Charlie Angus

[Canadian Flag Pins, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the maple leaf is not simply a political masthead, it is a symbol of Canadian values. It is very symbolic that as the largest manufacturing meltdown in Canadian history takes place, the government is hawking parliamentary Canadian flag pins that are made in China. It is an insult to the thousands of manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs.

Will the President of the Treasury Board do the right thing, recall these bags of trinkets and ensure that all Canadian flag pins are made with pride in Canada?

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it has been absolutely fascinating listening to the Conservatives saying that Canada is protected because we have a wonderfully regulated system. They certainly do not want to protect consumers because that would be regulation.

The fact is that the Conservatives have opposed proper regulation of banks from the beginning. It is in their blood. They pretend that the dodging sub-prime mortgage crisis existed only in the states. It started to happen here in Canada because the government was deregulating the mortgage market and it was caught out. Canadian taxpayers now have to underwrite $26 billion of toxic assets. Taxpayer money is now being used to backstop the banks.

However, when it comes to protecting citizens who are being preyed upon and penalized through all kinds of unfair predatory practices, the government's response is to blame the individual by saying that if they had been sharper they would have been more financially literate and that if they had taken responsibility for their own lives there would not be a problem.

The problem here is systemic. It is systemic abuse of individuals by the large banks and whenever they are in trouble they go to their friends and get a bailout while citizens are left high and dry.

Why does my colleague think the Conservatives continually have it in for average Canadians? Why do they continually cover any corporate abuse that happens in this country?

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I took great interest in my colleague's speech. I have been listening all morning and I have heard a very distasteful line being promoted by the Conservative Party. They are really the Cadillac Conservatives.

During the worst economic crisis in Canadian history, the Conservatives are blaming the people who are losing their jobs. They are blaming the people who are being ripped off. They say we need some financial literacy, as though the people who come into my office, who are faced with usurious credit card rates, are somehow hicks and illiterates. The idea that if we help these people become smarter so they can become responsible, as though they were irresponsible in the first place, is absolute gall. The motion talks about protecting cardholders who pay on time, limiting abusive fees and penalties, prohibiting issuers from charging interest on debt that has always been repaid, ensuring that cardholders are informed of the terms of their account and protecting young consumers from aggressive credit card practices.

How can the Conservatives be so dismissive and out of touch with the reality of what average Canadians face right now, being ripped off by the banks and the credit card companies?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I was home this week. We have 800 people in Abitibi who are worried about their pensions. We have had 1,000 layoffs in Sudbury. Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing are down as are our mills all across the north. We are debating something that he says everybody in Quebec supports, and he is blaming western Canada.

Why do we have an opposition day motion on something like this, something which is creating political mischief? People back home want to know where we stand on fighting for pensions and EI and ensuring we can get through this economic crisis.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I represent a very large region where many people have guns because they live in rural regions. I would say that the people in my riding are very responsible gun owners. They have had a lot of resentment about how the registry was implemented, and a lot of that resentment has been well founded.

However, I am concerned and responsible gun owners in my riding would also be concerned about the Conservatives' moves in claiming that they are going to deal with the gun registry through Bill C-301. It is being touted as a way of killing the gun registry, but when we look at the clauses in it, subclause 9(2) would make it easy to transport machine guns and assault weapons; subclause 9(1) would weaken transportation rules for restricted firearms; and clause 8 would allow individuals in illegal possession of prohibited handguns to keep them.

It seems to me that instead of presenting rural Canadians with a plan to deal with their resentments over the gun registry, the Conservative government is actually presenting a plan that would allow urban gangbangers to carry Berettas on the streets of Vancouver.

I would like to ask the member, if the Conservatives are very serious about the gun registry and addressing rural concerns, why does Bill C-301, which is their government bill, bring forward these kinds of provisions that allow machine guns, prohibited weapons and handguns to be carried, under the guise of claiming that they are going to help rural Canadians?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. As he well knows, I represent a rural region, where people have had a lot of concerns about the gun registry and the way that gun registry was implemented. We also see how the Conservatives send mailings into our ridings, saying they will take on the gun registry and try to inflame people.

However, when we look at Bill C-301, residents in my riding are certainly horrified to see a bill that would allow machine guns to be transported, making it easier for prohibited arms to be carried around, and allowing individuals with the illegal possession of prohibitive handguns to keep them, which is under clause 8. This bill is a Trojan Horse allowing people in urban areas to drive around with Berettas in their SUVs.

I want to ask my colleague why he thinks the Conservatives would float a bill that is so reckless it would allow gangbangers in Vancouver to have a field day and use that while trying to create a greater urban-rural divide and play upon the resentment that exists in rural Canada toward the gun registry?

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's dissertation with interest. I guess I am surprised that it is coming forward today at a time of economic crisis.

It seems to me that part of the problem with gun policy in this country is continually looking to the United States. Well, the United States is not a reasonable marker for us to look at. We have to look at our own regions.

There are certain instances in our rural regions where people felt very alienated by the way guns were being spoken about. He talked about firearms being instruments of death. Of course, they are. He also called them the greatest instruments of intimidation. Well, in rural areas, people do use them.

What we see is the politicization of the gun registry, like the absurd Bill C-301, under the guise of killing the registry. When I talk with my gun owners back home and read the provisions of Bill C-301 that would allow for the transportation of prohibited weapons and machine guns, that is certainly not what rural people are looking at.

I would ask my colleague in the Bloc, why is there this continual refusal to recognize the legitimate issues that people in rural Canada have about the gun registry? Why is there this continual demonization of rural people who use guns, as though they are some kind of threat that has to be contained? It seems to me that until we breach that divide between rural and urban Canada, his motion and the Conservative backbench motion are playing mischief with a very serious issue.

[Petitions, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand and present a petition signed by hundreds of residents from the great gold mining town of Matachewan, Ontario, who are trying to draw the attention of the House of Commons to their growing frustration about dealing with Canada Post.

In January 2009, the decision was made to change the postal service without due notice or consultation. Even though public notices were subsequently posted, they contained inaccurate or misleading information. Even after they tried to meet with the Canada Post regional representatives and given assurances that they would have their postal service maintained, they still are being left out in the cold.

They are asking the Government of Canada to hold Canada Post to account to ensure that communities like Matachewan, Kenabeek, South Porcupine and other regions that are dependent upon postal service and are not getting proper answers from Canada Post will be heard.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 20th, 2009]

With respect to community facilities on First Nations: (a) does Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) conduct health and safety inspections of every educational facility on a regular basis and, if so, how often are regular health and safety inspections supposed to take place on educational facilities within INAC’s jurisdiction; (b) what causes health and safety inspections to be conducted on these facilities outside of the regular basis; (c) what health and safety inspections have taken place on the educational facilities in Attawapiskat First Nation since January 2000; (d) what health and safety inspections have taken place on the portables that currently comprise Attawapiskat’s elementary school facilities since they were originally built; (e) how did INAC officials come to the conclusion drawn in the Comprehensive Integrated Document Management document No. 198761 of November 21, 2007 that there were health and safety concerns with the portables in Attawapiskat, which were “in need of extensive repairs”; (f) how many First Nations students across Canada currently attend school in facilities that INAC believes contain health and safety concerns; (g) as of March 4, 2009, what new school construction projects are the top 40 priorities for INAC across Canada and, for each of these 40 schools, how long has INAC known that health and safety concerns existed in the current facilities; (h) between January 2006 and March 2009, how many schools sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members from the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois or Liberal Party of Canada were not built, or had construction delayed; (i) how did INAC’s commitment to upgrading and replacing First Nations’ water facilities impact the capital budget for educational facilities; (j) was additional money allocated to INAC’s overall budget to upgrade and replace First Nations’ water facilities and, if so, how much additional funding did INAC receive to upgrade and replace First Nations’ inadequate water facilities, if not, was money simply moved from other INAC budget lines to fund these projects; (k) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations in Canada; (l) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members from the New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois or Liberal Party of Canada on the day that the Treasury Board Secretariat signed off on the funding; and (m) between January 2006 and March 2009, how much money was spent on upgrading and replacing water facilities on First Nations sitting in federal electoral districts represented by Members of the Conservative Party of Canada on the day that the Treasury Board Secretariat signed off on the funding?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 20th, 2009]

With respect to the third party management (TPM) of First Nations by Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC), with specific reference to only those managed by the Northern Ontario office over the last ten years: (a) how many First Nations reserves have been operating under TPM, for how long, which reserves have been so designated and for each of the reserves listed, who acts as their third party manager; (b) according to each band council, on what date did each agreement come into force, what was the amount of debt they held at the time, what debt repayment plan was put into effect for each and what is the current amount of outstanding debt held by each band council; (c) what requirements must be met by a band council to get out of TPM, who determines those requirements, how many bands have met those requirements and when; (d) how many audits has INAC, or its designated proxies, undertaken with respect to TPMs and their direction of First Nations bands, (i) on what date were such audits prepared, (ii) by whom, (iii) with respect to the management of which bands, (iv) what were the key findings of each audit, (v) what recommendations were implemented, (vi) has any audit resulted in the termination or non-renewal of the contract between the TPM and INAC, if so, which ones and why, (vii) has any audit warranted a police investigation, if so, which ones and what was the outcome; (e) according to each community operating under TPM, (i) what management or other fees were charged, on a monthly and annual basis, (ii) for what were the fees charged, (iii) have any TPMs received extra commissions, bonuses or any other financial reward for their work and, if so, on what date were such monies awarded, for what, and to which TPMs, (iv) what percentage of each band’s operating budget do such costs represent, on a monthly and annual basis; (f) how many contracts (separate of TPMs agreements) have been awarded by INAC, or a TPM acting on a First Nation’s behalf, to LTL Construction, Shuniah Financial Services or Mekena Project Management Group, what was the amount of each contract, the date awarded and the intended service; (g) what legal or professional requirements does a company have to meet to become a TPM; (h) what tendering process is followed in the awarding of TPM contracts, do INAC staff have any discretionary powers in awarding a TPM and, if so, who has that power and under what circumstances; (i) with specific reference to the Gull Bay First Nation, how many third party managers have presided over their financial affairs during the above-mentioned period, what are the terms and conditions of each contract, what management fees, bonuses or commissions were paid to these parties and who were the principal officers of each TPM; and (j) for what reasons is Shuniah Financial Services no longer acting as Gull Bay’s TPM?