Charlie Angus

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech in terms of the fundamental question about what our obligation as legislators in Canada is to ensure full development of the Canadian economy and certain international standards of development.

My colleague kept raising the issue of ideological blinders on the Conservative Party. The Conservatives believe that the free movement of capital wherever, however, with whomever, is the only issue. It is a kind of hoodoo mysticism. They believe that as long as capital does what it wants, everything else will be fine.

We are talking about a murderous regime with a horrific record on human rights. Our colleagues in the United States, who in the past have supported some very murderous regimes, have raised clear objections. Clear objections have been raised to the Conservative government and yet it does not seem to have any interest whatsoever in addressing the serious abuses that are international in scope.

The Conservatives have thrown up this narrow fig leaf of respectability. They say that while fewer people are being killed now than before, that is an improvement. If we look at the history of Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua under the death squads, at a certain point there are not all that many people left to kill. The corollary to that is the fact that if enough examples are made out of people, it is hard to get other people to take their place. That is why they are called terror killings.

The whole point of terror killings is to make examples of people in villages, communities, factories and mines. An individual will be killed if he or she steps out of line. Mass murder does not have to be continued year after year to make it work. Examples just have to be made.

Even though we are hearing about fewer people being killed, we are still hearing about gross violations of human rights. This is only indicative that the policy of that outlaw regime is suppressing the basic rights and developments of the country.

Given the immense interest of the Canadian oil and gas sector and the Canadian mining sector in getting into Colombia to get at deposits, and the fact that the Conservative government is showing no interest whatsoever in establishing standards for human rights norms, what expectations does my colleague have that there will be any obligation on any company, Canadian, Chinese, whatever, going into Colombia to exploit its resources to have any obligation whatsoever to ensure that the communities affected will have some basic level of protection?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to the Office of Protocol Official Events (XDS) and Official Visits (XDV) at the Department of Foreign Affairs, for the last five years: (a) what is the annual cost of travel, hospitality and any miscellaneous expenses incurred by each, on a monthly basis; (b) what amount was incurred hosting official delegations in Canada, on a monthly basis, what amount was incurred for foreign travel by Canadian officials, on a monthly basis and on what date and to what locations did each trip occur, stating the purpose of each trip; (c) in regard to such expenses incurred by Ministers of the Crown, their political staff, and any accompanying family members, what did each trip cost and on what date and to what locations did each trip occur stating the purpose of each trip; (d) in regard to special envoys and members of expert panels named by the Prime Minister, what expenses were incurred by each, on what date and to what locations did each trip occur, stating the purpose of each trip; (e) what expenses were covered for domestic travel by Canadian officials, whose expenses were covered, on what date and to what locations did each trip occur, stating the purpose of each trip; (f) in regard to hosting foreign delegations, which delegations were hosted, on what dates and what travel, hospitality and miscellaneous costs were incurred by each delegation; (g) why are expenses of Ministers, their staff and other VIPs, routed through XDS or XDV and not listed in proactive disclosures required in Treasury Board guidelines; and (h) what is the government’s position on listing travel and hospitality expenses incurred by ministers and their staff on foreign trips in their proactive disclosures?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to contract number C1111-050673/001/PR and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC): (a) when was this contract first awarded, by whom and to whom was it awarded; (b) in what amount was it first awarded; (c) for what product or service was it first awarded; (d) for what reasons was the contract amended six times between December 2006 and February 2009; (e) what amendments were made in each amendment; (f) was the contract competitively tendered following Glickman Fulleringer Executive Promotions’ withdrawal from the contract; (g) if it wasn’t amended, why wasn’t it amended; (h) was any penalty paid by Glickman Fulleringer for pulling out of the contract and, if so, what was the penalty, if the penalty was financial, in what amount was it and was the penalty paid; (i) on what date did Glickman Fulleringer advise the government of their intention to withdraw from the contract and what was the reasoning behind this decision; (j) on what date did 6768997 Canada Inc. assume control of the contract in question; (k) how was 6768997 Canada Inc. chosen by PWGSC; (l) who in PWGSC made the decision to award the contract to 6768997 Canada Inc.; (m) did any persons at 6768997 Canada Inc. formerly work at Glickman Fulleringer and, if so, whom and what role did the presence of this person play in the PWGSC decision to award the original contract to 6768997 Canada Inc.; and (n) what is the government’s position on awarding a contract for the production of maple leaf flag pins that are distributed by parliamentarians to an American-owned company that subsequently outsourced the job to China?

[Petitions, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour and privilege to stand in the House and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay. There are hundreds of people from the Timmins and Kirkland Lake region who have signed this petition calling for a full walk-in passport service in northeastern Ontario.

I am sure many members are not aware that northeastern Ontario is the only region in the country without a walk-in passport service. There is service in northwestern Ontario and southern Ontario, but for a region that is dependent on mining and international exploration work, the need for passport turnaround is essential.

The petitioners are calling for a full walk-in passport service so that emergency passports can be received in the city of Timmins. Most members would recognize that is a completely reasonable suggestion being that Timmins is the centre of northeastern Ontario in terms of business, culture and all manner of other great things.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that whenever we ask questions of the Conservatives about due process and so on, they start accusing everyone else of somehow being friends of the terrorists.

My hon. colleague has built a reputation in the province of Quebec for standing up and taking on the Hells Angels. He is no slouch when it comes to standing up on issues of justice.

We are hearing from the Conservatives that this bill, which had to have a sunset clause in it before because its powers were so extraordinary that it allowed people to be held for 12 months without any charges, would never be used, that this is Canada and that the rule of law would prevail. Yet, we see that whenever the police have these powers, they have been misused. We only have only to look at Mohamed Harkat, who was held for three and a half years without trial. We could look at Maher Arar, who was rendered to Syria while the government knew all the way up the chain of command that he was being tortured.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks that when a government has these powers that the police would not somehow end up misusing these powers once they become permanently entrenched in our system.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think there is great interest that we have set the threshold very high.

We had a pizza delivery guy in Ottawa picked up, brought to court with sensitive information blacked out. The judge held that guy, Mr. Harkat, for three and a half years without bail. We found out later that CSIS did not bother to tell the judge that its evidence was pretty dodgy. This has happened in Canada. It happened under this kind of legislation.

How can the member give us any confidence that this will not happen again if we allow these extraordinary powers?

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my concern with the bill is the sunset clause, which was initially put in the bill when this became legislation. There was a great deal of concern among parliamentarians about the extraordinary powers that were being delivered to the police.

The Conservatives say that this would only be used in the case of an imminent terrorist attack, yet in jurisdiction after jurisdiction police officers can defend all kinds of powers on the basis that it will help stop some kind of nefarious activity.

For many years, a process of internment in Ireland was supposed to be a process to stop the IRA. Ireland also had processes where people were taken and held without trial for long periods of time. Again and again we have seen serious injustices, like the Guildford trials and the Birmingham bombings.

The question I would ask my colleague is on the provision of being hold someone for 12 months without charges. If there is an imminent attack, we want to ensure the provisions are in place to respond. However, police will always say there is a good reason for picking people up and holding them for 12 months.

In the case of Harkat, CSIS provided false information. In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik in Sudan, the government continues to deny his rights. It cannot even bring any kind of claim against him, yet those rights are denied again and again.

Does my hon. colleague think it is good enough to say that we will have parliamentary oversight of a provision that really undermines fundamental due process in our country?

[Petitions, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise to present a petition signed by the good people of the north from Timmins, Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls and Monteith. They are concerned about the crisis in funding at the CBC and the complete failure of the federal government to work to secure the public broadcaster.

We have seen major job losses across northern Ontario. The ability of the public broadcaster to reflect a vast region of the country has been severely compromised because of the government's refusal to work on a bridge financing plan. The petitioners point out that the bridge financing plan presented to the government would not have cost the taxpayers a single cent.

We see the federal government's ongoing hostility to the public broadcaster in Canada. It is certainly upsetting to the people of northern Ontario who are dependent upon CBC for their radio coverage.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to push the government to start living up to some of its basic obligations to ensure a vital and strong public broadcaster in this country.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with fascination earlier this morning to our Conservative colleagues telling the Canadian public how much they like us, how much they want to work with us and how cooperative they have been. It is sort of like the crocodile offering carnations and a free picnic if we would just come down to the creek and sit with it a while.

Of course, they later showed their true faces when they accused the members of Parliament, who respect the will of Parliament, of somehow trying to overthrow the government. This is the same kind of insult they have thrown at us previously. They called us traitors. They called us seditious. I had members of Parliament from the Conservatives saying that we should be taken out and hanged.

Why was that? It was because we were using the rights we had within Parliament to hold the government to account. Yet it seems that with their proposals it is either their way or the highway. We brought forward the EI motion that came through the House of Parliament. They have ignored it. We brought forward motions that have been passed by the House of Commons on credit cards. They have ignored them.

If the House is to truly work, I would suggest to my hon. colleagues that there has to be respect for the will of Parliament. It cannot simply be this kind of abusive, insulting manner that we continually see from the government. It ignores the will of Parliament. It ignores bills that have been brought through and voted upon.

Given the fact that the Conservative government shows no willingness to respect the will of Parliament on bills and motions that have already been passed from the opposition, I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks we should now, at this late hour, give the government a free hand to decide whatever it wants in the last few days.