Ed Fast

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer that question.

Had the hon. member been listening, I reminded my colleagues in the House that four provinces actually have exactly the same wording that we are proposing in Bill C-10. Three others have similar wording and all hope to achieve the same goal.

If in fact the legislation would violate some human rights legislation in Canada, surely there would have been challenges in some of the other jurisdictions.

I also remind the member that this matter has been before the House. He had an opportunity to address this matter at committee, if he had chosen to do so. He did not raise the issue of human rights.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in this debate on Bill C-10. My sole purpose today is to correct the public record regarding this bill.

As we know, Bill C-10 is a very specific amendment to the Income Tax Act and it clarifies our government's support for the Canadian film production industry. The bill simply permits the federal government to refuse to issue film tax credits where there are sound public policy reasons for doing so.

Regrettably, the debate has been muddied by unfair and inaccurate information emanating primarily from the opposition parties in this House.

From the outset, let me correct the public record by saying that, unlike what has been suggested this past week, the indisputable fact is that this proposal did not even originate with our current Conservative government. For anyone willing to actually examine the issue, it is abundantly clear that this proposed legislation originated with previous Liberal governments, going back to 1995.

As this fact seems to have escaped some of my conspiracy theory colleagues on the opposition benches, it might be helpful to review the historical record of this legislation.

As I have just stated, the very first time a previous Liberal government suggested a public policy limitation on the certification of films or video productions was back in 1995, some 13 years ago. The original release of the draft film tax credit regulations by the previous Liberal government provided discretion to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to refuse eligibility for film or video tax credits if the provision of public financial assistance--in other words, taxpayers' hard-earned dollars--would, in the opinion of the minister, be “contrary to public policy”.

Then again in 2002, the federal Department of Justice recommended to the then Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that such ministerial discretion be authorized in the Income Tax Act. In response, some amendments to the Income Tax Act were released for consultation by John Manley, who at that time was the Liberal minister of finance.

These amendments created a ministerial discretion to deny assistance to a film or video production on the grounds that granting such assistance would be “contrary to public policy”, exactly the wording that is in today's Bill C-10.

At the conclusion of that consultation period, final amendments were published on November 14, 2003. They were published jointly by then Minister Manley and the then Liberal minister of Canadian heritage, Sheila Copps, including the following provision:

“Canadian film or video production certificate” means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that

public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy.

That provision released by the previous Liberal government is exactly the same provision, verbatim and word for word, that is included in the current Bill C-10, which we are debating today.

I would also like to quote a Liberal government news release that was issued jointly in 2003 by both John Manley and Sheila Copps. It stated:

Today's proposal results from ongoing consultations with all sectors of the film industry, which were undertaken by the Departments of Finance and Canadian Heritage....

To those in the film and television community who now plead ignorance to the introduction of these amendments, let me read a portion of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association press release from November 2003, a release that was still posted on its website the last time I looked, for all the world to see. It stated:

After almost three years of complex negotiations, the Department of Finance and Department of Canadian Heritage unveiled draft amendments to the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit, which affects Canadian content production....

“This is going to help a lot of producers, and it's exactly what the industry needs right now. Making Canadian shows and films is tough in the current international markets. While financing is never easy, this is what the doctor ordered”, says Guy Mayson, acting president and CEO, Canadian Film and Television Production Association.

Everybody bought in when a Liberal government was in place.

I encourage people to go to that website and check out that news release. Anyone who reads the press release will note the absence of any serious concern with the discretionary power afforded under Bill C-10. There is nothing about censorship, nothing about it potentially devastating the industry.

As I have stated, these very amendments are now included in Bill C-10. In fact, the bill before us was first introduced in the last session of Parliament as Bill C-33.

In that previous session the bill had completed third reading in the House of Commons with all party support: NDP, Bloc, Liberal and Conservative. Of course, that session came to an end and the bill died on the order paper.

When the second session started, the bill was introduced as Bill C-10 and again received unanimous support from all parties in the House. It passed at second reading, went to committee, came back for third reading, and now it is in the Senate.

During that long process, the bill has been thoroughly reviewed time and time again by the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc, both in this House and at the House and Senate committees. No objections were raised by parliamentarians from any opposition party, Liberal, NDP or Bloc, or even by film or television industry representatives.

Let me be perfectly clear. From November 2006 until very recently no expressions of concern regarding the amendment were raised. There were no fears regarding censorship or devastation of the industry. This is an industry all parliamentarians are proud of and want to thrive, an industry that not only serves a vital cultural role in Canada but an important economic role as well.

That is the history of Bill C-10. I trust that I have been able to dispel once and for all the absurd notion that the bill is a secret plan to introduce censorship. It is just not true.

Quite frankly, I am offended by that suggestion coming from the opposition parties. This is their bill. They introduced it. They thoroughly reviewed it a number of times. They approved it not once, not twice, but at least three times. In fact, this Liberal proposal goes back 13 years.

Now that I have firmly established the Liberal origins of the bill, I would like to turn to the central question. Why is it that both previous and current federal governments support this legislation?

Let me first note that restrictions on funding eligibility for films are not uncommon in cultural policy. Throughout the years most federal funding programs that support cultural works have included guidelines stating that certain materials, such as hate propaganda, excessively violent material, or pornography, is not eligible for government assistance. Most taxpayers find that eminently sensible. Somehow today, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, who used to support this legislation, do not find it eminently sensible.

In the same way, Bill C-10 addresses only the most extreme and objectionable of film and video productions. What Bill C-10 does not do is in any way ban or restrict cultural productions which are privately funded.

We simply want to ensure that public funds, in other words taxpayers' hard earned dollars, are not invested in productions which are highly objectionable and offensive in their content. In fact, Bill C-10 simply implements long established practices in this regard.

For example, I note that four Canadian provinces have exactly the same wording in their film tax regimes as does our bill and three additional provinces employ very similar concepts, yet the Liberals and the Bloc and the NDP have not been jumping up and down about those jurisdictions having implemented this kind of legislation.

Despite the histrionics from the opposition parties, the Canadian film and television industry can be assured that it has the strong support of our Conservative government, especially the support of our fine Minister of Canadian Heritage. Canadian producers will continue to have great flexibility in the kind of productions they want to produce.

In short, the bill has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with ensuring that taxpayers receive good value for the productions that they and their tax dollars subsidize.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, after hearing the Liberal member speak, I have never heard so much condemnation of so much good news. There has been a reduction in taxes of over $200 billion over five years. That never happened under a Liberal government.

The hon. member of all people is now castigating this budget. Why would she and her Liberal Party either vote against it or sit on their duffs when this matter comes forward for debate in the House?

[Business of Supply, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague for intervening on this very important subject.

Just to review, the motion before us today is the motion from the Liberal member for West Nova who is a member of the ethics committee, as is my colleague. The problem is that the motion wants the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to move forward before there is a final report from the ethics committee.

It was the understanding of most in the House and most Canadians that Professor Johnston had recommended that a final report be delivered before an inquiry move forward.

My Conservative colleague knows that the member for West Nova, today in the House, made a startling accusation, which I do not believe is true, that somehow our Conservative government is implicated in the Schreiber affair. However, I have not seen any evidence to that effect.

Since the hon. member for Peterborough actually participated in the committee hearings at the ethics committee, he is probably in the best position to advise the House whether there was any evidence to show that the current government was implicated in the Schreiber affair.

[Points of Order, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and do so very reluctantly because it involves another member of this House.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, before question period there is a 15-minute period in which we as members have the opportunity to make statements about matters that are dear to our heart. It often involves issues in our riding. Sometimes it involves issues that we are dealing with in this House. We are given one minute to express our views on those issues.

I sit here in my seat right next to another member of the House, the member for Charlottetown. I am a Conservative member of this House. He is a Liberal member of this House. I often disagree with his views. He often disagrees with mine.

However, when we are given an opportunity to make member's statements, it is a one minute opportunity and we typically do not interfere with the ability of the microphones in this House to pick up those comments.

Yesterday I made a one minute statement in the House where I praised the fact that the tackling violent crime act had been passed finally. I expressed my view that it had taken much too long, there had been a lot of delay from the Liberals and the NDP in this House, but finally that act had passed.

During my statement the member for Charlottetown started heckling. I know most of us heckle in this House from time to time and we do it in a good-natured way. However, yesterday he leaned over the microphone which is on his desk and is supposed to pick up my voice, but he leaned over so far it was almost as though he were choking on it, as though he were swallowing it. No one in this House could hear what I was saying. As you know, Mr. Speaker, these proceedings are broadcast across Canada and my statement was not heard.

There is something even more disconcerting about the member for Charlottetown's behaviour. During his comments, as he was leaning over the microphone and trying to interfere with my statement, on five occasions in reference to the former prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, he said the following words, “hang Mulroney”. On two occasions he said “put a noose around his neck”.

That kind of language is unparliamentary under the best of circumstances. It was shameful behaviour on the part of my colleague in this House, the member for Charlottetown.

I would request that the member offer an unconditional apology for those remarks, as well as an apology for interfering with my statement. I have never leaned over his microphone to interfere. I will heckle from time to time, as most of us do, but we do it in a good natured way.

I would ask that you review the audio and the video tapes of yesterday's proceedings during statements by members and then determine whether an apology is warranted. I certainly believe an apology is warranted. Clearly it was shameful behaviour on the part of a member of this House.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for Canadians. Yesterday the Senate finally passed our tackling violent crime act. After delays and stonewalling by Liberal senators, the will of Canadians has triumphed.

Our Conservative government has delivered a tough on crime package that every Canadian can cheer about. The new law changes the way dangerous offenders are sentenced. It forces gun criminals to serve real time in prison. For repeat violent offenders, revolving door justice is over. Those who sexually exploit our children will pay a heavy price.

This law is about respecting victims, protecting our children and holding dangerous criminals accountable for their crimes.

What is more, we have just announced funding for 2,500 more police officers and for significant improvements to our prison system.

I want Canadians to know that our government will not stop fighting to make Canada safer. I know the Liberals and the NDP are not happy, but today Canadians across the country are saying bravo.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the remarkable things about the work going on in Afghanistan. Six years ago, women were not even allowed to leave their homes without being in the company of their husbands or fathers. Today there is much more freedom to do the kinds of things required to build a successful democratic society that also defends human rights.

I am so pleased to see how even our international community and our Canadian NGOs are prepared to go into Afghanistan, risk their lives and do the kind of humanitarian work and reconstruction that give the Afghanis real hope for the future.

I am so pleased that the member shares my views on this mission. She strongly supports it, as I do. I trust that other members of the House will look through all the rhetoric and will understand what is at stake with the motion before us today.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the failings of the previous government.

What I want to do is ask this individual, why is he prepared to abandon women and children, abandon the poor and the marginalized in Afghanistan who are going to be taken advantage of if the Taliban ever returns?

We can talk about peace and diplomacy, but without being able to provide the security that Afghanistan needs, that the women, children and marginalized deserve and need, there is no point in discussing ongoing efforts to develop dialogues with the various tribes and stakeholders in Afghanistan.

My question is rhetorical because the member is not allowed to answer, but how can he justify taking our troops out of Afghanistan and leaving the women and children to their own devices? It does not make any sense to me.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member referred to the Manley report as being a balanced report. That is true. What we are doing is tying reconstruction to security. Of course, we add to that the whole issue of diplomacy. We need to make sure that Afghanistan is a sustainable democracy in the long run.

I want to suggest to the member that as we move forward with providing the kind of reconstruction the Afghan people need, it is truly going to take a joint effort of all of the nations involved. As the member knows there are some 37 nations participating in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of them are involved in areas where there is little, if any, conflict.

Canada is serving in Kandahar, one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister, our defence minister, our foreign affairs minister have all stated very clearly that it is time that others also take up some of that heavy work and do the heavy lifting required.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to engage in the debate on an issue that is of great importance to Canadians.

It has been said that this may be the most important debate that is taking place during the 39th Parliament. Why is that so? This debate is not about criminal justice in Canada. It is not about our economy. It is about Canada's place in the world and whether we will stand up and defend those Canadian values of freedom, democracy and human rights, not only at home but around the world.

Before I proceed, I want to pay a special tribute to the fine men and women serving our country overseas. Whether they are serving in the military, providing development assistance or strengthening the Afghan economy, they are making all Canadians proud of their accomplishments. The dedication and courage shown by them is an example of how to succeed under very trying circumstances. Their deeds have started to build a legacy that now needs to be strengthened even more.

Every day members of our armed forces put their lives on the line. In fact, my city of Abbotsford has experienced loss. Master Corporal Colin Bason died in Afghanistan serving our country, serving our community and, by all accounts, he understood the mission in Afghanistan and supported it. He believed in that mission and was prepared to lay down his life for that mission.

It has been said that this is a Canadian mission, and that is true, but it is also a mission that is sponsored by the United Nations. We have gone to Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO. This is not a Liberal or a Conservative mission, although it was the previous Liberal government that sent our troops to Afghanistan, that actually moved them from Kabul to Kandahar and put them in harm's way without imposing any conditions on that, not even a condition on rotation.

Today we have to re-examine that mission and ask, are we still doing the job we were sent to do? To do that we asked the hon. John Manley and a group of other distinguished Canadians to come together to investigate our role in Afghanistan to determine what successes are there, where the challenges are still great, and to provide a report.

That panel provided a report that we now commonly know as the Manley report. That report strongly supported continuing our mission in Afghanistan with a number of conditions.

We as a government have generally accepted those recommendations that were contained in the report. A number of those conditions were that we provide our troops with better equipment to make sure that they are better equipped to do the job they are supposed to do there, that they are better protected against the risks that are inherent in Afghanistan. We are also committed to making sure that they have more human resources; in other words, more military personnel to provide them with the support that they need.

We have also told them that we would like to have an end date for this mission, that we are working toward 2011 to make sure that the Afghan army is equipped to do the job itself; in other words, to provide the very security that it needs to rebuild the country into a vibrant democracy.

There has been much consideration given to whether this should be a peacekeeping mission or some other kind of mission. I want to remind the members of the House that before we could ever keep the peace, we have to make the peace.

Our focus in Afghanistan is to build a lasting peace for Afghans so that they can build their fledgling democracy, so that they can enjoy some of those fundamental human rights that all of us as Canadians take for granted, and that sometimes requires the use of force.

To suggest that Canada's history has always been one of peacekeeping misunderstands our history. We have to look back to world wars one and two, to the Korean conflict, to see that when required, Canadians stood for what was right and were prepared to make the sacrifices to make our world a better place to live, to defend democracy, to defend freedom around the world.

What are our successes there? I do not have an unlimited amount of time to regale the House with the successes we have had in Afghanistan. However, it has been repeated many times before in the House that today six million children in Afghanistan attend school. Six years ago there were 650,000 and none of them were girls. Today some two million girls attend school in Afghanistan. For democracy to flourish we need a strong education system even in Afghanistan.

We have improved basic health care dramatically for the Afghans. We have built thousands of miles of roads. We have actually encouraged the Afghans to start their own small businesses. In fact, the micro-loan program that our government sponsors through CIDA and through other Canadian NGOs has been a remarkable success. It is my understanding that there are some 350,000 new businesses that have been started up in Afghanistan.

I want to take note of one organization. It is the Mennonite Economic Development Associates, called MEDA. It is a Canadian NGO that is actually providing micro-finance loans to the Afghans so that they can start their own businesses. For example, a mother can purchase a small commercial oven and start baking, providing not only for her family but goods to sell in the open market, so that she can support her family and also grow the economy.

These are Canadian organizations that are doing this great work in Afghanistan, but they cannot do it without having the security that our armed forces provide. Let us make no mistake about it. Without security, the rebuilding, the reconstruction, even the diplomacy could not work in Afghanistan.

Therefore, I am proud of the role Canada is playing. It is not only our armed forces. It is all the NGOs who are sacrificing and risking their lives there to make it a better place for the Afghans to live in.

I think we also have to remember that there are some 20 million Afghans who have thrown their lot in with our international community. As the House knows, Afghanistan now has a democratically elected president. He and his government have asked us to remain in Afghanistan because the alternative is unthinkable. To leave the Afghans without any security and just give the country back to the Taliban would be a mess. What a disaster that would be.

I hear talk from the NDP and the Bloc saying that we need to get our troops out of there. Yet, these very parties are the ones who claim to represent women. They claim to represent children, the marginalized, the poor and the disabled. However, if we withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, what will Afghans be left with? They will be living in fear of the Taliban.

Make no mistake about it. If the Taliban return to Afghanistan, it will be an international chaotic situation. Have we not learned our lessons from Rwanda? We need to provide the Afghans with the resources necessary to provide for their own security.

I am very encouraged by the position that our government has taken and the courage that our government and the Prime Minister have shown in stepping up to the plate and saying that we will not abandon Afghanistan.

The security created by our military presence in that region provides the needed protection to do the work that is required of us to make sure that Afghanistan has a bright future, to make sure the children there can look to us and count on us and to say, “We have depended on you. We have thrown in our lot with you. We have trusted you to complete the job at hand”.

Today we are debating that particular mission. I encourage all members of the House to take seriously not only those Canadians who have already given their lives in defence of human values around the world but to take into consideration the risk that we impose on Afghanistan women, men, children, the disabled and the marginalized if we abandon them in this their time of need.