Charlie Angus

[Natural Resources, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the ultimatum over the Kinder Morgan pipeline will not be solved by jumping to the deadline of a Texas oil company, because the issue of social licence for indigenous Canadians remains unresolved.

In the minister's own briefing notes, the government admits that its response to the legitimate indigenous questions are “paternalistic, unrealistic, and inadequate”. That is Colonialism 101.

Did the Prime Minister really think he was going to stop the Kinder Morgan impasse by deliberately excluding indigenous leadership from Alberta and British Columbia from the talks?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about an economic vision for this nation, one concern for me is the Liberals' love of the mega cluster, the supercluster. If they put as much money as possible into two or three big giants, we will have a much broader economy. However, Canada is a very diverse region. Rural regions need specific economic development dollars, yet it has all been put on the desk of the Minister of Innovation. Particularly in my region of northern Ontario, we have the undermining of FedNor programs and the lack of understanding of how we build rural, blue collar, resource-based economies throughout rural parts of Canada.

What does my hon. colleague think of this Liberal vision where by picking a few winners that is going to create a more sustainable economy?

[Ethics, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the idea that the Prime Minister is hanging out with billionaires to protect the hard-pressed middle class is like telling us that those billionaire Liberal turkeys showed up and asked for an early Easter.

This brings us to Mitch Garber. He is a mega donor, and the Liberals paid him back by giving him his own agency. They call it “Invest in Canada”, when it is really another case of investing in friends of the Liberal Party.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that the public service in this country needs to be more than a patronage smorgasbord for his friends, donors, and insider pals?

[Ethics, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of chortling and clanking of champagne glasses at the Prime Minister's latest fundraiser for the billionaires, when he said that he was not only there to get maximum donations but to get tough on the 1%.

Step forth exhibit A. Stephen Bronfman raised $250,000 for the Liberals in two hours. When Bronfman was named in the paradise papers scandal, the Prime Minister immediately intervened and said that no investigation was necessary. No investigation happened.

That is the power of who one knows in the PMO. Why is the Prime Minister using the highest office in the land to feather the nest of his Liberal donors?

[Ethics, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, help me out here. The member for Brampton East gets himself elected and then goes into business with a local company. I know that is pretty unusual, but at least we have some kind of rules. However, he then helps his friend get access to the Prime Minister and senior cabinet ministers during the notorious India trip.

The reason we have a conflict of interest code is so that backbenchers do not sell access to the highest office in the land, like some kind of huckster peddling velvet Elvis paintings. Does the Prime Minister not understand that, or does he think that the rules for his friends do not count?

[Ethics, March 27th, 2018]

Okay, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of loopholes that are big enough to fly the Aga Khan's private helicopter through, I note that the Prime Minister's beach buddy on that trip also did not register his inappropriate gift.

It is a simple thing. All members of Parliament have to register all travel that is paid for by lobbyists and third parties, yet the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl did not bother to register his trip to billionaires island. What is with that? Were they sharing loophole ideas when they were hanging out on the beach?

Why does the Prime Minister have such a low standard for accountability for his caucus?

[Ethics, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this old city on the Rideau has heard some pretty outrageous whoppers over the decades defending the loopholes for graft and pork-barrel lobbying, and rum-bottle politics, so it is not often we hear a new one.

Kudos to the Prime Minister for coming up with a new loophole. When he accepts a gift from a billionaire lobbyist like the Aga Khan, if it is appropriate, he is compelled to report it, but since it was inappropriate, he told us that he did not have to report it. Oh, come on.

Is that his new standard, that the door to the PMO is open as long as the lobbyists bring the gifts?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I represent a very large rural region, and I am a registered gun owner. I have just gone through the re-licensing process, and I was very pleased at the checks and balances that were in place. In fact, the RCMP called my wife to ensure that I should be someone who could have access to a gun. She thanked them for taking those checks, because the gun owners who I know want to make sure that guns are not falling into the hands of people who should not have them.

The gun owners I know follow the rules in terms of safe storage, of making sure of licensing, and when they deal with gun stores, those gun stores take their responsibility very seriously. What I am looking at here will codify what for many is a practice already in place to prevent the bad operators.

However, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the changing of the designation of firearms and deciding what is restricted. I personally am very uncomfortable with the cabinet and politicians deciding what is an appropriate firearm in this country, when I believe it should be law enforcement.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the decision to take the power to decide what is a restricted weapon away from politicians and put it in the hands of the RCMP. Does he think that this will be a good process of reassuring the public that decisions are being made based on public safety, and not based on political interference?

[Privacy, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about another major Liberal donor and another man from the Liberal war room. Jeff Silvester is the owner of AIQ, which has been identified as having played a role in undermining the Brexit vote. In fact, Christopher Wylie, another Liberal, is on record as saying that AIQ's work in the U.K. vote was “totally illegal”.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he assure the House that his party will not block any efforts to have Jeff Silvester brought, by subpoena if necessary, to testify about the role of his company in undermining the Brexit vote?

[Privacy, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the ability of third party actors to distort the Facebook platform to undermine elections has created international outcry, but the comfy, cozy relationship between the Liberal Party, Facebook, and the key players in the scandal is disturbingly symbiotic. Kevin Chan from Facebook comes from the Liberal war room. Christopher Wylie comes from the Liberal war room, not to mention the donations from the head of Facebook to the Prime Minister.

For the Prime Minister, how can Canadians trust that he is going to put their interests ahead of the interests of his friends at Facebook and the Liberal war room?