis.

I will contextualize for average Canadians who are watching the debate, why the bill is important and why it came to be. It is important to understand that the intention of the bill is to prevent the scandals we have seen over the last number of years. Many people will understand this issue from having watched the movie The Insider . Great strain and stress is put on a person who has the evidence of a company or a government that is doing something wrong. That person has to break through the many barriers, which now exist for public servants and administrators, to proclaim from on high the wrongdoings of someone potentially at a senior level who, by de facto, has more power than the person who blows the whistle.

Our own Insider movie has been playing in Montreal and Ottawa: the Gomery inquiry. There are absolutely scandalous tales of what went on in the backrooms between the government of the day and the present government and their supporters, the people who funded them and worked on their behalf. Brown bags of money across tables at nefarious restaurants and all the rest brought cynicism to a new high within the Canadian electorate. We saw that through the last election, which bore extraordinary fruit, a minority Parliament. We have taken mediocre bordering on bad legislation and improved it to a quality where people can start to be proud of the work of the House.

The strength of the opposition in this place has contributed to the government's slightly increased humility and intelligence in introducing legislation that would meet the requirements of the constituents who have elected us to represent them from all parts of the country. They are seeking a government that is accountable, not only in words, but in action.

For years we have heard rhetoric of this government and past government about the need for openness and transparency. Yet when it comes to action, when it comes to the day to day happenings at the most senior levels, both within the Liberal Party and those they appoint to those patronage spots in particular, the House of Commons and the entire parliamentary system suffers. The reputation of the hard-working people in the Canadian bureaucracy also suffers. It becomes an embarrassment to admit that we work for the federal Government of Canada, knowing what has gone on.

The intention is another important context. What is the intention of the government in introducing the bill? Is the intention to have a fundamental cultural shift, almost a psychopathic culture toward the promotion of patronage, of taking care of friends and ensuring that the flow of money from the trough always arrives at people who are most supportive of the government of the day? Is it the intention of the government, to reform itself from within? It is a speculative question with a deeply held suspicion as an opposition member, having watched the goings on in the government from an arm's length.

I take a small example of the many patronage appointments. The Prime Minister promised to fix this process in the last election, another promise broken. It is the appointment of Mr. Murray, a failed Liberal candidate, to the National Round Table of the Environment and the Economy. He is very nice, commendable fellow of sorts and a very strong mayor in Winnipeg. He was appointed to an environmental portfolio at a very important time in the history of Canadians, particularly when it comes to the environment. We are facing dire predictions for our future. We have a government that has failed to reduce the amount of pollution and smog, with another smog day for Toronto and many other cities across the country.

The obviously loyal member of the Liberal Party of Canada came before a committee to present his credentials. He was found wanting. He was found to be in absence of some of the basic understandings of the issues facing our environment today. It was a patronage appointment that led to a lack of confidence in one of our most important bodies, a fully funded body from the national taxpayers' roll, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. This further eroded our confidence in the government's ability to manage and steer this ship.

The Information Commissioner, Mr. Reid, through a number of disclosures to Parliament and in the press has talked about the almost addiction to privacy that the government has maintained. Legislation was passed to create the position of an officer of this House who would report to the House and keep the government in check, when it came to access to information. It also provided other key tools that the Canadian public and their representatives, us, could use to access the government's work to ensure that there was accountability and the much looked for openness of government. This officer has told us repeatedly that the Liberal Party needs to fundamentally shift its culture away from this addiction of secrecy and seek the openness and transparency that has been talked about but not fully acted upon.

Once again we are asked to have faith and confidence that the words which exist within the bill will match the actions that are forthcoming. These include a sincere commitment by the government to reverse the culture of protecting minister at all costs, of protecting one's immediate superior in the bureaucracy. It is a commitment to a culture in which we can appreciably learn from our mistakes, a culture in which we can understand that mistakes in a bureaucracy the size Government of Canada will be made and certain expenditures will not be the most prudent. It is a culture that accepts that fact and will improve upon the mistakes rather than cover them up as we have seen over and over again. Only through the exposure of the work of the opposition parties in this place and the media were we able to gain access to find out what went wrong with policy or spending of tax dollars.

The governing party of the day is looking for praise in the introduction of this. The best way to negotiate at times is while holding the gun. Putting the government's back against the wall, with certain dire electoral predictions, is a way to motivate it, after more than a decade of words but no action, to finally produce a bill that has some merit and some weight. That accountability must now take us to the next step to see what the ramifications and actions will be.

Will the culture shift? Will the Radwanskis no longer appear? Will the patronage end? Will the trough be closed down for a small period of time to allow Canadians some restoration of faith in the decisions that come out of this Parliament?

The Prime Minister has often talked about the democratic deficit, yet when promises have been made with respect to electoral reform, of fundamental accountability, the government has stalled, dragged its feet and has not come forward with its promises.

What comes next? Will the patronage machine continue? Will failed Liberal candidates seek the high positions and the gravy train they have come to expect? Will former ministers have extravagant expense accounts and no accountability or will the government finally take charge and change its fundamental culture? I remain doubtful.

Canadians expect the protection that is offered by strong whistleblower legislation, the protection of their food, of their medicines, of their tax dollars. They need this. They expect this bill to have teeth. They expect the enactment of this bill to be sincere.

The New Democrats' position is that we will hold the government's feet to the fire, hold it to account on this and the many other promises that have been made through legislation. We will ensure that Parliament begins to function rather than the mudslinging that is so supported and relished by the official opposition, which dare I say barely has the reputation to hold the name.

Within the context we now have, we have an opportunity to get things done, as the New Democrats did in the spring by providing a better balanced budget for Canadians. We will continue to work hard and diligently for Canadians.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to enjoy this exchange. I think the connecting of the dots, which I hope the member is struggling to do, just in the lack of perception rather than any other reason, is that when one supports the use of patronage, as his party said not an hour ago in the House, and when one suggests that this is a good way of appointing the top level decision makers and authority figures within the country, it terrifies many Canadians as we watch the Coffins, Radwanskis and the many others going all the way back through to the Mulroney's years and before. When a patronage appointment is made the responsibility and the allegiance of that person placed in that spot automatically is given toward the person and the party that made the appointment for them. Their allegiance lies there, not to the taxpayers of the country.

For a party that claims to want to clean up government, not connecting the two dots between patronage and the ethics of our crown corporations and their officers is baffling at the very least. I wonder if the member could connect those dots and justify his position.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the work that the hon. member has done over the past in his private member's legislation.

I have a very specific question concerning the justification for the moral high ground that has been presented in this debate from his party. When it comes to the ethics of both patronage and the protection of civil servants, if one were to step back in history to when the Conservatives, God help us, were last in power, the amount of patronage that flowed from within the prime minister's office was extraordinary, breaking all records and the scandals that came from that.

However during this very debate a colleague of his stepped forward and said that he had no problem with patronage appointments and thought they should continue with some mild justification that they should be connected to merit. Whereas the moral high ground would firmly place us to say that all positions in crown corporations, wherever the government has any authority on the decisions and the decision makers in our country, should be based entirely on merit, not so much on which party's allegiance one holds and whether one has been contributing significantly to the party that happens to be in power at the moment.

If Canadians are expecting the government to exhibit a certain amount of fairness in the way in which it conducts its business, and Lord knows we have been missing that, extraordinarily, for at least the last 20 to 25 years, how is it that the Conservative Party is able to stand up, with such a shakey record at best when it comes to the issuing of patronage, and in the very debate in which we are talking about trying to go to a new era of clean government and accountable government, still promote the use of patronage as a buy-off for their loyal donors and party members, which flies in the face of many of the words that were expressed by the member today?

I wonder if he can reconcile those two disparate realities.

[The Environment, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner released a scathing report today confirming what 11 environmental groups have said all along, that the Liberal government has broken promise after promise to Canadians when it comes to our environment. New Democrats have long said what the auditor now confirms, that any credibility the Liberal government had when it comes to the environment is now gone.

Would the minister like to stand up today and make another promise that he is only going to break tomorrow?