Tom Lukiwski

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the President of the Treasury Board stood and said that ministers during an election campaign were allowed to take one ministerial staff to assist during the campaign. Records indicate now that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had not one but three ministerial staff in the minister's riding during the campaign, all charged back to the taxpayer.

Would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that this was a clear violation by the immigration minister with respect to the election laws?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the NDP bringing this motion forward. From my standpoint, I am not sure yet how I am going to vote on this issue. Our party is the only party allowing a free vote on this issue I believe.

I understand there are health risks because of trans fatty acids. I absolutely believe they are harmful to one's health, but my concern is that this might be the start of a slippery slope. If we start banning everything that the government deems harmful to one's health, where does it end?

I completely understand what is being said. I hope the marketplace adjusts so that it reduces or eliminates trans fatty acids in foods. Education and labelling is absolutely paramount and necessary in this case. I am not sure if I can make the full leap, as the member opposite has, to actually ban something that is in the marketplace because it is deemed to be harmful. I agree it is harmful, but I really think this is the start of a slippery slope.

If consumers are aware of the health risks and the dangers, the marketplace will adjust. Product manufacturers who are currently using trans fatty acids in their food products will adjust quicker than any legislation because they will understand, through the decrease in their product's sales, that there is a need to adjust. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about appropriate guidelines, then, because yesterday in the House the immigration minister stood up and said that all of her chief of staff's expenses were within the appropriate guidelines.

Let us take a look at those expenses. On February 24, while on a trip to Toronto, the chief of staff claimed $92 for a working dinner in Ottawa. On April 1, while on a trip to Washington, he claimed expenses for $245, stating he was in Ottawa.

My question is for the immigration minister. Were these expenses really within the appropriate parliamentary guidelines or merely within the appropriate Liberal guidelines?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 18th, 2004]

Again, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the immigration minister. Again the minister is not answering the question. Very simply, did the minister have a political staffer working on her campaign?

The minister refuses to answer questions and defers behind the ethics commissioner. By her own admission she has asked the ethics commissioner to rule only on whether she interfered with an immigration case, not on whether or not her political staffers worked on her campaign. Will the minister step aside until this question is answered in the House?

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, due to massive problems in the immigration department, thousands of immigrants are forced to wait years before coming to Canada, and wait even longer before being granted resident status, but apparently problems such as this do not occur if one is a Liberal supporter.

My question is for the immigration minister. Rather than giving political payoffs, why does the minister not simply fix the system and let all Canadians who want to come to Canada to do so in a fair and balanced manner?

[Sponsorship Program, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in the Prime Minister because of his failure to stand in the House and answer direct allegations concerning his involvement in directing contracts to political friends. A simple denial would in no way undermine the Gomery commission's work because, as Justice Gomery has already stated, research contracts are beyond his mandate.

Will the Prime Minister or his designate stand in the House today and answer this simple question? Did the Prime Minister or his staff have any involvement in directing contracts to political friends, yes or no?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, at the outset of his presentation, mentioned that although there was much in the agreement with which he agreed, there certainly were many flaws contained in the wording of the agreement, which he very eloquently outlined to us in the last few minutes.

I would ask the member to back up and perhaps explain a little more about the things in the agreement with which he does agree, particularly the spirit of the agreement, which to me seems to lend itself to agreeing to a quick resolution of land claims and to the agreement in principle about aboriginal self-government.

Would that be what the hon. member would consider to be the good points in this agreement, but that they are fundamentally flawed by the other points which he just raised?

[Liberal Party of Canada, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, recently the revenue minister delivered what may be the ultimate statement in Liberal ethics. Asked why he ignored Treasury Board rules in appointing Gordon Feeney as chair of Canada Post, the minister replied that those were just suggestions and not regulations. All of a sudden, there is a lot of Liberal behaviour that is becoming quite clear.

The Prime Minister said he would not call an election until he got to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. I guess he only suggested that possibility. The Prime Minister also vowed he would end cronyism. Again, it appears this was only a suggestion.

I have a suggestion for my Liberal colleagues. They should keep their resumés handy because after the next federal election, the voters will make the suggestion that they look for clear opportunities in the private sector.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of many flaws that I believe is contained in this agreement.

One of the larger problems with this agreement and the way it is drafted right now is the fact that there is no finality to this agreement. Chapter 27.6.1 provides that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreements, taxpayer exemptions, et cetera.

This agreement is not a final agreement at all. One of the basic premises of any agreement is finality. This agreement, in the way it is currently drafted, does not call for finality to be enacted. This agreement could be reopened for future negotiations. I do not believe that is what we want to see in any agreement of this sort.

We want to see a document and a piece of legislation that is properly crafted and properly worded so that all partners in this assembly can agree, or at least agree to disagree, on the wording. The biggest problem I have is that there is no finality to this agreement. It cannot be a proper piece of legislation unless there is a finality contained in the language of this document.

I would ask questions of both the hon. members who have just spoken. What would they do to ensure--

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments.We would like to support the spirit of the agreement. Clearly, the Conservative Party agrees that the settlement for the Tlicho land claim should happen. Negotiation of any aboriginal self-government agreement is something we support.

The problem that I have with this agreement, and I would like to question the hon. member on a couple of points, is that it is poorly drafted. There are a number of inconsistencies and flaws in the agreement that should be addressed before we pass this legislation.

The agreement does not recognize Canada's official languages. The Tlicho constitution recognizes the official language of the Tlicho nation to be Tlicho and English, but it does not recognize Canada's other official language, French. I wonder what the hon. member for Richmond--Arthabaska would say with respect to that. Does he feel that this is something that should be included in the agreement or is he satisfied with the terms of language provision the agreement calls for?