Charlie Angus

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in the House to this bill. It is a very important issue for the New Democratic Party caucus and something I take very seriously.

The greatest influence on my life was my grandmother who came from the Hawkhill in Dundee. She was a miner's widow in Timmins and pretty much raised me. My grandmother was very passionate about seniors' issues. She used to talk about what she called the “poor wee wifies”, the immigrant mining women whose husbands died. There were no pensions in those days. Women faded into the background in any mining town across northern Ontario and northern Quebec and lived in poverty. My grandmother always spoke about the dignity of senior citizens. In fact, my grandmother was the first New Democrat I knew because every month when she got her seniors cheque, she would come upstairs and tell me that the NDP fought for the pension. That is where I learned some of my first lessons.

We are in support of this bill going forward because this comes out of the New Democratic Party election platform of 2011. We know that the Conservative trolls study our election platform very closely, except that they mostly try to misrepresent it, get things wrong, make things up and say absolute complete untruths about all manners of things in it. However, they finally read something in our platform, which is what we have been pushing for, a strategy on elder abuse. Unfortunately, they could not concentrate enough to notice that we had a much broader platform for dealing with seniors issues, something they have dropped the ball on entirely.

We are now dealing with only one piece of the puzzle. There are elements of it that are important but we need to look at the issue of elder abuse in terms of the larger picture, which are the issues that we in the New Democratic caucus have talked about, such as protecting pensions. When I first heard that the government would protect senior citizens, I thought they would protect them from people stealing their pensions, like what has happened under the OAS. We in the New Democratic caucus believe that senior citizens deserve the right to retire at 65 and that they are not a problem, unlike the Prime Minister who told the millionaires in Davos that, in his view, Canada had a problem and that problem was senior citizens. That is a very shameful thing to say and I am shocked that he said it to the Davos millionaires and did not have the nerve to say it to Canadian seniors when he was campaigning.

We believe that we need adequate pensions, which is a base issue. We believe we need proper social housing for seniors, especially in large rural ridings like mine where seniors are living in old farmhouses that have oil tanks that they cannot afford to fill, where their kids have moved south and there is no proper social housing for them. If they do get into social housing, their entire pensions go toward paying room and board and they have nothing else to live on, which means that their quality of life is then affected. We need to ensure that seniors can move into proper housing with the proper supports and sufficient pensions to live their lives with dignity.

We believe there needs to be a strategy for palliative care and for support for families dealing with loved ones who have dementia or Alzheimer's. We hear many horror stories of elder abuse but the real stories are the small ones, the friction that happens within families because of the pressures they are under when they do not have the resources to help a loved one, a father or mother, suffering from dementia. These are the issues that affect Canadians on a day-to-day basis. The government can certainly pull horror stories of abuse off of the back pages of newspapers. They exist and we certainly believe the Criminal Code should be brought to bear, but, more often than not, abuses happen because of the kind of pressure families are under and we need a coherent plan to address that.

The other issue that seniors face is fraud, which the ethics committee has been studying. We know that data breaches are happening that actually profile individuals. There are massive cyber gangs in Ukraine, Nigeria, et cetera, that are actually able to target individual seniors because of data breaches. We all have a responsibility to look at that. I want to praise my colleagues in all parties on the ethics committee for the work being done to address this. Seniors are using the Internet more and more and we know that fraudsters are targeting them, so we need a coherent strategy to protect them from fraud.

There is a sense of humiliation and shame if people have been defrauded. They do not want to tell their kids that they lost some money or that they got caught up in one of these scams. These scams are really sophisticated and they are getting more sophisticated now because of their ability to gather individual data from citizens. That is another issue that needs to be added in when we look at this.

We are talking about the need to deal with elder abuse. Elder abuse happens in a number of forms. It happens in the form of criminal violence and in the form of the same kind of abuses we see against other victims, but it is also different because, in many ways, it is familial. Simply saying that we will increase mandatory minimum sentences for this kind of crime is a blunt instrument. If there is serious abuse happening, of course we want the judges to have whatever discretion they need to render the sentence that is due, but more often than not, we are seeing, within familial relations, the kinds of pressures that are financial and the kinds of pressure with a loved one.

I remember my wonderful grandfather, MacNeil, my mother's father, who was a brilliant man. He had never gone to school but he was a hard-working miner. He started to suffer dementia as he got older, which had an effect on my grandmother who was trying to look after him in a little house in Timmins without family around and without support. Those are the kind of pressures that we see and seniors see.

There has been a number of great organizations, the health authorities that have come forward, and the work that the palliative care committee did on these issues that we can draw from and actually come together within all parties and look at a coherent strategy.

I want to talk about the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP. CARP has done excellent work in advocating for seniors. Susan Eng spoke out saying:

As a society, we're now far more open to talking about the hidden crimes of spousal abuse and child abuse. Now we need to do the same for elder abuse. …the current law is clearly not robust enough to signal society's abhorrence for this crime.

I think this is something on which we would all agree. In fact, the New Democratic Party is very proud of the work of CARP.

We noticed recently that CARP was attacked by the Conservative government for being what it called a partisan front. I personally find it shocking that an organization that does such good work on behalf of seniors would be attacked by the government. However, it was attacked because the government was feeling the heat on its decisions to steal the pension of seniors under the OAS revisions. I will quote the words of our leader, the leader of the official opposition. He said:

CARP is not to blame for the backlash Conservatives are getting from seniors. The Prime Minister is to blame.

When we hear CARP speaking to issues of elder abuse or to issues of financial security for seniors, we all need to take note. It is a serious issue.

The issues that we are dealing with in terms of support at the family level, the federal government has really been missing in action. The provinces are doing what they can but we have seen the quality of care dropping year after year. It is not the fault of the people working in the homes but we see the inability of seniors to get home care. We see within the institutions the pressure that the nurses and the caregivers are under, and so support starts to drop. That is where people end up having the accidents, the broken hips, the injuries that just destroy whatever quality of life they have remaining. It is the gaps in the system that start to form and the victims are the seniors. Then, within this, is the other element of elder abuse.

A couple of years back in Timmins, we held a forum on Alzheimer's. The issue of Alzheimer's and the need for a national coherent strategy on Alzheimer's is another piece of the puzzle. I am not saying that people who have Alzheimer's will be victimized, but there is pressure on families, especially families in crisis when an individual has Alzheimer's and the lack of a coherent strategy. There is also the issue of dementia, especially when the dementia has not been recognized yet. These are things we all need to look at in terms of how we ensure that we have the proper resources, whether it is at the federal level or at the provincial level.

The New Democrats will be supporting taking the bill to committee. We do believe there are some problems with the bill. Obviously, there are some problems with the bill, it is a Conservative bill. Problem is their middle name.

We want to address and fix some of the problems with the bill but we think it is important to send the message that elder abuse is an abhorrent crime. We need to give families the support they need to ensure that senior citizens, or anyone as they age, have the support they need to live in the dignity they deserve.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I guess there are issues of reactive and proactive in terms of elder abuse.

One of the major concerns that we have in our caucus is the issue of fraud. With the 419 scams, senior citizens who are using online services are being targeted almost down to their specific background and family because of data breaches. Data breaches have to do with the fact that there are all kinds of third parties out there that are in the business of stealing personal information so they can target and go after people. This is how the 419 fraud is really moving into an area of frightening sophistication.

Would my hon. colleague work with the New Democrats on the recommendations that are being brought forth to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has the tools to deal with companies that are playing fast and loose with data and that there will be consequences? Companies may not necessarily think that the data is being breached but, because of sophisticated hackers, it is and it is the senior citizens and other individuals who are being defrauded. Their information is being stolen and their credit information is being grabbed.

We need to start closing this in advance. Once that data is out there, it is not coming back. Therefore, rather than being reactive, we need to see where the problems are.

Would the hon. colleague be willing to work with the New Democrats on addressing these issues of fraud?

[Ethics, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in Quebec with the New Democrats who supports illegal activities, unlike those on that side.

Now we have the member for Labrador who has been caught again. This time he cashed a cheque from Pennecon and then tried to cover his tracks by coming up with after-the-fact personal receipts. That is wrong. He financed his campaign with zero interest loans from his in-laws. That is wrong. He blew past the spending limit. That is wrong. He hid $18,000 in flights. That is wrong. He has been hiding out from accountability besides, which is totally wrong.

I would like to ask the member, will he stop acting like a turtle, act like a minister of the Crown and stand up and take accountability?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House of Commons, the house of the common people of Canada, and to represent the people who elected me in the region of Timmins—James Bay, whom I have great respect for. I take my role in this debate very seriously. We are discussing something of great importance that cuts across all party lines. It is an international concern about dealing with the proliferation of nuclear materials that could be used in terrorist attacks and in illegal ways.

Bill S-9 is an attempt by Canada to ratify commitments that were made at the United Nations, eight years ago, on the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. That was amended at the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It is unfortunate that we did not move to ratify this earlier, but we are dealing with it now, so let us get down to business.

Ensuring that all countries are in compliance with the legal codes necessary to deal with those who would attempt to misuse or get access to nuclear materials is, of course, a major issue domestically. However, there is no such thing as being reactive when it comes to nuclear materials. It only takes one case, which could have catastrophic implications. There is the need to be proactive and multilateral, for Canada to take a place on the world stage, where we once were recognized for trying to get rid of weapons. It is the ease of access to materials that is like playing the dangerous game of Russian roulette.

I will talk a bit about the bill, but I want to talk about two issues that have recently come to light with regard to how nuclear materials are being used. One is on how they are clearly being used in an illegal manner, and the other is how they are being used perfectly legally. I will talk about the illegal manner.

There was the recent assassination of the Russian Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with polonium-210. Mr. Litvinenko was a critic of Vladimir Putin, and a major investigation was undertaken. It was interesting that at the time British authorities were quoted in the media saying, “we are 100% certain who administered the poison, where and how”, yet nobody was ever extradited for this, and life went on. The British doctors who dealt with Mr. Litvinenko when he was dying said that his murder represents an ominous landmark, the beginning of the age of nuclear terrorism.

After the fall of the communist regime that had become very much a corrupt oligarch, there have been attempts and hope throughout the last 20 years for Russia to move forward. However, there are real concerns about what is happening there right now. Three young women were recently convicted of the crime of embarrassing the Russian ruler with a piece of theatre. Yekaterina Samutsevich, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina were all arrested, convicted and sent to penal colonies. Yekaterina Samutsevich was finally released, but the other two young mothers, in their early 20s, are now serving hard labour in penal colonies for the crime of having embarrassed the oligarch Putin. This happened in 2012.

What is also very sad and shameful is that, along with Mr. Putin attacking these young women artists, he was actually backed by the patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church who felt they had also been embarrassed. For a church that has been persecuted by the Soviet Union, we would have hoped the leadership of the church would have called on Mr. Putin not to use the power of the state to try to crush artists. It is the role of the artist to perhaps say what the media and other people are unwilling to say. Yet, two young dissident women are suffering right now in a penal colony in Russia, in 2012. Very little has been said internationally, and Mr. Putin carries on. The murder of Mr. Litvinenko, the lack of action to find out who did it and the fact that it involved nuclear material is very concerning.

For the young women of Pussy Riot, we do need parliaments and political leaders to stand up and say that the right of dissent, the right of art must be protected around the world, even in the world of Vladimir Putin.

I will now turn to another issue in terms of nuclear proliferation, something that is perfectly legal right now but certainly does not meet the tests of international law, and that is the use of depleted uranium by NATO and U.S. military forces.

Obviously, depleted uranium is being used as tank busters and were used to a great extent in the first Gulf war, in Afghanistan and in the invasion of Iraq. It makes it very easy to blow up a tank with a large depleted uranium shell but uranium is extremely toxic and poisonous to the atmosphere. It destroys the landscape because it poisons it forever. We are now seeing, in areas like Afghanistan and Iraq, the effects of this, particularly in Fallujah . There are real concerns about catastrophic levels of birth defects and abnormalities being reported by media following the U.S. attack on Fallujah in 2006. Dr. Samira Alani, the pediatric specialist in Fallujah, said that she personally has logged over 700 birth defects in children who were born with severe abnormalities and children who died as a result of exposure to some form of radiation. The only radiation we can think of is the use of these depleted uranium shells. That is unconscionable.

What is also unconscionable is that as we are talking about trying to limit access to these materials because they could be used in terrorism, we see that the U.S. nuclear regulatory commission has established a general licence for the use of depleted uranium. Everyone can get a general licence as long as they promise they will not lose any of the stuff.

Nationally and internationally, we need to get our heads around this and say that we must get uranium away from being used in nuclear forces because all over the world we are seeing countries, which have access to weapons-grade uranium and nuclear materials, that are unstable. Some former regimes have collapsed and some of the new people should not have access to this material. The potential is catastrophic. It has been one of the great fortunes of the world that over the last 50 years these weapons have not been used, even accidentally, and we should all be grateful. It has to go back to the fact that there still is a lack of action at the international level to insist that we move toward removing these weapons and materials so that they cannot be used incorrectly.

The New Democratic Party supports moving the bill to committee and feels that it is important to do so. Obviously, people who are attempting to trade in nuclear materials need to be punished to the full extent of the law. However, it is the role of multilateral engagement that Canada has traditionally played the role of honest broker in the world in order to bring the various parties to the tables to say that we need to start, not only lowering the level of intercontinental ballistic missiles but we need to deal with issues like depleted uranium shells. We need to start taking the materials out of circulation in order to protect the common good.

As we have been waiting eight years for this legislation to come forward, we accept it and will move forward with it, but we are calling upon the government to understand that reactive does not work when it comes to nuclear issues. The only real response of any credible nation in the world today in 2012 is to be proactive. We are calling upon the government to take the proactive lead to move toward multilateral disarmament on nuclear issues, including the depleted uranium shells that are still being used.

I look forward to carrying on this debate. This is the kind of discussion that belongs in our House and what we should be spending our time on as members of Parliament.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, these obligations go back to 2004, and no steps have been taken to ratify them until now.

The government seems to have a very mixed attitude toward the United Nations. It has tried to get on the Security Council, and they were turned down, many said, because of the government's attitude on key issues. We have heard backbenchers attack the United Nations. We have seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs ridicule it.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he is concerned about Canada's long-standing tradition of multilateralism being undermined by a government that seems to be very hostile towards our most important international body?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. Certainly the issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is of grave concern to all of us in the House.

The concern we have is that Canada has historically played a major role in multilateral negotiations to ensure that we maintain some manner of security with regard to nuclear weapons.

In regard to the current situation in Iran, we have a government that has decided to shut down our embassy, leaving us very much on the outside because we are not one of the large players but a smaller player. Therefore, our ability to have influence has been somewhat compromised.

What does my hon. colleague think of the decision by the present Conservative government to shut down the embassy at a time when we really need to ensure that we have as many people on the ground as we can to influence decisions because this issue is so serious?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to see that Canada has not moved with the urgency needed on this bill. However, we also see internationally that many of our allies seem to have a bit of an ambivalent attitude toward the issue of access to nuclear materials. For example, depleted uranium has been used in armour-busting shells. It has been very convenient for the armies of the U.S. and NATO, in particular, to use depleted uranium. We saw over 300 tonnes of it dumped in the first Gulf War. As a result, there have been massive increases in child cancers and deformities there. Yet, under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a general licence was established for people to be able to use uranium from depleted uranium shells as long as they committed not to leaving it anywhere. There seems to be a very cavalier attitude to something that is very dangerous, particularly as we have seen the health effects of depleted uranium.

It is not just about getting rid of large nuclear weapons, but also about ensuring that we pull these very dangerous toxic materials out of any kind of use, whether military or civilian.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and was especially interested in terms of the larger picture. Certainly we need to deal with the offences when someone is trying to deal in nuclear materials and the whole issue of nuclear terrorism. However, we see such a proliferation of arms already around the world that we need to have a proactive instead of a reactive response on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Reactive is just not good enough, no matter how many bills and legislation we bring forward. We are dealing with many countries, some of whom are unstable, that have used nuclear weapons or have access to nuclear waste or nuclear materials.

I ask my hon. colleague this. What does he think in terms of the big picture with respect to Canada playing a proactive role internationally to reduce access to nuclear weapons in every single country?

[The Environment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is the Ottawa bubble in a nutshell. We are talking about our lakes and rivers.

Canadians are passionate about our lakes and rivers. It is what defines us as a people. Therefore, when we see the pork barrel king of Muskoka not only subverting the system again, but putting his millionaire cottagers to the front of the line, it is just wrong.

What is up? Is he thinking that by creating this exclusive club he will get to ride a paddle-boat around Lake Rosseau with Goldie and Jeff? I am sorry, dude, it is way over the line. Mark it zero.

[The Environment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if we waited for transparency from the government, we would be waiting till the rivers run dry.

The reason the Conservatives are trying to kill any scrutiny of this omnibus bill is that they do not want Canadians to know they are stripping protection from 99.7% of Canada's lakes and rivers, and the remaining 0.3% are in Tory ridings, which brings us to the Muskoka minister.

Will he explain to us why the property values of the uber-rich cottagers in his riding merit protection, while the rest of Canadians are being tossed overboard?