Charlie Angus

[G8 Summit, October 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, new documents now show that the maverick member from Muskoka was not alone in subverting accountability. We find out that the cabinet ministers were dividing up the cash and projects without any bureaucratic oversight whatsoever. They turned the cabinet table into a one-stop shop for pork.

What better way for the minister to get his hands on the money than to get one of his friends hired at $187 an hour to lobby other ministers? Will the minister come clean and tell us how many ministers he and his buddy lobbied in order for him to get his hands on the G8 slush fund?

[G8 Summit, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a credibility problem. Asking a Muskoka maverick to sell open government is like asking Homer Simpson to promote nuclear safety. It is now 133 days since he went AWOL from accountability and it is contagious. We now know he runs from the media when he does presentations.

What part of openness includes hiding documents from the auditor general or running a slush fund from a BlackBerry? When will the government get open with the Canadian people and hold this rogue minister accountable?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member does not mean to continually mislead the House, but when he said that the farmers of western Canada did not chose to have the Wheat Board, yes they did. They choose it in a plebiscite. I would like to ask him to retract—

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 19th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have misrepresented in the House when they said that Ontario farmers had a choice. Ontario farmers were given a vote. Their markets were completely different. There is a much smaller market into the United States as opposed to the massive distances covered by prairie farmers.

Why is it the hon. member thinks that the government is opposed to allowing farmers the right to vote?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured today to bring forward a petition signed by hundreds of people from the wonderful province of Alberta.

The petitioners are asking parliamentarians to defend the right of western farmers, because the fundamental principle of any farm-based marketing system is that the farmers decide their future, and this is not happening in the case of the Wheat Board, wherein the government is intervening and ignoring the democratic choice of western prairie farmers.

The petitioners are asking us as the New Democratic Party to ensure their voices are heard in this House, because they are clearly not being represented by the government.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that the farmers have the right to decide the future of their marketing organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, and as such conducted a prairie-wide vote on the single desk for wheat and barley.

Therefore, the petitioners request the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to honour the democratically expressed wishes of western Canadian farmers.

[G8 Summit, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, after 132 days the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not get it either, that pork barrel boondoggles do not come in under budget.

The Auditor General does not approve them. They set up a slush fund with the three amigos: the mayor, the hotel manager and the minister. They blew through $50 million, often in untendered contracts, with no oversight.

I am asking again, the Auditor General said the rules were broken, will he stand up and commit to a full investigation of this rogue minister? Unless we fix the rules, this will happen again and again under his watch.

[G8 Summit, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after 131 days of dodging accountability, the Muskoka minister finally peered up over his desk. He made a quick little joke and he went back into hibernation. However, he did not say “sorry”. He did not explain why he ran a slush fund from his office. He did not explain why the paper trail was hidden from the Auditor General. The Auditor General said that the rules were broken and Parliament must investigate.

Will the minister do the right thing? Will he come out of hibernation, stand in this House, and commit to a full parliamentary investigation of his role in the G8 slush fund?

[G8 Summit, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, after 131 days of taking a dive, that is as good as it gets: guns. That is like trying to beat me to death with popcorn.

The problem the minister needs to note is that if he looks guilty and acts guilty, people are going to realize that he may be guilty. The Auditor General said the rules were broken. The Auditor General said it is Parliament's job to investigate.

Will the government commit to a full parliamentary investigation to figure out how this man managed to take $50 million of border infrastructure and blow the money on untendered contracts in his riding?

[G8 Summit, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. President of the Treasury Board to step out any time to talk about it, but he would have to stand up first.

Canadians put a lot of faith in the Auditor General to hold the government to account, and he broke faith with the Canadian people when he hid documents from the Auditor General, when the Auditor General was trying to get to the bottom of this slush fund.

We now learn he has a new way of undermining the Auditor General, which is to cut its budget. This will mean fewer reports, fewer issues being investigated, just at a time when the Muskoka maverick gets his fingers on the booty of the Canadian taxpayer.

Is this the lesson, to attack the Auditor General?

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I have listened to him for seven years during the time we have been on committee together. I think I know him like he is a relative, whether that is good or bad I am not sure.

The member has laid out many of the problems that have been identified with this bill, particularly in terms of the long distance education provisions and the ridiculous position of the government that nobody should have a right to their class notes after 30 days, that someone should come in, take them away and burn them to protect some kind of business model. I have never heard any witness defend such a bizarre notion.

The member talked about amending language and going to committee. He talked about a serious amendment, but the amendment I heard is that we do not go ahead with the bill. I am surprised by the Liberal position on this.

There are problems with the bill, but we need to get a copyright bill to the House, to committee so we can deal with the serious problems and the need for amendments as raised by the member. This is crucial.

What is the point of talking about having a serious discussion about the bill if the only amendment his party is bringing forward is to kill this before we even get a chance to get to the amendment phase?