David Anderson

[The Environment, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have consistently worked to protect the environment, the economy and Canadian jobs. When our leaders travel around the world, they do not come back and get comments such as the NDP leader. Once again, he demonstrated he is not prime ministerial material. We do not have premiers saying that the NDP leader is betraying Canadian interests. We do not have premiers saying that they do not think it shows national leadership. We do not have, as he does, his own colleague, the NDP leader from Saskatchewan, saying that he supports the Keystone XL pipeline and would like the NDP here to get onside with that.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of its environmental record with regard to energy in Canada.

Rather than be distracted by carbon taxes or carbon levies, we moved to directly reduce emissions through an approach that deals with each sector of the industry. We have clearly laid out much tougher emissions standards for vehicles. We have established strict regulations for coal-fired plants. We are now in the midst of bringing forward standards for the oil and gas sector. These all require industry to meet identifiable goals.

Our sector-by-sector approach is not like a carbon levy, which allows industry to avoid responsibility. It is not at all similar to a carbon tax, which would bury regular taxpayers under a load of taxation and government expansion.

What we have done is in the best interests of Canadians. We have protected the environment at the same time as we have encouraged economic growth. We have given clear direction to Canadians and to the energy industry that we are serious about dealing with the important environmental issues but that we will not interfere with responsible and sustainable resource development.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back today to speak on this issue.

It is interesting to watch the movement on the other side on the bill as those members have brought it back to the House and then desperately tried to amend it in order to make it acceptable to parliamentarians. Now they have moved it up, probably to get the bill into debate and into play before Canadians realize that it is actually here and that Canadians are allowed to ask the questions they have about it.

I want to state, as I did last time, that I am cognizant of the need to protect all Canadians from discrimination and hate crimes. I am proud of the fact that Canada is recognized internationally as a country that is deeply committed to the principle of human rights, but I would argue that the bill does not achieve that end.

As I mentioned last time, I would argue that Bill C-279 is unnecessary. We talked about the jurisprudence around the bill, the fact that the issues are already covered by jurisprudence, and that there is no agreement even at the UN on this issue.

We also spent some time talking about the fact that the main problem with the bill is that it is undefined. It almost seems that there is an attempt to confuse people in the way the bill has been presented.

There were no definitions offered for either gender identity or gender expression. The member has come back now and dropped “gender expression” and tried to redefine “gender identity” in a way that ties it to people's feelings. As I explained last time, that is not adequate, and it seems to have been done deliberately. The author of the bill has already declared the intention that

Once gender identity is in the Human Rights Code, the courts and human rights commissions will interpret what that means.

I think there is a new argument, a new confusion, around the bill. I have heard some people now saying that it is about sexual orientation. However, as we know, the code and the act already cover sexual orientation. They have been included there for some time.

One concern is that the bill is unsettling to people. The author has really refused to talk about or deal with the potential implications and consequences of such wide-ranging and undefined legislation. My constituents, I have to say, do not see this as benign legislation because of the things we just talked about, in particular the fact that there is such a lack of definitional framework to the bill. What I am getting from my riding is that the constituents oppose it, but they do have some questions that I will pose on their behalf.

The first question to the member opposite is this: does he actually believe that there is no one who will try to abuse the situation that would be created by his deliberately vague legislative agenda?

That is what the member seemed to be saying when he spoke, but he has refused to address this criticism in his speech. It remains out there in the public's mind, and I have heard that from my constituents.

Second, especially with regard to minors and adults, my constituents have questions about the power relationship that would exist in what in the past were basically private facilities that would now become very public facilities. They are asking what their obligations and rights would be. The failure to address these issues is really why the bill has become known as the “bathroom bill”. I do not think we can just brush off people's concerns.

The legislation is poorly written, it does not deal with the issue the member addresses and it would give the opportunity for some to take advantage of the situation, as not everyone's motives are selfless. I think we need to be sure. We should not be naive. These questions need to be answered.

We know that the bill is not necessary, as jurisprudence already covers these issues. We know that the bill is not well defined, and that is the major problem with it. It is not well defined even with the amendments. We know that the consequences of the bill are not well understood. Therefore, it is time to defeat this poorly researched, poorly written and poorly presented bill.

[Natural Resources, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP continues to use fiction to attack Canadian jobs. Just yesterday, the school of public policy released a paper, which further dispels the myth of Dutch disease. On this side of the House, our government understands the importance of all sectors of the Canadian economy. We support Canadian jobs. Our government will continue to rely on science and facts when making policy decisions.

The NDP leader's Dutch disease fantasy is just one more reason Canadians cannot trust the NDP.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the NDP leader is desperately trying to keep the separatists in his party. Only, last week, he let one slip to go to join the separatist Bloc Québécois.

However, this should come as no surprise. After all, the member for Hull—Aylmer was a member of the Bloc before she joined the NDP; the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie donated 29 times to Québec solidaire, even in 2012; and the member for Laurentides—Labelle has supported the Bloc in the past. In fact, the NDP has more Bloc MPs than the Bloc has MPs.

Unlike the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, we are not interested in reopening old constitutional battles. While the Bloc and the NDP are focused on trying to make it easier to split our country apart, our government remains focused on jobs and economic growth.

[Religious freedom, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today to speak to Motion No. 382. I want to congratulate the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for having the courage to bring this forward and for his great leadership on this issue and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his work and commitment on the issue as well.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my staff member, Joycelin Ng, for the work she has done on this issue, in particular, and on other issues dealing with religious persecution as well. I want to acknowledge her great work on this.

As others have said in the House, I do support the motion. I see this as a seminal document, a seminal declaration by this Parliament. It is past the time that it should have been brought forward, and I appreciate the fact that we are able to discuss this now.

The real issue on this topic is actually the fundamental right that people around the world should have. That is the right to choose what they believe, the right to speak about that belief and the right to change that belief if they so choose. That is really what is encapsulated in the beginning of this motion and what we want to reinforce today, because an increasing number of citizens around the world are under attack simply for their religious beliefs.

Governments around the world continue to repress religious freedom, but it is the right to choose, the right to believe and the right to change belief that needs to extend to every individual in every community and country.

As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has said, it is a basic tenet of humanity, a moral, ethical and legal duty. For many around the world, Canada can really provide leadership to protect this fundamental human right.

The reality is that religious minorities around the world are constantly harassed. They are arrested and imprisoned.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague in the NDP and thank him for his enthusiastic support for the motion. We are glad to see that. He pointed out that the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has reported that 75% of the world's population, as of mid-2010, live in countries where governments, social groups or individuals restrict people's ability to freely practise their faith.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom lists, in particular, countries such as Burma, North Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and a few other countries as countries of particular concern where religious persecution is most severe.

It is obvious that the motion is necessary, despite the protections of religious freedom in international rights law. We talked a little about article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every country has signed on to that, as obligated, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Religious minorities still continue to face a global crisis of persecution. Individual countries, such as Canada, where this is not a big issue for our people, should do their part in recognizing religious freedoms in their foreign policy and promote those values abroad.

Just to address the concerns that my colleague from the Liberals has, what we are doing here does not in any way take away from the defence of other rights. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very vocal about those rights. Our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stepped up to defend those rights. We have been clear on that. I would like to think that the members opposite would see this as a declaration that complements our position on the other rights, not restricts it. That is how it was intended by the author of the declaration, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who has brought it forward.

Successful passing of the motion would ensure that our commitment to human rights and democracy, for which we are known around the world, includes the basic right and freedom of religion and that it would become a mainstay of foreign policy in years to come. We think that is a good commitment to make.

A parliamentary motion outlining this commitment sends a message to the international community that we condemn all acts of violence against religious groups and are coordinating efforts to protect and promote the fundamental right to choose to believe and to change beliefs.

To address the concern that the member opposite from the NDP raised, we are not talking about sending the UN into countries when we are talking about protecting. We do want protection and that should be extended. Governments should understand that they need to extend that to their rights, but we want to see that done consistently and effectively.

The motion puts Canada on the international stage with like-minded countries. We are working together with other nations, multilaterally, that can strengthen the international capacity within the United Nations, OSCE, the IPU and other monitoring bodies such as the European Union, Council of Europe, Organization of American States and entities like that.

I would like to point out that in researching for the motion, it became evident that some other countries have led the way in this. The United States, for example, in 1998 passed a bill, the international religious freedom act, which led to the creation of the Office of International Religious Freedom. It made the U.S. one of the first to officially recognize the protection of religious freedoms as a foreign policy objective. It also established, at that time, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In 2010 the German Bundestag passed a bill that served to establish religious freedom as a human rights priority in the German Bundestag. That was a resolution, not a bill, but it expressed its resolve toward a number of issue areas, including its opposition to laws that used defamation of religion, and we see that in the motion before us today. It continues to take a stand on religious freedom issues, even as recently as defending the rights of Jews and Muslims and their right to practise religious circumcision, which is an issue that has been somewhat in the news.

The European Parliament has passed a number of resolutions dealing with religious freedom. The resolution on the situation of Christians, passed in 2011, recognized that the majority of acts of violence were perpetrated against Christians and recommended ways in which an EU strategy could enforce religious freedom for Christians and other faith groups around the world.

The United Kingdom has what is called a freedom of religion or belief toolkit, which is interesting way. It outlines ways foreign officials can assess religious violations in their assigned countries.

Norway has what is called the Oslo coalition on freedom, religion or belief, which has been in operation since 1998 and was established by its ministry of foreign affairs.

We see this is not something that is new around the world. Canada is taking its place as a leader, as one of the leading nations that is doing this, but it is not something that is brand new either.

I would like to talk a bit about my own personal commitment to this. We heard Shahbaz Bhatti's name mentioned a couple of times in the House today. In 2011, I had the chance to meet him for about 20 minutes before I went to listen to his presentation at the subcommittee on human rights the next day. He knew full well that if he went back to his country, he would probably be assassinated because of the courageous stand and leadership that he had shown. It was only about three weeks after he was here that he was in fact assassinated as he drove down the driveway of his mother's house. I think not only myself but a number of people in the House have been energized by his commitment and by the great leadership he showed.

We have hosted some forums on religious freedoms. Members of the House have come to those and we have seen the benefits of being able to be part of that.

I want to point out Motion No. 382 could establish credibility among advocacy groups, organization and faith groups, the very groups that are most familiar with these issues of religious freedom. It would give our country credibility internationally on the issue of protecting freedom of religion. The establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom is a commendable step toward defining Canada as one of the few distinguished nations willing to recognize religious freedom as a foreign policy priority.

I would like to point out that I believe a successful motion passed by the Parliament of Canada, and it sounds like we will be able to have that, will ensure that the steps taken by our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have the broad majority support of Parliament and that will ensure religious freedom becomes a mainstay of foreign policy for future years.

We have looked to other nations and seen what they have done. We believe Canada can be a leader in this issue as well. I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. As we pass this, we will be able to share around the world Canada's commitment to the issue of religious freedom.

[Employment, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians tell us that they support resource development across this country, including Keystone XL. I can tell members that hundreds of thousands of workers from the Labourers' International Union, Canadian piping trades, Canadian building trades and Christian labour organizations are all fighting to get Keystone XL approved and to create those Canadian jobs.

What is the NDP's response? New Democrats go to Washington to advocate against these jobs. They call these jobs a disease. They insult resource-based communities that depend on these jobs.

Canadian workers cannot count on the NDP to support their jobs. Our government will be there to support jobs and economic growth in every sector of this country.

[Agriculture, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, PFRA was established in the 1930s to take care of environmental issues at that time. It has done a good job over the years, but for the most part, those initiatives have been taken care of and corrected. There actually is no need for the continuation of the tree farm in western Canada.

The government looks forward to turning it over to private interests, if private interests are in favour of taking it over.

[Natural Resources, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Westlock—St. Paul for his ongoing work with the mining sector.

Today the Minister of Natural Resources is speaking to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference about Canada's open, transparent and efficient environment for mining investment. The PDAC conference is the largest in the world and it showcases Canada's international strength in mining.

Through our responsible resource development initiative, low corporate taxes and red tape reduction initiatives, our government is creating jobs and economic growth across Canada in mining communities.

[Petitions, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in my riding and outside of my riding in Saskatchewan.

The petitioners call on the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selection pregnancy. They call upon the members of Parliament to support Motion No. 408.