Charlie Angus

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we are not debating issues of racism and anti-Semitism. That is not what this is about. This is about a political tactic and whether we agree with that political tactic or not.

The House, supported by the Liberal government of the day, is supporting actions for the government to condemn any attempts made by individuals or organizations. Those organizations would include the two million members of the United Church of Canada, who, whether rightly or wrongly, have decided that they support the divestment movement. I would be more than willing to debate that with them. I do not know if this is a tactic that I personally approve of; however, what I will certainly respect is the right of the United Church of Canada to take a position and for their members to vote.

Therefore, I would ask my hon. colleague this. With the support of the Liberal government now, how does he see us moving forward with respect to the condemnation of individuals for any actions to challenge Israeli policy in the Middle East?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is really not much point engaging Conservatives on this issue, because they take the crisis of trying to find peace between Israel and Palestine and habitually use it as a wedge issue.

We are being asked in the House to use the power of Parliament to condemn individuals for their right to dissent from the Conservative world view. That was made clear when the Conservatives attacked the leader of the New Democratic Party for failing to condemn a demonstration outside his office.

This morning I read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to picket outside MPs' offices. That is a fundamental right. Therefore, when my colleagues in the Conservative Party ask us to condemn individuals for their right to dissent, I am absolutely shocked and appalled that the Liberal Party, the party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, would go along with them, because they are playing into the Conservatives' continual attempt to wedge and divide Canadians.

I want to ask my colleagues how we can stand and say we are going to support academic freedom when we would use the House of Commons to condemn individual students for participating in debates about foreign policies in another country. What kind of Parliament will we be if we become some kind of monkey house for Conservative ideology? If we are not willing to stand up for the right to dissent, the right to protest, the right to engage in discussion about what is good policy in another country, then the House is a much shabbier place as a result of these really distasteful wedge issues.

I am looking at the Liberal Party and wondering if it is going to go along with the Conservatives one more time, just like it did on Bill C-51. It should show some backbone and stand up to this kind of game playing.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about this. What is very disturbing is that the Liberals and Conservatives agree that as parliamentarians we should denounce students, intervene in universities, and attack individuals over an issue about the Middle East, as opposed to discussing where we need to be on the Middle East.

Considering how close the Liberals and Conservatives are on this issue and given the work the member has done on the international front, what steps should we take in this Parliament to talk about bringing peace for our friends in Israel, to ensure secure borders, to ensure the two-state solution for dealing with the tragedy of Gaza, and to ensure the importance of Canada on the international stage, which has been abdicated by the Conservatives and squandered by the Liberals? What is my hon. colleague's vision about how we bring these two peoples together and how Canada can play a role internationally in bringing peace between Israel and Palestine?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, a great debate in the House would have been, how do we find peace in Israel and Palestine, how we do the rebuilding in Gaza, and how do meet the UN resolution? However, that is not what we are debating. What we are debating today is a push by the Conservatives to try to divide Canadians and use Parliament to deny and condemn individuals for using their right to dissent.

I ask my hon. colleague, coming from the party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, why he would stand with the Conservatives and condemn individuals. I ask him that because it is what the member is voting for. He can say whatever he wants to attack the Conservatives, but he is taking the same position he took on Bill C-51, because the Liberals are afraid of the Conservative rhetorical machine, and they will not stand up for the individual rights of Canadians to dissent.

The issue here is not about defining Israel and Palestine, which is a good debate that we should have, and we need that debate within the House. The question that has been put here is about the condemnation of individuals and organizations, including church people, teachers, and all manner of people. Whether the member agrees with them or not, it is the role of parliamentarians to stand up for individual rights.

I am absolutely shocked that the member would stand with the Conservatives on a motion that specifically calls upon us to condemn individuals for their right to dissent.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one of the great strengths of a liberal democracy, whether it is in Israel where there is debate or whether it is in the House of Commons, is the right to debate and the right to hold individual views.

I note that last August the United Church of Canada, which represents two million Protestants, supported the divestment movement. That was a choice it made. This has nothing to do with my colleague's claim that it is delegitimizing the State of Israel. This was a choice it made.

My Conservative colleagues are asking Parliament to stand up in the House and condemn individuals in this country for their right to debate and for talking about stifling academic freedom. We are being asked as members of Parliament, whatever our views are, to deny and condemn individual students for debating politics. We are being asked to deny and condemn their discussions.

We have to look at the right in a liberal democracy, whether in Israel where there is fulsome debate on all manner of issues, or within the House of Commons, to protect the rights of students, to protect the rights of people to debate foreign policies of another country. That is their right.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting today to watch our Conservative colleagues suddenly showing their great love for unions. Over the last eight years I have just heard ridicule and attacks on organized labour from that lot. To suggest that they are friends of unions is almost as ridiculous as saying that their legislation always met the standards of the Constitution. This was legislation that was brought in by Peter MacKay, the former justice minister, who had more recalls than the Ford Pinto.

The Conservatives believe that they can use the House and legislation to ignore the Constitution, to override privacy rights, to ignore provincial legislation just so they can get at their political enemies, the big straw men that they have created: the big Indian chiefs; the big, bad union bosses; radical environmentalists. We hear the trioka of blither from them consistently about their straw enemies. The fact that they would use legislation that is not charter-compliant in an attempt to attack their enemies actually debases the House. Whether the new government ended the legislation or it was ended in the courts, it would still be ended one way or the other, just like so much of the legislation that they brought in, which they knew was not charter-compliant, which they knew overstepped their bounds and debased the role of Parliament, which is to create credible legislation.

What does my colleague think is in the pathology of the Conservatives' minds that makes them believe they can ignore these clear jurisdictional divides that are supposed to keep government in check?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have been hearing this strange talk from the Conservatives about accountability and transparency. This is from a government that was the most secretive in Canadian history.

When we saw Bill C-377 go through, it was denounced by the Privacy Commissioner as an attack on the right to privacy. Conservatives are into the right to privacy when it comes to their friends, but we have a bill that was challenged for breaching the Constitution, breaching provincial laws, interfering with the right to organize, and was also attacked by the Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Conservatives, in their vendetta against their political enemies, would have thrown the important issue of the constitutional right to privacy out the window just so they could get at their political enemies. Do they still think they can stand up in the House and somehow credibly say they were on the side of accountability and trust?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the Conservatives tell us that they are friends of the workers. It is sort of like the crocodile inviting us down to the riverbank to have a luncheon with him.

We saw the attack on labour. We saw the attack on environmental groups. We saw the attack on any organization that was seen as even a potential threat to the ideology of the Conservative government. The attacks it launched against charities, from OXFAM to PEN to birdwatchers, which were absolutely unconscionable, were allowed to happen in the country. I would like to ask my hon. colleague's thoughts on the matter.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, for the members who have just arrived in the House of Commons, it is fascinating to hear the revisionist history from the Conservatives, that they are on the side of the working people and transparency. I could not think of anything more bizarre. I would actually think they were kidding us, but it is this kind of undermining of public confidence that the Conservative Party has specialized in.

The Conservatives' idea of privacy is maximum privacy for their friends and maximum accountability for the public, whereas it really should be maximum accountability for politicians and privacy for individuals. I mention that because there was the Brent Rathgeber bill last session, a Conservative bill, which was a very good bill about bringing accountability to Ottawa. The Conservatives gutted that bill. They gutted a bill that would have disclosed the salaries of the people who worked for the party. They gutted a bill that would have disclosed the kind of money that was being paid out. Brent thought that a $188,000 threshold should be made public. They cut it so that only people making over $444,000 a year had to disclose that.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. The Conservatives beat up on the unions, they beat up on first nations leadership, but they protected their friends for the last eight years. Why the hypocrisy?

[Indigenous Affairs, February 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. minister heard the question. The question was for the justice department.

What we have learned is that 1,000 victims of sexual and physical abuse in the residential schools had their cases thrown out on a flimsy legal technicality, which is that children who were abused in institutions run by the government are not, somehow, eligible for compensation by the government.

This travesty was conjured up in the Department of Justice. I am asking the minister, as its boss, will she do the right thing? Will she tell this House that those cases will be reopened and that justice will be done? I am asking her to answer for her officials.