Charlie Angus

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, as always, to my colleague's dissertation in the House. I was very struck by how he spoke of the need for us to engage in a debate where we are not using cheap rhetoric toward each other.

I think by far the most important decision that any member of Parliament makes is the decision of whether or not to put someone else's life in danger. That is a decision each member in this House must make in good conscience, and they do make it in good conscience based on what they feel at the end of the day is in the best interests of the country and the people they represent.

That is a task we cannot give to anyone else. It is our task alone, it is why we are here, and I certainly appreciate his plea to make this debate about that.

I have listened to the debate today and I would say that everyone is trying to rise to the occasion. One would think honey would not melt in the mouths of anyone in the House today. Many other days in this House I have heard really vile personal attacks and attempts to make this a “Which side are you on?”.

As the hon. member pointed out, to say that any member in this House is in some way similar, supportive, like, or comparable to the Taliban is certainly disrespectful to why we are here as parliamentarians and disrespectful for what we are actually trying to accomplish, however we are going to vote on this.

I would like to thank the member. I am supposed to ask a question, I suppose, but I just wanted to let him know that I appreciated his comments.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

How will you vote?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

How will you vote?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually fascinated by the member's response, because he used the words “the need for fair and transparent”, yet that is in the NDP motion. We find that this backdoor attempt, as he talked about, to bring in this immigration bill under a budget is wrong. It is not how things are done. The NDP has put forward before the House a very clear issue to be debated. I was actually quite surprised earlier on when he accused the government of not having respect for democracy and immigrants and said shame on the government.

I do not know how he squares it with his constituents, but when I go back to my constituents, I tell them the reason that I get $150,000 a year, or whatever it is that we are being paid now, is so that I will stand up and vote on difficult issues. At certain times there will be issues that might not always be popular, but I will always be able to go back to my constituents. If my constituents believe strongly in an issue and want me to vote for or against something, I am here to represent them. I am not here to just sit in a seat and read whatever prepared text is handed to me by the Liberal backroom.

If the member has such problems with this, and if he says this is a shameful action, it does not respect democracy and it is not respectful of immigrants, then how can he sit there collecting a paycheque and support it? Does he not understand that being respectful of democracy is being respectful enough to stand up and vote against something if the member is opposed to it?

Will he support this motion--

[Telecommunications Industry, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's hands-off approach to hands-on interference is bad news for the development of a Canadian innovation agenda. Net neutrality is the cornerstone of an innovative economy, because it is the consumer and the innovator who need to be in the driver's seat, not Ma Bell, not Rogers, not Vidéotron. They have no business deciding what information is in the fast lane or what information is in the slow lane.

Will the minister come out of the Gestetner age and take action on the issue of net throttling?

[Telecommunications Industry, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, average Canadians are being ripped off by the telecom giants which are arbitrarily throttling information on the Internet. This is about a practice of a few large players being able to squeeze out smaller competition.

What steps will the Minister of Industry take to ensure that consumers who paid for access are not going to be ripped off, that badly needed competition will not be squeezed off, and send a message to the telecom giants that they have no business monkey wrenching with the free flow of information?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of surprised the minister is still making things up.

Let us go back to Rocky Bay. I will read a report that is sitting on his desk. It says that the situation in Rocky Bay “poses a serious health and safety hazard to children”, “asbestos” indoors, “mould”, “over stressed beams”, “the roof risks collapse from strong winds or a heavy snowfall”. A roof that risks collapse from a heavy snowfall, this is appalling.

How can he sit in the House knowing those children are being put directly at risk because of his cavalier attitude?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the children of Attawapiskat are not the only children being targeted by the minister. He cancelled the school at Rocky Bay First Nation even though his predecessor identified a serious need to take action.

The minister tells Canadians that these children do not need or deserve a school because there are no immediate health concerns. What a meagre, miserable standard for education.

Is the minister telling us that as long as children are not directly injured or killed in a building that his government has no further obligation to them?

[The Budget, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative-Liberal budget has done nothing for the working families of northern Ontario. At a time when oil is peaking at above $100 a barrel, there is no plan to stop the gouging at the pumps, which is affecting consumers across the north.

Even worse is the fact that there no plan in place to help rural people who are stuck with increasingly high fuel bills. I know senior citizens who are paying over $900 a month just to stay warm. The problem is if people have an oil boiler in northern Ontario, it is difficult to convert to other alternative technologies.

That is why we need a plan to move to a greener technology for rural people. I would suggest wood pellets because the pellets can be created out of any kind of wood waste. It is a much greener technology.

The fact is the government has to stop protecting its buddies in the oil patch and start recognizing that rural people in northern Ontario deserve a government with a vision for a sustainable future.

[Public Appointments, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a tear-jerking defence of pork-barrelling.

Let us go back to what Justice Gomery said. He slammed the government for its excuses on killing the public appointments commission. He said that this key aspect of accountability has fallen into a black hole of Conservative indifference.

If we are going to have responsible government in this country, we have to drain the swamps of cronyism. Instead, the government is using taxpayers' dollars to give out untendered contracts to party pals. It is using the public appointments process as a massive job creation program for failed Tories.

Why has the government broken this key promise to the Canadian people that it would end cronyism?