Nathan Cullen

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my riding in the Pacific northwest where I watched an unprecedented coalition forming.

First Nations, commercial fishers and sport fishers have come together to oppose DFO's irresponsible plans to promote fish farms on the north coast, again a Russian roulette with our wild fish.

The science is clear that open net fish farms are a threat. The Auditor General four years ago said that DFO was not fulfilling its mandate to protect wild salmon from the effects of salmon farming.

Will the minister finally step up and defend the people of B.C.'s coast and put a halt to the expansion of fish farms?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know what a passionate environmentalist my colleague is. We both had the fortune, or misfortune, I cannot tell which, to be at the press conference on this. One comment that came from one of the ministers was the fantastic international record that Canada now holds in terms of the environment, which is contrary to what the OECD and other groups have said.

The NDP invested quite a bit of time and energy in developing its own Kyoto plan. In the absence of a plan coming from the government, it felt it was important to actually cost out what it would look like, cost out the kind of job creation we could have in Canada, what kind of reductions we could achieve with what type of expenditure. He has mentioned his party's plans. I am wondering if his party has done this, if there is a plan available, or if it is a set concepts.

The hon. member made a number of speeches before I came to the House wherein he talked about how climate change did not exist. He was denying the aspect of climate change. I am wondering if he could correct the record as to when his party started to believe that climate change existed.

How is it, in the absence of a plan per se right now, his party would achieve the Kyoto targets? Would there be some suggestion that we should pull out of the international agreement?

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I see a need to return this to committee where we can hear the recommendations and enforce the recommendations that the AFN has talked about. My riding of Skeena--Bulkley Valley is similar to my colleague's riding. It is made up of over 30% of first nations who are a vital part of our communities.

Oftentimes residential schools are seen as a thing of the past and not relevant today. They are seen as having affected only first nations people. The importance of the full participation of first nations in the economy and the culture of my riding has been growing, but there is always a feeling that they are being held back, a feeling that they are not achieving their full potential and full blossoming within our communities, culturally, economically and socially.

My colleague mentioned the staggering numbers with respect to aboriginals in regard to alcoholism and suicide. These numbers are absolutely off the charts. These proud and strong people have suffered for many generations. The honour of the crown has often been spoken about and first nations seek the honour of the crown to be represented and held forth. It has not been so for many decades.

One of the important aspects of the motion brought forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre seems to be truth and reconciliation. Some people need to have a process by which they can bring forth their grievances in a public forum and have them reconciled through the truth. This has been done quite successfully in a number of other countries. I wonder if the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan could comment on this.

I wonder if she could also comment on the importance of having first nations more fully involved in our communities. Could she also comment on the impact this has on both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in her riding?

[Fisheries, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Terry Glavin, a leading expert on the devastation of salmon farming on the wild salmon fishing industry says, “In Quebec, it is about language. In British Columbia, it is about salmon”.

Last month the British Society reported that sea lice from fish farms was having a devastating effect on wild salmon stocks. The David Suzuki Foundation says that this “study shows the link is undeniable and that the situation is even worse than we had imagined. We have a small window of opportunity to reverse this damage but the window is growing smaller and smaller”.

In the fall, the Liberals en masse voted against conducting an inquiry into the B.C. fishery, once again refusing to admit that there are systemic problems that risk the entire industry.

It is time for the DFO to begin to take the west coast fishery seriously and take some proactive action to guard against further problems. As a first step, the DFO needs to put a halt to any expansion of open net salmon farming and ultimately end the practice entirely.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I again wish to express the support of our party for this motion and the pride with which I saw our leader stand today and second this most important motion.

I come from the northwest of British Columbia and in Skeena--Bulkley Valley there are a number of very strong Sikh families in our communities who have raised with me huge concerns when this decision first came down, but not so much for the decision that had come down, whether it be right or wrong, which was for the justices to see, but for the process which we had seen over the 20 years prior and the allegations of misspent money, missing documents and erased tapes.

It has been suggested by the government that the only reason that we are seeking this inquiry is to embarrass the government and that our support of this motion is partisan in nature, rather than seeking the truth to actually allow for some closure for these families.

I wonder if the member could comment as to, first, whether this is true in terms of the motivation; and, second, whether it is some fear that the Liberals have suddenly arrived at with respect to the effectiveness of inquiries as we have been seeing in Ottawa and Montreal through Justice Gomery's inquiry.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleague and the NDP with respect to this important bill on students loans and bankruptcy, Bill C-236.

Specifically, I would like to start with a few shocking numbers. In the House we have heard a number of times the current government of the day talk about how well it has done on behalf of students, particularly post-secondary students. The reality in terms of the numbers is otherwise.

Since the Liberals took power, we have watched $4 billion cut out of core funding for post-secondary institutions and the average increase in student debt over that period rise by 110%. The average debt for students leaving with bachelor degrees is now at $25,000. For students obtaining more than bachelor degrees, it is close to $100,000.

These numbers tell me there is a situation of dire need for university students leaving and entering post-secondary institutions. I use this strong language of dire need because these people often represent the greatest hope for our country in terms of their ability and capacity to formulate part of our economy, the investment the country needs to make consistently for Canada to become the world leader, as the government would pretend us to be.

When it comes to post-secondary institution funding, the numbers speak for themselves. Taking $4 billion out of core funding over the period the Liberals have been in office and then calling it a success story is an absolute embarrassment. It is a shame that the bill is even necessary.

The Liberals have now introduced legislation that suggests the way students can get out of bankruptcy is if they die. It is most commendable on their part, but they should not be congratulated at all for their cynicism and approach in dealing with student debt and poverty.

They refuse to invest in education. The numbers will roll out and the Liberals will talk about how wonderful they have been contrary to the real and anecdotal evidence we see by the number of students leaving university or being barred from them. It is representative of a lack of courage on behalf of the government to tie any investments they have made in post-secondary institutions. The money is passed to the provinces and in some cases they have been able to defer their contributions, leaving universities in the same dire strait. That has caused tuitions to go up.

When the NDP government in British Columbia left office, the Liberal government that took over immediately lifted the freeze on university tuitions. This caused tuition fees to escalate and put them beyond the reach of many ordinary Canadians and their families.

We want to be leaders in the world and we use that language often in the House. Yet by not investing soundly in post-secondary education, it leaves us behind the rest of the world, a world which knows that advanced technology and education will be the coming economies.

I look at the numbers presented to me in terms of the debt load of students who are leaving university. These moneys go to our financial institutions, primarily the large banks, rather than go to where the economy needs that investment. The banks have been reporting record profit quarter after quarter. They are doing exceptionally well.

I am not sure a lot of tears need to be shed for the banking institutions. They have done well and no one should condemn them too much, given what they have produced in economic joys for their shareholders. With regard to investing, the question becomes this. Is the money better placed in the private banks and taken out of the hands of students so when they leave post-secondary education, they are required to pay these loans, which students are exceptional at doing?

When we compare it to the corporate sector's ability to pay back and not default on loans, students have been consistently reported as good risks, if we can use that term. These students are no longer able to invest, put a down payment on a home, or purchase a car, when they are leaving their student life with a crippling debt. In the past 13 years the average student debt has gone up by $1,000 per year, every year.

Certainly, if such a similar increase and rapid expansion in debt were placed on our business community, the cries would be loud and far-flung across the House, but because it is students, there seems to be some notion that we can tolerate something like a 110% increase in tuition fees during the life of a government.

I went to college, as many members of the House did. I had an excellent experience which afforded me better opportunities to seek good, sound, and well paid employment, yet I left with a burden of student debt that inhibited my ability to contribute more to the economy. It held me off for a number of years before I could start up my own private business and take an incurred debt and risk that is needed for just about every business venture.

Many people ask why we should change the Bankruptcy Act when most Canadians, particularly most students, that enter into a loan arrangement with a bank have all the intention of paying that loan back in good faith. Students will often do whatever they can by just about any means necessary to pay these back. We need, in this House, to dispel the myths that students are bad investments or that they are at great risk of defaulting on loans when the numbers are absolutely showing the opposite.

We need to recognize the contribution that universities make across this country to their local communities and that those students make to the local communities as well. We must truly see them in terms of an investment, no different than the investments that we consistently find room to make in terms of the auto sector, large industries, or border security. All of these investments that we seem to come to the conclusion are sound investments for the prosperity of this country, yet, the government continues to dither on promise after promise made to the people of Windsor to improve their border situation.

It seems to me that the government and the Prime Minister, and the former finance minister, understand the principle of investment. The Prime Minister understands that lowering the costs for business that he previously ran by moving it offshore was a sound and wise move for the profitability of his business.

Yet. when we talk about the investment needed for students in this country, the House stalls and stutters, and pretends to pat itself on the back for issuing such ideas as small investment in students that may be born today that will achieve a $5,000 perhaps $7,000 grant available to them 18 years from now. At the current rate of increase in tuition, putting it out of the hands of most ordinary Canadians, what will that look like 15 or 20 years from now? What will the proposal that the Liberals have brought forward actually do for students? I hesitate to think that it may get them through their first semester, if that.

In 1998 the Liberals changed the act to say that Canadians cannot receive bankruptcy protection for student loans until 10 years after they complete their studies. This is unfair. This special treatment of students is the absolute opposite of the message that this government should be sending to our young people. Our message should be that we trust them, that we believe in them, and that we are willing to invest in them. Surplus after surplus has shown up for the Liberal Party because of its miscalculations on the budget. The Liberals are exceptionally skilled at missing the mark over and over again, regardless of how many economists they bring on board.

However, in all of these surpluses and particularly this surplus year, the Canadian Federation of Students, and other advocacy groups for students, found the budget not only wanting and lacking but an absolute failure when it came to investing in students. Even in the face of a huge surplus beyond everyone's expectations and combined with all the rhetoric that we heard during the last election, and consistently in the House about the need to support students, there is still a continued cynical lack of support for students by the government.

I appreciate this bill. It is a strong bill. We look for the bill to be supported throughout the House.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually very difficult to understand the motivations of the government in appointing someone who is so clearly, from an objective view, a patronage appointment, thereby creating, particularly when it comes to Kyoto, greater uncertainty as to how this will roll out.

The government seems to lack the ability to present a Kyoto plan in any kind of a timely fashion. I have referred to Kyoto as a Liberal attempt to save for retirement at about age 64. It will become extremely expensive because there has been no significant planning, thereby creating uncertainty and increasing over and over again the cost to industry.

By manipulating this important file, as we move ahead with something as important as Kyoto, climate change and pollution in general, and putting it into what is now under the light of a patronage appointment, diminishing its credibility greatly, has increased the uncertainty around the effectiveness and around how it is we are meant to meet something as important as the commitments the government made under Kyoto.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a country, we commit a great deal of resources and credibility to this body, some millions of dollars, and it is entrusted with the sound and important duty of advising the Prime Minister on no less an important issue than the environment.

When Mr. Murray came in front of committee with the perspective that he would be working hand in hand with the environment committee, which was not what his job was meant to be, he was unwilling and unable to answer the question on his willingness to criticize the government, which also was not part of the job. He also had a general lack of knowledge on specific environmental issues that exist at the present time. The questions were not micro in nature but macro. They dealt with certain environmental initiatives that are at the core of the environmental debate right now.

There is a thing in business called the social licence to operate. When a business no longer has that, it no longer has the credibility to operate and function within any given community. I would suggest that Mr. Murray lost a great deal of credibility in the eyes of the other members of the national round table by his lack of knowledge of the position and lack of knowledge about the issues which would greatly lessen the effectiveness of the round table.

As chair he holds the prominent position of setting the agenda, monitoring the discussion and helping to produce reports that would advise the Prime Minister. His lack of knowledge diminishes the entire capacity of the round table, to which, as I said, we contribute a significant amount of funds every given year.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the facilitator in establishing the agenda of any committee or group is pivotal. The setting of the agenda determines the type of conclusions that a committee or any decision making body will make.

With respect to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a huge amount of expertise is brought to bear on any given issue. This is at a great cost to the taxpayers of $6 million or so a year in order to provide sound information to the Prime Minister in making decisions regarding the environment.

In the past when recommendations have been made by the national round table they have not been forceful enough to change the course of the government. Do I have any hope that this committee under the leadership of Mr. Murray will be presenting the tough decisions and tough advice on the environment to which the government needs to pay attention? Absolutely not.

The inability and the dismissal of the importance of the chair give me great cause for concern about how seriously he will take the setting of the agenda and the way in which certain items will be looked at.

It has been said that the quality of one's life is determined by the quality of the questions one asks oneself. Nothing truer could be said of this committee. The round table must be given a sound agenda and good questions to look at in order to arrive at conclusions that benefit the country.

Mr. Murray obviously dismissed the importance of the role of the chair, as did the parliamentary secretary. That lack of ability and lack of concern cause me and many other members of the House great concern about the efficacy and intelligence of the work that will be done over the next number of years.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was just having a conversation with someone from Halifax.

Ms. McLaughlin is the woman to whom I am referring. The important distinction for Canadians to understand is the difference between a failed candidate and someone who has chosen to leave the life of politics. Earlier it was pointed out that the New Democratic member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre has great knowledge of a certain topic, that being democratic reform. If he retired from politics again, would anybody in the House have a problem with his being appointed to a position to look at democratic reform in this country? Clearly not, because the member has great experience. It is not precipitated by his failed candidacy. That is what we have here, someone who attempted to get into political life at the federal level, failed, and was then appointed.

I asked the parliamentary secretary if he was aware of just Liberal candidates in B.C. who had been appointed and given so-called soft landings. There is an immediate lack of knowledge and awareness of such a thing ever occurring, yet we know that candidate after candidate across the country, not just from British Columbia, not just from Manitoba, are given a gentle handshake on the way out the door of a failed candidacy for the Liberal Party. This ensures that high profile and powerful candidates can consistently be attracted, thereby continuing the machine of the Liberal Party, which leads to bad decisions and the wrong people being in the wrong positions.

I would direct the member's attention toward the Gomery inquiry to see what happens when people are appointed to the wrong positions for reasons other than their qualifications, their one qualification being their connection to the Liberal Party, or their ability to raise funds, or to run as a candidate.

The role of the chair has been raised a number of times as to whether it is important or not. It was striking to me as a former professional facilitator who chaired a great diversity of meetings, how dismissive Mr. Murray was about the importance of this position and the importance of the role of the chair in any committee. The parliamentary secretary said that this candidate could not have all the answers. The role of the chair is not to have all the answers, of course not. The role of the chair is to have the right questions to pose to the committee, to bring forward the right witnesses, to bring forward the right people to address and comment on the direction and advice needed to be given to the government.

The role of the chair is pivotal in the direction of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. With Mr. Murray's dismissiveness of the importance of that role and the dismissiveness I have seen in the House of the importance of that role, it is clear to me that there is a lack of understanding of the position, a lack of understanding of its importance. This speaks to the Prime Minister's lack of commitment to the environment as an issue by appointing people who have no clear perspective of what the job actually is.

A number of times during the committee discussion I asked Mr. Murray if he would be willing to criticize the government. I have had some frustrations with previous national round table reports and their lack of effectiveness in changing the bad course of the government when it came to greenhouse gases, the use of the taxation system to improve our environmental standing. He avoided the question numerous times. He found his way around it and would not answer me directly. Another member of the committee, a Liberal, entered into the debate and clarified the fact that the role of the chair of the national round table is not to criticize the government, that it is not part of the job description and not something that it does. Mr. Murray did not even have knowledge of that fact.

A number of times the candidate also pointed out that he was willing to work. He said that he was willing to let his hair down, which was the expression he used over and over again, to roll up his sleeves was referred to a few times, and work with the members of the environment committee. This is also not the role of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It is meant to be an advisory body to the Prime Minister. It is also meant to present to the Prime Minister the harsh realities of how we are doing on the environment. Over the last 12 years, that harsh reality has been very discouraging.

To see somebody who was hand picked, who did not go through a nomination race, someone with clear connections to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council being simply appointed thereby incurs a certain amount of loyalty to those people. That person would be unwilling to present that harsh reality to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet about the tough decisions that must be made when it comes to the environment. The progressive action that has been lacking is needed if Canada is going to meet any of its international commitments, if it is going to start to reverse the trend that we have and the pollution that we see in our country, to clean our air and clean our water.

The candidate obviously lacked the fortitude and knowledge to fulfill that position properly. Again it speaks to the lack of importance that the Prime Minister has given to the environment.

There will be a recorded vote in the House to which I am very much looking forward. Therein lies an opportunity for the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the government to dispel the myths that the democratic deficit dialogue was simply optics, that the Liberals were simply looking for an opportunity to gain a few more votes and some key seats. When the House votes on this, it will be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to say he values the opinion of parliamentarians who represent the opinions of Canadians and who looked at the issue with all thoroughness. It has been impugned and suggested that the motivations are purely partisan.

I said in committee and I will say it again here in the House, my intention in looking at Mr. Murray's candidacy, as was the intention of many of the committee members around the table, was to look at his appointment with objectivity and to arrive at a sound decision in the best interests not of Mr. Murray's CV or in the Liberal Party's ability to attract high profile candidates, but in the interests of the environment and the country. We came away with a recommendation to say no, this was not an appropriate appointment, that the Prime Minister had to back down.

The tragedy in Alberta of the RCMP officers being killed occurred during the week that the committee was to look at the motion that is now before the House. I have a deep cynicism and suspicion that in that week when our committee meeting was cancelled, and appropriately so in order that members could attend the funerals of the fallen RCMP officers, the opportunity was taken cynically by the government to rush ahead with the appointment and make sure that the committee could not look at the motion that would come before the House. I do not make that allegation lightly.

When this comes for a vote in the House, the government will have the opportunity to seriously look at the democratic deficit, to take a serious stand and say that the voices of parliamentarians who represent the voices of Canadians matter, that the environment truly matters. The government will have the opportunity to say that it will commit to make an appointment that makes sense, that will be good for the environment, an appointment that will have the trust of parliamentarians and thereby the credibility and trust of Canadians. The government will have the opportunity to vote in support of the motion, which the New Democratic Party will be doing with some pride.

My last point is to dispel the myth of partisanship. The chair of the environment committee who is doing a very able job of chairing another committee, invited committee members to dinner to talk with the new ambassador for the environment who was appointed by the Prime Minister. There was a striking difference in the tone. Unfortunately the Liberal members, except for the chair, were unable to attend the dinner and to meet the ambassador, but the other parties were well represented at the table. The tone and nature of the conversation on the appointment of the ambassador was respectful, engaging and important.

Ms. Sloan has an extraordinary amount of credibility within the House and the country for her perspective on the environment. I and the New Democratic Party are looking forward to working with the ambassador on the important issues on the environment. Is she a New Democratic member or Conservative member? No, she is not. She is a former Liberal member of the House but her credibility is in good standing. She is not a failed candidate who has been dropped in on a soft landing. She has the ability to look at the issues. She has the knowledge to represent the country well when it comes to the environment. She knows the issues.

The New Democratic Party looks forward to engaging with her, even though she is not a New Democrat, even though she is not a Conservative or a Bloc. She is a Liberal. Do we have a problem with the appointment? Of course not. There was no media outcry. There was no need to bring the motion forward in the House to reject her appointment. Why? It was a sound appointment. It made sense. If brought before the committee we would have a fruitful and fulsome debate, as the Liberals like to call it. In the case of Mr. Murray it is the opposite. We have a failed candidate who is unqualified for the job and is unwilling to even know what the job specifically entails.

A Prime Minister whose arrogance in ignoring the will of the committee will be seen when there is a standing vote on this motion in the House. It will be seen when he rejects the opportunity to fulfill the promise of fixing the democratic deficit. This is an opportunity to fulfill the promise to reject the culture of cronyism that has existed for far too long within the Liberal Party, much to the detriment of a number of issues and in this particular case the environment.

The government should take the high road. It should take the opportunity to address the issues that parliamentarians have brought forward. Serious concerns have been brought forward in committee and again during this debate. The government should fulfill the promise of truly looking at the democratic deficit.

Unfortunately, I have a lack of faith with this perspective. I do not think the courage is there. The pattern of cronyism will continue because the Prime Minister has not yet seen the way. The Liberal Party of Canada has not yet seen its way, despite all the evidence of the need to undermine this pattern of soft landings for high profile candidates. The Liberals have to stand with courage in the House with the opposition parties when we vote on this issue and say that the appointment was a bad decision.

I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Mr. Murray in his having to go through this procedure. He accepted an appointment on which he was ill equipped for any sort of scrutiny and which has now happened. Now his career is such as it is. I encourage the government to reconsider its position. This is important to Canadians. We look forward to the support of the government on this motion.