Sue Barnes

[Income Trusts, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, the Prime Minister broke his promise not to tax income trusts. He lured hundreds of thousands of Canadians into the income trust market with his promise not to impose taxes and then he cut all those people off at the knees and imposed an unprecedented 31.5% tax.

A day later what happened? When the markets opened, $25 billion of Canadians' hard-earned savings went up in smoke. Overwhelmingly, those who suffered from this broken promise were not wealthy elites, but hard-working Canadians, many of them seniors. They took the Prime Minister at his word and he disappointed them.

We can be sure that the residents of London West and all Canadians will remember this broken promise.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this particular member from the Bloc, who has participated in the debate, does work very hard on justice bills. I served with him for a time on Bill C-9. That was a bill that we worked on and it was amended by the three opposition parties. It passed the House and went on from this place because it was improved. That is the whole point of going to committee and hearing witnesses.

I know that there are situations that even when the government introduces a bill that it thinks is perfect, that some things can slip by. Even the government can make errors. I think of the example currently where we have disenfranchised rural members under the Canada Elections Act because things were not done properly. It even went through committee and even at that stage it was not picked up. But the government has a responsibility and there is a democratic process in the House, that we deal expeditiously with bills in committee.

Most of the bills could have been in the Senate right now. They could have been reintroduced in the Senate, but we know that they have already passed second reading so we want them to get to committee so that they can be dealt with more rapidly.

When a government makes mistakes like it has just done with respect to the Canada Elections Act, it now has to have a new piece of legislation. We introduce amendments because the government is not infallible when it first introduces legislation.

There used to be a court challenges program whereby an individual or group could challenge government legislation even if it had passed all the stages in the House and Senate but we no longer have that.

Does the member think that some of these issues have to be dealt with practically, logically and completely, not just in an undemocratic way where a prime minister says he needs everything and needs it yesterday? Is it not our job to make good law, good policy and do it properly?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be a part of this debate because public safety is important to all Canadians and all parties in this House. I really believe that all parties in this House work to improve public safety for Canadians.

In that regard, I have had the pleasure over the years to work on the justice committee and on the public safety committee with the member.

When the Conservative government came into power, a large number of bills were introduced but they sat on the order paper and were not sent to the justice committee, some of them for long periods of time.

I want to ask the member whether or not he agrees with me that the government party is the only party that takes care of the order of business in this House. Some of those original pieces of legislation sat on the order paper for a long time after they were first introduced.

The justice committee of this House is a very effective way of improving legislation.

A lot of the bills that were introduced as part of the original agenda were actually researched and widely consulted on under the former Liberal government. In fact those pieces of legislation tended to proceed much more quickly in committee because a lot of the concerns had been worked out and consulted on before the original bill first entered Parliament. Now we are seeing bills where there has been less consultation and preparation.

I agree with the member that most of these bills are starting over in the House when they could have started at the stage where they left off before prorogation, in the Senate, but we are now dealing with this as it is.

I want to hear the member's opinion on another bill, the street racing bill. In fact when I was justice critic, all the parties, including all the opposition parties, agreed to fast-track that bill because we wanted to see it rapidly in place. That fast-track offer was also put in place with respect to the age of consent bill. I agree with my colleague who made a speech that the original private member's bill from the Conservatives did not have the close in age exemption and that is why the work that was redone was done properly.

I would ask my hon. friend to comment on those points.

[Air Transportation, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it makes front page news again this morning. The U.S. is very hostile toward Cuba, where tens of thousands of Canadians vacation every winter.

The Bush administration's new requirement that airlines disclose the private information of all passengers who enter American airspace on the way to Cuba raises a question. How will the Americans use this data?

Will Canadians who visit Cuba encounter difficulties at the U.S. border the next time they try to enter that country? What guarantees does the minister have to offer this? This is a serious question. I hope that he has a serious answer.

[Air Transportation, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport denies saying what he said in the House two days ago. Let me quote the minister's words from Hansard:

So far, we have been able to ensure that almost 80% of flights will not be captured by the new U.S. law.

What happens to the rest of those flights? Will the passenger information be disclosed for these flights? Can the minister now be very clear to Canadians just exactly what he means?

[Air Transportation, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, he talked yesterday, and I encourage him to read Hansard. We are talking about the right to privacy, which is a right that the Conservative government does not seem to hold in high regard.

What happens to Canadians who fly over the U.S. to visit sunny Cuba? Will they face problems the next time they enter the United States because they dared to visit a country that the American government does not like?

How is it the American government's business to know what Canadians decide to do, when they want a vacation and where they get a tan? How is a snowbird registry useful for the war on terrorism?

[Air Transportation, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the transport minister told us that 20% of Canadian flights would have to turn their passenger manifests over to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Will the minister tell Canadians what exactly is included in this 20%? Is it not a rather convoluted and deceitful way of saying that thousands of Canadian flights that fly over the U.S. without landing there will have to give their passenger manifests to the American government?

[Government Appointments, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the only people who seem to be qualified to be judges these days are ideological Conservatives. The former president of the party in Quebec is now a judge, the chair of the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in New Brunswick is now a judge, the party's former chief fundraiser in Alberta is now a federal judge and now a former Conservative MP from Nova Scotia who opposes a woman's right to choose.

How can the minister stand there with a straight face and tell the House that he is not about ideologically based patronage?

[Government Appointments, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in 1988, Conservative MP, Lawrence O'Neil, said in the House, about a woman's right to choose:

It appears that there is widespread acceptance of the notion that a mother should have the right to control her body. There is no such right.

Now that same Lawrence O'Neil has been appointed by the government as a justice on the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

Canadian women fought hard for the right to choose. Will the minister explain how Canadians can believe that he is not packing the courts with Conservative ideologues?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can say to that member or those who do not agree with registration that will change their mind. I will state again that all guns start legal and not everyone who commits an offence with a firearm starts out as a criminal in life. What we have here is an effective message.

There is an honest debate going on here and I will not take the reading into my speech of some of his conclusions.