Nathan Cullen

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Red Deer for the opportunity to speak on this issue again. It seems that the government did not hear clearly enough from the committee, when we had this in front of us in committee, that we needed to bring the debate into the House for greater clarification on what essentially the problem was with this appointment.

A great deal of time has been spent on the qualifications of Mr. Murray and his ability to take this position. The story is getting somewhat lost, and the importance of the Prime Minister's role throughout this discussion and the credibility of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office, and their ability to conduct their affairs in such a way that is in the best interests of Canadians, not in the best interests of failed Liberal candidates.

I would suggest that the difficulty they are having is that there are a large number of defeated Liberal candidates in the country who need to be taken care of. There are many candidates that we saw in British Columbia, for example, who are high profile people and wish to enter politics, enter an electoral race. They are taking a great risk.

For Mr. Murray, we saw a pattern, a consequence of his choosing to break his word, as it turned out to be, to the people of Winnipeg that he would fulfill his term as mayor. He made that commitment during the mayoral race. There was then an appointment made in his province to remove a sitting Liberal member to make space, essentially, for Mr. Murray. He then left the mayor's office, which then caused a mayoral race to occur and the consequence to the voters and the people of Winnipeg was detrimental.

Because of this pattern of appointments, of securing places for Liberals to ensure that if they take a chance, and it is becoming an increasingly risky chance to run for their party, they will be taken care of if it goes awry, which happened in the case of Mr. Murray's appointment.

However, I think the credibility question, the larger question, is around this Prime Minister's sincerity of fulfilling the promise made during the last election. We know that in the heat of the moment of a debate promises can be made and blown out of proportion. This promise was made over and over again in this House and across the country, as many times as this Prime Minister could make it. He would talk about fixing the democratic deficit and that the age of cronyism and who one knew in the PMO would be over. He said that would be fixed.

So Mr. Murray came in front of us. Now if this appointment had been about cities, if it had been about municipalities and infrastructure and grants, something that Mr. Murray is obviously very familiar with, I do not think we would be having this debate today because his credibility and his experience are well known throughout the country on that issue.

The second question is how serious is this Prime Minister about the environment outside of the rhetoric, but in the actual application of how this country is going to go ahead with some serious environment questions that have been ignored over the last 12 years by this Liberal government? Promises were made about the ability to reduce and the commitment to reduce pollution and make Canada an efficient and thriving part of the global economy and the global environmental picture.

We have seen year after year that this promise has been broken and that Canada continues to pollute more than is necessary and breaking the commitment that the Liberals have consistently made toward the environment.

If the environment were so important to this Prime Minister and to this Liberal Party, then clearly making a patronage appointment out of such an important position within the environmental framework would not have occurred to them.

There is a question about Mr. Murray's ability. I have some sympathy for Mr. Murray at this point. It is not a common experience for Canadians applying for a job to have three hours of dedicated time devoted to them in the House of Commons and have their record scrutinized. Unfortunately, he chose to accept this position which incurred a certain amount of risk and the risk of having parliamentarians view the appointment, and view the credibility of that appointment in the House as we are doing today.

He made a commitment to us. He said that he would not leave this appointment to jump down and run in some future federal election, and who knows when that will be. I asked him about his commitment to the people of Winnipeg when he was in front of committee because he had made a similar commitment that he would not leave that position, which was by coincidence also a mandate of similar length. He responded by saying:

Would I have preferred that the election was at the end of the second term? Absolutely, but you know sometimes you change your mind. That's not breaking trust, and there is a difference.

I would suggest that credibility does not fill me with a great sense of trust of his commitment toward filling this position where simply breaking one's promise is not breaking one's promise. It is not something about trust. It is just simply changing one's mind.

I suspect that if given another opportunity to run, although perhaps not after this particular round of discussions about his abilities, Mr. Murray would then perhaps have another change of mind, thereby setting the environmental agenda back again another number of months, if not years.

It has been suggested by the parliamentary secretary a number of times that this is simply a matter of sour grapes, that two of the opposition parties had sought Mr. Murray as a candidate and clearly, because we did not get him, we are frustrated and want to take out our vengeance. That is absolutely far from the truth.

The parliamentary secretary particularly points to the New Democratic Party saying that Alexa McDonough has been put on this committee. The important distinction for Canadians to understand is that Ms. McDonough, having retired from politics and now is choosing a life to be on the committee--

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the parliamentary secretary. What we are discussing here is whether this is cronyism and whether this is going against the Prime Minister's promise of fixing the democratic deficit.

We in B.C. have seen a number of failed Liberal candidates taking very highly placed positions within the government. To clear the air and to dispose of this, as the parliamentary secretary suggests, is it possible to derive a list, thinking only of British Columbia for the moment, of failed Liberal candidates and what positions, as appointed by the Prime Minister, they now hold within the government?

We hear rumours, which create an air of ill feeling and a perspective on the part of the voters of British Columbia about so many failed Liberal candidates. This is what we have here with Mr. Murray, a failed Liberal candidate. It is an important distinction from other people sitting on the committee. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would derive this list from the party and find out what failed Liberal candidates now hold positions within the government.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, there was an obvious omission so I will ask the question again. With respect to this thoughtful consideration, is the government at this point involved in negotiations over the regulatory environment? That is important. What investment in the obvious research is required? There was a near consensus among participants that the information is missing. Because money is required for this, what is the amount of money needed to enable the first nations and also the communities up and down the coast to make the research happen that is required as the government says for this thoughtful process?

Lastly, there is an interesting irony that is constantly put forward that we need to lift the moratorium to understand how much oil is out there, because we do not know and at the same time there is always this indication that the resource is vast. We cannot have it both ways. Either we do not know and it could be nothing, or we do know and we do not need to lift the moratorium.

Specifically, are we in negotiations to set up the regulatory environment? This is important. What amount of investment is the federal government making in filling in those crucial scientific and socio-economic gaps that have been identified time and time again as being imperative to any consideration on offshore oil and gas exploration?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address an important issue for my constituents. Specifically I rise with respect to the offshore oil and gas moratorium that exists right now in the Hecate Strait off the Queen Charlotte Islands, sometimes known as the Haida Gwaii.

I chose to speak again on this issue, as I have raised it a number of times in question period and perhaps the rhetoric is too strong and the emotions too high for the minister to take the chance to offer me a direct and clear answer. I seek an answer again because there is much confusion and there are mixed signals coming from the government on this important issue.

Just recently I was talking to members of the Haida on the Queen Charlotte Islands, who are engaged in a battle over resources allocation, in this case timber supply. This issue also speaks to this control.

Recently the government engaged in three processes to look at lifting the offshore oil and gas moratorium. Two of them have come back very conclusively letting the government know without a doubt that the people engaged in, first, the Priddle panel, and second, the first nations engagement process, are decisively against lifting the moratorium for offshore oil and gas exploration in Hecate Strait. Seventy-five per cent of the people engaged in the Priddle panel's investigation said not to lift the moratorium and 100% of the first nations consulted said not to do this.

This is about the ability of first nations and people in the northwest of British Columbia to have and maintain the right to control and make decisions about the resources that affect their lives and their futures.

The government said that there is a need for more and sound science, but I will quote from the report:

There was near consensus among participants that there are significant information gaps regarding biophysical [baseline] data and environmental and socio-economic impacts for the [Queen Charlotte Region]....

This is significantly important. One of the questions I hope the parliamentary secretary's notes address is how much the government will be investing in this baseline research, in this need to cover off the abhorrent lack of knowledge that we have of this region before any concept of seismic testing or any far-fetched notion of drilling could exist.

There is also a question of certainty. Industry and people who live in resource-based economies are often looking for some sort of certainty within legislation.

The government will say that it is endeavouring to set up a regulatory environment similar to the east coast's, which will provide certainty and safety. The recent oil spill off the east coast and many of the other spills that have existed in other regulatory environments that were claimed to be safe are disproving the ability of that assurance to make people feel safe about the ocean, the most important thing in that area of the world.

The last question I would put to the parliamentary secretary, and I am sure his notes will address this, is whether there is good faith existing on this file, whether there is good faith on the part of the government. Or is there a sincere effort to have negotiations with the province of British Columbia, which is rabid for this project, regardless of how inconsistent the proof is coming back and regardless of how little industry is actually interested?

Is the federal government engaged in this process of setting up a regulatory environment? If so, does that not speak against what I heard from the minister when I asked him about this in the House? It was on the day that the Kyoto accord came into effect, by the way, and he said the government will have full consultation with the government and with the industry stakeholders, until, it seems, it gets the conclusion it wants, which seems to my mind to be that it would like to lift the moratorium.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to clear the air on this, to provide certainty for people and to return the feeling and strong sentiment that people in the region are ultimately the ones who will control the risk associated with resource extraction.

[The Environment, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that was an answer skilled at passing the buck.

It has been eight years since we signed on to Kyoto and we still have no plan. Now the Liberals have introduced budget legislation that threatens key environmental acts. It is a desperate attempt to manage cabinet bickering over Kyoto by creating legislation on the fly.

We need solid, stand alone legislation to meet our Kyoto obligations, with no more excuses, no more weeks and no more months. When will the minister get over his performance anxiety and just give us the dates?

[Government Appointments, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only qualification this person seems to have is who he knew in the PMO. It is another promise made and another promise broken.

The NRTEE is going to be asked to do some very important work over the coming years, picking up the slack for a cabinet that cannot seem to decide on how to get Kyoto done. This crucial work depends upon someone who has the expertise to fulfill that need, not somebody who is just another yes-man for the Liberal Party, but the Prime Minister seems unconcerned, choosing to give profile to political buddies rather than finding the best person for the job.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the environment is more important than patronage and reverse--

[Government Appointments, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago when the Prime Minister finally clawed his way to the top job he promised to put an end to the politics of cronyism. Obviously this was just another empty promise rather than a sincere commitment to changing how Liberals do their shady business.

The environment committee reviewed Glen Murray's nomination as chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the committee said no. Late Friday afternoon, when he thought no one was looking, the Prime Minister decided to thumb his nose at Parliament and all Canadians and confirmed this appointment against the committee's wishes.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and reverse this patronage appointment?

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite vociferous on these environmental issues. I have seen him acting this way in committee.

I am a bit confused about one section of what he said. A few weeks ago we had a motion before this House to enforce mandatory fuel emissions standards, which I thought he was in favour of and which would have gone a long way to meeting our targets. The government said not to worry about it, that it was in negotiations. Those negotiations have since broken down according to recent reports in the media, so first, I am wondering if he has changed his position.

Second, the commentary at the beginning of his speech leads one to believe that he will not be supporting this budget because it is so blatantly bad for the environment. I was wondering if he could let us know which way his vote will be going in a couple of days.

[Fisheries, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is promoting seriously flawed policies that are threatening the coastal communities of British Columbia. The science around open net farming is clear: this man-made technology is threatening the existence of wild salmon and destroying a tradition that is centuries old. The DFO and Gordon Campbell refuse to acknowledge the science, preferring instead to placate their big money friends and political contributors.

The communities I represent are deeply concerned with the serious risks posed by sea lice to wild stocks. There are viable alternatives available to this industry, which the Liberals have chosen to ignore. The NDP has pledged to support farmers who would establish closed net or land based systems and yet the Liberals insist on continuing down their reckless path.

I call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show leadership today. I call on the minister to step in and save the wild salmon fishery in British Columbia before it disappears by putting a halt to the expansion of open net fish farming.

[Natural Resources, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems to be poised to grant approval to reopen the Tulsequah Chief mine in northwestern British Columbia.

Previously, the DFO was on record with concerns about how this project would affect the salmon bearing streams and caribou herds of the Taku region. After a closed door meeting with lobbyists for the mining company and the province of British Columbia, the DFO inexplicably changed its position and is now pushing the project forward.

This project is tearing the local community apart. The elected leaders of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation are very concerned about the potential impact on the resource role planned for this project. The Supreme Court ruled last year that we need a land use management plan prior to the project's existence.

It is time for leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this file. It is time for him to step up to the plate and to halt the approval of this project until the environmental sustainability issues surrounding the project are adequately addressed.