Charlie Angus

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague about his hope that the government is actually interested in improving bills. Unfortunately, it seems to have decided that it is, like the First Vatican Council, infallible.

I was with my colleague during the copyright study. There were numerous problems identified in that bill that could have been fixed for the benefit of Canadians. Government members stood in the House and told Canadians that if there were amendments, they would consider them. However, they did not say the rest, which was that they would consider them and turn every single one down.

In that bill, the Conservatives had not thought through the issue of students with perceptual disabilities and how they would be unfairly victimized by the digital lock provisions. They could actually have fixed the digital lock provisions so that blind students and students with other perceptual disabilities would have been able to get the most of out their educations. The government decided to ignore that, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was targeting a small group of students who should have been able to access the works.

Given the track record of the government and its refusal to listen to the most reasonable amendments, does my hon. colleague think this bill will be another failed journey by the Conservative Party?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, particularly where he referenced the U.S. 301 watch list, and the comments about Canada in our trade policies and our counterfeit policies.

I am interested in this because in 2009, a special adviser to the now President of the Treasury Board, Zoe Addington, met with U.S. officials. According to their notes, she said that, “In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it...might even help—the [Government of Canada's] ability to enact copyright legislation”.

Therefore, what that cable tells us is that the present President of the Treasury Boardhad his officials in Washington say to put Canada on the most notorious watch list, along with outlying countries like Yemen and North Korea, for being considered basically a bandit country and undermining our trade interests, because he thought it would help pursue an agenda in Parliament. I find that absolutely shocking.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association in the United States, which represents the largest software organizations in the world, went to Washington on Canada's behalf. We did not have any support from the Conservatives who are undermining our trade interests. It went on to say that, “the use of Special 301...unrelated to the adequate and effective protection of relevant rights delegitimizes the Special 301 process” because they are using it for policy ends. It said that it was completely unacceptable that they were targeting Canada, and said that in many respects Canada's laws are more protective of creators than the United States. This was before our present copyright bill came in.

How can they take seriously a government that would actually undermine our trade reputation internationally and say to our largest trading partner to put us on an outlier list along with North Korea and Yemen because it will help us pursue a copyright agenda? I find it shocking that the Conservatives would undermine our trade interests like this.

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to have a lot of practice for 2015 when he will be asking questions all the time, if he keeps his seat.

The Conservatives cannot get their stories straight. The parliamentary secretary claimed that the secret Conservative Party fund was carefully scrutinized by Elections Canada. This is what he said, “There are absolutely rules.... Elections Canada has very meticulous, very detailed rules.” That is not true. Former Elections Canada head Jean-Pierre Kingsley said there are no rules of any kind.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to turn over the information about what that fund does?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for comments I made yesterday comparing certain Liberal and Conservative senators to Caligula's horse. To be fair, the horse was a resident of Rome.

Yesterday, Bruce Carson showed up. He said he was surprised that the Prime Minister did not know about the cheque. This convicted fraudster swears this payoff would never have happened on his watch. It is pretty bad when even the jailbirds are not buying the story.

Why will the Conservatives not just come clean and show us the cheque?

[Ethics, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the ethical judgment of the Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister personally appointed Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau, the three most ridiculous Senate appointments since Caligula appointed his horse.

Then his top adviser cut a secret $90,000 cheque to keep Mike Duffy quiet. We are talking about what is going on in the Prime Minister's Office.

We will keep this one simple. Did Nigel Wright, in any shape or form, direct any Conservative Party spending while working in the Prime Minister's Office? It is a simple question.

[Ethics, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader says he looks forward to welcoming chronic expense violator Mac Harb back into the fold once he pays the money.

Now if a Tim Hortons cashier steals money, they do not get invited back. They get fired and charged. Where is the accountability for Liberal and Conservative insiders who break the rules?

For example, when will they stop hiding the source of the Mike Duffy payout and show us the cheque? They have to have a higher standard than the Liberals, surely. Show us the cheque.

[Ethics, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the poor old guy over there; it looked as if his battery was running down on him.

Speaking of lowering the ethical bar, the Liberal leader spent the weekend defending the abuse of public trust in the Senate. He mollycoddled Mac Harb and then he said that Patrick Brazeau's actions were “an honest mistake”.

Not to be outdone, Conservative Senator Tkachuk was able to lower the bar even further. He favourably compared the Conservative Senate scandal to the Liberal sponsorship scandal saying, “Well, the Liberal Party survived. We will survive”.

Is this the new Conservative yardstick for measuring accountability: survival?

[Ethics, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservatives' answers are short because they cannot get their story straight about a secret million-dollar fund that was administered by the same guy who wrote a secret $90,000 cheque to get a rule-breaking senator to keep quiet.

Now, the member for Ajax—Pickering actually went on national television and said, “...we don't think it would serve the public interest very well to have...cheques being shown in front of television cameras...”.

Why not? If they have nothing to hide, why will they not cough up the cheque and be clean with Canadians?

[Member for Edmonton—St. Albert, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I look at the government benches and I see a party that has lost its way and betrayed its roots. The member for Edmonton—St. Albert writes:

I joined the Reform/conservative movements because I thought we were somehow different, a band of Ottawa outsiders riding into town to clean the place up, promoting open government and accountability. I barely recognize ourselves, and worse I fear that we have morphed into what we once mocked.

My constituents demand better.... For a government that was elected on a platform of accountability, my constituents are gravely disappointed.... If we are measuring our ethical performance against the Sponsorship Scandalized Liberals, perhaps we need to set our ethical bar a little higher....the Government’s lack of support for my transparency bill is tantamount to a lack of support for transparency and open government generally.

I have debated with the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. We do not often agree, but what we do agree on is that MPs have a calling, an obligation to reject the politics of cynicism and manipulation and to stand up for the principles of transparency, accountability and open government.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2013]

Boy, Mr. Speaker, he sounds defensive over there. I think it is cutting close to home.

Let us go back to the Raymond Lavigne fraud case. He is the Liberal senator who was convicted of fraud. I urge people to Google it. They will see that everything was laid out there in the abuse of public trust, and they decided to go back to business as usual.

Now what the Liberal leader is trying to do is what the Liberal senators are trying to do, saying “Don't look at us. Look over at the House of Commons”, and then they accuse us of diverting people's attention by throwing any attention elsewhere.

If it had not been for us taking this up issue, the Liberals would be doing the same thing that happened under the Raymond Lavigne fraud case, saying, “You know what? Once people stop looking, we'll just ignore it and we'll be back to business”.