Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

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?

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I am not denying that the expenses were posted. That is how we found out about this information.

Let us take one example of the minister's former chief of staff. Every week during the election, the minister would fly her former chief of staff to her riding on the weekends. Then he would fly back on Monday, with one exception. On election day, the former chief of staff stayed an extra night because, as we all know, no campaign worker can resist a good election night party.

Will you agree that this was a clear violation of electoral rules--

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

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?

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

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?

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

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?