Ed Fast

[Aerospace Industry, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday history was made when the NASA Phoenix Mars Lander touched down on Mars carrying Canada's meteorological station. This mission marks the first time Canadian technology has landed on the surface of another planet.

Canada has made critical contributions to the International Space Station, including Canadarm2, the Mobile Base System and, most recently, Dextre. Can the Minister of Industry tell us what this recent historic event means for the future of Canada's participation in space exploration?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his support of extending human rights legislation to our first nations, ensuring we have equality across the country.

It is really a sad comment on our country that we have delayed so long in extending human rights legislation to the first nations of our country.

I am glad he raised the issue of the non-derogation clause. The one included in the amendment is much broader, as he has already mentioned, than the “standard” non-derogation clause normally used in legislation of this kind.

Would he expand a little on that? Could he also explain how, in some practical ways, the legislation would enhance human rights on our first nations reserves?

[Museums, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, May 18 is International Museum Day. The theme for this year's celebration is “Museums as agents of social change and development”.

This year's theme is fitting because on March 13, the bill that established the Canadian Museum for Human Rights received royal assent. It is the first national museum outside the nation's capital.

In budget 2008 our government announced an additional $9 million over two years to assist the operating and infrastructure needs for the National Gallery of Canada, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the Canadian Museum of Nature.

International Museum Day gives us the opportunity to show our pride and celebrate Canada's heritage. This rich and multifaceted heritage is preserved in our museums and galleries across our country.

I encourage everyone to see an exhibit, take a guided tour and experience the wonders that our museums have to offer.

[Komagata Maru Incident, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this was certainly on the point. We are talking about a historical wrong and we are talking about Canada's historical record in not acting on this injustice.

The previous Liberal government did absolutely nothing to address this wrong. Our Conservative government is actually getting it done and the member on the Liberal side knows that. I would appreciate him refraining from interfering in the comments that I am making.

The Chinese Canadian community knows what it is like to watch the issue of a head tax fester while Liberal governments promised action and delivered absolutely nothing. In fact, previous Liberal governments even made the outrageous claim that they could not issue formal apologies for fear of the federal government attracting possible legal liability. What a cop-out.

Let me just briefly read one quote. This is from the current Liberal member of Parliament for Richmond, British Columbia, who was the secretary of state at the time. This is a quote from the National Post: “He says an apology and compensation are never going to happen, at least as long as the Liberals are in power”. Shame on them.

It was a Conservative government that finally provided meaningful redress to Japanese Canadians and to the Chinese on the Chinese head tax. It was a Conservative member of Parliament who pushed for a bill on behalf of Ukrainian Canadians to recognize the holodomor genocide, and it is our Conservative government that has taken the bull by the horns and is doing what should have been done many years ago. We are delivering a formal apology to the Indo-Canadian community for Canada's actions in turning away the Indian passengers of the Komagata Maru. I am proud to be part of such a government.

To summarize, I believe our Conservative government has shown true leadership in bringing this issue to a conclusion when previous governments were unable or unwilling to do so. It is my hope that the Komagata Maru tragedy will remain a reminder to Canadians of the fragile and tenuous nature of the rights and freedoms we enjoy, and so often take for granted. May we as a country be ever so vigilant to defend those values no matter what the cost.

[Komagata Maru Incident, May 15th, 2008]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that correction.

The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity announced that our government would issue a formal apology to at long last address a regrettable act that happened nearly 100 years ago.

This notice to deliver a formal apology represents the product of an ongoing process of dialogue with the Indo-Canadian community. In 2006 at the Gadri Babiyian Da Mela festival in Surrey, B.C. the Prime Minister acknowledged the lasting contribution that Indo-Canadians have made to our national prosperity and cultural diversity.

In that speech the Prime Minister acknowledged the Komagata Maru incident. He announced that our Conservative government would consult with the Indo-Canadian community on the best way to commemorate the sad chapter in our history. Shortly thereafter my colleague, the member Kootenay—Columbia, led public and private consultations on the infamous Komagata Maru incident.

These consultations included a total of 41 meetings with community leaders and organizations representing a broad cross-section of the Indo-Canadian community: professionals, community and business leaders, journalists and academics. Even descendants of passengers from the Komagata Maru were involved in the discussions.

The result was a strong call for the recognition of the hardships associated with the Komagata Maru incident. There was also a healthy discussion on the subject of what an appropriate official statement from the government might include. Most importantly, this process of dialogue led to one thing that has been lacking for almost 100 years: action to right a historical wrong.

At this point I need to ask a hard question: why did it take so long for us to get to where we are today?

The previous Liberal government had 13 long years to provide a meaningful response to the Komagata Maru incident, yet did absolutely nothing but raise false hopes and expectations, and disappoint the Indo-Canadian community. The hard truth is that on this vital issue of historical injustice the former Liberal government had the chance to do the right thing and simply did not get the job done.

I know that this could be said about many issues on which the previous government dithered, delayed and did nothing, yet on an issue of historical injustice, one would expect an expedited response. None was forthcoming from previous Liberal governments.

[Komagata Maru Incident, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege for me to add my comments to the debate on Motion No. 469. The motion calls for Canada to formally apologize for the Komagata Maru incident which took place many years ago.

The proposed apology is of great importance to many of my constituents in Abbotsford. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Abbotsford is home to some 26,000 residents of Indian origin, the majority of them from the province of Punjab in India. Most of them are recent immigrants or are the children and grandchildren of immigrants from India. They are hard-working, creative and entrepreneurial, and place a high value on caring for their extended families.

Canada has a well deserved reputation as being one of the world's most inclusive societies. We value our multicultural fabric and vigorously defend our personal freedoms, democratic traditions, basic human rights and, of course, the rule of law. However, this was not always so.

Today, our government is called upon to acknowledge and apologize for a grievous wrong inflicted on a group of would be immigrants, whose only desire was to build a better life for themselves and their families. I speak, of course, of the Komagata Maru incident. That tragic event represents one of the few dark chapters in Canada's otherwise illustrious history.

The Komagata Maru was a Japanese steamship that, in 1914, sailed from Hong Kong to Vancouver carrying 376 passengers from the Punjab in India. When the ship arrived in Canada, only 24 of the passengers were allowed to disembark. The remainder, although they were all British subjects, were not allowed to land because of Canada's racist exclusion laws and rules intended to keep Asians from entering Canada.

Although the decision to turn away this group of immigrants may have been technically legal at the time, in hindsight, most of us would agree that the decision was discriminatory. It was common knowledge that these exclusion laws were only applied to Indian immigrants.

However, that is not the end of the story. The refusal by Canadian authorities to allow the passengers of that ship to land had tragic consequences for the passengers. In fact, 20 of the passengers were killed and 9 injured during a riot that followed the ship's return to India.

Despite this tragic affair, what is remarkable is that hundreds of thousands of people from the Indian subcontinent have continued to make Canada their adoptive home. Today, Canada's Indo-Canadian community has grown to about three-quarters of a million people. They have been instrumental in helping us build a vibrant economy and an immensely tolerant society. They have become an important part of the multicultural mosaic that we as Canadians are so proud of today.

It has been said that those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them. Let this not be the experience of our great country. It is for that reason that I am pleased to say that our government is taking action to address this stain upon our national history. Last week, the hon. Jason Kenney, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity--

[International Aid, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the people of China and Burma are suffering terribly in the aftermath of two tragic natural disasters. Canada responded immediately with an initial $2 million to help the people of Burma when the cyclone hit. The unparalleled devastation in Burma has brought donor countries together to aid the victims of this tragedy.

Could the Minister of International Cooperation update the House on our government's commitment to the victims in Burma and China?.

[Committees of the House, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to the debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The report essentially recommends that the House not proceed further with Bill C-327.

Bill C-327 proposes to introduce tougher regulations to regulate violence in television broadcasts. I will read the salient portion of the bill, which happens to be section 10.1(1). It states:

The Commission shall make regulations respecting the broadcasting of violent scenes, including those contained in programs intended for persons under the age of 12 years.

Although this was promoted as a bill that would protect children against TV violence, the actual wording within the legislation was much broader than that. It would give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the power to institute regulations that would essentially censor violent programs on television.

Members of committee devoted a great deal of time to hearing from witnesses on the issue of media violence. Almost without exception, they gave the same clear message, and that was while well intentioned, the bill was not the right vehicle to address violence on television. In fact, it just simply was not going to work.

I want to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for bringing the bill forward. I share his underlying motives in addressing this issue. We all want to see violence on television decrease, especially where it relates to children's programming.

When I first heard about the bill, my first response was that I could support it. Why would anyone not support a reduction in violence in children's programming on television, except perhaps those who profit from it? However, as I looked more closely at the legislation, I realized it was deeply flawed.

What would the bill do? As I mentioned, it would give the CRTC broad new regulatory authority to make regulations on violent programming on television.

What did the committee determine after it had listened to the witnesses? The witnesses gave evidence that even though studies showed there was a connection between TV violence and the acting out of violent acts in society, there was a similar body of evidence that seemed to contradict it. In other words, the jury is still out as to whether there is a connection between TV violence and violence in our society. I tend to agree with those who say there is a connection, but the evidence before committee was not clear. It was ambiguous.

Some witnesses also raised the issue of censorship. The proponent of the bill went to great lengths to try to show that this was not about censorship, but virtually every witness who appeared before us, when directly asked by myself and others on the committee, said that it was a form of censorship.

Some of the concerns they raised centred around where would we stop. Are we no longer allowed to see boxing on TV, or programs such as 24, or Prison Break or even ice hockey, because ice hockey sometimes has fights? Is that too violent? We get into that whole discussion.

We already have restrictions on violence in Canada. The Criminal Code outlines what types of violent acts shown in broadcast programs are unacceptable. Beyond that, the CRTC has not interfered in what is shown on TV because TV broadcasters themselves have adopted their own code and standards of broadcasting, which address violence on TV.

We see warnings on TV telling viewers that a violent program is coming up, or the program is going to include adult content. Those warnings are there as a result of the industry agreeing to comply with its own code. There are those who say that is only a voluntary set of standards. In fact, it is not voluntary, even though the word voluntary is used. The conditions of licence require broadcasters to comply with that code.

What is really remarkable is that we did something in committee that we do not do too often. We invited children to address us and to share their views on television violence. They came up with some interesting information. First, they talked about the changing face of media, such things as the Internet, podcasting and personal video recorders. These are technologies that allow children and adults to view broadcast material in many different ways. They also talked about the multichannel universe, the 500 channel universe, where someone in Vancouver could be watching television during family hour, say at 7 o'clock in the evening, and they could be watching a program that is being broadcast in eastern Canada during hours when adult programming would be shown.

They also talked about the V-chip and, remarkably, none of the children at the committee said that their parents had ever invested or installed a V-chip on their televisions. They also talked about how little parental supervision there really was over what they watched on TV or viewed on the Internet.

When we collectively took the information that came from the witnesses, there was a very clear consensus that further regulation and censorship of TV would not work. It was not that there are limitations that might be suitable. The problem is that with a changing technological environment, those limitations are almost useless, because children view their programming in many different ways that are not subject to restrictions.

We also heard that when parents closely supervise what their children watch on TV, those children give more thought about the programs they watch. I can speak from personal experience. I am the father of four daughters. As they were growing up, we were very involved in their lives. We would not allow them to play video games. It was just a choice we made. We invested in music lessons. The same applied to TV.

We made sure that whatever they watched on television or whatever videos they watched were appropriate to their age. We intervened in their lives and I believe their lives today reflect that. I encourage parents to take responsibility for their children because, ultimately, it is not the government, not the nanny state, that is responsible for children. It is not teachers and it is not the media literacy groups. It is parents themselves who have the best opportunity of intervening and protecting their children against violent programming that they should not be watching.

What are the solutions? I have already mentioned media literacy groups. These are groups in our society who actually teach children and parents about some of the strategies that they can employ to ensure the programming their children watch is wholesome.

Parental involvement I have also mentioned and ensuring we engage in the lives of our children. The V-chip is modern technology that we can use to ensure that violent programming is not brought into our homes where our children would be exposed to it.

We also have the role of the broadcasters. They already have a so-called voluntary code of conduct that addresses the whole issue of violence on television. From all accounts, that set of standards is working well.

The chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission also suggested a number of other things and the most important of those was the suggestion that our government introduce the right to impose administrative monetary penalties on those broadcasters who actually violate the standards that they have accepted as a condition of licence. We have accepted that as an excellent suggestion and we will be suggesting to the government that it move forward with introducing an intermediate set of administrative monetary penalties that will allow the commission to penalize those who actually do not follow the rules that are set for broadcasting violent programs on television.

That is why I support the committee's recommendation not to proceed with Bill C-327. It was not carefully thought out and it does amount to censorship. From the witness testimony, it was clear that it would not actually achieve the result that it was intended to achieve.

[China, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have watched with horror the destruction caused by the recent earthquake in China. The massive loss of life is truly staggering. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs expand further on what action Canada can take to assist during this very difficult period?

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed more bafflegab from the NDP. Canadians know that the NDP will never form government in Canada so it can continue to make promise after promise without ever having to deliver on those promises. It can also afford to bash Albertans and the jobs it generates for this country because it does not hold any seats there and it never will.

This climate change accountability act is a bill that is so poorly drafted that nothing less than a total rewrite could salvage it. However, a total rewrite of Bill C-377 is not what Canadians are asking for and it is not the solution to addressing the challenges of climate change.

Canadians and the international community want to see this government take action, not Liberal rhetoric, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, action that was sorely missing during 13 long years of Liberal indifference toward the environment.

Our government recognizes that the time for endless studies and argument is over, which is why our government introduced its turning the corner action plan in April 2007. That plan will see absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions of 20% by the year 2020 for the first time ever in Canada.

Our targets are among the toughest in the world, and what is remarkable is that we are the only country to tackle greenhouse gases and air pollutants together. I will explain why that is important.

Air pollution has the most immediate short term impact on the health of Canadians. My daughter suffers from asthma and around June and July of every year, when the pollens come up, she suffers from asthma. Those events in her life are sometimes quite a struggle. Millions of Canadians suffer from pollution related diseases. Our government is not only tackling greenhouse gas emissions, we are also addressing the issue of air pollution and that is why it is important to connect those two.

Under the capable leadership of our Prime Minister, we have put our money where our mouth is. Since October 2006, our government has invested almost $9 billion in programs and initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that will not only benefit the environment but improve the health of all Canadians.

We are putting in place a regulatory framework with mandatory and enforceable targets that will ensure reductions in greenhouse emissions in the industrial sector. For the first time ever in Canada, we actually have targets that will be regulated.

This will be the first time a Canadian federal government has ever taken such action. Previous Liberal governments had the opportunity to take that action. They talked a big game but when it came to actually delivering they failed Canadians miserably.

The bill states that its purpose is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Without a doubt, our Conservative government agrees that Canada needs to take further action to tackle this complex challenge and we are committed to doing just that, however, this bill would not help us to achieve those objectives.

The major issue is that this bill has targets that are unachievable and unrealistic. In fact, if the Liberals were honest they would accept that because for nine years, since the Kyoto accord was signed, they had an opportunity to implement targets that were enforceable and mandatory. Did they get it done? No. It was an abject failure of leadership on the part of the previous Liberal government.

I know I will have a few more minutes to speak later on this but this is about being responsible and addressing the environment in Canada. We as a Conservative government are getting it done. Shame on the Liberals.