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

Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):

Mr. Speaker, unlike the two previous speakers, I make no apologies for the use of the rules of Parliament, namely time allocation, when it becomes very obvious from pamphlets and edicts put out by the NDP that they were going to do everything possible to delay this Bill. It is interesting to note that the time allocation rules provide for an opportunity of discussion with Opposition Parties, then with the Official Opposition, and if no agreement can be reached on the appropriate allocation of time for a debate, the Government is required to take its responsibility and ensure that a Bill it has initiated sees the light of day and has a vote in the House of Commons.

The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is really condemned out of his own mouth. The fact of the matter is that if he had a legitimate argument in this particular instance he would not have had to resort to name calling, referring to people as flunkies and using other such terminology. It is not becoming of a parliamentarian to talk in that way. I think he degrades himself when he uses that kind of language.

None of the witnesses who came before us and no honest, right-thinking person would deny the necessity for having a security service in Canada. We have been singularly fortunate that we have essentially been spared the problem of terrorist activities such as those that have taken place in so many countries around the world. However, we are not totally immune and have had our own incidents, and we need this security service. It should be in civilian hands. We need this

June 19, 1984

service in order to have proper accountability so that our civil liberties might be protected.

As a former member of the rules committee, a high priority for us was to enhance the role of the Private Member. The way this can be done is through the committee system. It is in the committee that the ordinary Member of Parliament has an opportunity to participate in debate and to make necessary changes. However, after the approach adopted by the NDP at second reading and committee stage, I wonder if they have not set back rule changes and the enhancement of the role played by the individual Member of Parliament.

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