Charlie Angus

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I was absolutely bowled over with enthusiasm by that last speech, but I have to say that I was not.

In fact, I would like to tell the hon. member about a little phone-in contest held by CBC North. I know that he represents the north. I represent a certain section of the north. It was based on the fact that the town of Iroquois Falls had to sell its municipal office to pay to pave its roads. The call-in show on CBC in Sudbury asked what other things we could sell off so that small northern municipalities could actually have paved roads.

I have to tell members that my wife almost had to tie me to the chair because I had so many choice suggestions about what we could sell off to benefit people in northern Ontario. Now that I am a diplomatic member of Parliament I will not give members some of the suggestions, but if anybody wants to go out for a beer afterwards I would be more than willing to share some of my suggestions.

So here we have the town of Iroquois Falls, which is suffering from years and years of neglect, but it is not suffering on its own. In fact, our whole corridor up Highway 11 is suffering from years of neglect and a lack of infrastructure dollars. There is no excitement up there about any promises on infrastructure, because we were told that the great COMRIF program was going to revitalize the north and all our little communities were going to get a fair chance. Everybody did their best and tried to make sure they would get a share of the funding.

Lo and behold, when the first round came back we found that Moosonee was turned down. Hearst was turned down. Kapuskasing was turned down. Timmins was turned down. Iroquois Falls was turned down. Smooth Rock Falls was turned down. Kirkland Lake was turned down. In fact, we could actually take a road map of Highway 11 north and see where this Liberal government said, “Sorry, none of these communities qualify”.

I am talking about municipal rural infrastructure. Who are we losing out to? We are losing out to the big municipalities in southern Ontario, the urban municipalities. Our small communities of 500 and 1,000 people are losing to them. Let us be honest and frank here. If governments are going to be putting in money, they are going to be putting it into where the votes are, so our northern municipalities got zero, zippo, nothing.

I would like the hon. member to explain this. Will this government commit in this new budget to actually delivering on some of the promises for our region of the north?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this issue and to ask a question about it. I have noticed in the week that I spent in my riding that Canadians are paying very close attention to what is happening in the House.

I came back to Ottawa with two very distinct understandings from the people in my riding. They are absolutely disgusted with the games being played in the House day after day with the kind of obstructionist tactics that are stopping the country from moving forward.

The second thing that I heard very clearly and very strongly wherever I went in my riding was that people believed in the budget that we, as the NDP, have helped work on because it is addressing serious deficit issues in our regions.

My region is a have not region. We are facing serious long term infrastructure problems from a lack of dollars. I have been contacted by municipal road board associations and municipalities who want the money to flow and they need it to flow now.

In the city of Timmins I met with seniors' advocates last week who told me that they need the money to flow from the budget, so they can build affordable seniors' housing. That is an important priority.

I flew to the community of Kashechewan on the James Bay coast two weeks ago. I saw housing conditions that were an absolute disgrace where 16 and 18 people were living in two bedroom houses that dogs should not be living in. The parents told me that it was like raising their children in a prisoner of war camp, a more apt description I could not think of myself. They told me that they needed the money for new housing starts. They were waiting for this. They were counting on this.

I came back to Ottawa thinking that once again we will start to move forward and finally implement a budget that Canadians support. Then I read the newspapers and see that members of the opposition party are absolutely gleeful in how they are going to obstruct, how they are going to drag this out, and how this can follow through to the fall.

I see a member of the opposition standing up and telling us how we all have to worry about Newfoundland. I worry about Newfoundland. I am from a have not region as well, but suddenly we have to make the money flow so his riding can be protected in the next election. Meanwhile the rest of the country can sit and wait until the Conservatives are good and ready to have it pass.

I ask the hon. member, what steps will the government take to ensure speedy passage of not just the Atlantic accord but all the elements of the budget that Canadians believe in and are counting on.

[Public Works and Government Services, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, four months ago the Minister of Public Works stood up in this House and gave Canadians a promise. He committed that the Liberal government would stop outsourcing the Canadian flag pins to factories in China. In the months following, no action was taken, no tenders were sent out, and more Chinese pins are being shipped to MPs' offices.

Yesterday the tender finally went out, but for a shipment due in June, which makes it virtually impossible for Canadian suppliers to compete. Why did the minister break his promise to this House and to Canadians?

[Agriculture, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for the second time in a week, Canadian farmers have come to Parliament Hill demanding action from the government. Farm debt across Canada is rising. We have a crisis in grain and beef. We have a crisis in dairy from the flood of modified milk imports into Canada and yet the government treats agricultural policy as if it were a game of dodge ball. Stand still, Mr. Minister, and answer the question.

Will he or will he not invoke article XXVIII and protect supply management in Canada?

[Agriculture, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of dairy farmers from across Canada came to Ottawa hoping to have serious issues in the dairy industry addressed. They have heard nothing in this House from those other parties. If we want to talk about a crisis of confidence, it is a crisis of confidence in the behaviour of these politicians while rural Canada burns.

My question for the minister is very simple. Will the government apply article XXVIII of the GATT and stop the flood of modified milk products into Canada? It is a yes or a no: will he give the answer to farmers today?

[Dairy Industry, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this House to ask the Liberal government why it refuses to take action to defend supply management at the international level. Last year Canadian farmers lost $171 million in market share from imports of modified milk products.

Under article 28 of the GATT we have the tools to protect supply management, but the government refuses to act. Time and time again, dairy farmers have asked the government to apply article 28 and all they get is evasion and denial. When I hear the agriculture minister say that he is exploring ways to position the industry, I hear Liberal doublespeak that tells Canadian farmers the government will take concerns that need action now and put them on the long slow train to Palookaville.

Canadian farmers deserve better. Other countries stand up and fight for their farmers. I am calling upon the government to stand up and defend supply management and apply article 28 now.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was asked by some constituents in my riding of Timmins—James Bay to present this petition opposing government legislation Bill C-38. As they are my constituents and it is their will that I present this petition, I am bringing it forward today.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

I know it is a long question mon chum. I am sorry. I am just all wound up from a week off relaxing in the warm northern air.

I have to ask my compatriot a question. What does he think the issue is that the Conservative Party is trying to gag its own MPs from coming back and delivering to the House? Is it the same issue that the hon. member is hearing back home, that Canadians want something done for a change instead of bickering about who controls power?

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I sense some members have come back from the week break a little crankier than when they left. I came back from northern Ontario feeling refreshed as a result of the wonderful northern air. I would like to invite members to come and refresh themselves because there definitely seems to be a sense of having lost a place in the week we were gone.

I also sense unjustifiable anger. Fifty-four Bloc members came here to say no. Because they have said no, they have been sidelined and seem to be upset. They did not come here to make Parliament work. Instead they came here to undermine Parliament. As a result of their being put off to the margins, they feel they are not being heard.

There is a greater sense of frustration from our friends in the Conservative Party who are upset because 19 members of the New Democratic Party did what 99 members of the Conservative Party had no interest in doing, which was ti make this Parliament work.

We came here to keep certain promises, promises to deal with the infrastructure deficit, promises to deal with education for young people, promises for new housing in our first nations communities and promises to get pension protection for our seniors and our workers. We came here to do that, and we have done that.

What do we see in return? We see outrage, horror and scandal from the people who sit on the margins because they came to Parliament to destroy this place. We see that from the other party that came to this Parliament to seize power. I can understand why they are feeling a little miffed and uncertain.

I would like to point out that the leader of the official opposition told us a week ago that he was going to talk to his constituents and test the waters. Here is an example of Conservative mathematics. The Conservative member told us that 40% of the people do not vote so therefore 40% of their views do not count. We were told that 20% vote for the Liberals so they do not count. We were told that perhaps 4% vote for the NDP so they do not count. What is the rump? The Conservative Party will listen to the remaining 25% because they count and they will support an election.

Let us look at some headlines in newspapers right now. One states, “Tories gag returning MPs”. What message did they hear back home that they have to gag their members? Another headline states, “Tories told to keep quiet on constituents' views”. I find it staggering that Conservative members came back with a message and that message was to sit down and get to work.

Unfortunately, the Bloc does not listen to the people in Quebec who want those members to get something done too in terms of infrastructure and student debt. That is what our party came here to do. That party came here to destroy Parliament so its members have nothing to show their constituents. Perhaps it wants corporate tax cuts.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

You guys on that side of the House are jumping for joy with your tax cuts. You said nothing about the farmers. You were sitting on your hands.