Charlie Angus

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, government documents reveal that when the Minister of Indian Affairs walked away from negotiations to build a school in Attawapiskat, the Ontario region had identified three key priorities, Wabaseemoong, North Spirit Lake and Attawapiskat, all because of serious health and safety concerns, and in the case of Attawapiskat overcrowding and badly deteriorated portables.

Yet, the minister told Canadians there was no evidence of any health and safety problems whatsoever. The documents reveal a campaign of misinformation to cover his tracks.

What was the minister's real reason for walking away from the children of Attawapiskat and the commitments made to build that school?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again, the question I have for the Conservative Party is, if we do move to a common securities regulator, what steps will there be to ensure that it actually has teeth so that it can go after the corporate hucksters who have been moving from one location to another? With the derivatives and penny stock scams, Canada is known as the wild west.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with certain elements in my colleague's speech. However, I do not believe this is an economic stimulus package. It seems to be an ideological cattle prod aimed at attacking women's equity rights, the environment and even student loans.

My question for my hon. colleague concerns the issue of the regulator. I do not believe the people sitting across the aisle have any real commitment to corporate accountability. They have never shown any in the past.

However, there is the issue of widespread corporate fraud. My hon. colleague can make it an issue of Montreal versus Toronto, but the one thing that all these security regulators have in common is the free passes they allow for dodgy companies to pick and choose where they want to go.

One of the big problems we see in Montreal is that it is the home of the derivative market, which is highly unregulated. It has been called the weapon of economic mass destruction. We do not even know how much effect it has because it is so unregulated. There is a need to address this in order to give consumers and investors confidence.

I have not heard from Bloc members how they would ensure that confidence is guaranteed. Just because it is sits in Montreal does not give an investor confidence.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague on the issues of equalization, but the other part of this motion concerns the need for a securities regulator. The examples that I have heard from the Bloc today have not really explained any real commitment at the provincial levels to ensure that investors are protected against stock fraud, not that I believe for a second that the Conservatives have a very clear plan. But the issue has to be addressed.

We have to look no further than the issue of Bre-X, which I brought up earlier. This stock fraud was set up on one of the smaller stock exchanges in Calgary. It moved onto the TSX. Six billion dollars in investments were defrauded through Bre-X and at the end of the day, the RCMP shrugged and said it could not launch an investigation. de Guzman jumped, was pushed or took a parachute to freedom. Walsh took off to the Bahamas and then later died. Felderhof, who was the chief geologist, was finally charged with insider trading. He was the guy who was seeing the gold samples and yet the Ontario securities regulator could not bring any charges and convict him. At no provincial level were the investors protected. How will the investors be protected in a time of economic uncertainty if we just maintain this patchwork of services?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the entire world watched the Bre-X fraud being perpetrated on thousands of investors. It started out in the penny stock capital in Calgary and moved to the TSX. When it all came down, at the end of the day the RCMP had to say they did not have enough evidence to charge anybody with fraud or to go further.

The international community of investors pointed to Canada and said that we were a laughingstock in terms of our willingness to take on corporate fraud of the kind that had taken place with the Bre-X scam, with the other scams that had gone before it and with the other scams that came afterward.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, even if we have a national regulator such that one can opt in or opt out depending on how one is feeling on a particular day in a particular province, what further steps will there be to ensure corporate accountability so that the kinds of flagrant scams like Bre-X and so many others will not continue to be perpetrated just because we have a single regulator, as opposed to a patchwork system?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sort of at a loss watching the sound and the fury coming from my colleague. His debate is taking place amidst an international meltdown of confidence.

Again, I recognize that people would not necessarily believe that the Conservatives have any real agenda that would actually bring about corporate accountability, but I have not heard the Bloc address the issue that across the various jurisdictions in Canada there has been one stock scandal and fraud after another. We have been known as the wild west for penny stocks. It has happened in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. We have some of the dodgiest derivatives markets in the world.

Saying that this is an unfair intrusion into the affairs of Quebec does not change the fact that there needs to be confidence. I have not heard anything from the Bloc in terms of how those members would address the people who are watching this country and ask where the accountability is in terms of ensuring investor and consumer confidence and making sure that each of the jurisdictions is doing the job it is supposed to do.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing this idea of a common regulator for Canada there are two issues which have to be addressed. Number one is whether we actually believe that the Conservatives have a plan that could make a common securities regulator work given their complete lack of interest in any kind of corporate accountability. That is a big question and that is the crux of the debate.

Second, I have a problem with the Bloc motion. I recognize the role that each of the provincial jurisdictions has, but we have a record in Canada of some of the dodgiest fly-by-night penny stock scams anywhere in the world that are being perpetrated where they get booted off the TSX and they move to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We saw Bre-X out of Calgary. We have seen so many dodgy derivatives pushed on the market. It is an issue that has to be addressed because we have failed at the provincial levels, even with the passport system, to deal with this.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague speak of the need to reassure investors and consumers that the jurisdictions of Canada are serious about taking on the kind of corporate fraud that has been perpetrated time and time again.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question of the kind of carny huckster attitude that the government has toward government assets.

In the last sale, public buildings were sold on the fact that the government sells off prime real estate all across Canada and then makes the taxpayer rent it back and pay for all improvements. It is not the owners. They get off scot-free.

In 25 years the taxpayer has to buy the building back at full market value. I do not know any real estate from the early eighties that is worth zero now, but this is the argument the government uses: at the end of 25 years, this prime real estate is supposed to somehow be valued at zero, so we are getting value for our dollar.

Could the hon. member, who knows this file so well, explain to the people back home about the real estate scam being perpetrated in the selloff of these assets? It is putting the taxpayer on the hook for all improvements and then making the taxpayer buy the building back at the end of the day.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, every day my office deals with the front lines of this economic crisis. We hear from the families who are not eligible for EI, who do not have enough weeks for EI, and the older workers who do not have enough funds to bridge them to a pension and end up losing everything along the way.

When we met with bankers, the business communities and labour, we found a surprising unanimity on one issue, which is that we have to allow greater latitude for EI in a time of economic crisis. We have to poverty-proof our communities.

We heard that from all kinds of sectors. Obviously, the Conservatives did not hear it because they continually go back to their basic Reform Party message. They do not want lucrative benefits because they think people are lazy. They want to accuse anyone who comes forward, who says anything about the issues of older workers, that we are not being positive enough. They want this whole Horatio Alger claptrap to be danced out in this House of Commons, and that we should encourage people to be more positive to find jobs that do not exist.

It is simply not acceptable. Families are losing their homes, they are losing their savings, and they are looking to the government to do more. What they see on the government side benches is absolute indifference.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have been fighting this issue so strongly. The issue is really clear. This is a government that through its indifference and incompetence has allowed Falconbridge to be taken off by this corporate raider. At the time we were told not to worry because we have protection for three years, but Xstrata knew that the government did not really care and would not actually stand up for the people of Sudbury because it has not stood up for any other industry in this country.

When our new industry minister stands in the House and says “Listen, I'm taking this seriously”, I am glad he is actually standing up. He seems to have a little bit more backbone than some of his predecessors. But when he is saying there is new money, it is simply not true. Xstrata had money on the books for developing nickel rim because it is a fantastically rich mine and everyone knows it, and it wanted that deposit. It did not want to have to deal with the larger issues of the Sudbury basin and that is again the misuse of our resources, the misuse of commitments that were made to the Canadian people, and the misuse of information in the House of Commons. The government has to at least say, “We had no intention of holding them to any agreement in the first place”. That is a fundamental of Conservative ideology.