Ed Fast

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motion presented by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I also want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for sharing his time with me.

The intent of the motion is to compel the government to maintain the existing program policies and regulations:

--by maintaining or enhancing: (a) existing Canadian cultural content requirements; (b) current restrictions on foreign ownership in the cultural sector; and (c) financial support for public broadcasting--

Let me state from the outset that we do support the convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. The issue for us is its misuse and misapplication in the motion before the House.

I would suggest that the motion is misguided and should be defeated for three reasons. First, it is premature and prejudges the outcome of numerous mandate reviews which have been requested by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Second, it essentially restates the status quo when, in fact, on January 23 Canadians voted for change.

Third, it completely ignores the time and effort which went into the preparation of the Lincoln report, a comprehensive and time consuming report on Canadian broadcasting which was completed in June 2003.

Let me first address the issue of mandate reviews. As the House knows, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is in the process of initiating a complete review of the CBC's mandate. The results of that review are critical to determining the future direction of Canada's biggest public broadcaster.

In fact, as recently as May 16 the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage unanimously passed a motion that the minister provide committee members with an opportunity to review and offer modifications to the terms of reference for the CBC mandate review.

The government is committed to long term, stable funding for Canadian broadcasting and the arts. Unlike the previous government, which promised to support the CBC and then slashed its budget, we will continue to deliver on our promises.

I also note that at the same May 16 committee meeting the members unanimously agreed to review the mandates of all crown corporations under its purview to ensure their capacity to carry them out properly.

The purpose of course of mandate reviews is to determine whether new policies and approaches need to be implemented to allow Canada's artists and creators to adapt to rapidly changing technology and fierce global competition.

Sadly, if the motion before us today were to pass, it would essentially render the mandate reviews meaningless, since the motion prejudges the outcomes of those reviews.

On the second issue, I note that the motion is focused on preserving the current status quo. It demands that existing Canadian content requirements be maintained. It demands that current foreign ownership rules be maintained.

What the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier conveniently forgets is that on January 23 Canadians voted for real change. Canadians rejected a Liberal agenda that ignored new technological realities and failed to help Canadian artists compete on the international stage.

The Conservative government on the other hand is committed to working with the cultural sector to develop policies that will ensure that this sector thrives. It is important that we work with cultural communities to ensure that they are equipped for the new technological realities of the 21st century.

The old solutions no longer work, yet that is exactly what this motion does. The motion guarantees that Canadian artists and cultural communities will fall further behind the rest of the world in pursuing their aspirations and their artistic goals.

My third reason for speaking against this motion is perhaps the most troubling one. It is the complete disregard, which this motion shows, for the comprehensive work done by a previous heritage committee. Case in point is the Lincoln report which was issued in June 2003 and is a sweeping and exhaustive review of the broadcasting industry in Canada.

The report highlights in great detail a host of challenges facing the broadcasting industry as it seeks to reflect our cultural identity and heritage while remaining viable and competitive in a global environment.

Audience fragmentation; loss of local, community and regional programming; rapidly changing and emerging technologies; consolidation and convergence of broadcasting entities; and challenges to our Canadian cultural identity are all issues that received extensive treatment in the Lincoln report.

Furthermore, the report makes numerous recommendations aimed at preserving and enhancing the viability of a distinctively Canadian broadcasting industry. The recommendations also address many of the needs of the producers and artists who deliver the product to Canadian televisions, radios and computers.

The motion, on the other hand, ignores several years of painstaking committee work and consultation. The motion simply reintroduces an outdated set of platitudes which serve no purpose other than to perhaps promote the particular political objectives of the tabler.

The motion is quite unnecessary. If there were any question as to the government's commitment to invest in culture and the arts, one would need look no further than the government's recent budget which provided an additional investment of $50 million into the Canada Council for the Arts. It also introduced tax exemptions that would help create a pool of donations to charities equal to approximately $300 million. It is also important to note that it was this government that dealt directly and effectively with Quebec's participation at UNESCO.

The timing and content of the motion do not bode well for the future work of the heritage committee. It is important to note that the motion does not emanate from the work of that committee. I perhaps had naively assumed that the work of our committee would be conducted in good faith with the interests of all Canadians at heart. I had assumed that the usual process of examination and review would be followed. Unfortunately, the motion appears to be a brazen attempt to circumvent the committee's mandate by reasserting a failed Liberal agenda.

If the motion passes, it places the work of the committee in a box. It implies that the minister and the committee members cannot be trusted to act in good faith and in the best interests of Canadians. Essentially, the motion renders useless any further work of the heritage committee. In that sense, it is vexatious and I ask members of this House not to support it.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his considered and cogent response to Bill C-9. At least he does not deny that the problem exists, unlike the party opposite.

I believe he shares a similar experience to mine. People on the street, people in our communities are very clear. They understand there is a problem with crime on our streets and it needs to be addressed.

I was encouraged to hear also a suggestion addressing the issue of profitability in crime. It is something that my community has tried to address through local safety and health regulations and bylaws. However, it is only one very small piece of the puzzle. Taking the profitability out of crime is not going to address issues such as gang crime, sexual assault, impaired driving, street racing and those sorts of offences.

However, my question for the member has to do with the fact that it seems he is inclined to support the bill except for a number of concerns that he has. Given the fact that the matter will be referred to committee, and he has indicated he will likely be working to massage the bill to make it more acceptable to himself and his party, could I at least get a commitment from him? Will he, in principle, support Bill C-9 as it relates to violent crimes and to addressing the issue of violent crimes within our communities?

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before I put my question I must share the sentiments of my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago. I am flabbergasted. I have never heard a defence of the indefensible as I have heard from the hon. member just now, which is probably why Canadians voted the corrupt Liberals out of office. The Liberals had totally run out of ideas and they lacked a sense of what the country needed, especially in the area of justice reform.

I encourage the member to visit with the residents of my community of Abbotsford and explain to them why we have rampant grow ops, why we have meth labs throughout our community and why the incidence of gun crime has been increasing at a rapid rate.

What is so common with the Liberals is that they selectively take statistics, twist those statistics, especially for lesser offences, and build a flimsy case, but they do not reflect the reality of what is happening in Canada.

Given that the member denies that Canada has a crime problem, will he confirm that his party is satisfied with the status quo?

[Child Care, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for Canada's new universal child care plan.

As I know from my own constituency, the child care option that is great for one family does not necessarily work for another. That is why our plan is founded on respect for parents' ability to choose what is right for their children.

By providing each Canadian family with $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six, Canada's universal child care benefit will support their freedom of choice in child care.

I am proud of our plan that incorporates the Canadian values of respect for diversity and universality.

The Liberals spent 13 long years promising a national child care program and never actually delivered. Our government's plan is a balanced approach that supports all families, irrespective of what form of child care they choose. We made a promise and we have delivered.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about the former government's grand plan for child care. I recall many elections ago when the same plan was being promoted. Was that plan delivered? No. Not one day care space was created by members opposite.

During the election, we made our plan clear. We were going to give families $1,200 per child, per annum, and that was going to be addressed fairly across all families. We delivered on that promise.

Having had 13 years to implement a day care program in Canada, why did she and her government never deliver on the promises they made repeatedly during election after election?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some encouragement from the hon. member's comments. He made the statement that taken as a whole, the budget is a positive step, a move in the right direction and that some of the concerns articulated by the Bloc have been addressed in this budget. He also referred to the fiscal imbalance and the fact that it certainly appears that our government is moving in the right direction in addressing that problem.

There was one thing which he did mention and it was a phrase he used which indicated that if the government in future budgets did not move to redistribute the wealth, his party would be compelled to vote against those future budgets. I am curious as to what he meant by that. For many Canadians it raises a red flag when terminology like that is used. Perhaps the member could comment on what he means by “redistribute the wealth”.

[The Environment, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, instead of reducing greenhouse gases, emissions in Canada actually increased by 30% under the Liberals' watch. Yet they are quick to condemn any plan for the environment other than their own.

This government on the other hand is serious about producing a workable plan to cut greenhouse gases. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell us why this government chose a made in Canada plan?

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to table a bill, which would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to provide tougher penalties for persons who use the Internet to lure children for sexual purposes. The maximum penalty for this crime would increase from five years to 10 years imprisonment. If passed, together with our government's Bill C-9, it will ensure that people who use the Internet to sexually exploit our children will spend hard time in jail, not life in the comfortable surroundings of their home.

Seventy-five per cent of Canadians use the Internet, many of these being children. Statistics show that in the past two years, luring of children over the Internet has increased an astounding 1,200%.

The bill is long overdue and is a significant first step in protecting our vulnerable children against sexual predators.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member railed on and on about corporate tax cuts. I am somewhat confused because 90% of the $20 billion of tax cuts, which Canadians will receive over the next two years, will go to families and individuals, not to corporations.

However, I would like to focus in on another suggestion the member made, and that had to do with environmental cuts. The member should not forget that the government was not elected to implement a failed Liberal agenda. The Conservative government was elected to implement a new made in Canada agenda.

We understand full well that the Minister of the Environment, her parliamentary secretary and her staff are working very hard to put the final touches on a made in Canada environmental policy. Why is the hon. member not patient enough to give us a little more time than about 100 days in the House to complete the job and ensure that it is done properly, unlike the way the previous Liberal government would have done it?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is the beauty of our universal child care credit program. It gives money. It puts cash into the pockets of Canadian families. It goes directly to the families that are affected. It is not going to the provinces to develop additional bureaucracies. This is money that families across Canada will get the benefit of immediately with the least amount of administration possible. I hope that answers the member's question because that was the purpose of that part of our budget. It is child care funding that goes directly to parents.