Jim Karygiannis

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with passion to what my colleague had to say. I know of the work that he is doing in committee.

When we talk about the case of Joe Taylor and the other cases that are held in abeyance because of Joe Taylor, if I were to seek unanimous consent from the House for this case to be dealt with immediately, I am sure he would agree with me.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend the member from the NDP who so eloquently put forward the facts about foreign workers. He spoke about people getting killed on the job. He has expressed those views in committee. We look forward to discussing undocumented workers in committee when we come back in the fall.

In committee there was a motion about having a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers. The surprising fact was that when I rose in the House last week to ask for unanimous consent to move this motion forward, the Conservatives were not in the House. This was a great opportunity. This was not a problem for the Liberals. This was not a problem for the Bloc. Who ran in to say there was not unanimous consent? The NDP member for Trinity—Spadina. We are talking about a pink champagne drinking socialist. We are talking about the people who pretend to back workers. If the NDP members really back the workers, if they really are for the workers, if they really do not want to have foreign workers mistreated, then they should have supported my unanimous consent request.

[Canada Elections Act, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for unanimous consent to move a motion, which was adopted in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration: That this government stops deporting undocumented workers until the committee reports to the House.

[Request for Emergency Debate, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for an emergency take note debate on the price of gasoline Canadians are paying at the pumps.

Last week, the Conservatives heard from Canadians that their number one issue, overwhelmingly, was the price of gas. Canadians are saying that they are being gouged at the pumps.

Let us look at some of the figures.

Crude oil today is $64.20 a barrel. In February 2006 crude oil was the same as it is today, $64.20. The average price of gasoline today is $1.09 right across Canada, while in February 2006 the average price was 85¢. That is a difference of 24¢ per litre.

The price of crude oil on May 28, 2007 is $64.20 per barrel and the price of gasoline is $1.09. The last time that we had a price of $1.09 per litre of gasoline was July 31, 2006 and the price of crude at that time was $78 per barrel. That is a difference of $13.80 per barrel. Across Canada, an extra margin of 1¢ per litre generates an additional profit of $1 million per day.

In December 2005, gasoline prices were approximately 82¢ per litre. Today, the average price for gasoline is $1.09 per litre. This is an increase, under this government, of 32%.

Let us look at the net earnings by company.

Suncor had net earnings of $2.971 billion in 2006 and $1.158 billion in 2005. That is an increase of 156% or $1.813 billion.

Petro Canada had net earnings of $245 million in 2006 and $115 million in 2005. That is an increase of 113% or $130 million.

Husky Energy had net earnings of $2.726 billion in 2006 and $2.003 billion in 2005. That is an increase of 36%.

Let us look at net income by company.

Imperial Oil had a net income of $3.044 billion in 2006 and $2.600 billion in 2005. That is an increase of 17% or an increase overall of $444 million.

Chevron had a net income of $17.138 billion in 2006 and $14.099 billion in 2005. That is an increase of 21% or an increase overall of $3.039 billion.

Profits of $6.149 billion over one year.

When this government and this Prime Minister were in opposition, the hon. Prime Minister said on October 6, 2004:

It is time we axed the tax on tax. We would also eliminate the GST portion on gas prices that go above 85¢ per litre to prevent the government from reaping windfall profits on top of high gas prices.

Similarly, the then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister today, on Monday, September 26, 2005, said, “Rather than continue to rake in record high revenues from record high oil prices, will the government simply cut gas taxes for consumers?”

That same day, the hon. Prime Minister continued and said, “Mr. Speaker, every time gas prices rise a cent, almost $40 million goes into the coffers of the government. It should stay in the pockets of consumers”.

The Minister of National Defence, the member at that time for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, stated on October 5, 2005:

Gasoline taxes account for an average 40% of the pump price. GST is charged on the pump price, gasoline taxes included. It is a tax on tax.

Clearly, this government, as one my constituents said, versus jumping into bed with big oil companies, should do the honourable thing: lower the price on gasoline and make sure that Canadians are not gouged every day. Or, as he put it plainly, “It is time that the government started screwing them versus being in bed with the oil companies”.

[Privilege, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague only joined the committee that particular day. He is not aware of what happened the first time that the minister came to the committee.

In the same vein, a question was asked of the minister and also was asked of a senior official, none other than the deputy minister, and the question was very plain, “Have you advertised?” The minister, not knowing, looked at the deputy minister and the deputy minister said, “I assure you we have advertised”.

Later on the deputy minister sent out a letter apologizing for misleading us. He even sent me a personal letter because I put the question to him, apologizing personally for having misled me.

The whole thing on this file, and I did not raise the file here today on the report, I raised the request for you, Sir, to take a look at this letter and how it is intimidating.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to examine the blues. If the minister wants to examine the blues and my colleague from Palliser wants to examine the blues, do nothing else but examine the whole thing. This has done nothing else but to trample and infringe on the rights of the members of the committee.

[Privilege, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of personal privilege.

As members of Parliament, we carry out our everyday work following a code and a set of ethics. I have had the good fortune of having been here for almost 19 years. This is my first experience that I have seen a minister telling committee members how to do their work. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sent a letter to all members of the committee intimidating us as to how we carry on our work. I would like to refer to a few passages from the letter. It reads:

Some of the questions during May 2nd appearance related to matters on which public servants cannot testify. For reasons of clarification, and so that all understand the parameters around such appearances, I have taken the step of instructing my Deputy Minister to provide the following information to departmental officials, prior to their next appearance before the Committee.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this is telling civil servants not to be accountable to this House. It continues:

Public servants are to assist the standing committee by factually answering questions, but are to explain rather than defend or debate policies. Thus, for example, they can provide information on how a particular program or policy is implemented; questions relating to whether the program or policy can or should be changed is the exclusive realm of a Minister.

The minister is there and taking advice of her bureaucrats. Certainly this does not jibe. It continues:

--I will ask that my Deputy Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by the Committee members, they should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date. This may delay the Committee receiving full and complete answers to legitimate questions, but as it is your intention to swear them in, this guidance is for their protection.

As I said, this is the first time that I have seen a minister act that way, but it is not unusual. It clearly demonstrates that the minister is trying to muzzle the committee.

As this is a repeated circumstance by the Conservative government in this current Parliament, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you investigate this matter. I feel that my privileges have been infringed and trampled upon by the minister. I am asking that you look into this matter and respond back to this House.

[Armenia, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the Minister of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed Parliament's voice to recognize the Armenian and Pontian genocides perpetrated on the people of Armenia and Pontus by the Ottoman Empire.

However, questions arise when the Canadian Ambassador to Turkey speaks for the government and he states:

It is not fun to be accused of having committed genocide. It is about influence, it is about making sure that they have enough knowledge to make a decision that makes sense, and it is about talking to them and telling them their [Turkey's] side of the story. In this case I believe that Turkey started much too late to tell its side of the story.

When will the minister recall the ambassador, or is this yet another flip-flop?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 28th, 2007]

With respect to the placement of federal government advertising: when will the government ensure that more government advertising is placed in ethnic media publications to ensure that Canadians whose mother tongue is not French or English are made aware of federal government initiatives and programs?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although I disagree with my hon. colleague on his take on sovereignty, I would pose a couple of questions for him.

The budget talks about hybrids and gives money to hybrids. One of the things, however, the budget does not do is give money to Canadian manufacturers to establish technologies and work on technologies to have hybrids that are made in Canada. All the hybrid money will go to cars made outside Canada. It certainly is a slap in the face to Canadian auto workers.

The budget also failed to recognize and continue the work that the GTA caucus of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government was doing to extend mass transit in certain parts of Toronto. For example, in my riding the subway line was to be extended. In my riding we were supposed to be getting more LRT. The Conservative government has certainly failed with the budget.

How does my hon. colleague feel about hybrids, especially since he will be supporting the budget?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 19th, 2007]

With respect to the devastation in the Philippines due to four typhoons in late 2006: will the government provide further aid to the government of the Philippines to help its citizens rebuild homes, businesses and infrastructure?