Joe Volpe

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the member for Mississauga South, who is obviously learned in the issues of EI and the way benefits are both accrued and received, give us an indication, if he can. Typically these kinds of things are provided by a government that wants the House of Commons to support its legislation, but we do not have that. Perhaps he could provide them for us, if in fact he had access to them.

Typically what would happen is that the government would say, “Support this bill, because this number of Canadians will be helped by these measures”. That number is usually specific, or else a range is given.

I know the member tried to educate the members on the government side on the way EI works, but they were not listening. Perhaps they already have some information that goes beyond talking points and lines, but perhaps the member of Parliament for Mississauga South would share with us again how people who have already been using the EI system as part of the economic plan of particular industries to keep an ongoing business afloat will now be able to access the benefits under Bill C-50 when the minister has put in place a prohibition for anyone who has already used the system.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Before you ask the member for Mississauga South to re-engage in this stimulating debate, one that has been informative so far, I wonder if you could advise members opposite that in referring to legislation established during the Mulroney years, they cannot use the word “stolen” when they are talking about funds that are part of the consolidated revenue fund. That is expended for government programs which have been approved by the House.

I think that the words “stolen funds” are absolutely unparliamentary. Those members should be embarrassed about exposing themselves to such criticism.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you need to rule on that right now, otherwise the debate will be one where we on this side of the House are speaking to ourselves because the other guys do not understand the language.

[The Economy, October 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, things have not been this bad in Canada since the last time the Conservatives were in power.

The government's misguided, blundering economic and fiscal policies have taken the country to a point that we now have a $60 billion deficit.

If your wallet seems a little bit lighter, Mr. Speaker, it is because that incompetence represents a $2,000 tax on every man, woman and child in the country. What do we have to show for it?

Let us ask the Minister of National Defence. He convinced the government to give his riding $101 million in infrastructure funds. Every man, woman and child in the constituency of Eglinton—Lawrence was involuntarily taxed $1,000 in order to keep him happy. What makes the Minister of National Defence so special, they ask? Why does the Prime Minister treat Torontonians with such disdain as second class citizens?

[Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I guess everybody would be in agreement that, when a crime is committed and proven, those who perpetrate the crime should suffer the appropriate indignities and commit to the appropriate restitution in order to mitigate some, if not all, of the damage that they have committed.

However, the most important issue in terms of fighting crime, because I think that is what the House intends by this kind of legislation, is to put in place the mechanisms in order to prevent such things from happening. In other words, what are the deterrents that are put in place? What are the investigative authorities? How many police are in place? How many Crown attorneys and other judges are put in place so that there can be an appropriate investigation and a quick determination of justice?

Where is that in this bill?

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court forced the Prime Minister to authorize a DNA test, which, on August 10, proved Ms. Hagi's identity beyond any doubt.

His ministers had to drop the charges in the Kenyan courts, hand over her travel documents and allow her to return to Canada.

Now, the same ministers have launched a smear campaign against her, by releasing an affidavit from July that was invalidated by this DNA test.

What does he have against this Canadian?

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the Suaad Hagi ordeal, the Prime Minister claimed on national television on August 18 that he first became aware the week before, yet ATIP documents confirmed that my letters and phone calls in June and July had raised the file to the top of political ranks. They further show that he was in charge of the messaging from July 1.

Is the Prime Minister's position now that neither of his ministers for foreign affairs or CBSA had brought him into the loop as they piloted action against Suaad Hagi at his direction?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing his views on the bill, among other things. I too will speak to this bill, but I wonder if the House would indulge me for a moment or two to address the other issues that the minister put on the table.

I noted that he spoke about the bill for but a few short minutes. However, he took some time to talk about the economy and our competitiveness on external trade. I found that his understanding of that or at least what he projected to us is kind of a shocking revelation, especially in the context of his closing remarks which addressed the business of employment and job creation.

I noted that in one breath he wanted us to agree with him that there has been a diversification of our export component to the GDP, but I think he said initially when the Conservatives became government that trade with the United States accounted for some 85% of total trade, and now it is down to 60%.

That is a shocking number. It really is a shocking number, because it means that there has been a diminution of economic activity to the tune of $148 billion annually. It is the first time that the government has admitted that under its watch we have lost another $148 billion in trade with the United States.

Where has that been replaced? Could he tell us who is giving us that $148 billion—

[Foreign Affairs, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the position has changed. Yesterday they said, “oh no, it doesn't reach a political level”. Even though I spoke to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the parliamentary secretary, wrote them both letters and wrote the minister letters, today he calls up an affidavit signed by an individual whose report was already discredited by DNA testing. The minister continues to talk about persecuting a Canadian citizen abroad after she had provided various pieces of information regarding her identity.

Why does he insist on making the Canadian government--

[Foreign Affairs, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, ATIP documents show that on June 3 consular officials were already back-tracking on their decision to invalidate Suaad Hagi's identity.

Responding to demands from the Kenyan court that someone appear as a witness to back up charges levelled against Suaad, otherwise case closed, reluctant officials fretted, “is this still the CBSA official position”, and “we could open ourselves up for prosecution”.

Why did the Minister of Foreign Affairs insist that his officials continue the prosecution and persecution of Suaad Hagi?

[Foreign Affairs, October 6th, 2009]

Can you believe this, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about a Canadian who was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister but neither he nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs are interested in responding today.

Ms. Hagi spent more than two months at the mercy of the Kenyan courts and yet, according to ATIP documents, members of the Prime Minister's staff were vetting all media lines from as early as June 5. Those same documents confirm a meeting between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his officials and his staff on July 14.

When they made the decision to let Suaad rot in Kenya, were they acting on their own or were they following the Prime Minister's directions?