Charlie Angus

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, you are right. I meant to say that the finance minister probably would not put up his hand, because he might have forgotten that he owned the house.

This was the question. The Liberals again were saying I was mean to them, because they said, “That is really unfair, Charlie, because he actually did announce before—

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay.

One of my Liberal colleagues said that we had to continue to show deference on this issue to the finance minister to reassure Canadians that they should have trust in the House. However, the question we are discussing today is a fundamental question about a breach of trust with Canadians. When I talk with Canadians across the country, quite frankly, they do not believe that Ottawa is interested in or will protect their basic interests, and we need look no further than the present finance minister.

We look at the situation today of the Sears workers who have been laid off thanks to the mismanagement by a hedge fund of what was once a stellar company. We see people whose basic pension benefits are at risk, and the most we hear from the Liberals is, “Well, that's really too bad, but it's before the courts.” It's the same thing we heard when Nortel went down, and the Abitibi workers lost their jobs, and the people across my riding who had their pension stolen by corporate executives like Peggy Witte. Members know that that kind of theft is not only legal in Canada, but also gets one bonuses for doing it. We will never see the government stand up and defend people whose pensions are being stolen from them, because they are fundamentally the party of the 1%.

I am not saying this in an exaggerated fashion, because we have only to look at our present finance minister who is the privatized pension king of this country. The issue today, hot off the presses after all of the major national attention, is that he has finally written the Ethics Commissioner about the fact that the shares he receives from Morneau Shepell give him $150,000 in pocket change a month, and an extra $40 million since he has come into government.

Now the Liberals would tell us that this kind of money is virtuous, because a man who makes that much money and offers himself for public service is someone we should admire, as he can only be doing it for the benefit of all of us little people. I would like to believe that, but if we look at the issue in terms of where Morneau Shepell has been and where the present finance minister has been, a blind trust will not cut it.

I will refer members to a speech by the minister in 2013. He summarized it by saying, “Elderly poverty is not a problem.” I guess one has to own a villa in the south of France to think that elderly poverty is not a problem in Canada. However, in that speech he also made a number of statements about the push to get rid of defined pension benefit plans. He said “A significant number of our clients have parent companies or sister companies in the...United Kingdom.” He went on to say that the movement away from defined pension benefits has been easier there than in Canada and that “We need legislation enabling Target Benefit Plans and Shared Risk Plans in all Canadian jurisdictions.” He told his shareholders that we needed to move on legislation. In that same speech, he said that “As defined benefit plan consultants and administrators, we’ve been in the front row.”

What was one of the first pieces of legislation the minister brought forward in his own name? It was legislation that would especially benefit Morneau Shepell, Bill C-27, which is an attack on defined pension benefits in this country. He said it was necessary to give his company the advantage.

When discussions on changes in defined pension benefits began with the previous government, Morneau Shepell wanted its investors to know that the idea came from it. The proposed DBP framework the government outlined in its consultation paper is clearly modelled after the shared risk pension plans introduced in 2012 in New Brunswick. Morneau Shepell's experts were heavily involved in the design of that, which is what they do for a living. This is why he makes $150,000 a month and his benefits have gone up by $40 million. If one introduces legislation that will benefit his company, obviously the shares will go up.

How is this an ethical problem? Well, of course, when one is a Liberal, one does not think there is a problem with ethics, because he is a nice guy.

We have been told that we have been picking on him because he forgot to announce that he had his private French villa through a private corporation. The Liberals over there have been saying that any one of us could have made that same mistake. Perhaps. It is not a fair question to ask in this House, because the amount of money people earn here is much higher than the folks back home. Can we have a show of hands? How many people here own a villa in the south of France? I do not see any, and the minister is gone on the Prime Minister's hide, so he is not here. I do not even know if he would have put up his hand.

[Business of Supply, October 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my hon. colleague, because I have a fundamental question for him and a fundamental problem with the premise that, if the finance minister puts his shares into a blind trust, all will be well. I think we are way beyond that.

In 2013, the finance minister gave a speech in which he talked about the need to bring legislation into Canada to move people away from defined pension benefits. He talked about how his company, Morneau Shepell, was in the front row of making these changes around the world. Then he offered himself for public service, and he was put in the finance minister position, and the legislation was brought in to help make it easier to take away defined pension benefits. Therefore, the fact that he did not put his shares into a blind trust but said that legislation was needed to benefit his company and brought forward that legislation, to me speaks to a much more serious issue, which is a question of integrity with respect to the government and using people's pension funds to benefit the finance minister and his pals at Morneau Shepell. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on this.

[Indigenous Affairs, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations of widespread fraud committed against the people of Kashechewan raises serious questions about the operating culture in the Minister of Health's office.

Joe Crupi is alleged, among other things, to have stolen a million dollars from a breakfast program in a community so poor the kids do not have a school, yet her officials protected his access despite the warning bells from the Attorney General and the RCMP. Now her lawyers are going after Crupi for the money, but that was money stolen from the mouths of children.

What steps will she take to make it right for the children of Kashechewan and right for the people of Canada?

[Access to Information Act, September 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the issue of order-making powers for the Information Commissioner. It is a relevant issue, because my office has spent three years trying to get the justice department to turn over that briefing notes on why it suppressed evidence going into the hearings of the survivors of the St. Anne's Residential School, suppressing evidence of serial pedophilia and torture against children in order to have the cases thrown out. The minister has ignored an order by the Information Commissioner to turn over these documents.

When we are talking about the justice department's role in suppressing evidence in legal hearings, is that vexatious or some kind of irritant to the government? Would that be under cabinet confidence? If the government decides to ignore orders from the Information Commissioner, what we can we do to hold the justice department of Canada to account? We are talking about the abuse of the rights of survivors of Indian residential schools by the department blacking out of thousands of pages of documents, which then protects the perpetrators. Will the minister say this is an abuse of the fundamental principles of the Access to Information Act?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With respect to government spending on Student Support Services within the Elementary and Secondary Education Program within Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) for each region, and for each fiscal year going back to 1984-1985, what monthly, quarterly or other incremental amounts were allocated per student for student accomodations for students attending off-reserve schools; and (b) for each region, and for each fiscal year going back to 1984-1985, what monthly, quarterly or other incremental amounts were allocated per student for financial assistance allowances for students attending off-reserve schools?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With respect to the Jordan's Principle Child-First Initiative: (a) how many individuals have received services with funds from this initiative; (b) what was the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by region and by category of health service provided?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s additional information released in its technical paper on the carbon tax or price on carbon on May 18, 2017: (a) what amount of money will the carbon tax collect through the Canada Revenue Agency, by year and by province; (b) what amount of money does the government anticipate will be sent back to the provinces, by year and by province; (c) for the funds referred to in (b), how will they be sent back to the province (e.g. through a cheque to each province’s resident, through a transfer to the provincial government which will in turn decide what to do with the money, etc); (d) how many new public servants will be hired to administer the new carbon pricing system, broken down by (i) Environment and Climate Change Canada, (ii) Canada Revenue Agency, (iii) Finance Canada, (iv) Privy Council Office, (v) Other government departments; (e) how many current public servants will be transferred to positions to administer the new carbon pricing system, broken down by (i) Environment and Climate Change Canada, (ii) Canada Revenue Agency, (iii) Finance Canada, (iv) Privy Council Office; (v) Other government departments; and (f) how much will it cost to implement the public servants required to administer the carbon pricing system referred to in (d) and (e)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 18th, 2017]

With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to journalists and Indigenous activists since October 31 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies including Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadians citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel; and (j) what are the answers for (a) through (i) for journalists, instead of for Indigenous individuals or organizations, and only if applicable?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, their names are Chantel Fox and Jolynn Winter. They were only 12 years old, and they were loved. The Human Rights Tribunal found the government culpable in their deaths because the Minister of Health refused the plea for emergency mental health services in what the tribunal ruled was a “life and death situation”. That negligence led to their deaths and 24 other children being put into emergency care. They died while the justice minister was spending $707,000 fighting the tribunal. Why are lawyer fees more important to the government than the lives of first nation children?