Charlie Angus

[Ethics, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was found guilty for interfering politically in a project to help friends of the Conservative Party, but she has not really come clean with Canadians, and a lot of questions remain unanswered.

What did happen to that letter from the MP for Thornhill? Was it really lost, or did the Conservatives deep-six it? There are also allegations that the minister interfered in other projects. I will be bringing this issue to the ethics committee.

It is a simple question. Will the Conservatives work with us to get to the bottom of these serious allegations, or will they continue to cover up for the very ethically challenged minister?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 13th, 2015]

With respect to wireless spectrum auctions and spectrum license requirements, including but not limited to AWS-3 spectrum, 600 Mhz and 3 500 Mhz, broken down by each individual auction and license requirement: (a) does the government have provisions requiring the incorporation of technologies into the wireless networks that allow surveillance and interception capabilities built into their networks; and (b) does the government pay for the costs of these provisions?

[Ethics, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about what part of the truth hurt her so much, but as the Prime Minister would say, let us sort it out.

We have this dodgy project sitting at the bottom of a pile of a bunch of worthy projects, and we have three cabinet ministers, Nigel Wright, the principal secretary, and the Prime Minister's Office, who all get their paws on this one dodgy project.

What is the connection with the promoter of this project that made her light such a fire that she has been found guilty of breaching the Conflict of Interest Act? What was it?

[Ethics, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, she hides behind disabled children to explain why she was feeling guilty for breaking the rules to give money to her friends—

[Ethics, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been found guilty and here is the problem with her defence. She says that she cannot remember speaking to Nigel Wright about the project. Then she said, “Don't worry, there was nothing political”, which raises this question. Why was Nigel Wright phoning her about the project in the first place?

Let me try to jog her memory. She took a rejected project from the bottom of the pile and pushed it above 160 other qualified projects. Will she at least tell the House what was it that caught her eye about this rejected proposal? Why were so many key Conservatives so keen to give one of their friends so much public money?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 12th, 2015]

With respect to government funding allocated within the constituency of Timmins—James Bay: (a) what is the total amount allocated in fiscal year 2013-2014, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount; and (b) what funding projects were approved under FedNor between 2011 and 2014 inclusively, and what was their value?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, she says she co-operated, but she does not remember talking to the Prime Minister's right hand. She broke the rules. She interfered in this project, a project that should never have been approved, was pushed, and the taxpayers were out $1 million because it was given to Conservative allies.

It was not in the interests of the public. It was in the interests of Nigel Wright and this Prime Minister. She took a fund that was meant to help disabled people and turned it into a pork barrel trough.

Why will she not at least have the decency to stand up and apologize?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works tells us she does not remember talking to Nigel Wright about this deal that has gotten her into so much trouble. That is really odd because Wright, the Prime Minister's right hand, not only remembers the conversation, he remembers the content.

He said that that minister talked to him about this project that she knew was a dud, but she wanted to find out how important it was to the Conservative Party. The Prime Minister said “sort it out” and presto, $1 million flowed to a Conservative ally.

Will the minister put aside this convenient amnesia and just explain to us why she put the interests of this party ahead of the interests of the Canadian people?

[Ethics, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I did not even hear a “sorry”. She broke the rules and she misused public funds. We expect that when a minister breaks the rules, there is a “sorry”, but no. It is as though if Nigel Wright makes the call, it is okay. This is the question here. All manner of projects apply, but not all manner of projects get moved up after they have been rejected because they are not in the public interest.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again about his interference in this project. When Nigel Wright was told to “sort it out”, what does that mean? Is “sort it out” the new “good to go” for breaking the rules in the PMO?

[Ethics, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, all manner of hard-working community groups apply for projects, and they succeed or fail based on their merits. That is how the system is supposed to work. Ordinary Canadians play by the rules because they do not have the speed-dial into the Prime Minister's Office, yet in this case, we saw interference by a number of ministers and the Prime Minister's personal chief of staff, the infamous Nigel Wright.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if Nigel Wright was once again somehow going rogue, or was he acting on the direct instructions of the Prime Minister? What do Conservatives mean by “sort it out”? Why was the Prime Minister getting his fingers into this file?