Rahim Jaffer

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just when Canadians were digesting the immigration minister's buffet of expenses, the foreign minister has some explaining to do about his chauffeur's European vacation. As if $8,200 is not bad enough to see the Eiffel Tower, his chauffeur then spent an additional $1,800 to go sunbathing in South America.

When most Canadians can barely afford to go on vacation, how can the minister justify this blatant abuse of taxpayer dollars?

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, his expenses are almost four times the average of his fellow political ministers in cabinet. According to official government disclosure statements, the minister had two breakfasts on March 22, two lunches on March 3, and two dinners on March 21. Either the minister was really hungry or his staff had made fraudulent meal claims on behalf of the minister.

Why did the minister give his staff approval to file these overstuffed expense claims?

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is up to his old tricks again. This time he stuck the taxpayers with a bill of $6,800 for meals he had in a two month period earlier this year. His staff stuck the taxpayers with another $6,000 in restaurant costs. This averages $285 per meal.

Most Canadian families spend less on groceries in a week than the minister does on lunch. How can he justify this?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for raising a new bar of arrogance in this place.

The other day the Minister of Public Safety tried to mask the reality of how the Liberals have improved the security of Canadians. When men like Commisso can come to Canada, buy a house, get a driver's licence and live in our suburbs, it seems that the only security the Liberals can provide is financial security for the mobsters.

Why did it take over a year to catch this man? How does the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to feel safe when they made Mr. Commisso an offer he could not refuse?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, mafioso Antonio Commisso easily found refuge in Canada.

A man whom the international justice system describes as a bloodthirsty organized crime leader has managed to live here after easily entering through the Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport.

How can we trust a government that is not even able to refuse mobsters?

[Income Tax Act, June 27th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-418, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (vitamins).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to expand the list of allowable medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include expenses incurred for vitamins, supplements, vitamin supplements, mineral supplements, dietary vitamin supplements and dietary mineral supplements.

We are trying to do what we can to increase the ability for Canadians to access natural health products. Also, if these health products are preventive in the workings of our medical system, if they help to reduce the overall costs of our health care system, then we should encourage that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the minister continues to defend dancers. He seems to be quite good at tap dancing around all the questions we give him.

The current HRSD minister was at one time concerned about the sexual exploitation of people coming into this country. Now as a Liberal cabinet minister she is taking steps to reinstate a program that would import foreign workers into Canada's sex trade.

Did the minister knowingly sign off on a labour market opinion for these strippers, or did she simply reinstate this program that her government supposedly cancelled?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that minister should learn what is going on in his department because it surely is not moving to the effect that we would like it to be.

In responding to pressure from the Conservative Party last fall, the government claimed it shut down the stripper program. However, HRSD spokesperson, Sandy MacDonald said in today's Globe and Mail that the government has only taken a temporary hiatus in promoting the sex trade. I quote, “New applications from exotic dancers will once again be processed”.

Why is the department promising that it will start processing these applications when the government claimed it shut the program down?

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, clearly one of the things that we have said consistently in the official opposition is there has to be a significant balance of tax relief to Canadians who are so overtaxed. Many of them are unable to make ends meet. We have always said that we would not only help Canadians but would help stimulate the economy as well. My colleague is correct. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to Bill C-48.

One thing is beyond me, and I identified that as an inconsistency in my speech, especially with regard to the government. It is the fact that it wants to try to rush Bill C-48 through the House. We have had extensive debate on Bill C-43 and we supported it. Now that the government has the opportunity to start delivering some of the money encompassed in Bill C-43 too Canadians, the Liberal-dominated Senate is holding up the legislation for no clear reasons.

Our Conservative senators have said that they want to get Bill C-43 through the Senate in one sitting. They want to build on what is in the bill to get the money to the communities and cities and to people who have been waiting for it in areas where Canadians have been struggling. Why are the Liberals holding that up?

Now the Liberals want to extend the sitting of this House to deal with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, but they have no urgency to get Bill C-43 through the Senate.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can twist my words any way she likes. If she wants to talk about hypocrisy, let us see who voted against the first budget introduced in the House, by way of Bill C-43. I strictly remember the NDP members stood and asked what they would get out of it. They were not prepared to support the government until it gave them something, which it did in BIll C-48. They voted against Bill C-43 initially until they got their fair portion of whatever they thought was important.

Clearly, when it comes down to those issues that she raises, we have always maintained that it is important to have a responsible level of social spending. However, do I trust the government across the way to deliver those sorts of services? More and more Canadians are becoming cynical about the way the government spends money and the types of services it delivers back to Canadians.

The fact that the NDP members are now propping up a corrupt government that continues to maintain this spending, which often does not result in positive results for Canadians, is beyond me. It is beyond Canadians that they would be so irresponsible to do so. The only thing we have been proposing is responsible spending with responsible results.