David Anderson

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for making the points he did. Because I do not see members of the opposition who are at committee, they may be unfamiliar with some of the nuances of the legislation, and the member made some errors. I would like to correct a couple of them.

One thing that needs to be made clear is that at committee, every party in this House opposed cluster munitions and the use of them at any point in any place. Words like “despicable” and “abhorrent” were used by all of us to describe these weapons and what they do. There was no one in that room who was in favour of using cluster munitions at any point in any place.

I should point out that Canadian troops have never used them and never intend to use them. Some of our allies, the United States in particular, have not signed the convention. That leaves an issue, because we have interoperability agreements with the United States, which means that our soldiers have to serve with theirs. The only exception made in this bill is to allow our soldiers to work alongside U.S. soldiers and not be caught in a situation where they are held liable for something they are not responsible for. Earlier today the minister used the example of Canadian soldiers who would fill a plane with fuel not knowing that cluster munitions were in that plane.

There are not giant loopholes in this bill. This bill has been put together to protect Canadian troops and to make clear our opposition to cluster munitions. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Canadian Heritage, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government will continue to safeguard our cultural heritage through initiatives that are working and we are going to continue to deliver tangible results for taxpayers.

We are not alone in the fact that we have not joined the convention. States that share the same concerns that we do, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, have also not become parties to the conventions for Canada.

We will continue to support preservation and celebration of our heritage, but we will do so in a way best suited for the Canadian context.

[Canadian Heritage, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here at this hour of the morning. We all know how important our cultural heritage is to me.

The government is actively engaged in the preservation of Canada's tangible and intangible cultural heritage in a way that delivers real and measurable results for taxpayers.

“Tangible heritage” refers to things like objects and buildings. What is covered by the term “intangible heritage” is much wider and much less well defined. It can include anything from languages and traditional craftsmanship to performing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events.

Our government directly supports both tangible and intangible heritage through our federal cultural institutions and agencies, such as the national museums and Parks Canada.

The government also supports the efforts of Canada's heritage community to preserve and present our heritage, both tangible and intangible. One example of support for the preservation of intangible heritage is funding we provide for aboriginal languages and for arts and heritage festivals.

Efforts to preserve and celebrate Canada's intangible cultural heritage are under way and growing from coast to coast to coast.

Our government will continue to safeguard our cultural heritage through initiatives that are working, while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used in a responsible manner.

Instead of support measures that are delivering tangible results, the member opposite seems to be suggesting that we fund new and unnecessary infrastructure, as well as costly inventory related tasks that will do nothing to preserve and promote Canada's rich cultural history.

Canada is a member of some but not all of the conventions that exist on various topics, including those related to heritage. Our government carefully analyzes each of them to determine whether they are the right fit for Canada and whether they will realize real benefits for Canadians that justify the cost of their implementation.

In the case of the 2003 UNESCO convention, Canada's position from the beginning was that approaches such as binding conventions that worked well for other types of heritage might not be as appropriate for intangible cultural heritage, which naturally evolves and changes over time.

Canada advocated for an approach that promoted best practices and enabling mechanisms for communities, tradition bearers and practitioners, rather than a binding convention. In the end, the convention that was adopted provided little flexibility for Canada to determine the approach best suited for our context.

Our government will continue to support a made-in-Canada approach that works best for us and our heritage. I can tell members that we have no plans to sign the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage. This position has been well-known, and it has been clear since 2003.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, these folks would have a whole lot more credibility if they ever supported a free trade agreement. I think they can name one that they have voted for in the last 20 years. There is always an excuse as to why they are opposed to free trade. This time, they are trying to use human rights as the excuse.

I would like to ask this. What was the excuse when it came to Liechtenstein and Switzerland and they opposed those trade agreements? They oppose trade at every point. It is a different excuse at each free trade agreement. They do not support trade because they do not like it; they do not think that it works.

However, we know that it is the cornerstone of what makes our economy work. Canada needs to trade around the world. We are glad we are able to bring these agreements into place because it has improved our economy; it has helped us to survive the last several years of worldwide recession. Why is the NDP so backward on trade in general?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few hours today, and it is a pleasure to do that, of course. It is interesting that the member opposite said he wants to hear a frank and honest discussion when we have heard the same two talking points. I think the New Democrats have been handing the same sheet around all day over there because it has basically been the same discussion for the entire time. One is about wait times, and the second about citizenship and whether Canadian citizenship is a right or privilege. I am a little disappointed in the NDP.

Typically we hear this moral equivalence thing that happens over there. Tonight, one of the NDP members was giving an indication that if someone is walking down the street and says, “Oh, oh, oh”, somehow the Canadian government is going to be able to revoke that person's citizenship. Another comment was made that people may find themselves in precarious situations and lose their citizenship. A third one was that people who commit crimes might lose their citizenship.

The New Democrats talked about doubly victimizing people, but I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about. It is not a problem of someone walking the streets who all of a sudden loses his or her citizenship. We are talking about specific acts of terrorism and treason. If I go to another country and get citizenship, I make a commitment and then decide that I do not want to follow the laws of that country, that I want to betray that country or carry out terrorist acts in that country, I would suggest that I probably do not have the right to citizenship.

My question for the member opposite is this. Is it too much for the NDP to ask that someone who has sworn the oath of citizenship refrains from acts of terrorism and treason in order to maintain Canadian citizenship?

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to just acknowledge the minister's consistent support for farmers across Canada. Once again I am reminded of the NDP's complete disconnect from agriculture when I hear its members' questions here today. Once again, they have been influenced by a small group of people who, typically, a couple times a year, take these issues and fearmonger among the farm community in order to fundraise for their organization.

Farmers have told us since we have gotten in that they want change. We have provided that. I was happy to see yesterday that the last suit regarding marketing change has finally been thrown out of court, because we have made good changes for farmers in western Canada.

I would like the minister to talk a bit about what has happened with marketing change. How has that improved the situation in western Canada in particular, and how would he see the changes that we are talking about here today in the bill further improve that situation for grains and oilseeds producers in western Canada?

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member may have slipped. We definitely heard some unparliamentary language over there. I wonder if you will be asking the member to retract that or apologize. How we should handle that?

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Sit down. Show some respect.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me a chance to address the bill. It is not that I have not had the opportunity in the past, because I think this is the fifth time this legislation has come forward, and I have been here for at least four of those. It is good to see it finally moving ahead. Through all of those iterations, the NDP has been consistently incoherent.

I want to add to something the member said earlier. Canada does have $1 billion put aside for compensation, and I believe that part of the bill deals with signing the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage, which would bring in another half-billion dollars that would be potentially available if it was needed as well.

I would like to know if the member would address some of the limits we find in other countries to see how Canada's limit of $1 billion straight up and that other half-billion dollars that is available through the supplementary compensation fits with what is going on in other countries. I want to note, as the member did, that the Americans have far more nuclear installations. They have a pool there, but their individual operators are actually liable for less than half of what the Canadian operators would be individually. I look forward to his comments.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Have you been there?