Charlie Angus

[Points of Order, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I take my work very seriously in the House. I am shocked that as I do my work, I get some drive-by smear about something to do with kings and the Treasury Board. I have not ever spoken on kings. I have a lot of opinions on the uselessness of the historic monarchy, but I do not know why I am being subjected to this smear.

I would like the member to apologize.

[Northern Development, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to Conservative Canada where if a person is a vet, they wait 50 years, and if they are hungry, they go to the dump.

This week, when Canadians saw heartbreaking footage of people scavenging in dumps in Rankin Inlet, the Conservatives went on the offensive. The current minister claimed that this video was not true—we heard her. Her staff intimidated people in Rankin Inlet, demanding an apology to the Conservative Party of Canada. What staggering indifference.

I would like to ask the minister why she believes that people eating out dumps in her riding owe the Conservative Party an apology for her failure to represent them.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, some people might consider me a rich old white guy. If I said anything derogatory, I retract it. The fact is that there are two laws and indigenous children do not seem to matter to the government. I will retract any unnecessary comments.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, is it “antics” to talk about Tina Fontaine's body being found in the Red River? However, I guess because she was an indigenous child, to speak about the mistreatment of aboriginal children in the House the Conservatives think is “antics”. They have absolutely zero interest.

The Conservatives would rather we talk about the treatment of police dogs because they have zero interest in the fact that, under their watch, children are being denied wheelchairs. They are being denied wheelchairs because there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich old white people and another for the aboriginal children who are being denied hospital beds, denied access to dental treatment, denied access to medical services. The Conservatives say that when we raise issues of indigenous rights, it is an antic. Damn right.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. We are in Parliament to review legislation and to assure the people of Canada that any bills that are brought forward and become law have been fully reviewed, so that we understand if there are problems. Whatever bills do, they can create unintended consequences.

However, under the current government, we see that serious pieces of legislation are blown through. There is time allocation and debate is cut down so that review is not given. We have had more and more bills rejected by the Supreme Court, bills that are unconstitutional, and even had bills turned back in the Senate, because they are obviously failures. We could spend all day, weeks and months, on a bill about being mean to police dogs.

I would like to point out to my colleague the example of the stripping of the navigable waters act. Right across Canada there was no review of that. That was so the Conservatives could get the pipelines through. Now we see in Ontario and Quebec, the push-back on Energy East. If the government had done this in a proper manner and reassured the public, there might not be this kind of resistance we are seeing in Burnaby to the northern gateway pipeline and that we are seeing to Energy East.

The lack of due diligence on these bills has huge implications for development in this country.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues get upset any time that we talk about first nation children or first nation victims in the House. However, I was pointing out, as the member stood up, that I was referring to Bill C-35 and the six-month minimum sentence for abuse of police dogs, and I was comparing this to other government policy. In Bill C-35, we are being asked to talk about invoking minimum sentences for the mistreatment of police dogs, and yet, over on that side, the mistreatment of first nation children under their watch is “too bad, so sad”.

A New Brunswick region internal document entitled, “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership”, dated November 12, 2012, warns in two sections of the report of the risks, including death to children, through underfunded child welfare programs. It states:

...the continuance of inadequate service delivery in the Agency could lead to exposure of First Nations children to serious harm. [...]

[Further], there would be a significant backlash if a child died as a result of federal funding not being available....

I have seen the House in this last session of Parliament turn into a Potemkin democracy. Important issues of the day are not allowed to be discussed, or they are pushed through in omnibus legislation. However, we have all the time under the sun to talk about the mistreatment of police dogs. I would never support the mistreatment of a dog or cat—I have had dogs and cats my whole life—but I see internal documents that say the government knows that children are at risk of death because of its deliberate underfunding, and the government puts in writing that it would absolutely not give children basic health care and beds that children need so they do not die.

Let us talk about minimum sentences. How about some minimum sentences for the people who have the fiduciary responsibility to look after children under their watch and who leave them with no support? The number of children who have been lost, given up, suffered death, committed suicide, is appalling.

I will go back to the opening statement that I made, from Sergeant O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police when he found the body of Tina Fontaine. She was an innocent child who had been taken out of her family and put in child welfare and then lost in the system. He said if it were a litter of puppies or kittens, society would be appalled.

We have seen a response from the federal government. Its response was to go after Cindy Blackstock, who brought forward the Human Rights Tribunal case. Its response was to spy on her, to follow her, to break the law in trying to get evidence on her, and to fight these issues all the way through the Human Rights Tribunal.

I will end my speech on this one last case of Pictou Landing, Maurina Beadle, whose son suffered from cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and autism. The family fought all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to get home care for this child, and the government wanted the family to pay legal costs. That is the kind of situation we are dealing with in the House today.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House to represent the people of Timmins and the James Bay region as we deal with this bill, Bill C-35, Quanto's law. The bill would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for people who are mean to police dogs.

We have spent a lot of time in this House talking about police dogs, and we have seen the government members sit together and get very teary-eyed when they talk about the treatment of police dogs.

It is seven years almost to day that we stood in this House on another motion, Jordan's principle, which passed on December 7, 2007. It was named after Jordan River Anderson from the Norway House Cree first nation, a young child who had never been able to go home because of his complex medical needs. The federal government refused to pay for his health coverage unless he was in a foster care situation.

Jordan's principle is that all children in Canada, regardless of their race, have a right to equitable health care. The House of Commons stood up, just as it will probably stand up on Quanto's law, and voted for Jordan's principle, and then nothing happened.

When I was thinking about the bill on police dogs, I thought of Sergeant John O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police who, on August 17, 2014, found the body of Tina Fontaine in the Red River. He told the media, “She's a child. This is a child that's been murdered. Society would be horrified if we found a litter of kittens or pups in the river in this condition. This is a child.”

It says something. This is nothing against dogs and cats; I have dogs and cats at home. However, when a police officer has to point out that a first nation child who was murdered and dumped in a river would have received more attention if she had been a litter of puppies, it says something.

I want to just compare the values that we are seeing in this House, in terms of mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to read from draft No. 11, dated November 21, 2012. It is entitled “Jordan's Principle, Case Conferencing to Case Resolution, Federal/Provincial Intake Form”. It is tab 420 in the factum of evidence in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on first nation child services that are being denied by the federal government.

The quote is the following:

Previously healthy 4 year old First Nation Child suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury while undergoing routine dental extraction. The child is totally dependent for all activities of daily living and requires significant medical and equipment before she can be discharged from [health services].

The items that it said she needs are a Hill-Rom bed for a child, a specialized stroller, a mattress to prevent skin breakdown, a trapeze bar, a portable lift, a bath frame, a Hoyer lift. That is what is needed to look after this child and give her mother the support.

There were over a dozen child welfare agencies looking at what needed to be done to get this child back with her family.

When it came to the bed, the bed that would keep her from suffocating, the specialized bed she needed, the non-insured health benefits of Health Canada said absolutely not; they were not paying for a bed for a child who might suffocate otherwise.

We see in the notes that it was the director of the hospital who had to pay out of his pocket for this child to get a bed because the government had written into its policy that providing that child with a life-saving bed was not a priority.

However, here we are today talking about mandatory minimum sentences if we are mean to a police dog.

I would like to read from another report, entitled “Jordan's Principle, Dispute Resolution”, dated May 22, 2009. It is tab 320 in the factum of evidence that has been brought forward against the federal government:

A child with multiple disabilities and/or complex medical needs requires a wheelchair and stroller and requires that a lift and tracking device be installed in his/her family home. [Health Canada] will provide children with only one item every five years. If the item is a wheelchair, [non-insured health benefits] supports the provision of manual wheelchairs only, which must be fitted with special seating inserts in order to accommodate small children.

They would not even pay for an electric wheelchair for a completely incapacitated child. It is in the policy.

However, here we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for people being mean to police dogs.

I will read from an internal government report from British Columbia, INAC and Health Canada, Gaps in Delivery Services to First Nation Children in B.C., dated November 6, 2009, which states:

More and more, dentists and other care providers refuse to deal with Health Canada directly because of very long delays in receiving payment....

There is no funding for basic dental care, even in emergency situations; no money for “basic equipment, e.g. hospital bed”. We have already talked about the fact that it will not pay for hospital beds for children: “too bad, so sad”.

There is no funding for special diets for children who cannot eat solid foods, and no funding so that the guardian can travel with a child to a special needs appointment.

I am not making this up. These are in the tabs. Costs for medications are not approved by the federal government, even though the pediatricians prescribe the medication for the child's condition.

It states:

Children in care are not accessing Mental Health services.... If these children cannot get necessary mental health service, [including assessment for fetal alcohol syndrome], they are unable to access [other education programs].

I will point out that in my region of Treaty 9, the issue of not being able to access mental health services has left us with horrific levels of suicide. If children or young people come forward to say that they are depressed or suicidal, the only option is to put them into foster care and take them away from their community. Any other community would provide counselling, but that is not allowed because it is not in the policy. However, we have mandatory minimum sentences being discussed today for being mean to police dogs.

I would like to talk about this idea of mandatory minimum sentences.

In the New Brunswick region, we have an internal document entitled “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships”, dated November 2012, tab 298.

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of remedial steps, this minister has had some spectacular bloopers when it comes to losing the personal data of Canadians.

Help me understand this one. Her department gathers the personal financial information and home addresses of key Canadians, like former war crimes tribunal Justice Louise Arbour and diplomat Allan Gotlieb, tosses it in the mail and sends it to the media, and no alarm bells go off? How about a little accountability here?

Will she tell us this? Did she take any concrete steps after the last breach, because how is it possible that the information of these Canadians was so casually put at risk under her watch?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, another day, another massive privacy breach at the Canada Revenue Agency. This time, people at the CRA mailed the personal financial information of hundreds of Canadians—prominent Canadians—to the media. What were they thinking? This sort of loosey-goosey attitude toward the private financial information of Canadians is a pattern with the current government, and leaves Canadians open to identity theft and fraud.

Why is this minister wasting resources going after birdwatchers and environmentalists rather than ensuring the basic competency of people in her department? Why will she not take some responsibility for a change?

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question on the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers fought to have the power to get their product to market, and the first year after, the farmers could not get their product to market. Welcome to the free market, where one can make more money by shipping oil than shipping grain. Then the government stood up and blamed the train companies and everyone else. The farmers lost a complete bumper crop of grain because of the government's plan to leave farmers on their own. The Wheat Board got grain to market for over 60 years. The first year under the Conservatives, it completely fell apart. That is the beauty of the supposed free market for farmers in this country under the current government.