Charlie Angus

[Income Tax Act, June 9th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (removal of charge).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today, with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, to introduce a bill that I think all members of Parliament will find a very straightforward and agreeable bill.

It is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act, particularly where a charge, lien or priority on a binding interest on a property has been created, and where the minister has reason to believe it will be in the public interest to remove the lien on these buildings to allow for redevelopment, and that the minister may, in accordance with regulations, discharge the lien, priority or interest.

The bill refers to the problem that we are facing in many of our communities where buildings have been abandoned and liens have been put on them. At a certain point they become unsellable. The buildings are left to deteriorate. Nobody wants to assume the redevelopment of properties or brownfield sites because of the heavy liens on them. We end up with many buildings being left derelict and falling apart.

In 2006, the province of Ontario amended the income tax act to allow the province to discharge liens, to return them to the municipality so that properties could be redeveloped.

Support for this bill comes from a number of organizations. The National Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy for Canada has spoken about this. The Timmins Chamber of Commerce, in terms of the issue of redevelopment of downtowns, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy have all spoken of the need to have a plan so that the minister, when it is in the public interest, can discharge liens on abandoned brownfields and abandoned derelict buildings.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Infrastructure, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this motion from the member for Labrador on the need for the federal government to work co-operatively with the governments of the territories and the provinces that constitute the provincial north, and with the aboriginal and local governments of these regions to develop a strategy to improve transportation and other vital public infrastructure.

This issue is front and centre in my region of Timmins—James Bay in terms of the need for development and for dealing with the horrific levels of poverty and lack of opportunities along the vast regions of the James Bay coast.

As lifelong northerners, we always say that sometimes north is a state of mind. It is a state of mind up to a certain point, and then we get down to the realities of what it means to live in a community with no road access, 400 or 500 kilometres from the nearest community that connects us with the urban south.

In the James Bay-Mushkegowuk region, I have numerous communities that are suffering from terrible and unforgiveable levels of underfunding in terms of basic infrastructure. Two of my communities have no schools for their children: Attawapiskat and Kashechewan. These are the result of years of underfunding by the federal government, but also an attitude of negligence, that these communities are simply out of sight and out of mind.

We are seeing is a loss of phenomenal opportunity, not just for the children who grow up in these communities but for Canada as a whole.

We compare the community of Attawapiskat that has fought for 30 years to have a schoolyard cleaned up from massive amounts of contamination, and 30 years later we see the government with no commitment whatsoever to these children, even though these children are clearly at risk. Yet just down the road we have probably one of the richest diamond mines in the western world, Victor diamond mine, opened by De Beers. In the space of four or five years all the regulatory approvals were found, all the engineering studies were done, and now we have this massive diamond mine that is right beside a community that is living in dire levels of poverty.

It is not a question of pitting development against first nations. It is a question of political will to find a way to move forward with development. In representing one of the largest mining regions in the western world, I can say that we are really seeing how industry is sitting at the table when the federal government is not at the table.

When I worked with the Algonquin Nation in Quebec, we were calling it “treaties on the ground”. We were able to sit down with diamond companies and forestry companies and we were working out agreements when the federal government was missing in action.

What is needed in terms of furthering development in the far north? Number one, in a region like James Bay, we need to have a plan for something as simple as a road. If we have a road that connects from Cochrane to Moosonee, up to Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat, then we will see the massive levels of unemployment start to drop. Then we will see that it is possible to start doing long-term infrastructure development. Then we will see communities that are not dependent on diesel generators that put people into poverty, but sustainable energy.

One of the drivers for this could be the development of the mining industry, because we see with De Beers the need to move thousands of trucks up the road to supply this mine, and a narrow window on the winter road. It may be two months where suddenly the ice roads of James Bay look like Highway 401 traffic. It is crazy to do industrial development based on such erratic standards.

What we could see, however, is industry working with first nations, working with the provincial and federal governments to say, if there is to be development, number one, we want resource revenue sharing. Number two, we want a commitment to ongoing development, so that if we are to develop infrastructure such as mines, we have to get roads in and we have to get hydro, and we will connect the communities that are dependent on us, so that at the end of the day, long after the mines are gone, we will actually have some basic infrastructure.

I have met with De Beers many times. I have met with the communities. The idea of a long-term road is something that everyone recognizes is in their best interests.

What we are seeing here, however, at both the provincial and the federal level, is a continual dropping of the ball on this. The provincial government, for example, is rewriting the Mining Act right now, and it seems to be more willing to give Muskoka cottagers rights that it will not give to first nation communities who live north of 50°. The only people who live on the territory are first nations.

We have to look at this in terms of Canada taking responsibility to be a 21st century country.

We have heard a lot of talk about protecting the sovereignty in the far north, but running around with pith helmets and flags will not make sovereignty. Sovereignty will come from making a commitment to the children of this generation so that the children growing up in the far north have opportunities of education, have opportunities to participate and direct the development of their territories. That is the way we are going to establish sovereignty. It is not an either/or situation. It is a matter of political vision.

I truly believe, with the leadership in the first nation communities and talking with the various players that I am dealing with on a daily basis and the junior mining companies that have recognized now that they need to start working in a co-operative manner, we are seeing a movement forward in a way that seemed impossible 10 years ago. Yet the federal government is still dragging its feet, lagging behind the provincial governments, especially in Ontario, and continues to miss the mark. It is a tragedy, because when we look at the riches that are coming out of Victor diamond mine, a phenomenal wealth that is driving the economic renewal in northern Ontario, it has to be said that the diamonds that come out of that mine are nothing compared to the wealth of the children on the James Bay coast who are being left in substandard education facilities and overcrowded houses. The potential of these children to transform the northern economy is something that we as a federal government should recognize as the real way that we are going to move Canada, in the far north, into the 21st century, into something that we can be proud of, not something that we have to explain away at the United Nations for failure after failure in terms of the most basic fiduciary obligations.

On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I am very proud to rise and speak on this. I recognize that across the far north there needs to be a plan to ensure proper development. The only way we are going to get that plan is to work co-operatively, to work with our first nations, to work with our provincial counterparts, to work with the municipalities that are the jump-off points of contact for so much of the development in the far north, to recognize that there can be development of resources and that there should be development of resources, that it is not simply shutting off vast areas and saying nobody can explore here, nobody can develop here, but saying that if there is going to be development of forestry, if there is going to be development of mining, if there is going to be development of hydro, that it is to benefit the people who live in that territory and to have their consent and their participation so that when this development does occur we can actually start to employ young people and start to offer hope in communities where there has been no hope. I can tell members that from seeing communities that have been able to participate as partners at the table, the transformation in these communities can be a very positive sign for the development of first nation land.

However, we need a recognition from the federal government that fundamentally it has to move away from erratic, haphazard, press-release-driven announcements and move towards a holistic plan to ensure the sustainable green development that would allow our isolated first nations in the far north of Canada to move out of the horrific levels of poverty and move into something so that they can develop their cultures and that we, as Canadians, whether we live in urban Canada or in far north lands, north of 50 and 60, can be proud that we said we are going to set goals and we are going to finally meet some of those goals.

[Pension Plans, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has completely abandoned the forestry communities of the north. It should not have to take a demonstration by thousands of forestry workers to get the government's attention.

Now take the workers from Abitibi. Not only are they fighting for their jobs and their communities, they are fighting for the pensions they have paid into for decades.

Now to show the absolute indifference of the government, compare it to the way it stood up day after day in the House of Commons to defend the CPP mandarins who skimmed off millions of dollars in bonuses while running the Canada pension plan into the ground.

The difference is very clear. It is a question of which side one is on. The Cadillac Conservative government is on the side of the fat cats. It is not representing the workers in Iroquois Falls. Thunder Bay or Kenora.

The New Democratic Party will continue to fight for forestry workers and protect the pensions that they have paid into.

[Telecommunications Act, May 29th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (Internet neutrality).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and, with the help of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, introduce this bill that would change section 36 of the Telecommunications Act.

It is very important as Canadians that we maintain the innovation agenda of the Internet. We have known that the importance of the Internet has been based on the principle that all content that moves along the pipes moves at the same rate and that the innovators and the consumers at the end of the pipes are the ones in charge of deciding what content has priority, not the telecom giants. We need to ensure that we are not dealing with the efforts of throttling, interference of traffic on the Internet.

This is a very simple and straightforward bill that would ensure that the telecommunication service provider shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership, destination or type.

There are, of course, provisions for proper management of the Internet traffic but I think my colleagues will agree that if we are to maintain a 21st century innovation economy, the principle of net neutrality must be protected.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Mining Industry, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to drop the ball when it comes to the mineral development of northern Ontario. Sudbury developed a unique partnership of academia, industry and the province to set up a centre of excellence in mining innovation. Through all of this the Conservatives were missing in action.

Now we learn that the Conservatives are investing in mining research in, of all places, Toronto. Sudbury is recognized as a mining innovation centre by everyone, it seems, except the government. Why has the government walked away on the research and innovation agenda of Sudbury and northern Ontario?

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for a bit of common respect in this House. For him to say that I am trying to mislead the House is to call me a liar on this. I am asking what is in the provisions of the document. He can disagree with me, but I would ask him to retract that comment.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my hon. colleague was saying. I do represent probably one of the largest mining regions in the world, and the issue of holding to account is certainly an issue.

In terms of the very rosy picture he is painting, my concern with the deal with Peru is that labour rights are not in the agreement; that is in a side agreement. Peru has a notorious record in terms of labour rights. I would hope he would at least admit that.

In terms of environmental protection, it is all well and good to say we are going to set up some office in Montreal, but the agreement should clearly spell it out, and not in a side agreement, the commitments, obligations and triggers that will be invoked if there are issues.

Once again, in terms of the rights of the investors we see the kind of chapter 11 provisions that existed under NAFTA. Any corporate operation is able to take action, and yet labour groups and environmental groups are not. Why is it that we see a very clear protection of corporate interest in this agreement without the clear commitments to labour and environment?

If we had those clear commitments, I think the member would find a lot more interest in working with the development in Peru and making sure that our export economy works. However, when we see them shunted off to side agreements it is very hard for us in the House to take the government seriously when it comes to its Pollyannaish claims about respecting labour and respecting the environment.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when I worked for the Algonquin nation in Quebec, it always called the Cree the “big brothers” because the grand council of the Cree had set the standards. It set the standards by being tough and by laying down some really hard lines in the push back against the original James Bay development. Out of that came a framework for agreements that has established a whole series of agreements, which have helped move these communities forward.

The problem is other communities do not have that strength and they rely on the federal government to represent them and the federal government has failed.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the obligation to consult has been defined in court decision after court decision. It is the obligation of the federal government to work with first nations.

Again, if we are going to move forward, it is the prerequisite for developing legislation, where we start to move away from treating first nations as somehow children or wards of the state who can be treated in an arbitrary fashion.

Bill C-8 looks to address some of the existing issues on how first nation laws are enacted. However, clearly we did not see a pattern of consultation. The government needs to understand that until it does consultations, until it works collaboratively, first, with the first nations and then with its partners in the House of Commons, it will be unable to force legislation through. It will also be unable to attack its opponents and say that we are against human rights and so on. The government can do it all it wants, but it will not get the legislation it needs.

I hope the minister would learn from this and reflect on it. Why waste the time of Parliament and why waste the time of Canadians? If he does not do the groundwork and consult, the bills will eventually fail. It is the obligation of members of the opposition to push back in those cases because without consultation, there is no legitimacy for developing first nation law.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Attawapiskat sits on the largest diesel contamination site in North American history. This is where the children go to school. The building has been abandoned for 30 years. The government's solution in Attawapiskat was to tear the building down. There is no other jurisdiction I know of that would tear down a building as a school solution. When the government tore that building down, it promised the community it would have medical teams on hand because it knew the risks to those children. Therefore, community agreed to having it torn down. We do not make a promise of medical teams for demolition unless we know how serious it is. Guess what? There were no medical teams present. Health Canada told the community to send their kids back to school in the middle of the demolition.

We have documented reports of teachers getting sick, children throwing up. We had a teaching crew from the Toronto school board at the time, and the teachers were horrified. Kids had nosebleeds and some passed out in the classrooms. Anywhere else there would be an outcry that would lead to people being charged, people being fired and heads would roll.

We have heard the minister say that he is not aware of any health and safety problems whatsoever and he has told us to prove it. We are talking about children who have been left at risk. A promise was made to have medical teams available to ensure the children would not get sick. Again, it is the lack of good faith from the government. It makes agreements and it walks away, leaving children at risk. That is simply unacceptable in a country like Canada in the 21st century.