Charlie Angus

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a dumb down approach to crime. Whatever the crime is, their only solution is a mandatory minimum sentence. I think of the idiocy of suggesting that a mandatory minimum sentence will address Ponzi schemes, massive corporate fraud, the kind of shenanigans that we have seen over the last number of years with international financiers. Those people do not think they are going to get caught. They do not think they will have to do two years.

These international financiers are taking money from investors, ordinary citizens, and moving it offshore. Bernie Madoff stuck around too long. If he had his way, he probably would have headed off to the Cayman Islands. Earl Jones would have been laughing had he gone to the Cayman Islands. The Conservatives will not touch the Cayman Islands or any offshore bank accounts. They could have followed the money through Panama. It is the number one money laundering country in the world, yet the Conservatives are trying to sign a free trade agreement with that country.

Why does the government come up with fairly useless solutions such as mandatory minimum sentences, when they turn a blind eye to the massive corporate crime that is going on in terms of moving money offshore and being unaccountable to Canadians?

[Petitions, December 14th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting petitions signed by residents in the Timmins and Sudbury region who have lived with the effects of the government's complete abdication of due diligence when allowing Vale to basically rob the people of Sudbury, Thompson and Voisey's Bay by taking Inco, as well as Xstrata taking Falconbridge, one of the world's great mining companies, and shutting down refineries. We see the shutdown in Timmins. We see the shutdown in Thompson.

The petitioners are calling on the government to show some due diligence. Certainly the industry minister has been the Mr. Magoo of industry and could not see any problem as our mining industry fell off the side of the cliff. Obviously the Conservatives will not stand up for mining communities. We see that in Thompson. We have seen that in Sudbury. We have seen that in Timmins.

We need some basic rules to keep the government in check to represent and defend the interests of mining communities.

[Broadcasting and Telecommunications, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the word on the street is that failed ADQ candidate Tom Pentefountas is favoured for the job, even though he was not on the short list of candidates.

The government's record on patronage is pretty appalling, but would it think to pick somebody with absolutely no experience and no qualifications? Being a political buddy to Tory bagman Leo Housakos and PMO lapdog Dimitri Soudas is certainly not a sufficient resumé for a semi-judicial body that oversees decisions worth millions of dollars.

So I am asking, is the government so brazen that it would interfere with the CRTC by picking buddies of the PMO?

[Broadcasting and Telecommunications, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the process for choosing the vice-chair of the CRTC must be transparent. This is essential because the CRTC oversees a $60 billion industry. The process has been clearly defined. Eight candidates were interviewed and must have the qualifications required for this position.

Did the government use a transparent process or did it interfere politically in the choice of the new vice-chair?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 6th, 2010]

With regard to the strategic review of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions: (a) what is the purpose of the strategic review of the 13 organizations; (b) what are the names of federal departments, boards, agencies, and commissions currently under the review; and (c) when will the results of the strategic review be available to the public?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I think what is becoming very clear here is that the government is choosing certain winners and losers in Canada's economy.

When serious issues about the use of supertankers through the Dixon Entrance and along the Queen Charlotte Islands is brought forward, we do not see the government standing with members from British Columbia to talk about the effects that is going to have on British Columbia. It has the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca stand up.

The government is there to defend, at whatever risk to the rest of the Canadian economy, the absolute pillaging of the tar sands. Meanwhile, serious questions are being raised in this debate by the opposition parties about the effect of this reckless development, particularly on the B.C. coast.

We have a letter from February 15, 2007, from then Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson, hardly a socialist in anybody's world view, who said that allowing these tankers would pose an unacceptable environmental risk. This is a position that has been taken by numerous organizations, first nations and businesses all across British Columbia, yet the government is willing to take unacceptable environmental risks if it means the quick exploitation of raw bitumen from the tar sands to ship overseas.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the government is deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people of British Columbia in order to advance the pillaging of these natural resources.

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, last week the Conservatives used the unelected Senate to kill a climate change bill. They have done everything in their power to undermine both international and domestic climate change action. They are turning Canada into an international pariah because they are acting as a front for the tar sands.

What does my hon. colleague think Canada's reputation is at this stage given the government's continual refusal to make even the most modest advances in dealing with the serious issue of climate change in our country?

[Business of Supply, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's passionate and very credible description of the threats we are going to face with this tanker traffic through the straits and what the threat could be to the British Columbia coast.

What concerns me is the pattern we see from the government. The Conservative government has consistently done anything in its power to advance reckless development in the tar sands. It has undermined Canada's international credibility on anything to do with climate change.

Just last week the government used its bagmen and party hacks in the Senate to override the democratic right of the House of Commons on legislation on climate change. It is pretty clear that the government is little more than a front for big oil.

Given the Conservative government's absolutely abusive attitude toward anything to do with climate change, should Canada even be allowed to participate in Cancun or any of the climate change talks?

It seems that the government's plan is to consistently advance whatever reckless plans for big oil there are to the detriment of—

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 2nd, 2010]

With regard to government revenues and Vale, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what was the total global amount of taxes paid by Vale to the Canadian treasury; and (b) what tax exemptions did Vale receive from the government?

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring forward concerns from residents in Timmins, Iroquois Falls and region, especially now that we see that Vale has decided to attack the value processing of base metals in Manitoba with its attack on the Thompson smelter, which echoes the attack by Xstrata against Ontario's copper refining capacity that we just witnessed over the last year.

The petitioners are growing increasingly concerned about the government's absolute lack of oversight in allowing foreign corporations to come over, buy up some of Canada's greatest base metal mining assets, strip them, high-grade the resources and leave the communities high and dry.

The petitioners are asking for changes under section 36 of the Canada Investment Act so we can hold these corporate raiders to account and we can set clear transparent standards so we will know that if a company is able to come in and buy up a great resource like Inco or Falconbridge, it will need to be accountable to the Canadian people and prove a net benefit to the people of northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and all across our country.