Charlie Angus

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's view of what happened with the committee in terms of the bill because some of the first nations I have worked with have always been very concerned about the claims process.

Whether it is a comprehensive claim, a specific claim, or the issue of loan funding which can be dragged out for such a period of time in terms of loan funding, especially when we move to the larger claims issues, all kinds of third parties can then become part of the proceedings. From that moment, the clock is ticking on the first nations' own finances. At the end of the day, many have been very wary about the outcomes because whatever settlements they end up getting, phenomenal amounts have been paid out to consultants and to lawyers because the process has dragged on.

I would like to ask the member about two aspects. First, is there any recognition by the government about the need to play fairly with first nations because they are at such a disadvantage in terms of being able to set the parameters for how the process will go? Second, in regard to the issue of the financial burden that is inordinately always placed on first nations in any kind of negotiations, has there been any discussion about how to mitigate against that?

[Petitions, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I proud to say that the second petition is from students at Glen Shields Public School in Concorde, Ontario, the grade six class that went around the school asking students to sign a petition over their absolute outrage that the government denied a school to the children of Attawapiskat.

The children took it upon themselves to go from class to class. They said that they felt it was absolutely appalling that the children of Attawapiskat had been waiting nearly 30 years to receive a new school. They point out that in 1979 a 50,000 litre diesel spill flooded J.R. Nakogee Elementary School and for 21 years students were getting sick from contamination. The frustrated parents finally pulled the children out of the school in 2000 and since then, children have been getting by in makeshift classrooms.

This community, as the students pointed out, have had three Indian affairs ministers promise that a school would be built. Finally, in December 2007, when plans were supposed to move forward, the government cancelled the plans for the school. It has cancelled all schools for first nations because it does not believe that building schools for first nations is a priority.

This is obviously something that the students of Glen Shields Public School find disgraceful. I might add, there are at least 70 other schools across Canada in which students are rising up and saying that the attitude that some children should have fewer rights than others is an appalling situation in the 21st century.

I thank the children of Glen Shields Public School and their class teachers, Mrs. Sher and Ms. Avertick, for this petition.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first is from the citizens of Timmins—James Bay concerning the need for a northern Ontario passport office. Passports are increasingly essential for travellers, and the residents of northern Ontario do not have access to a passport office that offers full or expedited services.

The citizens of Timmins—James Bay are therefore asking Parliament to approve a full-service passport office in the city of Timmins, Ontario, to respond to the needs of residents of northern Ontario, and to help alleviate the current Passport Canada workload and delays.

[Government Accountability, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the record shows otherwise. The finance minister broke the rules. The transportation minister broke the rules. The labour minister broke the rules. The former heritage minister broke the rules. When they were caught, the Prime Minister said that there would be absolutely no consequences.

We are talking about hiding elaborate spending from the taxpayers.

That is a cabinet that is living high off the fat of the land, while telling everybody else that the cupboard is bare. What makes the Conservatives think they are so much more superior to average Canadians who play by the rules and who pay their bills?

[Government Accountability, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the former heritage minister has admitted that she did wrong when she carried out an elaborate spending spree with taxpayer money and then tried to hide that spending from the public.

I appreciate the fact that she has risen in the House and spoken about it, but this is not, as she said, an administrative error. This is a breach of the basic rules of accountability by which we hold cabinet ministers accountable. If an average Canadian tried to hide financial spending, there would be tough consequences.

The minister broke the rules. She billed the taxpayers $1,300 for a limo to a partisan rally.

What steps will the government take to get the money back?

[Government Accountability, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is not accountability. That is entitlement.

In March 2006 we have a $1,700 bill for two days of joyriding in a limousine. In August 2006, $740 for a limo trip around Toronto with no disclosure. The next day, there is another $861 to ride around Toronto with no disclosure. On November 2006, there is $600 to ride around Vancouver with no disclosure, and on March 2007, a $1,300 limo ride to a partisan Conservative Party meeting.

She has broken the trust of average Canadians. Will the government compel her to pay that money back to taxpayers?

[Government Accountability, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, access to information documents show that the former heritage minister wracked up phenomenal bills on limousines, flights and hotels which she kept hidden from the public.

We have extravagant limousine rides to Conservative Party meetings, flights across the country for which there are no records, and double-billed hotels for the same nights in two different cities with no disclosure.

The rules are there for a reason, to ensure accountability and transparency in government. Average Canadians play by the rules. Why does she think she can break those rules with impunity?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this issue very closely because the question of where Canada Post is going in terms of privatizing service is a discussion that we must have with the Canadian people.

In my riding of Timmins—James Bay, for example, the downtown postal service in the city of Timmins that supplies the entire city now is no longer able to provide postal service because it is being shipped out and privatized.

I wonder what other businesses in the world would actually not provide a service when it is their primary service. The primary service of Canada Post in Timmins is to provide parcel post, pick up and postal service for citizens. Yet, it is unable to do that.

Workers are being told they cannot provide the service. Businesses in the downtown are no longer able to use this service because it has been shipped out to a local drug store. Canada Post does not sell hair sprays; it does not sell toothpaste. It is in the business of serving the public with a postal service.

We are seeing the same situation in our rural communities where Canada Post is walking away, leaving boxes out on rural roads, as opposed to real people who service the public.

I guess the question I have for my hon. colleague is, where else but the House of Commons should we be debating the fact that a national service, the postal service, is being shipped off, cut apart, split apart and citizens are being denied service that they have come to expect?

[Elections Canada, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that nothing moves in the Conservative Party without the Prime Minister's personal approval.

In 1997 it was illegal to set up an ad scheme to circumvent election spending limits and it is illegal today. When did the Prime Minister give his approval to set up this scheme to circumvent the election spending limits? Was it his idea to bilk the taxpayers for $700,000 in rebates to which the Conservative Party was not entitled? How does it feel to have to trot out the same old scandal ridden excuses that he so vehemently despised while he was in opposition?

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to keep focused on here is that the Conservative Party had reached its national spending limit and it was trying to find a way to exceed that spending limit. It was looking at campaigns where it had very little chance of winning but had high ceilings. What is really going to be pertinent to this discussion at the end of the day is to find out where that money was spent. If the money that was put into northern Ontario ridings where we saw almost no advertising, if they had to pay for ads in other regions, then clearly the Conservative case is going to be nailed shut in terms of how far it went over the line.

Again, we have to get back to the simple question of public trust. As I said at the beginning of my speech, when I first ran for election, my campaign manager told me that if I was not sure, then do not do it. The Conservative Party was really sure what it was doing. It was looking for a way to get $1.2 million in national advertising that it was not entitled to and once caught, rather than own up, the Conservatives were defiant and belligerent and they were still trying to ding the taxpayer for almost $700,000 in rebates to which they were not entitled.

Average Canadians play by the rules, but why is it that people in the Conservative Party of Canada think those rules are there to be broken and twisted around and at the end of the day they should also be entitled to money they are not entitled to?