Charlie Angus

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be also noted that this is an attempt to walk the clock down and I think that every time the government interferes with our right to speak, the clock should be stopped, because this is an attempt to intimidate members of the House.

I will go back to the issue. The issue here is not the bill, because those members do not want to debate the bill. The issue here is their decision for the 37th or 38th time to shut down debate in the House of Commons. The Conservative government does not believe in accountability. The Conservative government will use the tools of power to undermine basic democratic processes. The government will take convicted fraud artists and put them right into the heart of the Prime Minister's Office and use them for advice.

The government is again shutting down the democratic right of the House. The government spies on people like Cindy Blackstock. The government has shut down numerous independent bodies. Whatever happened to the party that promised accountability, that told us that people like Stockwell Day and Deborah Grey represented accountability? Now we have the member for Nepean—Carleton; that is the government's idea of accountability. Now we have Patrick Brazeau; that is their idea of accountability. Now we have Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. The government promised to Canadians that it would bring a standard back to government. The government made a promise to Canadians and it broke it.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important thing to point out. I see the defensiveness of my colleagues on the other side. Not only do they want to shut down debate, and it was their decision to shut down debate, but they want to dominate what little time is left of the opposition's opportunity.

Canadians know what is going on here. The government is mired up to its neck in scandal. The Conservatives appointed Arthur Porter, a criminal, and then because he gave them money, they appointed him to oversee the spy agency of Canada. The justice minister seemed to think Arthur Porter was a great guy when he was giving money. We have the same situation in the Senate.

The Conservatives are doing everything they can to get out of town as quickly as they can and hide out at their cottages for the summer and hope this issue will go away—

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I noted a tone of defensiveness in my hon. colleague—

[Petitions, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and bring forth this petition to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in regard to the situation of declining water levels in the Great Lakes Basin, particularly in the Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, North Channel region.

Since 1999, water levels in Lake Huron have dropped pretty much five feet with no sign of rebounding 13 years later.

The petitioners are asking the government to examine this and to find ways to reverse the declining water levels in the Great Lakes.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who obviously has done a great deal of study on the bill.

The issue we are talking about here, in terms of this massive omnibus tax legislation that would bring the code up from many years, going back, as my colleague pointed, to 1999, is the fact that it is being done in an atmosphere in which the government is actually shutting down debate. The bill has been sitting there, but we have not done our job in the House of Commons of fully debating it.

When people back home wonder how we could possibly lose $3.1 billion, I would say to them that when we have a government that has numerous pieces of very technical information pushed through the House so that it cannot be debated, that is how we end up making mistakes.

I would like to quote Thomas McDonnell, one of the tax lawyers who spoke on the bill. He said that the changes run to well in excess of 900 pages. Further, he said:

[I]t will be passed without...informed debate in the House. Most parliamentarians voting on it will admit that they have not read it, let alone tried to fully understand the consequences of voting for (or against) it. This is not how Parliament is supposed to deal with one of its essential functions—the raising of revenue. It's sad to say it, but I don't think most of our parliamentarians understand this aspect of the role of Parliament, or, if they do, have the courage to go to the wall in defending it.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks of the failure of the Conservatives, particularly the Conservative backbenchers. They tell us that they want to stand up when its on a woman's right to choose, but when it is about the obligation of Parliament to vet bills on raising revenue from taxpayers, nobody on that government side is interested in looking at the issue fully and having a full debate so that we understand what the issues are and protect the taxpayer.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take my role in the House very seriously. Earlier today, in discussion of the concurrence motion, I attempted to make humorous comments about the very serious situation facing the Ford administration in Toronto. That is simply not acceptable.

I would like to retract those comments and apologize for making any unsubstantiated comments or potentially leaving a false impression regarding the very serious issues that are facing the City of Toronto and the Ford administration.

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the apparent conflict of interest when we are dealing with public duties is very important. This is the standard the public expects us to have.

We will make mistakes. Everyone in this House will make mistakes over the years. Some of them will be issues of judgment. We cannot be on top of everything at all times. We have to take responsibility for our mistakes, number one, but we also have to understand that even if we think it is sort of okay, maybe it is loosey-goosey or maybe other people do it, the issue is the appearance. If there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, that is the standard that they are bound by.

We have seen with the government that it has set this limbo bar of ethic accountability and it keeps lowering it each time. As long as one of the government members can slip under that bar, it says that is the standard.

That is not the standard of ethics that this Prime Minister promised. He promised to set a clear standard, and that standard is, when there is an apparent conflict of interest, if it looks like it is wrong, it is wrong.

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the first time Rob Ford got himself into trouble was on the issue of lobbying. He was misusing his office for lobbying for his pet project. It was amazing that the right-wing base attacked people who stood up on integrity, and said that it was no big deal that he was breaking the rules because he was Rob Ford. That is the right-wing mentality. As long as they break the rules it is okay. If anyone else breaks the rules, they will throw the book at them.

We are seeing a Prime Minister who closely allied himself with Rob Ford and Doug Ford. I have to say, being in this House, I am certainly glad I am taking on Mike Duffy right now and not Doug Ford, because otherwise I might be swimming with the fishes.

The issue is that these people have brought their office down to a level of degradation that is humiliating. There is a level of honour that a person has to have as a public official, regardless of political background. People have to have a sense of honour and code, that they are there to represent the people and not turn it into this barbaric circus of meanness and snideness and insider influence.

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I remember being in the House with my hon. colleague when she was on the Liberal side. At that time we were on the New Democrat side. We watched as the Conservatives made that promise to Canadians that they would clean up Ottawa, and many Canadians thought that they would, because certainly people were disgusted with the kind of corruption that had gone on under the Liberal watch over 13 years.

What we are seeing here is different. We are talking about corruption that is coming out directly from the Prime Minister's Office. They are not rogue operators, not people who are on the sidelines working for the party; these are people within the Prime Minister's Office. This is where the corruption is coming out.

I look at some of the Conservative backbenchers who still believe in ethics, and they are scratching their heads alongside the rest of Canada, wondering it how was that a Prime Minister who promised so clearly that he would clean up Ottawa allowed himself to be surrounded by the same kind of insiders and decided that he would start defending the perks and entitlements of people like Mike Duffy rather than defending the interests of the taxpayers.

I think most Canadians are certainly let down. If I were a Reform Party Conservative, I would be very let down at this point, because the stench and the corruption that is coming from the Prime Minister's Office needs to be answered. Hiding out in Peru or hiding over in Langevin Block on a Monday, not showing up for work and leaving the backbench of the Conservative Party to explain to their people why their government is now the most corrupt government in Canadian history is certainly a sad situation.

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, because what we are talking about here, as the stench of corruption is now coming right out of the Prime Minister's Office, is the incompetence around the Prime Minister and his fundamental lack of judgment.

On December 22, 2008, a day that will go down in infamy for really dumb pork-barrel decisions, the Prime Minister chose Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau. At the time, it was known that both Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy were not even eligible to sit in the Senate. That was no problem for the Prime Minister. He has never paid much attention to those things. The other red flag was Patrick Brazeau. There were numerous red flags around Patrick Brazeau, and they were raised. There were issues of misspending and sexual harassment. At the time, the Prime Minister's Office said that anyone who had a problem with Patrick Brazeau was a political ankle biter. The Conservatives stood by him and sent him out on the fundraising circuit. Then when they dumped him under the bus, they said they were disappointed.

Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood and praised Mike Duffy for showing leadership. Here is a guy who refused to pay any money back and received a secret payout from the Prime Minister's Office, and they said that was leadership.

Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood in the House and said that he personally reviewed Pamela Wallin's expenses and would stand by them. I am very interested to see what her expenses say, because this is about the judgment of the Prime Minister.

I did not even get to Bruce Carson, the convicted fraud artist the Prime Minister hired.