Ed Fast

[Canada Transportation Act, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster could be helpful if it were not for the fact that this is simply a rehash of what has already gone on at committee.

As members know, the process that the House follows is that a bill moves through first and second reading and is then referred to committee for a thorough discussion.

At that committee, numerous witnesses from across the country gave input into the bill. The hon. member had an opportunity participate. In fact, I have the transcript from November 23, 2006. The hon. member took part in the discussion regarding the very clauses that he now wishes to delete. What he is conveniently forgetting to tell the public in his comments is the fact that he originally made a motion to increase the number of members from five to six, not to seven, and there was some confusion in committee and our clerk confirmed that.

I also want to highlight the fact that over the last two years the member knows the Canadian Transportation Agency has operated with five members. The focus here is efficiency.

He had also suggested that it was unfortunate that we could not recruit people from across Canada. They were not willing to move to the national capital region. That is already happening with many other governmental organizations. The Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court and even the CRTC have a requirement that its members live in the national capital region.

[Conservative Party of Canada, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today marks a day all Canadians should celebrate. A year ago today, our new Conservative government was sworn into power.

Canadians voted for change.

They voted for accountability and that is exactly what we delivered. We passed the most sweeping anti-corruption law in Canadian history.

We put $20 billion back into the pockets of families by cutting taxes.

Parents were finally given the opportunity to raise their children their way with our universal child care benefit.

We have made communities safer by cracking down on street racing and taking action against violent criminals and terrorist groups.

We have restored Canada's respect and influence on the world stage.

The economy is strong. Government spending is focused. Our debt is lower. Taxes are coming down.

While the Liberals dithered, dodged and delayed for 13 scandalous years, our Conservative government is getting things done for all Canadians.

[Broadcasting Act, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this very significant concern in Canada.

The bill before us today is a further attempt to address the issue of TV violence in Canada. The bill would amend the Broadcasting Act by imposing a new, regulatory framework on the broadcast industry. I want to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his efforts in bringing this legislation before Parliament.

From the outset, I want to state that reducing violence in our society is a priority for our Conservative government. Indeed, addressing violent crime in Canada is one of the five key priorities which we set during the last federal election, and we have made significant progress in changing our criminal laws to ensure that Canada's streets and communities are safe.

The tabling of the bill gives us an opportunity to consider again Canada's success in addressing violence on television and how Canadians, especially young Canadians, are exposed to it.

The bill would amend the Broadcasting Act by requiring the CRTC to make specific regulations to reduce the number of violent scenes on television. While I believe the motives behind the bill are laudable, the bill itself is flawed for a number of reasons.

It represents a veiled attempt to impose additional censorship on broadcasters, very likely violating the protections of freedom of expression under the charter. It would also impose a new regulatory burden on government which would cost taxpayers more money. It implies that Canadians are not smart enough to read the required warnings and make viewing decisions for themselves. It shifts responsibility for supervising and educating children from parents to the federal government.

The good news is that much of the authority which the mover of the bill is seeking is already contained in the current Broadcasting Act.

I would like to look at Bill C-327 in the context of current broadcasting policy and at the tools already available under the Broadcasting Act that encourage Canadians to become media literate and to then make safe viewing choices for themselves.

Our current broadcasting policy focuses on empowering Canadians to make educated choices for themselves about what they and their families will watch on TV. Our federal government consults and cooperates with law enforcement agencies, broadcasters, parents and schools, and in doing so, we focus on five common objectives.

First, we want to educate TV viewers. We want to strengthen the enforcement of the existing laws. We want to implement complaint reporting systems. We want to ensure that public and private sectors consult with each other and with their counterparts in other countries. Finally, and perhaps more important, we want to promote industry self-regulation.

That last objective, industry self-regulation, is key. The broadcast industry has, in consultation with the federal government, adopted a voluntary set of broadcast standards and a code of conduct which it applies to all of its programming.

Canadians will be very familiar with the frequent warnings which accompany programs containing violence or questionable or sexual content. These warnings equip parents to make decisions for themselves and their families as to the kind of programming which is suitable for them.

An added benefit of industry self-regulation is the fact that the financial burden of regulation and monitoring is borne primarily by industry, not by the taxpayers of this country.

Even if we wanted to regulate and control everything shown on television, it would be a futile endeavour. Canadians must understand that much of what we see on TV comes from foreign television signals. Canada has limited jurisdiction over these signals. We also have little jurisdiction, if any, over material that Canadians may view over the Internet.

Both foreign broadcasters and Internet service providers are not subject to Canada's licensing requirement. They are not subject to the Canadian broadcasting code of conduct and ethics, and as technology continues to develop, our ability to control content will continue to decline.

The current media environment is indeed the global village that Canadian professor Marshall McLuhan so prophetically pointed to. Government control over content is no longer a long term option in broadcasting. More than ever, Canadians need to be well informed. They need to be exposed to new technologies while understanding the potential harmful aspects of these innovations.

We live in a world without walls. We cannot be with our children at all times to keep them safe from harm. In the same way, recent experience has taught us that we cannot always protect our children and other Canadian audiences from controversial or objectionable content, especially when it originates from outside of Canada. It is even more difficult to do so if in fact we are to respect the charter right of freedom of expression.

What we can do is educate Canadians and give them the tools necessary to discern good content from harmful content. That is what the current Broadcasting Act does. The TV industry provides viewers with helpful information about programming content to enable each one of us to act positively, to become critical thinkers and to learn to discern. I also note that technology nowadays gives parents things such as the V-chip to allow them to control what their children watch on TV.

There is something troubling about this bill and it is in the preamble. The preamble categorically states that “censorship is not a solution”, yet the bill then proceeds to do exactly that, namely impose censorship by requiring the CRTC to impose regulations reducing violence in TV programming. These conflicting objectives are clearly fatal to the bill.

I remind the House of some of the key policy objectives contained in the Broadcasting Act. The act states in section 3(1)(d)(i) that the broadcasting system should:

serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

The very next paragraph states that the system should:

encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity--

To me these words suggest imagination and diversity of opinion, something that our charter of rights guarantees. Any attempt to circumscribe these rights would likely result in a successful challenge under the charter and I for one am not prepared to burden the taxpayers of the country with the cost of needless and ultimately futile litigation.

I would encourage the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to again review the existing provisions of the Broadcasting Act, most notably subsections 10(c), 10(f) and 10(k) because these subsections already spell out a broad regulatory framework which, at least in my experience, has led to significant cooperation on the part of the broadcast industry. Moreover, the act already states that all broadcasting licensees are responsible for the programs they broadcast and that this programming must be of a high standard.

The Canadian approach to maintaining high standards engages the broadcast industry instead of invoking a unilateral heavy-handed enforcement program.

In conclusion, we have to ask ourselves a number of fundamental questions. Do we believe in more government? Do we believe that government should usurp the rightful role of parents to train and educate children? Should Canadians no longer be responsible for their own decisions for informing themselves? Finally, do we believe that taxpayers should again be burdened with additional regulatory costs that should be borne by industry? I believe the answer is no to all of these questions and that answer must compel us to reject this bill, as well intentioned as it might be.

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, share my friend's concerns about the current state of the law when it relates to impaired driving.

My question has to do with the frustrations that police across this country experience as they try to apply our drunk driving laws. I am wondering if the member has had an opportunity to discuss these frustrations with his local police or perhaps other police across Canada and whether they are encouraged by the steps our government is taking to keep up with the changes in technology and ensure our streets are safe from those who abuse their rights as drivers.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is of special interest to residents in my riding, especially the disability eligibility provisions.

This past month a constituent of mine came to my office and told me a very sad story. He contributed for some 25 years to the Canada pension plan. He was hurt on the job and went on worker's compensation for two years. Of course those two years do not qualify under the total years worked under Canada pension plan. He then struggled to go back to work for three years but was then diagnosed with inoperable terminal cancer. He does not qualify for disability benefits. Now in his waning years he does not have the income that he needs to at least make his life reasonably comfortable. The fact is that this is not an uncommon experience across Canada and many individuals are in the same position.

Since the member and his party seem to support this legislation, is his party also prepared to expedite the passage of the legislation through committee stage, third reading and then through the Senate?

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his vigorous intervention on behalf of farmers in his province and riding.

I was a little astonished. Over the last hour and a half, we have had an opportunity to hear from a member from the Liberal Party, a member from the Bloc and a member from the NDP. The member from the Liberal Party represents Prince Edward Island, which of course does not have a wheat board. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska is from Quebec, which does not have a wheat board. The other member is from the B.C. southern interior, which does not have a wheat board.

I am just wondering what the member's response would be to members of Parliament representing jurisdictions that do not have a wheat board telling Alberta farmers and those farmers in his riding how they should conduct their business.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued a scathing criticism of the Liberal performance on first nations land claims settlements. Today Canada's new Conservative government takes this issue seriously. Premier Campbell of B.C. said last Friday that the Minister of Indian Affairs has been relentless in his pursuit of finding conclusions for treaties. He said that he appreciated the tireless efforts of the minister in that regard which helped bring them to that day.

Can the minister tell the House about the initialling of two settlement agreements in B.C. this past weekend?

[Human Trafficking, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know our time has almost run out, but I appreciate the opportunity to add to this debate. I strongly support the motion.

The trafficking of human beings into our country for the purposes of sexual exploitation is a grave and growing threat to our nation. It is difficult for some of us to wrap our minds around the idea that slavery could be alive and well in a country as civilized as Canada. Sadly, it is true. In fact, the RCMP has identified Canada as a transit point and destination for those who traffic in people, and the targets are usually women and young girls.

When we talk about trafficking, we are talking about the recruitment and transportation of human beings for the purpose of exploitation, usually in the sex trade. The secretive nature of this horrific crime makes it difficult to measure the extent of the trafficking industry in Canada, but one thing is clear. We are dealing with a multibillion dollar industry that knows no borders and has no conscience. Its size and scope is second only to the global drug trade. We in Canada, as a free and democratic nation, have a duty to vigorously oppose this vile form of enslavement wherever it exists. To do anything less would be an abrogation of our responsibilities as caring and just human beings.

This really hits home in my home province of British Columbia. We intend to host the 2010 winter Olympics. From our experience with the most recent World Cup in Europe, there was a boom in the prostitution trade. When the 2010 Olympics come to Vancouver and to the province of British Columbia, from where are many of these girls and young women going to come? They are going to be coming from those human traffickers who are exploiting these women for their own purposes.

I will wind up by saying that today's motion speaks to the dignity of human life. It speaks to the right of each human being to live without fear of oppression. It is also about us accepting the responsibility to care for others who, whether by circumstance or otherwise, find themselves in the clutches of the most vile predators.

Today I add my voice in support of the motion. May we all seize this opportunity to do something really significant for our country.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I do have a question for him.

I heard him repeat again what we have heard before in this chamber on this issue, and that is that somehow it is against the Charter of Rights to leave the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

He talks about the opinions he and his party have received. Is he aware that there are numerous eminent constitutional scholars who disagree with them quite vehemently. They have actually stated that retaining the traditional definition of marriage is no such violation of the Charter of Rights provided there is substantial legislation to preserve the rights of same sex couples to be united in a civil union?

I would remind him that different groups in our society have special rights, where there is not an equality of rights. I look at our first nations. They have the food ceremonial and social right to fish. We do not scream bloody murder about that. We do not say that is a violation of the Charter of Rights. It is constitutional. There are many other instances like that, so there is legal opinion on the other side of the debate.

Has he investigated those opinions himself?

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the motion actually addresses that issue in clear and no uncertain terms. In fact, the motion says that existing same sex marriages will be respected in whatever legislation that we bring forward. I know he is very upset. He does not like to hear the truth because he has a fixed ideology that he is not going to diverge from.

We have put a lot of care into crafting this motion to ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians are respected in their entirety. I believe this is a motion that is going to protect religious rights. We are not taking away the rights of those who believe that their marriages should be respected. We are saying that we believe that the traditional definition of marriage which has existed for millennia should be maintained and coupled with other legislation that will do the same thing, but not require a redefinition of the traditional definition of marriage.