Ed Fast

[Liberal Members from British Columbia, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals have some explaining to do. British Columbia is the most underrepresented province in the country. Our MPs represent 15,000 more constituents than do MPs from other provinces. That is unacceptable.

We have acted after 13 long years of Liberal inaction. This week we introduced a law which increases the number of B.C. MPs by seven. Finally, British Columbia gets it fair share of seats. And the response has been overwhelming.

Premier Gordon Campbell praised our efforts by saying, “This is a non-partisan measure that strengthens democracy, and I hope all parties will support it”.

Yet, the federal Liberals, under their mad professor, are playing politics again. They oppose this legislation.

Where are B.C.'s federal Liberal MPs? Where are the MPs for Vancouver South, North Vancouver and Vancouver Centre? Nowhere to be seen. Why have B.C.'s Liberal MPs abandoned British Columbia? Weak leadership? Or because they put their own interests ahead of Canadians?

British Columbians can rest assured that our government puts their interests first. We are getting it done.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear my colleague begin his speech by referring to the fact that the most important role of government is to protect its citizens. I commend him for saying that but I think he went downhill from there.

He used to be on the opposition side of the House when the Liberals were in government and for years he railed against the Liberals for their inaction on crime. I had a chance to review some of his comments many years ago. And then something happened, although I do not know exactly what, but he crossed the floor and joined the governing Liberals of the day.

He spent a few years there and, over those years, violent crime got worse. In fact, Statistics Canada recently reported that not only did violent crimes in general get worse, but youth crimes went up by 3% and the number of youth accused of murder in 2006 was the highest in 40 years.

Given the fact that the Liberal policy of 13 long years failed, why will he not now give an opportunity to a new Conservative government to implement the kinds of criminal law policies that Canadians demand?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention. I very much appreciated working with him on the transport committee.

He knows full well that the issue of the remailers was actually discussed at committee on a number of occasions. In fact, we even had witnesses before our committee who testified about the impact that this particular industry would have on Canada Post.

We had a lot of discussion over this issue, and the hon. member also knows that this bill, when it is passed at second reading, will end up going back to committee where he will be able to make all the arguments and say whether his party is for or against this particular bill.

I think the hon. member over-complicates the matter. I will read the actual legislation itself. It basically refers to section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act being amended by adding the following:

The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

In other words, it is a very simple question and a very straightforward issue: Should remailers continue to be allowed to do business in Canada?

I do take issue with the hon. member's characterization of $50 million per year being taken away from Canada Post. In fact, he knows that is not true. The truth is that the $50 million has never been received by Canada Post because remailers have been doing business for some 20 years in Canada and continue to this very day to do business.

My question to the hon. member is, how can he claim that Canada Post is losing and will lose $50 million, or whatever the amount is, every year, when in fact it has never received that money?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Fort McMurray for his intervention and for explaining what this bill really does. I do not believe the Bloc and the NDP actually understand what the proposed legislation does. It actually involves one small clause which states:

The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

This does not in any way affect home delivery within Canada. I think that is pretty clear.

I would like to ask my colleague from Fort McMurray two questions. First, would he agree with me that the remailers are still doing business in Canada as they have done for the last 20 some years? Second, could he explain the context of this legislation and why it is we got to this point? Why is it that only two years ago suddenly Canada Post decided to take this to the courts to assert what had previously not been deemed an exclusive privilege, but today in accordance with that court ruling is deemed to be an exclusive privilege for Canada Post?

[Justice, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Justice tabled a bill that includes a mandatory prison sentence for criminals who profit from vulnerable drug addicts in our country. The proposed legislation also provides an exemption whereby a drug treatment court can suspend the mandatory prison sentence if the offender completes a recommended treatment program.

Could the minister explain the significance of this bill to our national anti-drug strategy?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I sense there was some misleading of the House when she suggested that women have equality of rights in Canada. I agree with that notion. The problem is with the previous 13 years of the Liberal regime. What happened under that regime? Did the Liberals ever move to extend human rights protection to the aboriginal women of our country? Of course not. Did they ever move to bring in legislation to ensure that aboriginal women finally had matrimonial property rights? Of course not.

Finally, I remind her that it is her party, the Liberals, who oppose our intervention in Afghanistan. This intervention ensures that women in Afghanistan now have the ability to live more freely, to start their own home based businesses, to live lives somewhat similar to what we have, with the freedoms that we enjoy.

Could she explain that?

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by my colleague from across the floor. What surprises me is that there is emphasis on focusing in on the welfare of aboriginal women, which we as a government take very seriously.

The member focused on all of the things that the Liberal Party is now promising to do for women across the country. However, it had 13 years in which to deliver. Did the Liberals actually deliver? No.

In two subsequent elections the Liberals made child care the lynchpin of their election platform. Once they were elected, they did not deliver. They did not create one child care space in Canada.

Now, when I hear them talking about help for aboriginal women and supporting them, I have to ask my hon. Liberal colleague: why is it if she has such an interest in supporting aboriginal women does she oppose extending human rights protection to aboriginal women? Why does she and her Liberal Party, the official opposition, oppose extending matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women? This is an inconsistency. I would appreciate hearing her answer on that.

[Sitting Resumed, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's absolute frustration with the Liberal record over 13 years. It clearly was a mess.

In election after election the old Liberal government promised that it would deliver a national child care program. It never happened. The Liberals made so many promises.

The Liberal member who just asked a question actually referred to the red book and wanted to avoid any responsibility for it. In fact, that red book is a legacy to the broken promises of the Liberal Party.

I also want to remind the member that it was actually this government that increased funding to women's programs in Canada. First, we did an efficiency review. We made sure that the money that was supposed to go to women was not going to high paid lobbyists, high paid lawyers, high paid consultants, but that it was going to the front line where women really needed the funds. That is where the money was redirected. On top of that, our government increased that funding by 42%, some $20 million over two years in budget 2007.

I would ask the member to comment on why she cannot support increasing funding for women's programs as we did in budget 2007.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am. It is not my intention to prolong this debate but I would like see it move forward to third reading. Therefore, I move that this question be now put.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are you resuming debate on the bill at this point in time?