Charlie Angus

[G8 Summit, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening but I am not hearing accountability. I am hearing bafflegab.

Since the member from Muskoka cannot stand up and defend his actions, I will turn to his friend and I will ask him why he allowed the minister to cook up this deal to bypass all the checks and balances? Why did he allow $50 million in border infrastructure to be divvied up by the three amigos, the mayor, the minister and the hotel manager?

Since the member from Muskoka will not apologize to this House, will his friend take responsibility and apologize to the Canadian people for his partner's misuse of public funds?

[G8 Summit, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of disturbing elements to this scandal.

First, of course, is the minister's flagrant abuse of the public trust. Second, now that he has been caught, is the way he hides behind the foreign affairs minister.

Given the sheer scale of this dubious spending and the fact that he is in Treasury Board, how can we trust this minister? It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency?

[G8 Summit, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board seems incapable of standing in this House and explaining his $50 million pork spree in Muskoka.

It is so bad that he has friend, the foreign affairs minister claiming that the Muskoka gravy train was developed by public servants. It is simply not true.

The Auditor General's report is clear, and I will quote: Senior officials said “their input had not been sought”.

This deal was cooked up by the member from Muskoka. Public servants were deliberately frozen out.

When will the minister take responsibility for his abuse of public trust?

[Auditor General's Report, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough that the member is hiding behind the verbosity as a member for Ottawa West—Nepean. If he cannot stand and explain this $50 million spending spree, then he has no business being at Treasury Board.

The government promised to do politics differently. Instead, we have the spectacle of three amigos divvying up pork barrel slush funds and he cannot stand in the House and produce any evidence or documentation that could have stopped this outrageous Muskoka gravy train.

[Auditor General's Report, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a legacy of deceit, pork and cynicism. It sounds like the old Liberal sponsorship scandal, but it is the editorial pages commenting on the behaviour of the new Treasury Board President.

The member has abused the public trust and he must come clean. Will he explain to the House how he managed to divert $50 million from border infrastructure payments and put it into a private slush fund? Can he explain why the Auditor General was unable to find any evidence of oversight or documentation to explain this outrageous spending spree?

[Treasury Board, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing civil about the abuse of taxpayers' trust. The Conservatives misled Parliament. They told us that they were requesting money for border infrastructure and they fuddled it off for pork-barrel projects, such as gazebos, steamboats and everything else the minister could think of. This is the kind of rum bottle, pork barrel politics that Canadians are fed up with.

Will the minister apologize to the taxpayers for this abuse of our public trust?

[Treasury Board, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General revealed today that Treasury Board allowed the former minister of industry to set up a $47 million slush fund for pork barrel projects in his riding. Here is how it went down: there was the minister, there was a mayor and there was a hotel manager who dished out the loot. There was no oversight, no documentation and no questions asked. This is just one step up from cash in a brown paper bag.

Is this how the minister will plan to run the Treasury Board?

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and some surprise at some of the statements my hon. colleague made, particularly quoting Ken Georgetti. Poor Ken is going to be choking on his coffee back at his office when he finds out that he is being rolled out as a supporter of the Conservative Party because Ken was very clear in his opposition.

It goes to the fundamental issue the member talks about, the human right to work as long as a person wants. Charlie Angus died on the shop floor of the Hollinger Mine when he was 68 years old because there were no pensions. People worked in the mines until they died. My grandmother told me every month that she got her Canada pension, “We fought for this and we need to protect this”.

So, when people in my riding go back to work at 65, 66 and 67, it is not because it is a human rights choice. It is because they do not have a pension plan that protects them.

I want to ask the member, why is the government continuing to walk away on the biggest single crisis facing Canadian families, which is the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the Canada pension plan, so every senior could retire with dignity?

So, do not say it is their human right to work because they do not have enough money to live on. Their real basic right in Canada is to be able to retire when they want to and have a Canada pension plan that is sufficient. The Conservative government has abandoned seniors on that key element.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should correct the record. It would be very unfair to have in the House that the Canadian Labour Congress supports this budget. Ken Georgetti has written a very clear statement that the Canadian Labour Congress opposes the budget. I would ask the member to strike that and continue on with her friends at the chambers of commerce and other such businesses. The Canadian Labour Congress does not support the budget. She should be accurate with her information.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I remember 2008 when the government came in at the beginning of the greatest economic collapse since the depression. We heard Mr. Magoo say, as he was walking on the ledge of the building, that there was not a problem, that the world was great and that we were not in a recession. We knew we were in a structural recession. The only plan of the Conservatives was they were going to cut political subsidies for political parties. That was it. They swore we would not spend a dime on the recession. Then within three months they had blown $50 billion. It was staggering.

When I see this budget, I see the Mr. Magoo factor once again walking out on the ledge saying that the Conservatives can cut $4 billion and not a single service is going to be hurt and that they can get all this new money based on an economy that is tanking around the world.

Does my colleague feel that it is kind of like déjà vu when the only thing the Conservatives have offered in this budget is to once again attack political party subsidies? There is no plan for dealing with the ongoing economic crisis and they are not being honest with the Canadian people about from where the cuts will come.

We know the Conservatives are going to put the boots to the public service as soon as the media stops paying attention to the House.