David Anderson

[Natural Resources, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of gall is that? That program would never have existed if the NDP had decided on it. It voted against it three times.

Our government has been a strong supporter of energy efficiency. Our eco-energy homes program has saved Canadians on their energy bills across the country. We budgeted $400 million for that program this year. It has been fully subscribed. We will continue to work with Canadians on clean energy projects.

[Natural Resources, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have the bizarre opposition side, which voted against the program three times, begging us to bring it back.

It has been successfully creating jobs across the country. Our government was clear that this program would end after 250,000 registrations were in. It has been fully subscribed. We expect to be close to the budget amount of $400 million. We will continue to work with Canadians to support our clean energy sector.

[Natural Resources, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his excellent work on natural resources.

When we go abroad, we defend Canadian interests, not betray them. Today the Minister of Natural Resources is in Kuwait doing excellent work as usual in telling the world that Canada stands ready to supply its oil and energy.

We are a strong stable democracy, we are a reliable trading partner and we are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country. Unlike the opposition, when we travel abroad we support Canadian interests and Canadian workers.

[Natural Resources, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in some ways the member opposite answers his own question. Our government does take the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources very seriously. He understands that and that is why the proposed Old Harry project in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is undergoing a thorough and transparent environmental assessment. Most projects of this magnitude do that.

The health and safety of Canadians, as he has pointed out, and the protection of the environment are important to our government. The environmental assessment report submitted to the board by Corridor Resources Inc. is part of the environmental screening process that ensures the protection of both workers and the environment.

I would like to repeat that the board and all Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity to occur unless they are certain the environment and the health and safety of workers are being protected.

Once the board has updated its strategic environmental assessment, public consultations on the project specific environmental assessment of Old Harry will resume.

The environmental review is on track and that is good news for everyone and good news for all of Canada.

[Natural Resources, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the member across has said, things have changed since he asked his question, so we certainly want to deal with the questions that are relevant to the present.

I thank the hon. member for asking about the next steps involved in the review of the Old Harry project in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Our government is strongly committed to ensuring the safe, responsible and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources. We recognize the importance of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to all Canadians. We also understand that some stakeholders have concerns regarding environmental sensitivities in this region. That is why we rely on arm's-length independent regulatory bodies to make science-based decisions regarding development in Canada's offshore.

Corridor Resources' submission of its environmental assessment report to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an important step to ensure that the safety of Canadian workers and the environment will continue to be protected.

The board has undertaken a completeness review of the environmental assessment report. It will also review the drilling application for completeness and for compliance with federal regulations.

I want to assure hon. members that Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they are convinced that the environment and the health and safety of workers are being protected.

On January 20 of this year, Corridor Resources requested a prohibition order from the board until the strategic environmental assessment of the Gulf of St. Lawrence could be updated. On February 28, the board announced that it would not be issuing that prohibition order. However, it did indicate that the strategic environmental assessment of the gulf will go forward as planned and the project specific public consultations will recommence only once the SEA has been completed in early 2013.

The hon. member should be happy with the thoroughness of this review. It means that we have an independent regulatory body that is doing its job in the best interests of this country and in the best interests of his constituents. I want to assure him that the environmental review of Old Harry is in fact on track. That is the bottom line.

[Natural Resources, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know that reviews of major projects can be done in a quicker, more streamlined way while still enforcing strong environmental and safety standards. An inefficient regulatory system does not lead to better environmental outcomes. Projects that are safe and generate thousands of new jobs across the country and open up new export markets must not die due to unnecessary delays in the approval process. Our government will take the actions necessary to responsibly develop Canada's natural resources.

[University of Regina, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as an alumnus of the University of Regina, I was very disappointed to hear that my alma mater was experiencing anti-Semitic activities.

Recently, the University of Regina students union passed a one-sided resolution to join the boycott divest and sanction movement against Israel. The motion was passed at the end of the annual meeting when, as the student newspaper reports, “by the time the motion to boycott Israel came up, a lot of people had left and the remaining crowd members were anxious to join them”.

We have the ironic situation where a student organization, while proclaiming its support for political freedom and democratic discussion, did just the opposite.

Calling Israel an apartheid state is abhorrent and insulting to all Israeli citizens, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

The University of Regina's administration needs to disavow any support for this offensive motion. I do not believe the University of Regina now supports the suppression of all Israeli academics, that it endorses anti-Semitism or that it sees Israel as an apartheid state. To counter this resolution, President Timmons needs to say so.

[Religious Freedom, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is the World Day of Prayer and the first anniversary of the death of Pakistan's federal Minister of Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti.

Mr. Bhatti, a Christian, was assassinated for being one of the country's few influential politicians prepared to speak out against Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws. His visit to our human rights subcommittee shortly before his death left an indelible mark on many of us in this House, strengthening our resolve to fight for human rights and religious liberty around the world.

I call on members of Parliament and Canadians to promote religious freedom through the rule of law. The theme of this year's World Day of Prayer, “Let Justice Prevail”, reminds us of the sacrificial work of the martyred defenders of minority rights such as Minister Bhatti.

To honour and respect his memory, on April 2 my office will once again be hosting in Ottawa a parliamentary forum on religious freedom. We will be discussing the issues of religious freedom and governance. Everyone is invited to join with us.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to ask a question a little bit earlier, and the member opposite referenced my constituents. I can tell him right now that my constituents need trade. I am from an agricultural area and the people there need to have trade.

My constituents know full well the penalties that were paid when the provincial NDP was allowed to implement its policies. I come from Saskatchewan where, by the time the provincial NDP government was done with us, we were 50 years behind the neighbouring province. It seems that those policies implemented anywhere in this world will have the same result.

I want to ask my hon. colleague why he is against Canadian companies being able to more effectively export things like machinery, precious stones and metals, aerospace products, minerals, fuels and oils, electrical and electronic equipment, paper and paper board and those kinds of things, and pharmaceuticals? Why is he against our being able to bring in some of those same things, like gold, fish and seafood, and articles of stone and plaster?

All of us understand that as we increase trade, we increase the opportunities for people and that folks who have lived in poverty will begin to move up the economic chain and be able to rely more on the things they are doing and the money they are making themselves.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we have heard these arguments time and time again, because with every free trade agreement that comes up the NDP uses variations of them.

The NDP members are actually against trade. The member opposite claims they are not, but they are. They stand against trade at every opportunity. Every time we have had to deal with these free trade agreements, NDP members stand against them. They seem to think that it is somehow good, that they are trying to protect people with poverty. They are trying to protect them by keeping them in poverty. We do not believe in that. We believe that we should be protecting them with prosperity.

Clearly the free trade agreements that we have dealt with and have been able to bring in have protected people with prosperity. Earlier the Liberal member opposite was talking about peanuts and large meals. The reality is the Liberals did not serve Canada anything at all. They did nothing in their 13 years. We have had to step forward and begin to bring these free trade agreements into place.

I have a lot to say, but I want to ask the NDP members opposite, why do they oppose every free trade agreement? I have never heard them come to the House and say that they will support one. At the end of his speech today the member said it was all about criminals and not supporting workers. The reality is every free trade agreement that we have made has improved the lives of workers in this country and it has improved the lives of the workers in the countries we have made agreements with.

Why do the NDP members refuse to support every single free trade agreement?