Bonnie Crombie

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that we need to have full disclosure, especially of the amount of money lobbyists are spending. In fact, we had a situation where we took campaign donations from questionable sources and had them returned because we wanted there to be absolutely no doubt, no ethical breaches whatsoever.

In fact, I think we should just focus on open, honest, transparent and accountable transactions. We need to strengthen the Lobbying Act.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for his compliment. However, I want to also point out that it is you, as a government member, who is beholden to enact this legislation, not us. We are here. We are open to any sort of amendments you want to make. If you had wanted the act to have teeth, you would have made it so from the beginning, I would think. But certainly we are completely in agreement with making this law have the strength and the teeth it deserves.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the debate on a motion that would close a loophole, put into place by the Conservative government. I will speak directly to what the reasons are behind this loophole.

The motion before the House, as moved by my hon. colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl, is clear and concise. It seeks to close a loophole that allows parliamentary secretaries to meet with lobbyists and provide special access to their special friends of the Conservative Party.

I would like to discuss the blatant breech of conflict of interest the Conservatives have so successfully accomplished. I will outline the lack of transparency and the lack of disclosure of which the government is guilty. I will be addressing the question that is on the minds of all Canadians: Was this loophole a maliciously brilliant scheme, or was it an incompetent oversight by the Prime Minister? Either way, it is something that should have been addressed years ago, not after parliamentary secretaries have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Conservatives will argue that those hands came up empty, no cookies. Let us face it, once the hand is in the jar, even the resonant crumbs are enough to raise questions.

The past month has shown the Conservative culture of deceit grow to epic proportions. We have watched the development of the real Conservative culture: special access for special friends. What is this special access? Who are the special friends? How do we get special meetings and privileged access that most people only dream about?

Special access is the ability to have a meeting with a public office holder who has insight into where the money is kept for government contracts or funding and access to those who approve those contracts and programs. The Federal Accountability Act clearly states at part 1, paragraph 7:

No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.

Who are public office holders? This is where it gets very interesting. According to the Federal Accountability Act, they are: a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or parliamentary secretary, a member of the ministerial staff, a ministerial adviser or Governor-in-Council appointees. Two words that stand out are “parliamentary secretary”. What is most interesting, however, is the definition of designated public office holder in the Lobbying Act which states that:

A minister of the Crown or a minister of state and any person employed in his or her office who is appointed under subsection 128(1) of the Public Service Employment Act.

What is missing here? Those two elusive words, “parliamentary secretary”. One can only conclude that “parliamentary secretary” is missing by design. Since April 8 of this year, the truth has come out. Canadians have learned about secret meetings between parliamentary secretaries, their staff and friends. At last count, seven ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

We know about these meetings. They are not secret any more because the Conservatives have been embarrassed into disclosing their contacts. Why? Because they are hiding behind the Lobbying Act. They are not mentioned in it, that is why. Yet the Conservatives have conveniently ignored their very own Federal Accountability Act. Special access for special friends.

There is no definition in either act but Canadians know very well what it means. It is clear. It means people who have privileged access to people in power, people who would not otherwise have had access without high power connections. This is a blatant breech of conflict of interest.

A typical group seeks a grant, a contract or funding for a program, fills out an application and submits it, sometimes on-line, into a deep, dark vortex. Then they hire a potentially $600 an hour lobbyist who is registered to follow up and guide their application or steer it to the right channels or the right people. By law, all these actions are to be recorded. Obviously, not all actions are, only convenient ones, or at least until a person is caught.

In this case Mr. Jaffer, the former Conservative caucus chair, did not register as a lobbyist because he was technically not being paid upfront to lobby on behalf of his client. However, evidence reveals that finders' fees were anticipated. Mr. Jaffer's business model relied on success fees, or contingency fees or equity in companies. What a windfall to a company seeking funding if it was successful. That news alone could send its stock soaring. If the principals had equity in the company, they could sell for a lucrative profit. This is what is called “pump and dump” and it too is illegal.

Because Mr. Jaffer had friends in high places, he had privileged access to parliamentary secretaries to review his files and send them along to the relevant minister responsible, possibly accompanied by a personal note, “From Rahim with love”. Maybe not “with love”, but there is a definite privileged access to friends in high places, the same friends who can review a file, rather than allow it to sit idle for months in the great vortex that I described.

Where are the ethics in this situation? Where is the transparency? While not technically illegal, this situation I have described is clearly immoral and unethical. Why? If it were not for Mr. Donovan of the Toronto Star on April 8, these secret meetings and the conflicts of interest would have no end and would have flown directly under the radar of Canadians and of Parliament.

Since then, ministers, ministers of state, and yes, even parliamentary secretaries have come forward admitting to private meetings. Why? They have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and they are in a conflict of interest and a breach of ethics.

The parliamentary secretary for transport, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, was put in charge of a $1 billion fund for green infrastructure. This was a known fact within Conservative circles. Mr. Jaffer took advantage of this insider information. We also know that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca and his staff had direct contact with Mr. Jaffer. The parliamentary secretary was clearly in a breach of the Conflict of Interest guidelines, an obvious loophole and a self-created legal buffer made by the Conservative government in the Lobbying Act.

What happened here was not an innocent oversight, but a deviously brilliant, immoral and unethical one which created a legal buffer to protect the minister and allow parliamentary secretaries to breach Federal Accountability Act rules, the Prime Minister's very own guidelines and the lobbyist registry regulations.

Canadians demand that Parliament and parliamentarians be trusted with such delicate matters as ethics, and so do I. The Conservatives came riding in to Parliament on their sanctimonious high horse and moved a Federal Accountability Act and Lobbying Act that are toothless and allow for a deviously brilliant loophole to exist to help them circumvent the law, certainly circumvent ethics.

Here is a quote, “what is appropriate is that we fulfill our election commitments by ensuring that everybody respects the Lobbyists Registration Act and that we put real teeth into it”. Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, that is who. Where are the teeth? Why are parliamentary secretaries not included? Where are they?

Here is another quote, “We also want to make it the law that one has to record every single contact with a lobbyist” Who said that? It was the Minister of Transport. Who was he referring to? Obviously it was not parliamentary secretaries. It is very convenient, is it not?

Why take so long to record these contacts? Why wait months, a year, or more, who knows? The culture of deceit is out of control.

The parliamentary secretary for transport, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, says that he did not breach the Federal Accountability Act, but he clearly broke the conflict of interest rules and he acted against the spirit of these guidelines and the act. Mr. Jaffer said that he did not breach the Lobbying Act and was not a lobbyist. He too broke the moral and ethical spirit of the law and acted as a lobbyist. If one attempts to rob a bank and finds that there is no money in the vault, it does not mean one is not a bank robber.

When people have special access to special friends, magical things can happen. Red tape is eliminated. The vortex quickly becomes dinner and cocktails with friends at high-powered restaurants. It means privileged private citizens such as Mr. Jaffer can use a parliamentary office and email account to conduct business. It means opening the door to the PMO. Most noticeably, it is the ability to avoid registering as a lobbyist to avoid reporting those meetings, something the Conservatives have become masters of through their self-regulated legal buffer and loophole. This loophole is a premeditated measure to allow special access to special friends.

I hope the opposition parties will support this motion. The Bloc says that the Federal Accountability Act is flawed and now is its chance to add teeth. The NDP has handled the Jaffer scandal on both sides of the fence. I hope it can take a stand that will make a difference.

I will be supporting this motion, and I hope all members will do the same. It is good for Parliament and it is good for all Canadians.

[Polish Constitution Day, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today is Polish Constitution Day, a day Polish people around the world celebrate with great parades and patriotic festivities. This year I feel it will also be a day of healing. It has not been a month since the death of Poland's late president, Lech Kaczynski, the first lady and 94 others killed in that tragic plane crash over Katyn.

It has not been uncommon through history to celebrate this day against aversion and hardship. The Polish Constitution, signed May 3, 1791, only lasted a year, when the Russo-Polish War of 1792 saw Poland partitioned by invading forces. And thus started the long, tumultuous history of Polish Constitution Day. Banned several times throughout history, Polish Constitution Day was restored as an official holiday in April 1990.

Poles have celebrated this day through centuries. It has served as a day of unity and healing across centuries, and it does so again today. I join with my fellow Polish Canadians in celebration, commemoration and remembrance. Today we proudly celebrate our strong heritage and commemorate and remember the many great men and women before us—

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by people from my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville and other parts of the greater Toronto area.

The petitioners are concerned about the ongoing discrimination against Egypt's Christian citizens who seek systematic change for justice and equality within Egypt.

Those who have attached their names wish to call our attention to the evening of January 6, the Orthodox Christian celebration in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, which ended in violence, 6 murdered and 15 injured. This is only the most recent example of religiously motivated attacks. Sadly this type of violence and persecution has become a common occurrence in Egypt over the last 30 years. Those who are victims feel unheard by their government. They feel it has failed to dissuade this violence or take the necessary steps that are needed to be taken to reach sustainable change.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to demand justice and equality within Egypt and to intervene and pressure the Egyptian government to ensure tolerance, freedom and safety to its Christian population.

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, special access for special friends.

Every day we learn more. We know the government has more information about its interaction with Green Power Generation.

Earlier this week, the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario admitted that his office met with Patrick Glémaud. He said, “There were some projects talked about”.

When will the minister end the Conservative culture of deceit, release all details about the proposals and tell us what he talked about?

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after weeks of stonewalling and denying, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities finally released limited information about three proposals submitted to his office by Rahim Jaffer and Patrick Glémaud. Given the Conservative culture of deceit, we all know there is more.

When can the House expect the government to table all documents about meetings that the principals of Green Power Generation had with Conservative ministers, parliamentary secretaries and MPs?

[Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada was formed in Toronto on April 26, 1860. The regiment has been standing on guard for 150 years.

The Toronto branch is the oldest regiment of its kind, in fact, older than Confederation itself. This week, the regiment's colonel-in-chief, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, was supposed to be the guest of honour to commemorate this remarkable accomplishment in Victoria, Calgary and the biggest gala in Toronto. Unfortunately, the volcanic ash disaster hindered her flight plans.

I am sure all members will join me in wishing the Queen's Own Rifles a happy 150th and much continued success.

Now the bad news. The Queen's Own Rifles Toronto branch asked Veterans Affairs for financial assistance for its events in Toronto. Its request was denied. Today I learned that Calgary received money for its commemoration while the Toronto branch did not.

The Conservatives will honour requests from western Canada while the same requests from Toronto fall on deaf ears and that is not fair. It is too bad the Conservatives ignore pleas from the Toronto veterans.

Regardless of the Conservatives' failure to act, I know the Queen's Own Rifles will continue to stand on guard and I wish them congratulations and a happy 150th.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur. It is absolutely 880 pages of empty rhetoric. There is no investment in jobs. There are no jobs, no job creation, no protection for the jobs of today and no creation of the jobs of tomorrow. There are no investments in education, national child care, R and D, innovation or employment insurance. There is no lasting vision or legacy.

We will have nothing to show for $50 billion in infrastructure spending that is lasting. That is even if we are certain that $50 billion will have been invested at the end of the day. We all know the stories about the lapsed money, the money that is committed but is never actually spent or sent out.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain I was present for the debate when the member for Hamilton Mountain stated correctly into the record that a previous Liberal minister had introduced the bill on remailers. I wanted to correct that statement.

I am in no position to take any lectures from the member on voting against a budget that I oppose. Certainly, the NDP was responsible for bringing down the Paul Martin government. As a result, we do not have national child care. We do not have the initiatives on Kelowna or Kyoto because the NDP did not support the Paul Martin government.