Bonnie Crombie

[International Co-operation, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to defend the minister. He continues to defend the indefensible. He continues to pay her quarter million dollar salary and her limousine.

The Prime Minister's directive to his ministers states that they must be accountable to Parliament and must answer honestly and accurately about their areas of responsibility.

I will ask again. Will the Minister of International Cooperation stand up, do her job, and answer questions in this House?

[International Co-operation, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation has now dodged dozens of questions about her conduct. She has failed to perform even the most basic duty of a minister, to be accountable to Parliament for her actions. Yet she continues to enjoy all the rights, all the privileges and all the entitlements of her office. Her actions and the cover-ups are disgraceful and her refusal to be held accountable is offensive.

The minister has a choice. Will she stand up and answer, or will she stand up and leave?

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague who always asks the most insightful questions and provides the most insightful commentary.

Let us not forget what this debate is about. It is about Parliament's right to know. It is about Parliament's right to information. It is a fundamental right and it is necessary for the proper functioning of Parliament. It is the core to our democracy.

Legitimate requests for documents of the government have been rebuffed. This is indefensible. The government is always attempting to defend the indefensible to have us believe the unbelievable, and we will not stand for that. We need the documents we requested. We need them today.

I will give another example where there is insufficient information for us to perform our duties.

Regarding Bill C-16 to end house arrests, from the information provided to the House, how much would it cost? None, zero, but we all know that Bill C-16 would put more people in jail. Yet the government is telling us Bill C-16 will not cost another red penny.

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another smokescreen. It was the Liberals who were prudent fiscal managers. It was the Liberals who reduced the corporate tax rate. What the member is talking about is clearly a smokescreen in the same way that those documents the government just tabled were a smokescreen. It is a continuation of this culture of deceit.

Granted, the government tabled a number of documents that we had requested, but only because we shamed it into it. We asked for documents in three areas. Granted, the government provided a little on corporate tax cuts, but nothing on F-35s and nothing in the area of the corporate crime bills.

We asked for information on 18 crime bills and received nothing. There is insufficient information to make logical, rational decisions on which we base our fiduciary responsibilities.

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre, so perhaps I have less than 15 minutes remaining.

The subject of today's opposition day motion also contains specific references to documents requested by the Standing Committee on Finance on November 17, 2010 and March 7, 2011. These are extremely important requests. The first deals with the government's decision to implement corporate tax cuts at the worst possible time, during an economic recession. The finance committee asked for the projections of corporate tax profits before tax, up to 2015. The second deals with the costs related to the government's over-the-top crime agenda that will send many more thousands of our young people down the drain of a broken prison system.

In both cases, the government refused to provide the information and cited the excuse of cabinet confidence.

Notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has the authority to order the production of any and all documents, including those that are termed “cabinet confidence”, it is curious that the government would choose this excuse. After all, what exactly is cabinet confidence? It is difficult to find an explanation that can capture the complexities of the concept, but the Department of Justice, in its discussion paper, “Strengthening the Access to Information Act”, states that cabinet confidences in the broadest sense are the political secrets of ministers individually and collectively, the disclosure of which would make it very difficult for the government to speak in unison before Parliament and the public.

With this in mind, are the projections of corporate profits before taxes a political secret? Would revealing them make it difficult for the government to speak in unison before Parliament and the public?

Consider that in 2005, the Liberal government released exactly what was being requested in its 2005 economic and fiscal update. Did our democracy crumble to its knees after these projections were published on page 83? Of course not, and why? Because these figures are not cabinet confidences, likewise the costs related to the government's 11 crime bills. Would revealing these figures breach a political secret? Would revealing them make it difficult for the government to speak in unison before Parliament and the public?

Last year the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report regarding one single justice bill, Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act. He stated that this one bill would increase the cost to government of correctional services by up to $8.6 billion per year by 2015-16. This is the exact kind of information we are looking to get from the government. It should not be a secret. It should not be privy to only the executive branch of government. After all, it is the legislative branch which is being asked to provide approval for these measures. How can we do so if we do not know what it will cost? Some might say it is like being asked to sign a cheque while the amount is concealed. We would never do so. Why would members of the House be expected to do so? Yet, this is exactly what our Parliament has been reduced to.

I believe in the House. I believe in democracy. I believe in the fundamental right of Parliament, as written by our founders, shaped by our predecessors and now challenged by the Conservative government. I will not stand down in the face of the Conservatives' challenges to the institutions and the power of Parliament that I hold near and dear. I will not stop defending our privileges and our rights.

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, our founders would be horrified to learn of the motion we are debating today. That today in the House of Commons we would be debating and voting on a motion affirming our rights and privileges is disgraceful. Parliament's absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested is fundamental to our democracy. Would we ever imagine a motion demanding that the government provide oxygen to this chamber? Of course not, yet documents, more specifically the information on them, is as critical to the functioning of this place as the air that we breathe.

That the government would deny the right to these things speaks to an administration that values secrecy, control, manipulation, and ultimately, a complete disregard for this House of Parliament.

I was elected not only to be the voice of the people from Mississauga—Streetsville, but to be their eyes and ears as well. They expect me to hold the government to account, to demand explanations for policy decisions, and to vote for or against those proposals. Without complete information, without clear and unbiased evidence, without a full cost analysis, how can I perform this honoured calling to the best of my abilities? The answer is I cannot.

That is why Parliament was vested with privileges. Our founding articles, the British North America Act, now called The Constitution Act, 1867, established in section 18 the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament. These privileges are expressed further in the Parliament of Canada Act and in our Standing Orders. In his landmark ruling last year on the Afghan detainees documents, the Speaker upheld the supremacy of Parliament and the right to order documents. He affirmed the House's undisputed role as the grand inquest of the nation and its need for complete and accurate information in order to fulfill its duty of holding this government and any government to account.

Yet over the last five years of this Conservative government, the House has been required to cite its privileges at a rate never seen before in our modern history. Our esteemed law clerk, Mr. Robert Walsh, has never been so busy. Repeatedly he is asked to attend committees to remind them of their rights and privileges when confronted with attempts at obstruction by the government. The examples are numerous: government ministers refusing requests to appear before committees; senior Conservative staff members evading bailiffs with summonses; documents not provided or seriously redacted; and the list goes on and on and on. When committees request documents, the government drags its feet. It obstructs, and when it runs out of options, it flat-out refuses.

There are books that document the amount and degree of Conservative government obstruction. Mr. Lawrence Martin, in Harperland: The Politics of Control, a runner-up for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing at the Writers' Trust of Canada awards yesterday, provides a lengthy list of the Prime Minister's march of audacities.

Since the 2006 election campaign, here are some of the highlights, with due acknowledgement, of course, to Mr. Martin: the elimination of the access to information database; the nixing of the court challenges program; the secret handbook on how to obstruct committees; hiding justice department studies on crime; hiding a firearms report to prevent embarrassment on the gun registry; the Rights & Democracy fiasco; slashing the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer; withholding details of the stimulus funding, and we all know why that happened; firing the nuclear agency head, Linda Keen; halting Peter Tinsley's probe on the Afghan detainees; ousting Paul Kennedy from the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP; smearing a career diplomat, Mr. Richard Colvin; defying Parliament's right to documents; padlocking Parliament by proroguing not once but twice; the move on Statistics Canada; and the list goes on and on and on.

[International Co-operation, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clear, I think not. The Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, MATCH, AIDS groups, women's groups, human rights groups, dozens have had their funding cut.

The Prime Minister makes the rules. The message is clear: ideology over reason, “cross him and you are finished.” Will he do the right thing? Will he reverse these ideological cuts and will he fire that minister today?

[International Co-operation, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, KAIROS is just the tip of the iceberg. Many hard-working organizations from across Canada have been left twisting in knots, their funding cut without reason and without explanation by the government.

With the minister's admission of fraud, can others be wondering, did we suffer the same fate? What other groups did CIDA recommend for funding but received a handwritten “not”?

Will the minister tell us or not?

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, February 14th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to join the debate today to support my colleague from Brampton West who presented the motion.

I am proud to do so for a number of reasons, the first one being that I am Polish Canadian and, I believe, one of the first female Polish Canadian members of Parliament this House has seen. Therefore, I am very proud to stand and represent the Polish community and support Pope John Paul II, our pope.

Second, of course, is that I am a practising Roman Catholic and it is important that I stand up for the Roman Catholics in Canada.

It is important legislation that would celebrate the memory of Pope John Paul II day every April 2 on the anniversary of his death. He was beloved not only in Poland but internationally, in Canada and abroad, everywhere that he travelled. He was one of our most travelled popes.

Why do we designate days to celebrate the memory of great people such as John Paul II? We do it to acknowledge their significant accomplishments and their historical contributions to our country as well as to larger historical events.

He was a great man. Not only was he a scholar, he was a philosopher. He came from simple, humble beginnings in Poland as a priest and before that as an actor and a teacher. He was a charismatic and moral leader to, not only the Catholic community across the world, but to everyone.

Pope John Paul II reigned for 27 years, one of the longest reigns of any pope. He also was one of the youngest popes of the 20th century.

There are a number of reasons we should support the bill, many due to his great achievements. He was one of the architects of the defeat of Communism. He was one of the leaders of the solidarity movement, a very significant historical event, particularly to the Polish people. He is and remains a hero. He was the first non-Italian pope since the 15th century. There are over one million Polish Canadians in Canada who would celebrate this day each and every year.

He was a very accomplished pope. He had a large following of supporters and travelled around the world. He completed over 102 pastoral visits outside of Italy.

The pope first visited Canada in 1984 and had visited three times since. He came in 2002 on World Youth Day. I myself billeted a number of youth who came from the former eastern Europe to celebrate this day. Young people from all parts of the world gathered for World Youth Day at the Downsview Centre in Toronto. With their gifts of intelligence and heart, they represented the future of the world but they also bear the marks of humanity and that, too, often knows and understands peace and justice.

The pope said at that time, “Too many lives begin and end without joy and without hope.” However, he proved that there was hope in this world. That was one of the principal reasons for World Youth Day.

He spoke to us directly as Canadians. Canadians are heirs to an extraordinary, rich humanism, enriched even more by a blend of different cultural elements. However, the core of our heritage is the spiritual and transcendent vision of life based on Christian revelation, which gave vital impetus to our development as a free, democratic and caring society recognized throughout the world as the champions of human rights and human dignity.

I was astounded at how proud the youth were who attended World Youth Day, proud to be Catholics and proud to be there celebrating the pope who value the contributions that youth had made.

One of the other reasons of course was that the pope sought reconciliation for the Jewish community and opened a dialogue with many other faiths.

Those are some of the key reasons that I believe we should support John Paul II day. I hope there are other members of the House who will reach out and encourage all members to support this very important bill as well.

the Ontario legislature introduced a similar type of bill to honour Pope John Paul II. It had been introduced and had passed first and second reading but, unfortunately, died during prorogation. We are attempting to bring back this honour for Pope John Paul II for not only Ontarians but for all Canadians so that we can all celebrate.

In addition, I have attempted to described this man who has done great work. He has been recognized not only among his peers, Canadians and everyone across the world, but people in the church have extended to him the title of Venerable. Pope Benedict has placed this title upon him, which is one step toward sainthood. One step will be completed later this year. It is a two year process but it has been expedited so that this great glory will be placed upon our beloved pope.

As I mentioned earlier, he is one of the great reasons that communism had fallen non-violently in the Soviet Union. Quite unbelievably, the Soviet Union fell and communism fell without a single bullet being fired. Pope John Paul's 1979 trip to Poland was described as the fulcrum of revolution that led to the collapse of communism. As Timothy Ash put it, ”without the pope, no solidarity, without solidarity, no Gorbachev, without Gorbachev, no fall of communism”. Even Mikhail Gorbachev said that it would have been impossible without the pope. He credits John Paul II for being a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.

My very humble roots, as I described, also come form Poland. My family left Poland because of the scourge of communism and sought work and refuge in France. My grandfather served in a Polish division of the French army to fight against Hitler and did not return to Poland because of the rise of communism in the Eastern European Bloc. One of the major reasons we came to Canada was to seek freedom, and we have Pope John Paul II to thank for the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Another major accomplishment of the pope, with which nobody will disagree, was provide a bridge to bring in other religions. In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement congratulating Pope John Paul II on entering his 25th year of the papacy and complimenting him on his role in bridging the divide between the Jewish faith and the Catholic Church. It said, “More change for the better took place in his 27-year papacy than in the nearly 2,000 years before”.

There are many other examples of that as well, many attempts to make a bridge to many other faith communities, especially with Muslim community. When Pope John Paul was in Casa Blanca August 19, 1985 in Morocco, he said:

Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common, as believers and as human beings. We live in the same world, marked by many signs of hope, but also by multiple signs of anguish. For us, Abraham is a very model of faith in God, of submission to his will and of confidence in his goodness. We believe in the sane God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection.

He reached out to the Muslim community when he was pope and he reached out to the Jewish community as well. He reached out to many communities. We know that in 1993 he held a meeting with over 120 religious leaders from around the world of different religions and different Christian denominations to foster some unity and respect among the various religious sects.

He was a well travelled man and a remarkable world leader. He was known as the travelling pope. He visited 129 countries and attracted some of the largest crowds in human history. As many as five million people came to see him in Manila in 1995. He came to Canada on more than one occasion. When he came in 2002 on World Youth Day, over 800,000 people came out to meet him and to pray with him. As Kofi Annan had said, “he is a tireless advocate for peace”.

When Pope John Paul II died, the outpouring of grief at his funeral showed how strong he was and how respected he was, both as a religious leader and, more important, as a world leader. At his funeral and his requiem mass on April 8, 2005, he was said to have set world records for both attendance and the number of heads of state who were present at the funeral. It was the single largest gathering of heads of state in history, surpassing the funerals of Winston Churchill and other world leaders. Kings, queens and leaders of many countries were in attendance. It was one of the largest single pilgrimages of the time.

For this reason, and because of the great man he was, I hope everyone will join me and my colleague from Brampton West in supporting the bill to commemorate Pope John Paul II day.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to some of my colleagues on the opposite side who claim that their party does not raise taxes.

I want my colleague, the hon. member who just gave a terrific speech, to comment on this fallacy. We know that in 2006, the Conservatives raised taxes to 15.5% after the Liberals had lowered them to 15%. The Conservatives also taxed income trusts at 34%, which was a loss of $30 billion to many seniors who had investments in income trusts. The Conservatives put a tax on new travellers, the air travellers security tax. The Conservatives just hiked payroll taxes to $13 billion.

Well, no wonder the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that today we are in a structural deficit and that the government is not in a position to balance the books by 2015-16 as the Minister of Finance has promised.

I wonder if my hon. colleague might want to comment on some of that.