Charlie Angus

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they called us traitors, yet a very rightist government brings in this very rightist budget and their party rolls over immediately. Then those members stand up and say they are concerned about rightist policies coming forward, when this budget has destroyed Kyoto, when this budget will destroy any plans for child care, and when it is giving complete tax breaks to corporations.

I have a question for the hon. member. Her party had an opportunity to make changes to EI. It could have done that. It could have negotiated its support, but it did nothing. Those members simply stood up and said they support this budget. Perhaps they are supporting it because the Conservatives are at 34% in Quebec right now. Why did the hon. member's party not even try to negotiate anything to change this or to bring about more progressive policies instead of just getting into bed with a rightist government?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech, but I am still somewhat confused, and I have been confused in terms of listening to the Bloc during my two terms in this place. My hon. colleague from Windsor West referred the other day to the Bloc as a dog with no legs: it barks, but it does not go anywhere.

During the last session in Parliament we worked very hard to negotiate changes to the Liberal budget. These changes included $1.6 billion for public housing, $1.5 billion for universities, $800 million for public transit and money for public infrastructure. We were denounced by that party for failing the people of Canada.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's defence of the budget, but we well know from the Mike Harris years in Ontario and the years of Liberal neglect that a tax cut never hired a single nurse or fixed a single road in our country.

What we will remember from the budget is that the Conservative government walked away on the international Kyoto treaty. For 13 years, greenhouse gases rose under the Liberal government and we heard poppycock about voluntary emissions standards with industry polluters, which is like voluntary drinking and driving standards. Now the government has given us a made in a Calgary boardroom solution. There is no plan or vision. There are no commitments to meet any kind of targets whatsoever.

Would the hon. member explain this vision for the rest of Canadians, who are scratching their heads wondering exactly what is going to happen in terms of the government's commitments to greenhouse gases? We have seen no money, no commitment, and no plan.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, ethics is not something to be done tomorrow. Accountability is not voluntary. That is what we have heard year after year. Let us study this. Let us find out what we need to know. These are simple answers.

I will give an example, and I do not want to bring up names in the House. However, during the Dave Dingwall affair, what struck me was the disconnect between the House and what happens in real life. I had Miss Carol--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General definitely plays a very important role. However, I do have some concerns when we talk about accountability.

Accountability goes in two ways. For example, in the 1970s there was a diesel fuel spill in Attawapiskat, a community of 2,000 people in my riding. A family I know very well has been living on top of that spill. The woman has had three miscarriages. One of the children is developmentally delayed, we believe. The former Liberal government denied and denied. Study after study was done to establish whether there was a problem.

The school was contaminated and has since been condemned. No efforts were made by Indian affairs to move those students out. It was considered perfectly fine and acceptable for Cree children to go to school in a condemned environment. I was a school board trustee in Timmins and if there had been any problems in one of our schools, that school would have been shut down that weekend and fixed.

Here we are over six years later since the former Indian affairs minister Robert Nault came into that village and said the department would work with them toward a new school. There still is no new school. Nothing has been done. The community has actually gone to the banks themselves to get funds to build their own school because of the inaction of Indian affairs, year after year.

First nations have received capital study after capital study, interim report after interim report. Bureaucrats build these files on their desks. Communities are in debt, basically coming up with the infrastructure plans. What is needed is will. We never saw will on the James Bay until communities were crumbling in terrible deficits.

Yes, accountability goes both ways.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

The people of Timmins--James Bay would definitely support a shipbuilding plan.

I have serious questions about how far this bill will go and whether it is adequate. The time has come in the House of Commons to have accountability standards that are not simply voluntary.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

He still is that party's worst nightmare.

We need to put this into some kind of codified law. I accept that there will be members who break with their own party over issues, who might want to sit as independents and who in good conscience can no longer support the direction of a party. That is perfectly fair. It is perfectly fair for a member to say he or she has seen what another party is doing and is impressed by some of it, but the obligation is to sit as an independent first and then go back to the voters so that the voters can decide whether or not they will accept that person as a member in a new party.

The other thing I would like to offer, and maybe we could ask for all party consent on this, is that we should take all the red book promises over the years and put them in a glass case at the centre of Parliament so that when school children in years to come ask their teachers why an accountability act was needed, they could be told to look at the red book.

Imagine if there was a red book year after year. We could just change the cover and tell our voters, “Vote for us; we will support child care. Vote for us; we will fix EI. Vote for us; we will fix the environment. Vote for us; we will have an independent ethics commissioner”. When someone has the temerity in the House to stand and say that perhaps we should ask the government to be accountable to some of the red book promises and have an independent ethics commissioner, the government of the day will say, “Absolutely not, all of our promises are strictly voluntary”. No wonder there was such deep cynicism.

The people I met while knocking on doors in places like Schumacher, Elk Lake and Kirkland Lake felt that they had been written off the political map of Canada by a party that never bothered to come out to them, except every three years with the same old Liberal red book. None of those promises was ever acted on. No wonder people are not voting. People are not voting because they feel nobody here listens to them.

The worst act of cynicism we have ever seen is the famous Liberal deathbed pinata. The Liberals put in all their promises over all the years that were never acted on and smashed it across this country. They said, “Please God, vote for us otherwise all these promises will never come to naught”.

The most cynical thing about this deathbed pinata is the revisionist myth that the promises were enacted, that all that money was spent, that all the little children across Canada were finally cared for, that the environment was finally fixed, that EI was finally fixed, that the first nations of Canada, who those people disgracefully and systemically ignored, were suddenly repaired because the money was out there. That is cynicism. The cruel myth is that voluntary promises are not enough. We are obligated as parliamentarians to do our best to live up to the commitments that we make.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

They love Timmins--James Bay.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to speak about tonight is very important. It speaks to what every single member here has as a fundamental obligation, which is to serve the people who elected us.

I have to say that I did not wear a political hat for a long time because, like many people in my riding, I was fairly cynical about politics. When I was first asked about running for federal politics, I said, “What is a member of Parliament? Isn't that the guy who sends us a calendar once a year?”

In my experience, what I saw were people who stood up when they were told to stand up and who sat down when they were told to sit down. It seemed that their fundamental job was to take a message from Ottawa back to the people of Timmins—James Bay saying, “I am sorry, you are wrong about the gun registry. You are wrong about what it is like to live in rural Canada. We are going to give you a message”. There was a deep sense of alienation as a result.

Our obligation is to speak to our people and bring their issues forward. Our people expect accountability in the House. Number one in terms of accountability I would say, which is not in this bill unfortunately, is the need for proper electoral reform.

In my region, which is over 1,200 kilometres long, the Mushkegowuk Cree have not traditionally voted and they had good reason not to vote, because they did not have representation. In fact, the former member never seemed to know that they even existed. What we need up there and right across the rural north is representation that recognizes the vast distances and cultural disparities that exist. In an electoral reform system we could start to have some of those voices at the table. It is very important and would be productive to bring people into the discussion.

Another thing we need in terms of accountability is that when we make promises to our people we do our best to live up to them. That is why as New Democrats we have continually supported legislation against crossing the floor.

There was a situation last year when a member of a political party crossed the floor on the eve of a historic vote and was awarded a cabinet post. That was one of the most shameful things I have ever seen. The member crossed the floor on the eve of a crucial vote, when that vote would have made the difference between whether the House stood or fell. The member was awarded a cabinet post. That was a complete betrayal of her constituents.

Another member stood and told his constituents day after day to vote for him and support him, that he would be the Conservative Party's worst nightmare. Now he is sitting with that party.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to speak to this bill, because I think it speaks to the incredible gap that exists in this country between what happens in Parliament and the people of Canada. I represent the region of Timmins--James Bay.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his answer, but I had asked the health minister if Health Canada was going to step up to the plate, and I have not heard that.

However, last week we buried 4-year-old Trianna Martin in Kashechewan. Twenty-one people lived in that home. There was not a single fire emergency service anywhere nearby.

I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to stand again. The people of Kashechewan need a message of hope. They need to know that the minister will be there as a friend, as a leader and as a colleague to work with us to rebuild that community on safe and higher ground, for a hopeful community tomorrow. I need to hear that message.