Charlie Angus

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I was interested in his comments on youth employment, but I am more interested in the whole notion of regional sourcing and the role we can play to ensure that Canadian contracts are given to Canadian companies. I think people would notice the work that was done with the city of Toronto to ensure the streetcar contract went to Thunder Bay. That was a very good and wise move economically.

The question we are debating today, however, is that members of one party can throw a political hissy fit when they do not get the arbitrary numbers they throw out to a private Canadian company. They are insisting on 60% of a contract. What kind of role will we play when every contract that comes forward will have to go to our colleagues across the way for them to set the arbitrary standard of jobs? If the rest of the country gets it own little pittance, that is not so bad, but they want to ensure they can set the arbitrary numbers.

Does my hon. colleague accept the principle that has been put forth by members of the party opposite; that they want to be the ones who decide how industrial strategy in Canada will be developed, how job quotas will be set and who will be at the trough first before anybody—

[North American Free Trade Agreement, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer some guidance. I researched the Adams Mine land titles and I could not find the name Gallo because of course it is a numbered company.

I did, however, find the name Mario Cortellucci, who is a very close friend of the Conservative Party. The Cortellucci clan has given $170,000 recently, including $50,000 to our present finance minister when he was running for provincial leadership, $10,000 to the health minister when he was running, and $60,000 to that party's coffers since 2004.

Would the minister phone up super Mario and ask him to help the government find out just who is going to stand to benefit from this massive hit on Canadian taxpayers?

[North American Free Trade Agreement, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, an American investor named Vito Gallo is going after the Canadian taxpayer for $350 million in compensation over the failed Adams Mine dump proposal.

Mr. Gallo is going after chapter 11 of NAFTA regarding a proposal that was under the city of Toronto and under the jurisdiction of Ontario. It is for the benefit of a numbered company in North York. That is quite the stretch for NAFTA.

I would like to ask the government what steps it is taking to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers? Will it do a complete forensic audit of this company so we know exactly who stands to benefit from this massive hit on Canadian taxpayers?

[Forest Industry, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that part of the secret booby prize of the softwood lumber sellout is that the government gave up Canada's right to protect and help our own communities.

The government, along with the Bloc and the Liberals, fast-tracked the bill and kept it from public scrutiny during public hearings. The public did not know what was in that bill. So now it is learning that the U.S. trade interests are threatening Canada if our provinces step up to the plate.

Why did the government, along with its quisling allies in the Bloc and the northern Ontario Liberals, sell out our economic sovereignty, roll over for America, and refuse to stand up for Canada?

[Forest Industry, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 280 jobs went down this week in Thunder Bay as the hemorrhaging of our forest communities continues. Pulp mills, kraft mills and sawmills are going down. Red Rock, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, White River and Timmins have become a highway of shame and what has been the response of the government? Nothing, nada, an absolute indifference to the communities and the workers.

The government gives $1 billion a year in subsidies to its pals in big oil and gas. How about some fairness to the northern communities which are being sold down the river?

[Mining Industry, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, hardrock mining is the backbone of the Canadian economy thanks to the junior exploration companies and prospectors who take the risks and go after the long shot. Yes, we are riding a boom, but the boom will not last because in all our key metal sectors we are seeing a stagnation in reserves. It is time the federal government stepped up to the plate.

Two years ago the Liberal government walked away on the exploration community when it killed the super flow-through shares program. I fought that decision then and I continued to fight until we managed to get it reinstated.

I am asking for three levels of support from the government. Number one, we want long term commitment to the super flow-through shares program as it works. Number two, we need ongoing commitment to geoscience mapping like Discover Abitibi because it is an excellent partnership of industry, government and research. Number three, we need a proactive response from the government on resource revenue sharing with our first nations communities so that we can ensure that mining in the 21st century will be equitable and will include the development of all our northern regions.

Mining in Canada can work.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 14th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Timmins—James Bay since February 6, 2006, including the 2006-2007 Budget and up to today, and, in each case where applicable: (a) the department or agency responsible; (b) the program under which the payment was made; (c) the names of the recipients, if they were groups or organizations; (d) the monetary value of the payment made; and (e) the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have spoken with respect toward that member, but I will not sit here in the House and have him throw over the fact that I do not care about the issue of child pornography, just because he is getting himself worked up. I ask him to retract that, calm himself down and then finishes his response.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listen with interest, as always, to my hon. colleague's speech. I seem to have heard the gist of it repeated a number of times because he is very focused on this issue, and I respect him for that.

We are talking about a bill that would protect citizens from gun crimes and how to best do that. We have had this discussion before. How do we balance public protection and rights. Rights are not something to be discarded or seen as for the weak kneed. Rights are fundamental in our society.

Earlier the member talked about the issue child pornography. Every member in the House, just as the vast majority, or 99% of the people watching, would see this as a very fundamental issue in terms of protection. I do not think that Canadians take that issue lightly.

The member spoke about how inaction by the House had created a billion dollar a year child pornography industry. I do not think those are the numbers in Canada. Also, because of a judge's ruling on some guy's material on whether it was art or pornography, this created a situation where every piece of child pornography had to be reviewed for its artistic merit. That is a rash statement. I simply do not think it is true.

So people back home do not panic, our police services are out there all the time fighting child pornography issues. They know they do not have to worry about whether it has artistic merit. That line of argument is frankly bunk and it is not true.

I am correcting the record and reminding the member that he is impassioned about this issue, but he has to also recognize that every member in the House takes that issue very seriously, just as we take the issue of protecting our citizens seriously.

The question that we are bringing to the House is how to go about that in a system that works, that is deliverable and that does not, at the end of the day, hurt our society.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's discussion and he clearly laid out the issue. The issue before us is the need to balance public safety, which is something we as New Democrats are very strong on, particularly in light of the proliferation of guns and the concern about gun violence. We need to send a clear message that gun violence is not going to be tolerated in our society.

I would like to juxtapose that with the Conservative Party's cheapening of the suffering of crime victims in order to make political messages. The Conservatives send stuff into other people's ridings saying that so and so is soft on crime, or so and so supports all kinds of nefarious and disgusting activities because so and so does not have the extreme views of the Conservative Party on many things.

This legislation comes to us as something to deal with the threat of gun violence, so of course there is support for it. As with pretty much any bill the Conservatives bring forward, they make it so big that we could drive a Mack truck through it. They are trying to sweep up into their net many other crimes while scaring the general public about crime.

What steps does the hon. member think need to be taken to ensure the public interest is protected? What steps need to be taken to ensure that the Conservative Party does not use bills like this for cheap partisan purposes?