Charlie Angus

[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.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I toured the Kashechewan nurses station, which is knee-deep in raw sewage. I met nurses who were scrambling to thumb flights out of Kashechewan because Health Canada had made no provisions for their safety.

I learned today that the Weeneebayko Health Authority is having to lay off staff in the region because of a fuel deficit because Health Canada pays services at 1996 levels for fuel. My God, this is a fourth world condition at Kashechewan.

Will the health minister stand up and say today that there will be adequate funding for health services in the James Bay region?

[Telecommunications, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it took a leaked document from Geneva to tip off Canadians to this government's secret negotiations to strip away Canada's sovereignty in broadcast and telecom services.

The GATS negotiations on telecom and audio visual services run counter to present Canadian broadcast laws, would strip our domestic policies and render any commitments we made at UNESCO meaningless.

The government is sneaking around Geneva trading away Canadian jobs and cultural policy. Let us shine a light and who do we see? We see the hon. trade minister who just happened to be the lead Liberal on the file.

I think it is pretty clear that he did not have to cross very far on the ideological floor to finish off what the Liberals began, which is the selling off of Canadian sovereignty.

The GATS negotiations are not consistent with our UNESCO commitments. Why should Quebec be offered a seat at UNESCO when the Conservatives have already taken away our cultural diversity?

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the record of the NDP has been very clear on our desire to work with producers to ensure a risk management program that works. I would ask the government to work with and listen to producers and implement the programs they have asked to be brought forward.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her comments. I appreciate her interest in farmers and their families in Quebec and throughout Canada.

Yes, definitely, we need the intervention now. The $500 million that has been talked about is a drop in the bucket. We need $1 billion. That is something that is understood at least. We need that money now. We need the seeds going into the ground before June. That is important. That message needs to be sent to our producers across Canada so they get some confidence when they go to the bank.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I certainly agree that we need allies at the international level. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have not had allies at the international level, and that has been a major failing.

Some of our farm people who have been at the previous rounds have come back and told us that Canada is alone. When we talk with the negotiators, they say that Canada is alone. Why is Canada alone? Where have our trade negotiators been in terms of building this coalition because we do have common interest? Where is CIDA in terms of working on development by showing supply management as a system that works, supply management run by farmers, not supply management run by some dictatorial regime, something that actually gives grassroots development in these countries.

The problem we have had is that we have not built those alliances and we have suffered for it. We have not been out there marketing our systems that work to other countries. There is still grave misunderstandings about what supply management in Canada is and how we operate it, so I fully agree with the member.

This is the message that our government team going in will need to have. We can build allies, but there has to be a willingness of government to get those allies.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I have heard it all before. Last June we were going to have consensus on fixing CAIS by dropping the deposit. Perhaps it was March. There is always decisions coming down. It seems to me that seeds have to be put into the ground before June.

The government campaigned on a promise that it was going to get rid of CAIS and replace it. It seems to be very simple. The government campaigned that it was going to get rid of child care agreements. It came in and said that it was going to do it and it did not have to talk with the provinces about it.

I would be glad if they had it in June, but the commitment I want to hear from the minister is that within a year there will be a program whether the provinces sign on or not. That is the question. It is really straightforward. Everything else I am hearing really sounds to me like a replay from the 38th Parliament.