Charlie Angus

[Indigenous Affairs, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, Parliament ordered the government to stop fighting first nations children in court and to comply with the Human Rights Tribunal. Two days later, the government was back in court fighting against medical treatment for a first nations child, and tomorrow, Cindy Blackstock will be back in court because of its stonewalling.

When it comes to broken promises to first nations people, government talk is really cheap, but its lawyers are expensive. We found out that since the ruling in January, the current government has spent over half a million dollars fighting Cindy Blackstock with lawyers, even though she won.

A simple question: How can the Liberals justify that?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 18th, 2016]

With respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T1340/7008: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) of the 382 million dollars announced for Jordan’s Principle, (i) who was consulted, (ii) what was the process of consultation, (iii) what is the annual breakdown of this funding, (iv) what is the total breakdown of the allocation of these funds; (c) what is the date on which the budget investments in the child welfare system were initially developed; (d) with respect to adjustment to funding formulae regarding remoteness in the child welfare system, (i) will Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) develop a strategy that takes into account such things, (ii) if so, when will such a strategy will be implemented; (e) with respect to consultation during this legal process, (i) what is the list of the First Nations, First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons that INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, (ii) what is INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (iii) what are the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iv) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; (f) with respect to the allocation of immediate relief funding in Ontario, what are the the details of all correspondence between INAC and the Government of Ontario on this topic; (g) with respect to the definition of prevention services in Ontario that was raised in the ruling, (i) will INAC reimburse costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis under the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) what are the details of any requests INAC has received for reimbursement of costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis in Ontario; (h) with respect to the infrastructure needs in Ontario that were identified by the ruling, (i) does INAC have an interim strategy to deal with infrastructure needs of FNCFS Agencies in Ontario outside of the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) if INAC has such an interim strategy, what are the details of that strategy, (iii) if INAC does not have an interim strategy, has anything been done to develop such a strategy; (i) with respect to eligibility in Ontario, (i) will INAC address access to services for First Nations children in Ontario who are “entitled to be registered” under the Indian Act, (ii) if INAC will address such access to services, when will such access be addressed; (j) with respect to consultation on Jordan’s Principle, (i) what is the list of First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, along with INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (ii) what were the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iii) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; and (k) with respect to the Canadian Incidence Study, (i) is funding being provided for the Aboriginal component of the Study, including whether that component of the Study will include data collection specific to remote and northern First Nations, (ii) if funding is being provided, when will the Study be in the field, (iii) what are the details of methodology used for data collection with regard to the Aboriginal component of the Study and with regard to remote and northern First Nations?

[Points of Order, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, you know that I have had enormous respect for you in the House in the 12 years I have been here. I come into the House to get engaged in spirited debates, and I am very pleased that the Speaker pointed out that my spirited debate with the member for Spadina—Fort York was actually interfering with other spirited debates in the House.

I very much appreciate that, and I am very sorry. We were so spirited that I forgot we were in question period. I thank you very much for your role, Mr. Speaker.

[Government Response to Petitions, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I just wanted a clarification. Normally in the morning is the opportunity for individual members to raise issues, for example, petitions from Sault Ste. Marie by people who feel their voices are not being heard in this Parliament.

Is this procedural game by the Liberals erasing our right as parliamentarians to speak on behalf of the people who sent us here?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our economy is based on our regions. In the region I represent, families leave home all the time to go to work, because there is no work back home. Therefore, building regional economic development in a region that has been a have-not for a long time is really important.

I was shocked that the first decision the government made for northern Ontario was to cut all the broadband projects right across the north, as though we did not need to compete. Then it took our voice away from cabinet. I guess the Liberals think we are dummies. They think we do not need a voice in cabinet, that someone from Mississauga is fine. Then they took the resources that were meant to be spent on northern economic development and spent it in the minister's riding. If that is not the most egregious case of pork barrelling, or an example of the government's idea of the map extending around the little boroughs in the central areas it has members, we have a big problem.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of speaking for regions that are outside the Liberal bubble.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Come on, Mr. Speaker.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Speech, speech.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He is from Newfoundland and I do not think that is anywhere close to Mississauga, the last time I checked on a map. Newfoundland, like northern Ontario, relies on regional economic development, but the Liberals are telling us we do not need our own voice in northern Ontario, they will just get rid of that and replace our northern Ontario voice with a guy from Mississauga and then take the funds that are supposed to be for northern economic development and put them into a business in guess where? Mississauga.

I do not know if my hon. colleague has spoken in defence of ACOA for his region, but I have not heard any of my Liberal colleagues from northern Ontario talk about the cuts to broadband. They have said nothing about economic development and they seem to think it is perfectly fine that money from our region is going to Mississauga to help something that is right there in the minister's backyard.

Is my hon. colleague going to stand with us and fight for regional economic development and have our stand-alone agencies with our ministers from our own region and not some fiefdom in Mississauga?

[Indigenous Affairs, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and agreed to immediately flow the $155-million shortfall in child welfare, but Cindy Blackstock is already saying she may have to take the government to court because it is stonewalling. Meanwhile, there are communities that are struggling with serious allegations of sexual abuse. Without the resources on the ground, there is no way to protect these children. This is money that is urgently needed. This is about the credibility of the Prime Minister's word.

Is he going to flow that money or is this going to be just another in a long line of broken promises to indigenous kids in Canada?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 14th, 2016]

With respect to third party managers and co-managers on indian reserves, what is: (a) the full list of third party managers and co-managers broken down by band; (b) the length of time each band has been under a third party manager or co-manager; and (c) the full list of remuneration and expenses for each third party manager or co-manager?