Ed Fast

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I appreciated those comments. I also appreciated the focus of my colleague on the whole issue of fitness. Obviously it is important for us as Canadians to remain fit. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to get Canadians off the couch and into the fitness rooms, the pools and the ice rinks and onto the playing fields.

It is important because our health system benefits when Canadians are fit. Everybody in Canada benefits. Perhaps my colleague could comment on the role of physical fitness and how to get Canadians to participate in activities that are going to make them fit.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the comments of the Secretary of State. I was especially intrigued by her discussion of athletes, particularly coaches.

Evidence to the contrary, I used to be an athlete. I spent a great deal of time playing hockey, playing softball, fast pitch, and also playing a lot of soccer. One particular individual who was a coach of mine, a manager and indeed a mentor, was a defining influence in my life.

I was really intrigued to hear the Secretary of State talk about how coaches play such a significant role in Canada. Perhaps she could comment on what she sees as the role of coaches and what kind of influence they can have in building the character and self-esteem of our athletes.

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for her comments, she unfortunately spent 90% of her time talking about unrelated issues and only 10% on Bill C-54.

However, in the time she did spend on Bill C-54, election financing reform, I was glad that she referred to the Liberal leadership convention and the fact that horrific amounts of money were borrowed from private individuals. In fact, among the 11 candidates for the Liberal leadership, a whopping total of $3 million was borrowed from private individuals. None of us know what the interest rates were, what the repayment plan was, or whether there was any repayment plan.

Canadians then have a right to ask this question: what are these wealthy lenders getting in return? Is it love and affection? I think not. Canadians are not that naive. What else are they getting in return? In Bob Rae's case, he was a Liberal leadership contender and borrowed $500,000 from his brother. What does he get in return? Influence? We do not know.

I would ask the member to comment on whether she knows if all of these loans given to the Liberal leadership contenders are going to be repaid? Does she know?

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments about election financing reform. Of course, her party is opposed to any kind of reform in that area and it is no secret why that is.

If we go back to the Liberal leadership race we can see what the various candidates borrowed from private individuals. For example, for the opposition leader it was almost half a million dollars. For the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore it was $470,000. For Bob Rae it was $845,000 in loans. It goes on and on, $200,000, $300,000 for a total of $3 million that was borrowed from private individuals to run those campaigns.

The problem is that nobody knows the terms of the repayment. Nobody in the public knows what the interest rates were. Are those loans being forgiven? Is this a back door to actually do donations? Nobody knows.

Why does the member not support the demand of taxpayers, voters and Canadians in general that there be accountability in election financing?

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a well-respected member of the House, but the problem is that the more time one spends away from one's community, from one's riding, the greater the tendency to forget what hard-working Canadians actually go through trying to build and protect their families and make a life for themselves.

It is evident in the member's comments that this has happened to him because when hard-working Canadians are asked whether billion dollar corporations should be paying tax or be entitled to put their money offshore in trusts, or should be able to double-dip in terms of deductibility of their investment, they will say, no, they are working hard enough as it is. They do not want billion dollar corporations to get extra benefits and pass that burden on to hard-working Canadians who are trying to raise families to be respectable.

I had to ask myself, why is it that the Liberals in the House oppose tax fairness and then I remembered. It is that party that over 13 years had the sponsorship scandal, the HRSDC boondoggle of billions of dollars, the $1 billion gun registry boondoggle, and special favours for friends and insiders. And it suddenly made sense. They have been doing it for 13 long years and they still do not get it.

Why does the member oppose tax fairness for ordinary, hard-working Canadian families?

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear from the comments of my colleague from British Columbia that he does not believe in tax fairness. He knows that some of the corporations in Canada are earning, not millions, but billions of dollars in profits. In fact, last year, EnCana, one of our largest oil and gas companies, earned $7 billion worth of profits which it was planning on converting into an income trust.

Is my friend suggesting that EnCana should not being paying taxes on those profits?

We need to look at what the public says about this. The Globe and Mail said, “The Finance minister tackled a difficult issue that the Liberals could not muster the gumption to resolve”.

The National Post said, “Everyone else has gotten the message. Why haven't the Liberals?”

The Toronto Star said the same thing. In fact, the member's own finance critic said, “It was absolutely the right thing to do”. Sheila Copps and John Manley both said that the income trust decision was the right thing to do.

If the member believes that tax fairness should be the rule in Canada and that ordinary taxpayers should not bear the burden of having to carry the taxation that corporations normally carry, why will he not support the income trust decision that the government so courageously made?

[British Columbia Flood Mitigation, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, communities in B.C.'s Fraser Valley are threatened by a large scale flood this spring. The potential for a crisis is very real due to last winter's massive snow pack which is beginning to melt. In fact, some residents of Abbotsford still remember the disastrous flood of 1948. If another flood occurs, damages will be significant. The Government of B.C. has asked for emergency assistance.

Would the Minister of Agriculture and the member of Parliament for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon tell the House what the government is doing to address this urgent issue?

[Liberal Party Candidate, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party continues to attract extremists and conspiracy theorists.

Farhan Mujahid Chak is the new Liberal candidate in Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. Last week the National Post published his outlandish views. Among other things, Mr. Chak has blamed terrorist attacks in France on the French government rather than on the actual terrorists. He has publicly accused Israel of rape, murder and torture. There is more. He has even called India's democracy a “fraud”.

Liberals have known about these outrageous opinions for years, yet did absolutely nothing about them. Why? Is it because Mr. Chak organized for the Liberal leader during his leadership campaign? Even after learning that Chak had been charged with firearms offences, the Liberals did nothing.

Elizabeth May fired a Green candidate when she learned of his disgusting views. Mr. Chak's opinions are equally as disgusting. Why then will the Liberal leader not do the right thing and give Farhan Chak his walking papers?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about women's rights.

As the House knows, under the Taliban, women were not allowed to leave their homes except in the company of their husbands. We know they were not allowed to go to school. We know they were not allowed to start businesses. In fact, if they committed minor violations of sharia law, they would be herded into stadiums and executed. That was the state of the country under the Taliban.

Today there is freedom. Women go to school. Children can go to school. Girls go to school. Women are allowed to start businesses.

How does the member square her party's position as being a defender of women's rights with the proposal now to pull the troops out of Afghanistan and allow the women to basically try to defend themselves without any support or security?

[Anti-Terrorism Act, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Air-India inquiry is investigating the worst terrorist act in Canada's history: the murder of 331 people. Shockingly, the Vancouver Sun today reported that the Liberal opposition leader still opposes investigative measures under the Anti-terrorism Act, measures that he himself supported. Now he claims that they were never used in a useful way.

Since when is the Liberal leader an expert on terrorism? Today he admitted that he has never once spoken to the RCMP about the worst crime in Canada's history. In fact, he has not even asked the RCMP for a briefing note.

Maybe the Liberal leader should listen to the RCMP's Gary Bass who said that the inquiry had, without a doubt, suffered “a serious and damaging blow”. Even B.C.s solicitor general was shocked by the Liberal leader's refusal to allow investigative hearings into this terrorist act.

Do the families of the victims of this horrendous crime trust the Liberal leader? Do Canadians believe that the Liberals can protect them against terrorists? The answer is a resounding no.