Jack Sydney George (Bud) CULLEN

CULLEN, The Hon. Jack Sydney George (Bud), P.C., B.A., LL.B.

Parliamentary Career

June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Sarnia (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (October 1, 1971 - February 2, 1972)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (February 3, 1972 - September 1, 1972)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Sarnia--Lambton (Ontario)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Sarnia--Lambton (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (September 15, 1974 - September 14, 1975)
  • Minister of National Revenue (September 26, 1975 - September 13, 1976)
  • Minister of Manpower and Immigration (September 14, 1976 - August 14, 1977)
  • Minister of Employment and Immigration (August 15, 1977 - June 3, 1979)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Sarnia (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 544)


June 29, 1984

Mr. Cullen:

Nonsense.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT ' AMENDMENTS RESPECTING BIRTH OF CHILDREN
Full View Permalink

June 21, 1984

Mr. Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I should like for the moment to set aside the partisan debate we are having in so far as this particular Bill is concerned. I have not put in the number of years which the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has put into this place, but I, too, will be leaving the House of Commons very shortly.

It might be of interest for him to know that the future Prime Minister, when I had the privilege of serving as his Parliamentary Secretary, said: "When Marcel Lambert gives you his word, you know that that is his bond". Quite often we considered tax legislation and as two young bucks received a lot of good advice from the Hon. Member who would say: "Don't be rushing it. Just give us time to play with it. You will get your Bill next week", and we always knew we would. That was a significant tribute from the then Minister of Finance.

I made a point of going back and looking over some of the debates. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West on more than one occasion was called upon on Budget night, when all the focus was on the Minister of Finance, the Budget and the lock-up of the press, and had what I always thought was a very difficult task. He had to respond immediately on the particular night to a Budget which he had only seen shortly before. The then Minister of Finance said: "Go back and read the Budget speeches which Marcel has made because they are classics in responses to Budgets". It is significant to indicate that they were all different. There were different emphases and different lengths. Sometimes, as he said, the Hon. Member even had a tendency to lose his temper.

I should like to say that it has been a privilege to be in the House while the Hon. Member was here. He has a long and distinguished career not only in the House but as a veteran who was taken prisoner at Dieppe. Those of us who have known you as a friend will forget some of the partisanship and say that we hope you will enjoy your retirement, if that is the proper word, although I cannot see a man as active as you actually retiring. I know I do not intend to; I am going to another job.

In terms of this particular Bill I, too, am convinced that it is necessary to go to a civilian service. I, too, feel that some of the definitions could be tightened up somewhat. However, the difficulty we have is that which the Hon. Member signified and indicated many times in the past. When someone does not get their way and brings in some 300 amendments at committee stage, there is no legitimate debate. Some of the amendments moved by the Hon. Member's colleague, the new critic of the Solicitor General, warrant more careful attention than they frankly received. However, when 300 amendments are being brought in by one Party and we are trying to debate a Bill which contains over 90 clauses, it is somewhat difficult to have a legitimate debate. One is almost bound to go with the Minister and with the Bill because it is significantly better than the status quo, with the Mounties there and no control.

June 21, 1984

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink

June 20, 1984

Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):

Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question which was asked by the Hon. Member for Joliette, and is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Unfortunately the Hon. Member for Joliette left the impression that there was only one recommendation flowing from the petrochemical task force. In point of fact there were 19 or 20 recommendations. I know meetings have been held by the Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with the officials. Is the Minister now in a position to tell us when he anticipates a response to the petrochemical task force report?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INDUSTRY
Full View Permalink

June 19, 1984

Mr. Cullen:

This is typical of an NDP member. I am expressing a point of view and the Hon. Member is endeavouring to shout me down. At least get in your own seat if you are going to shout me down, so that if you have a point of order you can raise it. Frankly, I found the approach adopted by the NDP at committee reprehensible.

I basically disagree with the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party which indicated that it would like to see this security service returned to the RCMP despite the decision of the McDonald and Mackenzie Commissions, and the decisions made by the Senate and the Government, for that matter.

What approach did the Conservatives take? I thought that the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) asked a series of very pertinent questions at the committee stage. He raised the issue and it was debated at committee. Although they lost the vote, they made their point. We were able to have a reasonable debate. But what did we see from the NDP? They sought amendments to delete clauses of the Bill. There were 300 amendments brought in at the committee stage. What does that do for democracy? It ruins any opportunity for any kind of debate.

I basically disagree with the judgment of the Progressive Conservative Party on this particular Bill. I do not believe the service should be returned to the RCMP. No one has more respect for that particular agency than I. I had the privilege of working with the RCMP when I was Minister of Employment and Immigration. We had to deal with security matters and had to rely in large measure on the judgments and decisions of the RCMP. I was satisfied that we received excellent briefings and that the reports which I received had been carefully thought out before I was asked to make a decision.

In order to complement that particular protection of civil liberties of Canadians or of others coming to the country, I saw fit to appoint a board. It was made up of three members, a former civil servant, a former Cabinet Minister and a former judge of the Supreme Court in Quebec. They were to study the

Time Allocation

evidence that had been presented to me to determine what weight I should give to this material. I had no other way to check other than relying on the RCMP and the judgment of these three senior Canadians whose judgment I respected.

That is what we are looking for in the security service. We are seeking a "delicate balance", as I believe it was put by the Senate committee. We must have an indication that the information that comes before us has received all the necessary screening. I believe the report from the Senate committee was one of the better reports from the Senate that I have had the privilege to read. That Senate committee and the McDonald Commission indicate that a civilian agency is the proper medium for this particular service in Canada.

Hon. Members opposite say that they did not really have an opportunity to study this matter at committee. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has indicated that he was at approximately 24 committee meetings. In each instance the Minister indicated why the Government could not accept a particular amendment. Those reasons made eminently good sense, which Hon. Members opposite knew. In some instances they could not accept those reasons and they appropriately brought forward amendments when they could not accept that reasoning. I know that in many instances they accepted the Minister's reasons. However, likely in an attempt to delay the Bill, they saw fit to move a whole series of amendments. I am specifically referring to the New Democratic Party. We discussed many of these amendments at committee stage. Again, it was a complete waste of members' time. What is the point in having committees if every amendment that is presented at the committee stage is presented again at the report stage?

I hear Opposition Members talking with approbation about the American experience. American witnesses appeared before the committee. We had a particularly good witness from the security section of the American Government. She told us that they tried to introduce a Bill which provided for everything necessary to protect all rights and prevent any interference. That Bill collapsed under its own weight. There were so many qualifying phrases in the Bill in an attempt to protect civil liberties that the Americans ultimately had no Bill at all. Therefore, that country has a presidential edict. The Attorney General of the United States indicates what is to be done.

We do have accountability in our Bill. I think the individuals who will be called upon to look into the actions of the other security service will recognize their responsibilities. They will be well respected Canadians, I am certain. They will require the approval of the Leaders of the Parties in the House of Commons, so there is significant accountability in this Bill.

I for one am happy that, after some five years, we will have another look at this Bill. Others will do that because I will not be here. They will look at whether it has worked. They will look to see if there have been any infringements of or intrusions into the civil liberties of Canadians. I do not think we have to quote other individuals to tell us whether this Bill is good or bad. I think we are hired and retained by our

4816

June 19, 1984

Time Allocation

constituents to come here and look at legislation. What Members opposite, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, do not recognize is that Bills are gone over and over again at the caucus stage before they see the light of day. We have long, serious and sometimes it might be called great debate before a Bill sees the light of day. This lets us do all that is possible to apply the necessary delicate balance to the necessity for having a security service and yet not encroaching upon the civil liberties of Canadians, at least beyond that provided for in the Bill. As well, the committee can say to the security service: "You are accountable to us and we will be reporting to Parliament".

Bill C-9 is a good Bill. It is sad that we had to use time allocations, but frankly, there was no other way to get this Bill through given the farce presented by the New Democratic Party.

Topic:   HARBOUR COMMISSIONS ACT
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Full View Permalink

June 19, 1984

Mr. Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, if there is a person from whom I do not need lecturing on parliamentary procedure it is the Hon. Member for Burnaby. The position taken by the NDP on this motion and others is much more dangerous to Canada and to the parliamentary system than amendments of the kind the Hon. Member for Vancouver South is putting forward here today. We have had a muzzling of Parliament on motions like this one because of the tyranny of the minority. We saw it in committee and we are seeing it here. I think this is a good amendment, one I would like to have debated, one I would like to have the Solicitor General participate in as well. But when you get 50, 60, 70 or 80 amendments designed primarily to destroy the parliamentary process from Members who "if we in the minority cannot have it our way, nothing is going to happen in Parliament", then that is much more dangerous than the legislation itself. I ask the NDP to get back to the principles brought to this House by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Show some respect for this place so we can have a legitimate debate on this amendment and others and then have a vote. I do not intend to pursue any more of this particular farce orchestrated by the Hon. Member for Burnaby.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink