Ed Fast

[Petitions, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to table a petition signed by 32 residents from across British Columbia.

The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as that of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to learn that the Liberal opposition leader has changed his mind and now opposes extending critical anti-terrorist measures. B.C.'s solicitor general criticized the flip-flop. Even Bob Rae, recent leadership candidate and co-chair of the Liberal platform committee, has raised concerns that this will jeopardize the investigation into the Air-India inquiry.

Can the Prime Minister explain why these anti-terrorist measures are so important and how critical they are to investigations like the Air-India inquiry?

[Chinese Canadians, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Richmond shocked all Canadians again. He admitted to The Vancouver Sun that he still opposes our government's apology for the Chinese head tax.

When he was minister for multiculturalism, the member for Richmond stubbornly opposed any apology or symbolic payments, deeply dividing the Chinese community. He is even blaming his former prime minister for not following his advice on the issue.

Thankfully, Canada's new Prime Minister showed real leadership. After widespread consultations, he acted. Head tax payers and their survivors received a meaningful redress and commemoration, and our Prime Minister offered an unconditional apology to the Chinese Canadian community.

Where were the Liberals? After 13 years of doing absolutely nothing, almost half of the Liberal caucus did not even show up to hear the apology. The member for Richmond and his Liberal friends should be ashamed of themselves.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is really rich for the member to suggest after six years, five of which were under the watch of his party's government, that government policy somehow should change.

He made one remark in which he suggested to the Minister of Public Safety that he should be making changes to the system to make it better. My question for the member is this: during the five years that his party was in government and these individuals were detained, why is it that his government did not make a peep and did not make any changes?

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share in the minister's frustration. When we hear Liberal members of the House talking about chocolate bars, when in fact Canada and free nations around the world are facing this critical threat from terrorism, that is not encouraging.

I have two questions for the minister.

First, there has been some suggestion from our Liberal colleagues along the way that somehow the securities certificates represent a violation of the Charter of Rights of Canada. I invite him to comment on this. When these matters are dealt with by the Federal Court or the Supreme Court, do those courts take the charter into consideration?

Second, are Canadian citizens ever subject to these security certificates?

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments. What I think he has reaffirmed for the Canadian people is that the Liberal Party does not take terrorism seriously. He has suggested that security certificates violate the rights of those who are incarcerated for suspected terrorism. I believe I heard him say that he would like to see those certificates actually eliminated.

He also disagrees that individuals who are suspected of terrorism should be detained in prisons. I am a little concerned, because clearly terrorism around the world has become a very serious threat to free and democratic countries around the world.

I have a question for him. He has suggested that detainees should perhaps not be arrested strictly on suspicion, that we would have to go beyond suspicion to detain people. Is he suggesting that we should wait until a suspected terrorist actually commits an action that moves us toward a terrorist act before we detain that individual?

[Brain Tumour Surveillance, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 235, which is sponsored by my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. I applaud his efforts on this motion, which I think will help tackle a particularly brutal form of cancer, that being cancer affecting the brain.

Health care issues are very important to Canadians and they should be very important to us. Members of Parliament should reflect on the issues that are of concern to their constituents. Therefore, let me explain why I think this motion on brain tumour statistics should receive the positive affirmation of all members of this House today.

Sometimes the best work is left undone because some of the necessary ingredients are missing. We may not even be aware of what those ingredients are or what information is lacking to answer an intriguing question. This motion addresses the great work of conquering cancer and identifies a vital piece of data that is necessary to achieve that goal.

Cancer is a ceaseless and steady killer in modern society. There are few families who have not been affected by this deadly disease. Research into its eradication has continued for decades now. It is a highly desirable objective and certainly qualifies as a great work but is one which as yet remains unfinished.

In order to beat cancer, researchers need every clue and every opportunity to identify and treat that cancer. That is why it might come as a surprise for many to learn that researchers have so far been denied vital information in the fight to defeat cancer.

Today we are discussing the merits of Motion No. 235. This motion deals with just one form of cancer, cancer of the brain. It addresses how benign brain tumours have not been routinely identified and collected by the provincial and territorial cancer registries and that information is thus not included in the Canadian Cancer Registry.

These tumours have not been routinely collected, not because of any lack of desire to exercise due diligence, but because nobody issued the instructions to do so. It was not done that way yesterday and it still is not being done that way today. This lack of practice remains an oversight in Canada, but an oversight, of course, can easily be corrected. It is just a matter of issuing the necessary order.

These brain tumours are the potential missing ingredients in solving the mystery of brain cancer and in possibly saving thousands of Canadian lives every year.

There are several reasons why data on benign brain tumours should be collected.

First, there is the human dimension. Although all forms of cancer are horrifying in their potential to destroy life, brain cancer, or a malignant brain tumour, is uniquely destructive in that it devours both body and brain. Anyone who has had the profound misfortune of having to watch a loved one afflicted with this disease can attest to its awful progress through the body and the many layers of attendant suffering. While victims lose weight, strength and mobility, they also suffer from memory failure, loss of speech and collapse of cognitive response.

The tragic symptoms are often reminiscent of Alzheimer's disease in that sufferers can no longer remember their wives, their husbands, sons, daughters or friends. They are often unsure of their surroundings and unable to articulate their confusion. For anyone who has had to watch a close friend or relative die of this form of cancer, it is an experience they will carry with them for the rest of their lives and one they would never wish on another person. One is left with a profound anger that such an insidious disease can take a life in such a destructive fashion.

Motion No. 235 aims to provide better tools to strike back at this disease.

At the moment, brain cancer continues to destroy the lives of many Canadians. We can only wish that brain cancer were the rarest of occurrences. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Brain cancer is the most common solid tumour in children and youth. Each year in Canada over 200 children and youth under age 20 are diagnosed with a malignant brain tumour, and nearly 60 of those die from their disease. That is a 30% death rate.

Among those who survive, the long term health and functioning consequences may be serious. The tumour might not kill the patient but could adversely affect the functions of the brain, leaving the survivor alive but mentally afflicted for the rest of his or her life.

Additionally, brain cancer is also significant among young adults. In 2003, 388 cases were diagnosed within the 20 to 44 age group, or close to 20% of brain cancer cases among Canadians aged 20 or older. In total, 2,500 cases and 1,650 deaths from malignant brain and nervous system cancer are expected in 2007. Over 60% of those diagnosed with malignant tumours will die from that disease. This is a shockingly low survival rate and another reason why we need to do all that we can to stop this cancer in its tracks.

The number of brain and nervous system cancer cases would be increased by about 40% to 70%, if benign cases were included. Benign cases contribute a substantial proportion of the total burden of brain cancer.

I also want to refer to the creation of uniform national standards and guidelines for the surveillance of all malignant and benign brain tumours, which have the potential to improve the quality and completeness of brain tumour registration across Canada. The motion today would significantly enhance the quality control of this registration process.

Having this complete and accurate data on primary brain tumours would facilitate research into the causes of this disease, which in turn would lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of patients. It would, for example, help identify factors that influence the risk for developing malignant and non-malignant brain tumours.

Quite simply, we do not know why people get brain cancer. In some cases it appears to be the result of the progression of another kind of cancer. It may be caused by exposure to toxic substances or radiation. Cancer research has shown an quantifiable relationship between intestinal cancers and diet. It is beyond refutation for decades that smoking causes lung and throat cancer, but what can we do to avoid brain cancer?

One study suggested prolonged exposure to cell phones was a possible reason. Just as people have adapted their lives to avoid other kinds of cancer, I believe we need to do that again. This is another reason why the motion today is so necessary.

Cancer registries serve a very useful purpose by linking available sources of administrative data to obtain information on the number of new cancer cases and to assist in patient follow up. This information allows basic surveillance and establishes a platform to provide the additional information needed to develop and evaluate cancer control programs.

The inclusion of benign brain tumours is needed in registries to allow these tumours to be compared across the country. It should be clear that like so many other issues in the House, the motion today affects more than just Canada and Canadians. It will have a universal impact.

Finally, the motion is highly compatible with the government's agenda to increase collaboration with the provinces and territories in the area of health. It is well aligned with the objective of the Public Health Agency of Canada to create a comprehensive pan-Canadian surveillance system. Accessibility of information is critically important in brain cancer.

I started my speech by stating that a great work can remain unfinished because some component is missing in the building of that great work. I believe we have identified such a component today. The motion before us asks for a simple measure and demands little, except to do the right thing, but this simple change could significantly help researchers to discover more about what causes brain cancer, how we can all avoid and how it can be more successfully treated.

For the thousands of Canadian this year alone, who could potentially fall victim to this disease, the motion is critically important. Who knows how many lives may be saved due to the simple resolve of Parliament to make a necessary change?

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the motion.

[Canada Transportation Act, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, at committee we had a very fulsome discussion about railway noise. It probably took up most of our time. There were suggestions made by Canadians from across the country. We had people from across the country giving input. We even set up special teleconferencing to enable people from the west coast to participate in this process. They made one thing clear. They support the transportation system in Canada. They support railways, but they also believe that railway noise must be put in the context of quality of life.

I know that the hon. member from the Bloc played a very critical role in making sure these concerns were raised. I think he would agree with me that we have come up with a very good compromise bill. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a significant step forward in addressing the issue of railway noise. I appreciate his support in committee and in the House in supporting the bill.

[Canada Transportation Act, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government is not going to force anyone to move to Ottawa. I think the member is being somewhat crafty in making that suggestion. In fact, I would respond by saying that if we look at clause 5 of the bill, we see that it specifically provides for the governor in council to actually make arrangements that perhaps would expand that residency requirement. This is not cast in stone. It says that the members of the Canadian Transportation Agency will reside in the national capital region unless otherwise determined.

I also suggest to the member that he had an opportunity to make those arguments at committee. I do not think he is going to deny that. That is what the committee process is for. I would suggest that what he is doing here is essentially thwarting the democratic process. He is known for his filibustering on the softwood lumber agreement. Now he is trying to raise issues that were already dealt with at the committee stage. Let us get the bill done. Let us move it forward. Let us serve the interests of all Canadians.

[Canada Transportation Act, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the hon. member's riposte. I will simply continue to focus in on the things that the bill does, the things that we as a committee agreed to do.

The big beneficiaries of Bill C-11 are of course not only those in the transportation industry but Canadians across our great country.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard from a wide range of witnesses, as I mentioned earlier. We studied the legislation in detail and considered a wide assortment of amendments from both the government and the opposition parties.

For Canadians, transportation is a vital aspect of daily living. Indeed, railways and ships were critical in building our country. Most of the opposition's proposed amendments were, I believe, put forward in the best spirit of non-partisanship with a view to improving the bill and making better legislation. Very few suggested amendments were posited for the opposite intention.

Perhaps it is best to start from the beginning and review how thorough the committee's analysis of Bill C-11 was.

Every effort was made to study the potential impact of the bill upon all the relevant stakeholders. In addition to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and officials from Transport Canada, witnesses included representatives from the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Travellers' Protection Initiative, and citizens groups from across Canada. In fact, there were citizens from the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, whose member spoke up just a few minutes ago.

The large majority of the witnesses supported the bill, or specific provisions of the bill, and encouraged its quick passage. Many witnesses sought improvements to the bill to make it work better. Based on the testimony from witnesses, I am pleased to note that the committee presented and accepted a number of amendments, which I believe strengthened the bill. I thank the committee members for taking the opportunity to hear from witnesses and for their thorough review, due diligence and cooperation in improving the bill.

Let me summarize the main amendments.

First, we addressed transportation policy. Our aim was to simplify and modernize transportation policy in Canada. The policy statement provides broad guidance to the development of transportation policy programs and direction to the Canada Transportation Agency and the courts in resolving disputes.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will strengthen references to safety, security and sustainable transportation and improve the language that pertains to the role that transportation rates and conditions play.

We also believe that reducing the number of permanent members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five and locating them at national headquarters, instead of across the country, makes good common sense. It saves taxpayers' dollars and it does not rely on unnecessary travel.

In the bill, we also addressed mediation. The committee has shortened from 60 days to 30 days the period in which mediation needs to take place. The purpose of this was a general agreement that transportation in a country as large as ours is a vital component of daily living. Transportation is not only in the national interest; it is often the national interest.

Disputes often have a profoundly negative impact on the lives and jobs of thousands of Canadians who rely on the transportation sector for food, clothing, merchandise and supplies of all kinds. We as a committee believe that it is in the national interest to resolve transportation disputes in a timely manner.

We also addressed the whole issue of reporting, of making sure that the Ministry of Transport reports on a regular basis and in an effective manner. We have proposed that the current annual reporting by the minister on transportation activities be replaced with a major report every five years.

The chief difficulty with data management is not so much its collection but its analysis. The data must be appropriately assessed in order to justify its gathering. Furthermore, it is environmentally responsible to find ways of using less paper and to find alternative ways of disseminating the information through the website.

The requirements for annual reports for transportation were put in place in 1987. Those provisions have never been updated. After some 20 years of experience, it has become very clear to our government that trends in transportation are more easily detected when reports cover longer periods of time. With that in mind, we introduced a five year reporting requirement, and the committee agreed to that.

That said, the committee also amended the bill to maintain the annual reporting requirement, the only change being that in the future the report will provide only a cursory review of the state of the transportation industry, leaving the comprehensive analysis for the more significant five year report.

We also addressed the issue of mergers of different transportation companies. We have existing provisions that relate only to airlines. By changing these and expanding them, we are covering all modes of transportation.

This will require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau and send a recommendation to the governor in council on whether or not to approve the proposed merger and, if appropriate, what conditions would apply. Again, we believe that this would be in keeping with the best interests of all Canadians. For example, if a merger adversely affects access to transport in a given region of the country, then that is going to be a factor that the minister may want to consider.

Many sectors of the transportation industry are served by a small number of enterprises. Mergers in these sectors may raise issues of regional and national interest that fall beyond the scope of reviews conducted by the Competition Bureau.

A new merger and acquisition review process will cover all transportation undertakings over a certain threshold level of assets and revenues. The process we are proposing will involve, first of all, that applications for mergers would be required to address specific issues set out in review guidelines. If the proposal also raises sufficient public interest issues related to national transportation, the minister could appoint a person to review the proposed transaction. Finally, any proposed merger would result in one government decision, to avoid duplication. Public interest concerns would be addressed by the minister and competition concerns by the Commissioner of Competition.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will also require the minister to publish guidelines on information related to the public interest that must be included in the notice given to the minister by companies proposing a merger. The amendments will also require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau in developing these guidelines.

We also addressed the whole issue of air complaints: consumers who are using the airlines and have beefs. As we know, many Canadians travel long distances and use air travel to do that. The industry's growth has resulted in an increasing number of complaints.

However, even if complaints are properly addressed by the airlines, it is incumbent upon the industry to keep a record of what these complaints were and how they will be or were addressed. A lesson is learned only if the action taken to rectify the complaint is duly recorded and available for use again.

Therefore, the committee added a requirement that in its annual report the agency must report the number and nature of complaints filed with the agency for each carrier, how the complaints were dealt with, and systemic trends that the agency has observed.

Complaint letters sent to the agency now increasingly relate to matters within the agency's core regulatory functions, such as the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of flights. With the recent implementation of the air travel complaints program, the agency has successfully demonstrated that it can address the need to respond to travellers' complaints, allowing agency staff to continue to respond to complaints in an informal manner. The agency already publishes information regarding many important airline consumer issues in its annual report and on its website.

We also addressed the issue of airfare advertising. The committee added this requirement. Arguably, no other form of transportation contains as many hidden expenses as does air travel. Bill C-11 requires airlines advertising airfares to indicate all fees, charges and surcharges, to allow consumers to readily determine the cost of their flight.

We also addressed railway noise, something that was of great concern to communities across the country. We believe we have introduced complaint mechanisms and mediation processes that will address this.

In short, committees often represent the best of the parliamentary process, whereby members from different political parties work together to improve legislation. That is what the committee did in this case. We believe we have done this and that is why it is time to move the bill forward.

Stakeholders are interested in the passage of the bill. They have been patiently waiting for the bill to become law. We are now one step closer to doing that. I encourage members of the House to support the amended bill.