Ed Fast

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments in the House. What disturbed me is his reference to the government's anti-crime agenda, our efforts to make our communities and streets safer as being neo-conservative.

Yet had he listened to his own leader's comments, the response to the throne speech, his own leader referred to and claimed that he was supporting five of our six initiatives in our anti-crime legislation.

Is the hon. member accepting that in fact his own leader supports the so-called neo-conservative agenda of our government and yet he himself opposes it? He should bring some clarity to the question.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention but, of course, I disagree with him profoundly. It is interesting that at committee stage even the Bloc members initially opposed our legislation, but once they understood what it was about, once we introduced some amendments, and once they were able to introduce some amendments, we actually came to a consensus and realized this legislation was good for Canada and aviation.

One of the things the member just mentioned was his concern about this being a disaster waiting to happen. I believe he talked about moving in a direction that will be disastrous. Then he referred to privatization. There is nothing in this bill that I can see that refers to privatization, nothing.

I challenge the member. He is not a member of the committee and may misunderstand certain parts of the legislation, but if he is speaking in the House today I am sure he has read through the legislation. I would challenge him to point me to the sections which actually move Canadian aviation in the direction of privatization, move the whole issue of safety management into the private sphere. I do not see it. Maybe he does.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is the organization that represents all the major airlines around the world, gave testimony at the committee. When asked where Canada stands in terms of aviation safety, the response was that Canada is the leader. When we asked what safety management systems are going to do to our already excellent record, the ICAO said that they would just enhance it considerably. In fact, safety management systems are being implemented in the United States and around the world. Canada is one of the leaders and this legislation is leading legislation.

What is also remarkable is that not only does ICAO support it, not only does Transport Canada support this legislation, not only do the airlines support this legislation, but the two airline pilots associations that appeared before committee strongly support SMS. They wanted to make sure that there was strong regulatory oversight. The amendments that we adopted at the committee, as the members will know, do exactly that. We are not trying to bail out of our responsibility as government. We are insisting that we move forward to enhance aviation safety, not move backward.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at the committee there was some confusion about the number of inspectors that Canada had in the past and the number that we have today.

Initially the suggestion came from the NDP, the Bloc and a couple of the witnesses that supposedly at one time there were 1,400 inspectors. That number had gone down to somewhere around the 750 mark. In fact, later on, evidence at the committee, as the member knows, showed very clearly that of the 1,400, a very significant number had been reclassified. They were still in the system. In fact, the evidence at the end of our committee meetings made it clear that if anything, the number of inspectors that are in place today is higher than it was 10 years ago. We have not in any way taken away from that.

I wanted to point out to the member that when we were discussing the amendments at committee, we acknowledged that there was a clear role for the minister to oversee aviation. We introduced an amendment that the minister shall continue to carry out inspections of the aeronautical activities of holders of Canadian aviation documents.

We are not saying that the designated organizations are going to take over the role of government. The amendments that we accepted at committee make that very clear. At no point in time do we ever want to compromise aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to actually enhance aviation safety considerably.

When we heard evidence from international organizations, such as ICAO, they confirmed that Canada is a leader in aviation safety and it is a leader in implementing SMS. The world is looking to us as the model to follow. I think that is encouraging news for the member. I encourage him to support this legislation.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-6, which is clearly a bill that would lead to improved aviation safety in our country.

Once we cut through all the rhetoric we hear in this House, the bill would move us a huge step forward in improving the safety of aviation in Canada. As a member of the transportation committee, I had a chance to hear all the witnesses who appeared before us, and there were many of them. They represented the different aspects of the industry. They represented, of course, Judge Moshansky, who was involved in an earlier inquiry into the Dryden tragedy.

What came out very clearly from all the witnesses, even those who were perhaps opposed to the direction in which this bill was going, was that if we pushed them far enough, the witnesses would admit that safety management systems are a good thing for the aviation industry. SMS, as we call it, clearly improves safety. It is another level of safety that we superimpose upon the already existing regulatory and enforcement framework.

When we were at the committee, the members of the committee know that, as a result of the testimony of the witnesses, we as a government brought forward amendments, as did the other parties, the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Quite frankly, I believe we were able to accommodate most of them because all of us had a common goal: to ensure that aviation safety in Canada is improved.

The committee also heard from representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization. When asked what Canada's record in civil aviation safety was, they said that Canada was the leader in aviation safety. When asked where Canada was in terms of implementing SMS, they said that Canada was the leader in adopting SMS, which is a good thing. It is not a bad thing, as the NDP would have us believe.

We heard a lot of rhetoric in this House several minutes ago about how this legislation was essentially a get out of jail free card, that this legislation was full of holes and that it would actually lead to a reduction of current safety levels. That is not true.

One of the big objections was the suggestion that this bill and the safety management systems were, in effect, self-regulation or deregulation of the industry. In other words, the suggestion was that the government was washing its hands of the whole safety issue when it came to aircraft. However, that is not the case at all.

A number of very good suggestions were made at the committee and we as a government said that they were excellent suggestions. To ensure there was no doubt that we still had a strong regulatory oversight, we agreed to amendments that were brought forward by the other parties and other members of the committee that would ensure there was no step backward, that the existing enforcement mechanisms would still be in place, and that superimposed on that would be the safety management systems that each organization would need to adopt.

The beauty of safety management systems is that we are now empowering companies, airlines, small aircraft operators and their employees to identify safety concerns and report those on a non-punitive basis. That means that if I, as an employee of an airline, find that someone missed a bolt here or someone else did not do the work correctly on the aircraft, I can report that and not worry about being punished for that.

It is quite clear from the evidence that we heard at committee that implementing SMS and engaging the front line workers in the airline and aviation industry will lead to an increase in the number of reports made about safety issues by 400% to 500%. That is excellent news.

The other thing is that the new authority in the Aeronautics Act will not allow the minister to abdicate his oversight responsibility to an industry body. These designated organizations will be allowed to monitor the activity of a specific segment of the industry, but only in those areas that represent a low level risk in relation to aviation safety.

I would like to address a number of the motions that have been brought forward by the NDP. Unfortunately, as usual, NDP members had an opportunity at committee to bring forward amendments. The amendments were defeated, or the NDP members did not think of them. Now after the fact, the bill is back before the House and they want to bring these same motions forward again.

There is a process in place. If a specific issue has not been addressed when the bill is at committee, surely this is not the place to bring it up, unless it is of critical importance. Quite frankly, all the critical issues were dealt with at committee. We came to a consensus with all of the opposition parties, notwithstanding that the NDP in the end opposed it.

For example, the first motion brought forward by the NDP has the effect of limiting the definition of a violation to mean only a contravention of the act or of an instrument, and would therefore create a void since it would exclude a security measure and an emergency direction. More important, the impact of the motion would be to remove the minister's ability to issue an administrative monetary penalty for contravention of a security measure or emergency direction. That is why we do not support this motion.

There is another motion which eliminates the regulatory authority of the Minister of Transport to require designated organizations to carry insurance. During committee discussions this motion was presented, but it was not approved. All concerns in regard to designated organizations were adequately addressed. Where? At the committee. They are found in the reprinted version of the bill.

Furthermore, there was also an amendment that the committee would review designated organizations in three years. We are going to live up to that commitment. That is good. That is healthy for aviation safety.

A third motion, again that we as the government oppose, came from the NDP and it deletes the substance of Bill C-6. It is trying to essentially remove clause 12 which contains important amendments that introduce the concept of designated organizations, in other words, organizations that industry can work through to ensure that safety measures are being implemented throughout the industry.

This clause also deals with expanding the enabling authority for management systems. Everyone, including international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, have determined that these amendments are an important step in advancing safety.

Canada has been called a leader, as I mentioned earlier. To carry this motion would be a cause for embarrassment with countries that are following our lead. Our lead is one that leads to greater, not less, aviation safety within our country.

There is a fourth motion the NDP brought forward which again we oppose. It is similar to the previous one. It is deleting all sections that deal with designated organizations. We had a good debate at committee. The majority on the committee agreed that designated organizations were a huge step forward in adding another level of accountability, responsibility and monitoring.

There is a fifth motion, which again we oppose, which imposes new compliance tools. The amendments contained in this motion are also meant to make the administrative compliance activities more consistent with other transportation acts, such as the Canada Shipping Act. This clause addresses how the minister will handle notices of violation, assurances of compliance and monetary penalties. It does not make any sense to remove this clause from the body of the bill. We would be gutting it. We would be taking away some of the essential elements of implementing safety management systems in Canada.

There are other motions. For example, there is a motion that would remove all protection from access to information sought in the bill. Canadians would like to see accountability in government. They want access to information that is important.

What our bill does is it strikes a great balance between confidentiality where employees are concerned, to make sure that they are willing to report safety problems and that they are not afraid. Otherwise we will find cover-ups. As I mentioned earlier, we expect that this legislation is going to increase the reporting by 400% to 500%. That is great news.

All members of this House should be supporting this bill and opposing the motions put forward by the NDP.

[Water Resources Management, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 249 in the name of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis concerning a water resources management strategy for Canada's freshwater resources.

Our Conservative government supports the principle of this motion, as we are committed to sound water management for Canadians. As we know, the motion actually asks for action on issues on which our government has already taken a leadership role. Indeed, the issues raised by this motion are already being addressed by departments such as Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan.

Let me highlight some of the work that NRCan is doing in the area of water use and sustainability.

Freshwater is our most essential natural resource and, along with air and food, is the basis for all life. While water is abundant in Canada, our earth does not have an endless supply of water.

Humanity faces tremendous challenges in maintaining a sustainable supply of freshwater. In fact, in many parts of the world, water quality continues to deteriorate rapidly due to urbanization, agricultural practices, industrialization and, of course, overpopulation. Climate change is already permanently altering the water cycle in many of our lakes, rivers and aquifers.

Yet Canada is a water-rich nation. We possess 7% of the world's renewable water supply and yet we have only one-half of 1% of its total population. This wealth is tempered by the fact that approximately 60% of Canada's water drains to the north, while 85% of its population lives along the Canada-U.S. border to the south.

Having such tremendous water wealth is both a privilege and an obligation. Canada's intense use of water places our country behind only the U.S. as the world's highest per capita users of freshwater.

Water management in Canada is largely the purview of the provinces. However, our federal government has many important roles to play, including the provision of scientific information and knowledge on the nature, extent and management of this resource.

Much has changed in the 20 years since the Pearse inquiry, which was the last major review of federal water policy in Canada. A number of pressures, such as climate change, population growth and urbanization, and also increased demands from industrial users, have increased since the inquiry reported its findings in 1985.

Certain regions of the country such as, for example, southern British Columbia and Alberta are now experiencing periods when current supplies cannot meet existing demands. Indeed, last summer in the tourist town of Tofino on Vancouver Island's west coast, the residents almost had to shut down their town due to water shortages. Even parts of southern Ontario face the same challenges, particularly during periods of drought. Studies suggest that future droughts in the Prairies will be longer and more severe. Clearly, even we as Canadians are not immune to problems related to the sustainable use of water.

As recent events have borne out, water-borne human health issues are chronic in some of Canada's rural and first nations communities. As a result, Canadians no longer take safe water for granted.

Industrial development in Canada, especially in the natural resources sector, can have adverse effects on the quantity and quality of our freshwater resources. These industries, such as energy, forestry, mining, and oil and gas, all use large quantities of freshwater in their operations. The waste water from these industries only exacerbates our environmental challenges.

Also, groundwater is an increasingly important source of freshwater, but we have a limited understanding of the extent and quality of this resource.

To better understand freshwater issues, Natural Resources Canada tries to understand these issues through the lens of the industries in the natural resources sector.

I believe that Canadians also must recognize that forests play a key role in the water cycle. They contribute to the regulation of water quality and quantity levels, especially in the boreal forests. Indeed, forests and forest practices can assist us in mitigating some of the challenges I have previously mentioned.

The department's current role regarding freshwater can be broadly characterized as, first, providing policy and science expertise to better understand the water resource and, second, minimizing the environmental impacts of mining, energy and forestry activities.

These initiatives include such things as groundwater mapping, which NRCan is doing, topographical and now digital watershed maps of Canada, treating mining effluent, sustainable forestry practices, and of course the efficient use of water.

As a first step in developing a national groundwater inventory, NRCan has completed an assessment of the groundwater present in Canada's key aquifers and we expect that a groundwater publication will be coming out in 2008.

NRCan recognizes the importance of applying the integrated water resources management approach to addressing water issues. Through the groundwater mapping program, NRCan is currently working with provincial, industry and university partners in Alberta to characterize sections of the Paskapoo aquifer system. This aquifer located in the southwest part of Alberta supplies 28% of all well water drawn in Alberta and covers approximately 10% of the province's area.

There are other initiatives. The P.E.I. department of environment, energy and forestry used the results of NRCan's program on nitrate dynamics in groundwater to support better agricultural practices. In my own province of British Columbia, the township of Oliver incorporated the program's groundwater vulnerability mapping and land use models into its current planning process. Nova Scotia acknowledged the value of the recently published Annapolis hydrogeological atlas in supporting the province's regional groundwater management.

As we can see, the work NRCan is doing in water resources management is benefiting all parts of Canada. That is why, although we support the spirit of the motion, we think it appears to simply duplicate the work that our new Conservative government is already doing in the area of water management.

NRCan also supports a number of other programs that seek to address important water issues. Consistent with the integrated water resources management approach, NRCan understands that surface and groundwater resources are closely linked components of the water cycle and that we have to manage these well.

Finally, the department has completed a major report entitled “Freshwater: The role and contribution of Natural Resources Canada”. This report is designed to inform interested Canadians, particularly practitioners of water management, about NRCan's unique role and contribution to freshwater issues.

In short, Natural Resources Canada, together with some 20 other federal departments, is contributing substantially to our understanding of Canada's freshwater resources.

It is almost as if the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis wants to play follow the leader with our government. We are pleased that the member has taken the lead from our new Conservative government and wants to address these matters after the fact.

A closer look at the motion before us reveals that the very issues the member raises are already being addressed by our new Conservative government. We have every intention of supporting the main motion that the member has brought forward. I am glad that he supports the initiatives that Natural Resources Canada is undertaking.

However, there is something else in this motion. The hon. member introduced an 11th hour amendment to the motion, which calls on our government to appoint a minister of state for water resources. We already have a Minister of Natural Resources, so I have to ask myself, why now? The Liberal member and his party were in government for almost 13 years, yet not once did they propose establishing a minister of state for water resources, not once. Why has this issue suddenly become such a hot topic for the Liberal Party?

Our new Conservative government takes water quality seriously and is taking a leading role in ensuring that Canadians value their water resource and treat it responsibly. We are getting things done for Canadians after 13 long years of neglect.

I thank the House for its time. I trust that the debate will be a constructive one and will lead us forward in addressing the needs of freshwater management in Canada.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the debate on Bill C-58, amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

This is really one of a trilogy of bills. This is the third of the three bills which address various issues within transportation. The first bill, Bill C-3, actually addressed the whole issue of bridges and tunnels, making sure government was able to protect the interests of Canadians in ensuring that our bridges and tunnels on our international borders are protected and maintained properly. The second one, Bill C-11, addressed the whole issue of railway noise, making sure that we had grain caps in place, making sure that communities had a say in what happens when there are disputes with railways. This bill, Bill C-58, addresses the issue of freight across our country.

The railways are what Canada was built around. The railways were a driving force in making sure that Canada became the country it is today. Railway freight is really the object of Bill C-58.

Canadians rely on our railways for their livelihood. Our economy depends on the timely delivery of freight across our country. Not only is freight delivered to the various areas and communities of our country by rail, but our railways are also used to deliver freight to the gateways of our country, the Pacific gateway, the Atlantic gateway, even our border with the United States, a critical gateway to make sure that we protect the ongoing prosperity of our country.

This bill addresses a number of concerns that have been raised over the last five to ten years. The existing Canada Transportation Act is some 10 years old. Shippers in particular have been raising a number of issues with how our railways are administered. They have had beefs with some of the pricing of the services that are delivered. They have had beefs about how railway siding abandonment has been addressed. They have been worried about advance notice for a number of the issues that are dealt with under the Canada Transportation Act. They are also concerned about how disputes with the railway companies are addressed.

This bill is addressing the concern that shippers have with respect to the relatively tightly concentrated ownership of railways in Canada. We know from experience that in industries that have relatively few players, such as the railway industry in Canada, there is always a risk that the players within that industry will engage in predatory behaviour. I am not for a moment suggesting that is what is happening in Canada, but it is one of the concerns the shippers in Canada have raised.

The shippers want to make sure they are treated fairly. Shippers have concerns. They want to make sure they can get their products from point A to point B in a cost effective and timely manner. When there are disputes about the level of service, or a dispute over the prices charged for transporting freight from point A to point B, they want to know that there is an effective and efficient mechanism in place to achieve that.

Bill C-58 actually provides a solution. It is called final offer arbitration. Final offer arbitration already exists under the Canada Transportation Act, but it applies in limited circumstances. Unfortunately, it is an expensive process. It is one that many of the shippers, especially the small shippers, cannot afford.

Typically we would want to make sure that our shippers and railways resolve their disputes in a commercial manner, for example, by negotiating with each other. That is the ideal. If there is a beef about the pricing for getting the freight from one point to another, the shipper wants to be able to sit down with the railway and negotiate something that is fair. Sometimes negotiating does not work and the parties move on to something called mediation where a third party is brought in to review the issues, to review the pricing and perhaps the level of service.

Sometimes a mediator can come up with a solution that the other two parties are not able to arrive at on their own. If that does not work, shippers are left with a problem. They are left with arbitration. As a result of arbitration being expensive, sometimes it can cost up to half a million dollars to arbitrate a dispute. Many of the shippers cannot afford the current arbitration process.

This bill implements final offer arbitration within a broader context. Let me explain to the House how final offer arbitration works.

In those provisions, the shipper and the carrier each make their best offer. They have a dispute, they come to the table, and each comes forward with their best offer and presents that offer to the arbitrator. The shipper is not going to bring in an offer that is totally out to lunch because he or she knows that the arbitrator is not going to take that offer. The arbitrator is probably going to take the railway proposal. The railway is going to be in the same boat. It is going to bring forward an offer that is as close to where it probably should be to make sure that the other party's offer is not taken. This effectively drives the parties closer in their negotiations and closer in terms of the offers that they present.

The arbitrator can only make one choice. He chooses one offer or the other. He cannot amend the one offer or the other offer. He cannot combine them. He cannot come up with a compromise. He picks one or the other. The purpose is to make sure the parties, when they make their offers, are as close as possible. It certainly drives the parties to negotiate these disputes if there is any way of resolving them outside of the arbitration process. There is an incentive for the parties to put forward reasonable offers.

Final offer arbitration is one of the more popular remedies under the Canada Transportation Act, certainly with shippers. One of the reasons is because shippers have considerable control over the process and are not dependent on other parties. In essence, the shippers determine the rates and conditions that are contained in the final offer, so they have some control over that process. This forces the railway to respond in kind.

The decisions that the arbitrator makes are, of course, confidential. On the whole, shippers are satisfied with final offer arbitration under the Canada Transportation Act. However, they complained again because of the costs. Individual shippers really cannot avail themselves of this process because it is just too expensive. Our amendments to Bill C-58 address that problem.

Bill C-58 proposes two main amendments. First and foremost, Bill C-58 extends the final offer arbitration to a group of shippers who are disputing a railway's proposed freight rates or conditions for the movement of traffic across Canada. This allows a group of shippers to come together and share the costs of final offer arbitration. It will generally give shippers more leverage during their negotiations with the railways because now the railways know the costs of this final offer arbitration are going to be spread over a large number of shippers rather than one or two.

To be eligible for this, the shippers have to have issues in common. This ensures that they are not dealing with a scattergun approach and that the arbitrator has a specific issue to address. It would be unfair to expect an arbitrator to consider a group application that lacks sufficient commonality. This legislation clearly addresses that.

The second part of this amendment requires that the arbitrator and the agency must be satisfied that the members of this group of shippers have attempted to mediate the matter. In the ideal world, we want to make sure that the parties try to negotiate first, keep it out of a formal system, and subsequently maybe use a mediator to try to come to a common resolution. Once the Canadian Transportation Agency is satisfied that mediation has been attempted, it will then move to allow an arbitration process to take place. Shippers have strongly endorsed this concept of group final offer arbitration.

Bill C-58 also provides a provision that permits parties to a final offer arbitration to suspend the arbitration halfway through the process to try to engage in negotiation or further mediation.

Again, that makes sense because the parties know the arbitration process is going to end up with one offer or the other being chosen and it is binding on both parties. There is still an incentive for them to consider going back to negotiation and mediation to try to resolve the dispute without having the final decision made by the arbitrator.

It gives an opportunity for the shippers and the railways to take a time out and a deep breath. They can say they are getting close and resolve it among themselves rather than going to the arbitrator. All those options are available under our amendments.

These changes to the arbitration process are going to assist the shippers in getting their problems resolved with the railways. It is also a faster way of bringing resolution to these problems.

The government has heard the shippers. It believes it has addressed these concerns. I have addressed one of the concerns in Bill C-58. My colleagues are going to address a number of other amendments within Bill C-58.

I would encourage all members in the House to support this legislation because it is good for our communities. It is certainly good for the city of Abbotsford which relies heavily on the railways to get grain to the feed mills that provide feed to our poultry growers. We also have a strong manufacturing sector in Abbotsford that needs the railways to provide cost-effective pricing and timely service.

This bill will achieve all of those ends. It is a huge step forward in bringing Canada into the 21st century when it comes to transportation. I encourage members in the House to support Bill C-58.

[Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to hear my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster speak about all of the doom and gloom, how terrible things are going to be, and all the budget overruns.

I was encouraged by my colleague across the floor, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, because he spoke with great optimism, which is exactly what our government is doing. The Winter Olympic Games in 2010 in Vancouver and Whistler are going to be a huge opportunity for Canadians. It is not about doom and gloom. The only doom and gloom we had from the NDP was 10 years in the wilderness in British Columbia when successive NDP administrations drove the provincial treasury into the ground.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-47 which actually protects the trademarks and licensing rights for the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 winter games.

As we know, the 2010 winter games will be an event with enormous impact in British Columbia but also in Canada and around the world. Consider these numbers. There will be 5,000 Olympic athletes and 1,700 Paralympic athletes and their officials. More than 80 countries will participate in the winter Olympics and 40 countries will participate in the Paralympic games. There will be 10,000 media representatives present at those games and over three billion television viewers around the world.

To ensure the success of the winter games the Vancouver organizing committee, which we refer to as Vanoc, needs a solid legal and financial foundation. Bill C-47 will meet our government's commitment to the International Olympic Committee to protect the Olympic and Paralympic brands. It will allow Vanoc to raise the sponsorship money from the private sector necessary to complete the games and to make sure that they finish within budget, are successful and leave a significant legacy for Canada.

Consider the Calgary Winter Olympics of 1988. Even today, almost 20 years later, athletes from around the world still descend upon Calgary to use its Olympic facilities, which are an abiding legacy of those games.

Is this bill important? Of course it is. John Furlong, who is the chief executive officer of Vanoc, has said that the organizers need resources of about $1.87 billion to stage the games. One of the most important sources of funding for those games are corporate sponsorships. In fact, approximately 40% of revenues will come from partnerships and licences.

The value in those partnerships and licences comes from two main factors. First, the sponsors and licensees need to receive great public exposure and marketing advantages from their association with such a positive, high profile public event like the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and Whistler. Second, the nature of the 2010 winter games is unique. There is no other event like it in the world. There is no other event in the world that year that is likely to draw as many TV viewers or capture as much of the world's attention and that is value. That is why we get sponsors for the Olympic games.

Under Bill C-47, if an unauthorized person or company tries to profit from the 2010 winter games, Vanoc will have the legal tools to protect its rights and the rights of its partners and licensees effectively and quickly. The current Trade-marks Act provides some protection, but it is not enough. There are concerns that it may not fully address the legitimate needs of the organizers of the Olympics in responding to threats against their marketing rights.

There are also concerns that the current legislation does not allow emerging threats to be dealt with. This is particularly true of so-called ambush marketing, in which companies find ways to falsely associate their business with the winter games in the public's mind. Bill C-47 addresses these concerns by allowing Vanoc to use legal remedies when necessary, yet maintaining a balanced approach to the issue.

I do not have time to comment on each part of this bill, but I do want to take a few minutes to remind my colleagues in the House of some of the bill's key measures.

First, the Olympic and Paralympic marks act explicitly defines the words, symbols and other marks that are to be protected against fraudsters. The bill protects the rights of Vanoc, the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee to defend these marks. They can use the remedies under the bill and can consent to assign those rights to their various partners, where appropriate.

What are some of those marks? I have a list of well over 60 here. Canadians will be familiar with the five Olympic rings and also the Olympic torch, or the official symbol of the 2010 Olympic games, the inukshuk. There are many more words and symbols that are synonymous with the Olympic games and these are officially being protected under the bill we have before us today.

The bill goes on to set out two main types of conduct that will be prohibited.

First, no one can use an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business without the agreement of Vanoc. That lasts until the end of 2010.

Second, the bill prohibits so-called ambush marketing, which I referred to before. It prohibits people or businesses from doing business in a way that is likely to mislead the public into believing that those businesses or those persons and their products and services are linked to the winter games, when in fact they are not and they have not paid for that right.

Beyond that, the bill also provides for a number of exceptions and sets out the various remedies available in the event that these rights are not respected.

One of the reasons we have introduced this bill is to specifically address ambush marketing. Some of our viewers may wonder what that is exactly. It is an attempt by an unauthorized person or business to act in a way that causes the public to believe that they are connected to the 2010 games. As I mentioned before, that will now be prohibited.

Unfortunately, the courts can often take a long time to adjudicate those kinds of disputes. In fact, it is very difficult to convince a court to issue an injunction and to stop the alleged illegal use of a trademark before a trial is finished. Such delays would be a huge problem for the 2010 games in Vancouver-Whistler, since the games would be over by the time the trial is complete. The damage to the games would already have been done and there would be little, if any, chance of recovery of those damages.

That is why Bill C-47 allows Vanoc to put a stop to ambush marketing without having to prove that the games will suffer irreparable harm. That irreparable harm standard is the greatest obstacle to convincing a court to grant an injunction in trademark cases. Our legislation removes that obstacle until the 2010 games are over. When the Olympic flame goes out in 2010, this aspect of the legislation will also be extinguished.

The reality is that very few of these situations will actually end up in court. This bill actually gives Vanoc the authority it needs to deal with these kinds of fraudsters.

Bill C-47 also gives the designated Olympic organizations the authority to protect the Olympic brand from unauthorized and illegitimate use, but we have been careful not to bring in legislation that is too broad or oppressive.

As members know, this bill has gone through many amendments to reflect the concerns of key stakeholders and committee members. For example, Bill C-47 exempts Canadian businesses that were using trademarks before March 2 that could possibly be in conflict with the Olympic marks. They cannot suddenly start using an existing mark for a new purpose to cash in on the Olympics, but they can continue their existing uses. For example, if people have an “Olympic Pizza” in their town, we are not going to shut them down unless they suddenly start using the word Olympic to promote other services and products.

We are not targeting mom and pop shops. We are not targeting Canadians who have been using these marks in the past. We are simply being reasonable.

The bill also provides clarification that this bill is not intended to curtail freedom of press or to muzzle those who are critical of the games. My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast also made that point. We do have protections in Canada. We as Canadians pride ourselves in the freedoms that we enjoy and defend in our country, and those freedoms will continue to be protected under our bill.

As I mentioned earlier, our new Conservative government is a committed partner in making the 2010 winter games a big success. The big winners will undoubtedly be the people of British Columbia and the rest of Canada, and some of our contributions are quite obvious. We as a government have committed $552 million to make the winter games a reality, including $290 million for sport and event venues.

Some of the contributions we are making are less tangible but not less valuable, and this Bill C-47 to protect the Olympic trademarks certainly falls into that category.

The bill is a balanced piece of legislation that is in line with what other host countries have put in place in the past. It is a necessary piece of legislation to ensure that the winter games are a huge financial success and that we as a country, and the organizers, can leave behind an enduring legacy for generations to come.

The world is waiting to rediscover Canada. Our communities across British Columbia and Canada are looking forward to the economic opportunities and new sporting facilities that the 2010 winter games will deliver. Let us not disappoint them. I encourage all members of the House to ensure quick passage of this very important bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention and for his support of this very visionary budget.

There is something that puzzles me. I have listened to some of the debate from the Liberal members in the House and what has been notably absent is any discussion about the benefits which Ontario receives under the budget. I have listened to some of the Liberal members from Ontario speak and there has been no mention at all about the huge benefits the budget delivers to Ontario.

Since my colleague is from Ontario and represents the riding of St. Catharines very well and actually understands what is in the budget, perhaps he could comment on the kinds of benefits Ontarians can expect to receive under the budget.

[Justice Legislation, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about crime. While the opposition claims that our crime rate is going down, Statistics Canada reports that serious violent crime is going up, not down. The murder rate is the highest in almost a decade. Aggravated assaults are up 10%, assaults using a weapon are up 5% and attempted murders are up a whopping 15%.

Our new Conservative government takes crime seriously. We are eliminating house arrest for violent offenders, imposing tough mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes and longer sentences for repeat sex offenders.

The opposition parties? They allow arsonists to spend their jail time in the comfort of their homes. They vote against tough minimum sentences for gun crimes. They oppose longer jail terms for repeat sexual offenders like the balcony rapist.

There is only one party that takes crime seriously and that is our new Conservative government. While the Liberals and their friends remain soft on crime, we are making sure Canada's streets and communities are safe.