Sue Barnes

[Manufacturing Industry, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is rhetoric. What we need is more than a do nothing approach.

Aside from the losses of manufacturing jobs, this government fails to understand that these jobs provide many spin-off jobs in other sectors, such as retail, such as services. Lost jobs also mean lost revenue for all levels of government and increased costs for social services.

Again, I ask the government, when will it start offering manufacturing workers in our communities some immediate action and some real hope for their future?

[Manufacturing Industry, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last month I participated with colleagues and local representatives in a round table about manufacturing jobs.

London is home to more than 40,000 manufacturing workers representing one in seven jobs in the area. Manufacturing matters to the people of London and the concerns were very real. Their jobs were at risk.

When will the government stop its inane talk of structural adjustment and laissez-faire, and show it actually cares about the workers and families who are under stress now?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 12th, 2007]

With regard to the Canadian Firearms Program: (a) what is the proposed budget allocation for fiscal year 2007-2008; (b) what are the line-item cost projections for fiscal year 2007-2008; (c) what are the cost projections by department and agency for 2007-2008; (d) what is the total cost of the program since its inception in 1995; and (e) how much did the government spend on fee refunds related to the amnesty in 2006-2007?

[Petitions, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I present this income trust broken promise petition on behalf of some residents of British Columbia.

The petitioners remember that the Prime Minister boasted about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said, “The greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.

The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts, but he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government: first, to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

[Justice, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the Conservative government did not inherit a $45 billion deficit.

The truth is that it is easier for a man accused of assaulting his spouse to have access to criminal legal aid than it is for a woman who has been the victim of violence to have access to civil legal aid.

The government's insistence on ignoring this issue is characteristic of its backward attitude toward women's equality.

Will the government commit to immediately restarting the negotiations it abandoned with the provinces and territories to establish funds for civil legal aid?

[Justice, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, despite the government's massive surplus, women who have been victims of violence struggle to get legal aid to fight their abusive partners in either civil court or family court.

The former Liberal minister of justice was working with the provinces and the territories to improve access to civil legal aid. The Conservative government is doing nothing.

When will the government start working with the provinces and the territories to secure an agreement which would help women and their children who are in abusive relationships?

[Wireless Industry, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that answer will not satisfy Canadians. I will ask the Prime Minister a different question.

What discussions did the Prime Minister have or any of his staff have, either informally or formally, with Brian Mulroney on the issue of the wireless auction?

[Airbus, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence said that he was 22 or 23 when he worked in Germany for Thyssen. We now know that was not true.

He also, yesterday, referred to a discussion that took place at cabinet. Just what did these cabinet discussions involve? Was it Schreiber's extradition? Was it the decision to scrap the justice department's review of the Mulroney settlement or maybe the letters that the defence minister received from Mr. Schreiber himself? Just what was it?

[Airbus, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member should speak for himself then. In his maiden speech in the House, the defence minister called the investigation a “witch hunt” against Brian Mulroney. For years he railed, insisting that Mr. Mulroney was an innocent man. In opposition the minister made at least 19 House interventions on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, including mentions of Mr. Schreiber by name. He even demanded that the Liberals stop the RCMP investigation. Talk about improper.

With this devotion to Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, did the minister recuse himself at any cabinet discussion of this matter? Will the minister stand and answer?

[Airbus, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence continues to disguise his involvement in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. He claims to have been leery of Mr. Schreiber and warned his father to stay away from him.

For the record, could the minister tell the House if he became leery before or after he was employed by Thyssen, the company Mr. Schreiber represented in Canada and which apparently funded the $300,000 cash payment to Mr. Mulroney?