Ed Fast

[Criminal Code, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague supports the bill going to committee for further discussion.

I was intrigued by his comments about tying the hands of the judiciary. As the member knows, the bill does not provide for mandatory minimum sentences. It provides for mandatory driving prohibitions and for higher maximum sentences. In my mind, higher maximum sentences provide more discretion for judges to sentence.

I would encourage the member to look at this not as tying the judiciary's hands, but to providing more direction to the judiciary. I understand some members of the judiciary would desire the House of Commons, which is reflective of the mood of the country, to provide more direction so they could sentence properly. Those who deserved to be in jail would spend time in jail, but those who could serve time in the community, would do so.

I invite the member's comments on whether he thinks the bill is more directed at providing direction to our judiciary.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House and the member that the motion has already been adopted, so she is trying to deal with something after the fact. She is not in a position to do so. I would refer her to Standing Order 56.1(b) which essentially says it should be used for the management of the House's business and the arrangements of its proceedings

Those arguments were made in the House already and it is unfortunate that the member is bringing it up at this time. I would remind her that we have not cut off debate in any sense of the word. In fact, the member and each member of her party is entitled to continue to debate the full time that is allocated to them. So the suggestion that somehow we have cut off debate on this very important subject is not correct.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's heart is in the right place. I had a chance to work with her on private members' bills. I know she has a heart for victims and for criminal justice reform, which will make real changes.

I was intrigued by her comments about the design of cars. She is absolutely correct. Many of the cars in the market today are especially attractive to youth. They are designed to look fast and go fast.

Could she comment on whether there is a role for the federal government to legislate some kinds of controls on cars, which would prevent them from going above a certain speed, to ensure that these kinds of street races do not happen on our streets?

[Government Programs, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board announced a budget surplus of over $13 billion. This money was paid down against our national debt, one of the largest repayments in Canada's history. That saves taxpayers $650 million every year in interest costs.

Our government also identified over $1 billion in annual savings after conducting an extensive expenditure review.

Taxpayers expect that their government will respect their hard-earned dollars. For 13 long years the previous Liberal government spent taxpayers' money willy-nilly as if it belonged to it personally. Last week the Liberal member for Wascana even had the audacity to suggest in this House that he wanted the money back.

The Liberals still do not get it. It is not their money. It belongs to all Canadians. Canada's new Conservative government does care about taxpayers and that benefits all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to close the debate on what I believe is a significant step forward in protecting the rights of children across Canada in order to be safe from sexual predators.

As the sponsor of the bill, I am encouraged by the support the bill has received today. I had hoped that debate on this bill would transcend our partisan differences and for the most part it has. I especially want to thank those members of the opposition parties who have agreed to support the bill at least as far as the committee stage is concerned. For those who have expressed concerns, I respect those perspectives. I am hoping that all members of the House will at least agree to have the bill sent to committee for further review.

There may be some who will ask whether the bill is an overreaction to the problem of child luring. I would respond by looking at the experience in other countries such as Britain, Australia and yes, the United States. When we look at the maximum sentences for child luring in those jurisdictions, we see a range of 12 to 30 years in prison. In some cases the legislation provides for mandatory minimum sentences of five years.

By comparison, Bill C-277 represents a relatively modest increase in the maximum sentence from 5 to 10 years imprisonment. As my colleagues know, our government has also introduced legislation, Bill C-9, which will remove conditional sentences including house arrest where serious crimes are concerned. Increasing the maximum sentence for child luring for sexual purposes makes a clear statement that this is a serious crime and will ensure that sexual predators do not receive house arrest.

Members should also know that of the cases successfully prosecuted under the current child luring law, the large majority of the sentences are for terms ranging between 6 and 18 months, and most of those are conditional sentences to be served in the community.

My heart tells me that the protection of our children is worth much more than that. There is no doubt in my mind that offenders who are so depraved that they would take advantage of a vulnerable young child deserve tough sentences, not a sentence served in the comfort of their homes and communities.

I would invite members of the House to reflect on our fundamental role as members of Parliament. That role is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians, and to use the utmost diligence in protecting and defending the interests of the most vulnerable in our society. Clearly, young, impressionable children are included in that group. They face growing threats from a rapidly changing world, a world which is becoming increasingly less friendly and safe. More importantly, those who prey on and exploit children are becoming increasingly bold in their attempts to gain access to our children.

In fact, as I stated earlier, many of these predators cannot be treated and will remain a constant threat to our communities for the rest of their lives. It is our job as members of the House to ensure that we do everything within our lawful power to provide our justice system with the legal tools to keep sex predators away from our children. It is very simple. We have a job to do. Let us do it well.

Parents also have a job to do. I encourage parents to listen to and understand their children, inform themselves about parental controls on their child's computer, keep their child's computer in a public place, stay involved and remain vigilant, educate themselves, and understand that the Internet is not as safe as they may have assumed.

Bill C-277 achieves three goals. First, it condemns in the strongest terms the sexual exploitation of our children. Second, it brings the maximum sentence for luring into line with other sexual offences. Third, it ensures that such offenders serve their sentences in jail, not in the comfort of their homes where they continue to have access to the Internet.

The message of the bill is very clear. If people choose to prey on our children, they will pay a significant price. I encourage the members of the House to put aside partisanship and do something significant for our children. At the very least, refer the bill to committee. Our children deserve nothing less.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, his comments are reflected in the sentiments shared by our party and by the Government of Canada.

I thank him for his courage in standing up in support of this softwood lumber agreement against some considerable opposition, not only from other opposition parties but from within his own party as well. Members of his community can be proud of him. He is actually doing what MPs should be doing, which is standing up for the interests of their residents and their working families.

I trust that the prospect of recovering from the devastation of the lumber dispute will carry over into many other communities across Canada that depend on the softwood lumber industry for their survival.

It has been suggested by many that somehow Canada simply has to win a couple of more appeals and court battles and the United States will cave in and gladly return the outstanding duties, which are well over $5 billion U.S. It has also been suggested that this softwood lumber agreement is unnecessary because we would receive immediate compliance from the United States and that it would cooperate with us. I take a different view.

If the softwood lumber agreement did not carry in this House, would my colleague expect our neighbours to the south to quickly return the outstanding duties if the next couple of court decisions go Canada's way?

[Canada-U.S. Border, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in B.C.'s Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley 60 border guards walked off the job, claiming a threat to their personal security. Shockingly, the Liberals have claimed that the arming of border guards was unnecessary. However, George Scott, who is the vice-president of the Customs and Excise Union, which represents these agents, said that the border agents would not have walked off the job if they had been armed.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please explain to the House the importance of strengthening border security?

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-303 introduced by the member for Victoria.

This bill has a number of flaws. A closer review reveals that this bill would represent a significant intrusion into provincial and territorial jurisdictions by imposing criteria and conditions on provincial and territorial governments in order for them to qualify for federal early learning and child care funding. Putting aside for a moment the legal challenges which this bill would face, the imposition of the standards referenced in this bill speak to a larger philosophical difference between the NDP and Canada's new government on the subject of support for Canadian families. While I believe we share a common belief that the federal government has a role to play in supporting the child care needs of Canadian families, we differ with respect to what form such support should take.

The former Liberal government's one size fits all program did not work for the diverse needs of Canadian families. Now the NDP is proposing one size fits all child care legislation. In distinct contrast, Canada's new government has brought forth, and more important, acted on a universal child care plan based on providing choice for parents. This plan also recognizes and respects the roles and responsibilities of the provinces and territories for delivering child care services. Parents in the provinces need flexibility and freedom to choose the type of child care that works best for them. Our universal child care program allows them to do just that.

I would also note that the program we have delivered as a government is one that recognizes the whole issue of choice. For many years Canadian families have been requesting, in fact demanding, that there be equity and fairness in the support that Canada's government delivers for families. Unfortunately, that support has not been forthcoming until very recently.

In our recent budget we fulfilled an election promise that we would deliver $1,200 per child under the age of six, per year. A family with two children would receive double that amount, and with three children, triple that amount. It is a significant amount of money and much more than was ever delivered under any previous government.

Unfortunately, the member for Victoria is actually proposing a bill which runs counter to the promises we made to the Canadian public in the last election. What she forgets is that on January 23 Canada elected not a failed Liberal government, not an NDP government, but a new Conservative government which was going to live up to its promises. That promise was to deliver equity and fairness to families across Canada, hard-working moms and dads who try to deliver enough resources to their family, to raise respectful children and to provide them with a lifestyle consistent with Canadian standards. We have delivered on that promise. We intend to continue to do that as we put the emphasis on young children in our society. The House will notice more legislation coming forward from our government which will put the focus on protecting children. For example, I have brought forward a private member's bill that will address the issue of luring children over the Internet.

Our child care policy is focused again on the child. It is focused on the very families that need the help, the ones trying to raise respectable citizens for our country, children who are going to be future leaders.

Bill C-303 is simply the old solutions being regurgitated. It would address the issue of the administrative costs of delivering child care through government agencies. What we have chosen to do with our plan is to focus in on driving and delivering the resources and the funds directly to the parents who need it.

Unfortunately, I have to speak against the bill. I strongly support our government's move toward providing the $1,200 per child per year child care allowance.

[Early Learning and Child Care Act, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments and I note she implied that Canadians do not support our new government's universal child care plan. I want to remind her that on January 23, Canadians elected not a failed Liberal government, not an NDP government, but they elected a new Conservative government. We were very clear that we would be providing $1,200 per year, per child.

The reality is that Canadians appreciate our efforts to support working families. In fact, a resident of Victoria, right in the member's own riding, recently wrote the Prime Minister to say: “Being a work at home mom with two small children, the extra money is going to make a huge difference to our family, allowing us and our children to enjoy a better life and future”.

While the member and her NDP colleagues mock the $1,200 per year, per child, and she herself referred to it as puny and an empty plan, when will she admit that her party is completely out of touch with the reality of working families in Canada?

[Airline Industry, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns an issue that is important to those who work within the airline industry and to those who are passengers on Canada's airlines. My question is for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Could the minister please inform the House how this Conservative government is working to address the issue of flight attendant ratios?