Charlie Angus

[Ethics, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, I bet the whole Conservative bench wishes they could be hiding out in Peru right now.

Speaking of non-denial denials, yesterday the Prime Minister's key legal adviser, Mr. Perrin, said that he was never involved in Nigel Wright's decision. What he did not explain was if he played a role in implementing the decision that led to the cover-up.

Nobody, including the Prime Minister, has come clean about what happened in the Prime Minister's Office, so who else in the Prime Minister's Office knew about this deal and who in the Senate was involved in the whitewash?

[Ethics, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an indictable offence to offer a senator compensation in relation to a controversy before the Senate. Surely the Prime Minister knows the laws of Canada, yet he did not call in the cops; instead the issue is being handed back to the same in camera committee that was part of the original cover-up.

Who on that committee was part of the $90,000 whitewash? As well, will they be allowed to take part in this new review, or will the government do the right thing and call in the police?

[Ethics, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with answers like that, it is like the Conservatives are taking their crisis management courses from Rob Ford. We are talking about abuse of the public trust here.

Today, the Prime Minister blew off the Nigel Wright scandal as a mere distraction, but he failed to tell Canadians whether he thought it was wrong or illegal, wrong to make secret payouts, wrong to obstruct an investigation.

The Prime Minister called in the cops on Helena Guergis and Bruce Carson. Given the seriousness of these allegations, will he call in the cops against Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy?

[Ethics, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we now learn that the Prime Minister's key legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin, helped Nigel Wright with this secret deal that included a $90,000 payout and a promise to have Conservative senators “go easy” on Mike Duffy's rip-off of the taxpayer.

The Prime Minister has praised Mike Duffy for leadership, he has praised Wright for being honourable, but he has not come clean with the Canadian people.

Who else was involved in this plan to obstruct the audit? Does the Prime Minister think that it is okay for taxpayer-funded lawyers to obstruct investigations into taxpayer rip-offs? Does the Prime Minister have a problem with that?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, when a student has to leave a reserve and go to the provincial system, there is a funding agreement in place. There is also the obligation to ensure that since they are reserve students, whoever is educating them has a standard. There has to be a protocol.

I am sorry I am hung up on this. As a former school board trustee, I would be shocked that there would be no standards in place to ensure that there was some level of accountability. What is the protocol?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I was actually talking about what the government is being billed by schools for education. The minister said that once they are off reserve, it is not his responsibility.

It is his responsibility. In terms of the standards they have for the children who have to leave their reserves to be educated, are they meeting the quality of education and meeting their needs? They are his responsibility.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, how much did the provincial jurisdictions bill for services for students who had to go off reserve?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, the question was on the government's own report that these children are being left in a dire situation under this minister's watch.

I would like to carry on, though. Many of our first nations children have to leave their reserves and end up in a provincial system. What standards does the minister have for the children under his watch who are under the provincial system? What methodologies and what accounting do they have to ensure that the provinces are providing the kind of support they need?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I find it surprising that he would not know that either, because we are talking about first nations children. The number is in excess $3 million.

The federal government's departmental directive 20-1, which the government's own records describe as creating a dire situation, is driving children unnecessarily into foster care, when many could stay at home if there were proper family support services provided. Would he agree with the government assessment that its plan for dealing with children is leaving families and children in a dire situation?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, the question was whether they have taken money that should have gone to students for post-secondary education and spent it on their bureaucracy. That was the question.

The minister will not answer it. I think that is a very important issue, given that we have so many first nations young people who struggle so hard and have such high dropout rates. For the minister to not take responsibility or even think it is an issue that they are taking money from post-secondary education and are spending it on their bureaucracy I find pretty shocking.

I would like to continue. Would the minister tell us how much the department spent fighting the equality in child welfare case at the Human Rights Tribunal and at the Federal Court? How much money have they spent?