Ed Fast

[Justice, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken on the important role of tackling crime to make our communities safer places to raise our families. Many organizations that begged previous governments to stop the revolving door of our justice system are now applauding our government's initiatives.

Could the justice minister please explain some of the important steps the government is taking to ensure that people who commit serious crimes will serve serious time in jail?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last 10 to 15 minutes here listening to the member try to make a distinction between flexible and fixed and flexible fixed election dates. She has referred to the legislation as being duplicitous. She has accused the government of not telling the whole story, of not being honest, about being criminal, which I consider unparliamentary language, and deceptive.

In all of the comments she has made she has never once stated whether she supports the legislation. She should be listening to some of her colleagues in her own party who as recently as a few minutes ago stated that they strongly support this legislation.

I would encourage the member to come out clearly and state whether or not she is in favour of this legislation or is she opposed to electoral reform? Tell the Canadian people.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the comments of the hon. member indicate that he will vote against the accountability act. All the member has done is rail against the act.

I cannot help but compare the member's comments to the comments of his colleague from Vancouver Quadra. His colleague was cogent. He colleague understood that this was a major step forward in restoring accountability in government. His colleague also understood that further improvements could be made in the future.

All I hear from that member is complaint after complaint. It sounds as though he is against accountability.

The member mentioned in his reference that mistakes had been made. I do not know where he gets that. I certainly understand that each of the four parties in the House had an opportunity to submit amendments. Some of the amendments were supported and some were not. That is the political process.

However, I do not know where the member gets it, that somehow the process has failed. I sense from the members of the House that there is a consensus that Bill C-2 needs to move forward. Canadians are demanding it. We have come from 13 years of corruption and the undermining of the ethical framework of government.

Is the member going to support the legislation when it is voted on later tonight?

[Fisheries, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Fraser River in B.C. represents one of Canada's most sensitive salmon fisheries.

Recently it has come to light that the previous Liberal government was planning to reduce enforcement on the Fraser River. As we know, Canadians expect our fisheries to be protected against illegal fishing. Canadians will be relieved to know that this government is committed to doing just that.

Could the fisheries minister tell us what steps he has taken to increase enforcement on the Fraser River?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled because the hon. member's colleague, just a few minutes ago, talked about how we should be getting away from blaming each other and how we should move constructively forward in addressing the issues that are present in our aboriginal communities, and then all I heard was “blame, blame, blame”.

I would like to focus a little more on the agreement itself. I think the hon. member will agree that there are flaws within the Kelowna accord. In my mind, one of the most serious flaws is the relative omission of resources for off reserve aboriginals and non-status aboriginals.

As a preface to my question, I would like to quote Patrick Brasseau, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. He said that they “asked this current government to revisit the agreement because it excluded the majority of the aboriginal population in this country”. He said that “you have to target the entire aboriginal population”, not one specific group. He concluded by saying, “We are most encouraged by the Conservative government's recognition of the need” to accommodate off reserve aboriginals.

I have a question for the member. Given the fact that the accord does have these serious flaws, why is the member still insisting on supporting this motion to implement the Kelowna accord?

[Petitions, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by constituents in the city of Abbotsford in support of legislation similar to a bill that was tabled by the member for Vegreville--Wainwright.

The bill addresses the issue of violence against expectant mothers. It would create two offences where an expectant mother and her unborn child are injured or killed by another person. The petitioners support the legislation that is presently before the House, Bill C-291.

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

Read the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do take issue with one of the member's points. He said that in committee we as the government voted against supply management.

I believe that is a misstatement and it is incorrect. If he were to go back and check his notes he would see that it was not a vote against supply management but a vote against this particular motion.

I would recommend, request and ask the member to read that motion again to the House so Canadians throughout the country will know exactly what the government voted against. He will find that what we voted against was taking one small, although important, aspect of the WTO negotiations and debate it here on the floor of the House out of context with the rest of the WTO negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is the same one I asked his colleague a few minutes ago.

I appreciate the member's comments. I know he has given it a lot of thought. My riding has a lot of supply managed commodities and farmers in it. They are looking very closely at what is happening in Geneva right now.

However, I will get back to the motion. It deals specifically with milk protein concentrates. We are taking one small, although significant, issue out of a large variety of issues that are being negotiated at the table at the WTO and bringing it to the floor of the House to be debated. My question will be the same as I directed to the member for Malpeque.

Is it the member's position that every issue being debated at the WTO should be brought to the floor of this House?

This is not about protecting supply management. Our party policy stands for supply management, for strengthening supply management. Our campaign promises revolved around that. Our government policy is that. We put $1.5 billion into agriculture in our last budget. It is not an issue of protecting or supporting supply management. That should be beyond debate here. This government supports it, but why take one issue, which is being debated at the WTO right now, out of context and bring it here? Is that what the member's plan is for all of other issues that are being debated right now in Geneva?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with probably 90% of what my colleague said, everything but the fearmongering for which his party is famous.

I am concerned that the motion involves the issue of milk protein concentrates. I also am concerned that we are taking one issue, out of the thousand other issues that are being debated at the WTO, bringing it to the floor of this House and debating it as though the negotiations will now be done on a one by one basis here on the floor of this House.

Now that the member for Malpeque has agreed that this issue, which is being debated on the floor of this House, is part of a much larger picture, is he proposing that other issues at the WTO should also be brought to the floor of the House? His government never brought individual WTO issues to the floor of the House but now he is suggesting that is the way business should be done.