Charlie Angus

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, people back home who were not watching anything relevant tonight and tuned in to this show may be concerned that they are part of some kind of really strange reality TV script, where we have someone who sneaks into the House of Commons to warn us that the government is coming with black helicopters, with these anti-gun values, to come and take away one's right to hunt.

I listened with fascination to my colleague, and I did agree with her on one fundamental point. It is an important point. She said that logic and reason are of little use in this discussion. She certainly proved that tonight. I would like to thank her for being so subversive in how she did it. With the most ridiculous, bizarre, and paranoid whack-job analysis she did prove that logic and reason are of little use in this debate. I would like to at least thank her for that.

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I just want to know if I heard correctly. It is very important. The member said that gun owners would be bewildered when they listen to her. I am too. Was that what the member said, or did I misinterpret her intent?

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on this. When I reapplied for my gun licence, the officials did a background check. They called my wife. That is important because things can change. We have seen horrific levels of violent gun deaths for middle-aged men through suicide. Who else will be able to warn that there is a problem other than family members? The background checks can do important work, especially if we talk about the horrific levels of male suicide tied to gun violence.

Does my hon. colleague not think in these instances that we can do better and we can start to identify these issues so we can start to ensure guns are not be in the hands of people who could do harm to their families or to themselves?

[Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague's work on this file. As a registered gun owner representing a rural region where many people have guns because it is part of our way of life, I have talked with many people about the bill and about their concerns. I will share some thoughts I heard.

People much prefer that it be the police who decide the classification of weapons, rather than Liberal politicians. They feel that at least it is arm's length from the Liberal government.

In terms of the issue of background checks, any gun owner I know wants to have proper background checks. That is fundamental.

On the issue of keeping records, I do not hear people back home thinking it is a registry. They believe that if someone is going to sell guns, the person should keep records. That is fairly straightforward.

The question I have is on the issue of transportation and whether it is too onerous and whether or not we can fix it at committee. I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his thoughts on this aspect, because there is a lot of uncertainty about the transportation provisions and whether people would have to jump through too many hoops and whether this is something we can fix to come up with a reasonable gun policy that responds to the needs of rural people, while ensuring that gangbangers are not driving around in the city with restricted firearms in their cars.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, this is the eighth anniversary of the passing of Shannen Koostachin, an incredible youth leader, who called out the systemic negligence of government toward first nations children. On this sad anniversary, the Auditor General has trashed the government's handling of education, calling it an “incomprehensible failure”.

I would like to ask the minister about the decision to falsify the graduation rates. A 76% failure rate was covered up to protect the minister's office. Why would the Liberals protect a culture of negligence rather than protect the hopes and dreams of a generation of first nations children?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the shortfall for clean water for first nations on reserve is $3.2 billion. The shortfall on housing is much more severe. When I am dealing, as I was this week, with a young mother with a chronically sick child living in a mould-infested shack, what am I to tell her? Do I tell her that she is now a part owner of a 65-year-old pipeline, or that it is not going to be Doug Ford driving the first bulldozer through first nation territory but the Prime Minister?

Why is it that with first nation children, change is always incremental, but Texas oil investors get from the Prime Minister what they want, when they want it?

[Privacy, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, banks have an enormous trove of all our personal information, every liquor store purchase, alimony payment, failed mortgage. No wonder hackers are always trying to crack the data safe, because it is literally a gold mine.

Legislators around the world are working to protect the data privacy rights of citizens, but the minister has put a for sale sign on it to allow banks to sell our personal information to third party operators.

When is the minister going to stop acting like a butler on call for the banking elite and start standing up for Canadian citizens for a change?

[Democratic Reform, May 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when I drive the 407, like other Canadians, I expect at least that my name and address will be kept private, not shared around in a bunch of dodgy Conservative nomination races. The 407 data scandal is exhibit A as to why we need to have political parties held accountable and brought under the Privacy Act.

The Prime Minister is pushing through his electoral reform bill, whose privacy protections are about as reliable as a pinky swear from a party operative. Why is he ignoring the call of the Privacy Commissioner to hold political parties accountable?

[Ethics, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, elected office is not all that complicated. We are there to put the interests of the public first, but the Liberals treat it like an exclusive clam bar for their pals and their friends. Let us look at the investigation into the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans who had his hook in a deal that smells fishier than a Liberal at low tide. I have seen a lot of political red herrings over the years.

I am asking the minister to stop floundering around like some kind of fish in a suit and come clean about that fishy surf clam quota deal, please.

[Ethics, May 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, around the globe, U.S. data oligarchies are facing calls for regulation, but with the Liberal government it is a case of who you know in the PMO. Liberal operative Kevin Chan did not even bother to register as a lobbyist because he could just call up his friends, the ministers, and Google did one step better, moving Leslie Church from the Liberal Party to Google public affairs to the senior position in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's office. Talk about letting Dracula have the keys to the blood bank.

Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage putting the interests of Liberal insiders ahead of the interests of Canadian citizens?