David Anderson

[October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to count, for the 13th time he is going to get an explanation.

He knows full well that the government has answered his questions. He knows as well that responses to oil spills in Canada are always a combined effort by industry, by federal, provincial, municipal and territorial governments, and by regulators and non-government organizations.

He knows that beyond the highest standards for offshore training, safety and equipment in Canada, oil and gas companies are also required to maintain environmental protection and spill response plans. He knows that the regulator would be the government's lead agency in the situation. He knows that federal oil and gas legislation dictates the industry is responsible for cleaning up its own spills and operators are liable for the costs and expenses related to that.

He also knows that Environment Canada is the federal government's expert in the detection of spills. It uses things like aerial surveillance and satellite imagery for detection and tracking. It can provide advice about spill trajectory, weather and sea state forecasts, and those kinds of things.

As I have mentioned before, the real issue is one of integrity and who really stands up for the people in the north. The member opposite would want us to believe that he might do that, but we have some evidence that he does not do that and will not do that. I will come back to an issue that was very important to his constituents.

He knew that something like 88% of his constituents took a strong position on an issue, yet when it came to voting in the House on that issue, he chose to vote against his constituents because his leader told him he had to. He was willing to sell out his constituents in order to get the approval of his leader in Ottawa. We all know what that issue was. It did not happen that long ago. It was the gun registry. It pained me to watch him stand up and vote against the interests of his constituents. Almost 100% of them agreed with the position of the government. In the past he had agreed with the position of the government, but for his own political reasons, he chose to turn his back on the people of the north and support the position of his leader who, as everyone knows, has not spent the majority of his life in Canada.

The question really is, if the member opposite would abandon his constituents on an issue like that, why would they have any confidence that he would represent their interests on this issue? The key for Yukoners is to ask themselves who they want to represent them.

If they want a member of Parliament who is going to stand up for their interests, it looks as though they are going to have to change their member, or do they want a member who is going to represent Ottawa's interests? Even on issues that are of critical importance to them, are they willing to have the member opposite represent them and take the chance that he will turn his back on them on those issues and walk away?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has continually shown how disconnected it is from rural Canada, and this piece of legislation that it is bringing in does this one more time.

The member opposite knows that these measures do nothing to help Canadian farmers. They originate in special interest groups that so much support the NDP and its ag policy.

[The Economy, October 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the current Parliament was barely a week old before the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition kicked into gear. All three partners supported a job killing, 45-day work year to be paid for with massive hikes to EI premiums. In fact, the leader of the Bloc Québécois bragged today that he is the “driving force behind the coalition”.

It is troubling that the coalition's policy has included introducing massive tax hikes and job-killing measures that would put our economy at risk. It is troubling that the coalition does not care what Canadian voters think.

However, most troubling of all is the fact that the heart and driving force of the coalition is led by a party dedicated to the breakup of this great country.

Thankfully, the Conservative Party, led by the Prime Minister, is committed to a united Canada and to the policies that will protect, not kill, our fragile economic recovery.

[October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for some strange reason the member has decided to get personal about this.

I can assure the member that I actually do know my portfolio. The energy board actually has announced a review of Arctic safety and environmental regulations. It is open to the public. The public is allowed to come and make its presentations. Last week the energy board released further details of it. He can look them up and find out what they are. We are pleased to point out things, including the issue of relief wells that will be one of the many important aspects of that study.

The member talked about failing people. I think he is the one who needs to acknowledge that he has completely failed his principles and his constituents. This government looks forward to representing and protecting the interests of Yukoners and folks in northern Canada, as we protect this country from sea to sea to sea.

[October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the strangest thing about this series of questions the member has asked is that it almost seems as if he is looking for some sort of a disaster so that he can take advantage of it in some kind of political sense.

The member knows full well that our government is committed to the safe, responsible and sustainable development of all of Canada's natural resources. He also knows that we rely on a strict arm's-length regulator to make science-based decisions and who has the responsibility of ensuring the protection of the public and the environment.

The member knows as well that there are currently no active authorizations for drilling of any kind in the Beaufort Sea and that the NEB has been safely regulating that activity for almost 20 years.

I think the real question tonight is one of credibility. The member wants to keep raising these questions and giving the impression that he is representing his people on these issues. On an issue that came up recently, I think 88% of the member's constituents were on one side of this issue. He stepped forward.

The other side is starting to heckle because they know full well what this is. This is an issue of integrity.

When it came to voting, the member opposite abandoned his constituents. He abandoned the north. He walked away from them. This was an issue that was key for Yukoners. It was a key issue for the aboriginal people and for Canadians across the country. Of course we are not talking about drilling. We are talking about the gun registry.

The member comes into the House pretending that he is representing Yukon but on an issue where he had almost 90% of his constituents on one side of the issue, he walked away from them. The reason he walked away is because he is representing Ottawa now more than he is representing Yukon.

I want to say that that will not happen on this side of the House because we do represent the local people. We are standing up for them. When I talk about the National Energy Board announcing a review of the Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements, we are doing that for the people of Yukon and the people of the north.

For the member opposite, it is a serious issue of abandoning his constituents. Can the member be trusted? I think that is what a lot of people are asking. There are people in here who are saying that he probably cannot be trusted because even in his own province the premier himself is wondering about the member from Yukon. His comment about what the member opposite did was to say that his government does not change its mind like the Liberals did on the long gun registry and that it does not hide from its verbal commitments to Yukoners. It backs it up with action. It is about trust and the Liberals are all in it together. He said that Yukoners cannot trust them.

Certainly if they cannot trust the member opposite on an issue where he had 88% support for his previous position, which he then switched because the Liberal leader told him to, I doubt if Yukoners can rely on him on issues regarding oil drilling, regulations and those kinds of things.

This is not a small thing that he changed. There was a motion introduced in the legislature in Yukon demanding that he return to the territory to explain his actions. The MLA who put that forward said that the Yukon government wanted to know why he chose to follow the dictates of the Liberal Party leader and breach his commitment to Yukoners by voting to save the long gun registry.

How or why would Yukoners trust the member on this oil drilling issue when they certainly could not trust him on the gun registry issue, even when he had 90% support for his previous position?

[September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that this is a big issue. Something as big as this actually requires leadership. As I pointed out, that is what this government can provide. That is what the opposition cannot provide.

The Liberals certainly gave no indication last night when they were voting that they could provide any type of leadership for Canadians. The Liberal leader said that the bill was fiscally irresponsible. The Liberal deputy leader and House leader sat in their seats. The critic stood to support the bill, along with the majority of their caucus. That is not a party that is fit to lead.

Our party is ready to lead. We are leading. We are taking care of the issues, including the regulatory issues regarding offshore drilling and the issues regarding the moratorium on tanker traffic.

[September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are here tonight listening to more fearmongering about hypothetical situations. The member opposite knows full well that nothing has changed in terms of the tanker traffic moratorium. She also knows full well, as the Senate committee recently recognized, that Canada's offshore regulatory system is among the best in the world. There are very few systems that are better than ours.

We could talk for the next few minutes about that specific issue, but I think there is something even more important that we need to discuss and that is credibility.

The Liberals differ from us on this because we have been consistent on these issues. We have been consistent on the regulatory issues. We have been consistent on the moratorium. They have not.

It is hard for people to know where they stand on anything. It is hard to know whether they stand in favour of oil drilling or not because we cannot get a clear position from them. It is hard to tell where they stand on the moratorium on tanker traffic because they have been inconsistent on that for months as well. It is hard to tell where they stand on energy development. Are they for it or are they against it?

Even in agriculture, which is one of the things I really enjoy, we cannot tell where they stand. There is a GMO bill that has been presented, an extreme radical bill by the NDP. the Liberals have always opposed those kinds of things and under the direction of the member for Malpeque now they seem to be standing in favour of that as well.

We need to know where they stand on these issues.

One of the biggest issues of inconsistency came yesterday and probably damaged the Liberal Party more than almost anything else in the last year or two. That was last night when we were here voting on the EI bill that had been put forward. This is a bill that would cost something like $7 billion a year. It would result in a 35% increase in EI premiums. It would set up a 45-day work week.

Even yesterday morning the Liberal leader called it fiscally irresponsible. When we hear those words coming from the leader of a party we would expect that his party would likely vote against the bill. Last night we got here and the Liberals took four positions.

I have the voting list here from last night. It is very intriguing because the majority of the Liberals supported it. They believe that Canadians should have been hit with a 35% increase in EI premiums, that it should cost them $7 billion. Some Liberals were against it. There were three of them who were against it. I think the member opposite was one of the three who opposed it. Some of them sat. What was fascinating is the House leader sat and the deputy opposition leader sat. The fourth position was that some cleared the House. The Liberal leader was among the people who actually left the premises so he did not have to vote on this. In the morning he is saying it is fiscally irresponsible; at night he is running out the door.

It is a disaster. It is a disaster for their party. Canadians can see right through it. The leader flees. The House leader and deputy opposition leader sit and do not even vote. I am sure that the deputy opposition leader is probably still smarting from his recent demotion but one would think he would at least support his leader. Then the majority follow the critic and actually support an extreme bill.

On this issue we see the Liberals are inconsistent. On many other issues we see them as being inconsistent. Thankfully the government is not. The government is consistent in its positions and we have taken consistent positions on virtually every issue, including the one we are speaking about tonight, which is the regulatory system governing offshore drilling.

We have been consistent. We have been consistent in our demands that Canadian industry reach and hold to the highest standards. We are consistent in that as we are in our commitment to Canadians.

[September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to speculate about what might be, but I want to talk about what actually is. He can talk about thousands of people standing and watching. Thousands of people watched last week while he stood up and voted against the issues and concerns of his own constituents.

We actually want to talk about his credibility today, which has been completely damaged by his position last week. If we want to protect the pristine Arctic, the best thing we could do is change the hon. member for Yukon.

[September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are concerned by the devastating environmental and economic impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is good to take a look at our own situation and ask tough questions about safety and security, and we have been doing that.

However, what we see here today is the member actually trying to change the channel. He is trying to change the channel on the fact that he has failed to represent his constituents. He is trying to move to a different issue.

Last week, the member was in the House and failed to represent his constituents. He failed to keep the commitment that he had made to them. It is not only myself who holds him accountable for that, but his own people back home are extremely dismayed, which is probably a mild term, at his actions, including his premier. We have information that both Premier Fentie and other Yukon MLAs have accused the member opposite of going against the interests of Yukoners by voting to maintain the controversial gun registry.

On May 15, 2009, the member opposite actually voted in favour of scrapping the long gun registry. When it came around this time, he decided that he would not do that. His premier, talking about himself and his own colleagues, said this about him:

We don't change our mind, like the Liberals, on the long-gun registry. We didn't hide from our verbal commitments to Yukoners. We backed it up with action. It is about trust and the Liberals are all in it together. Yukoners cannot trust them.

The Klondike Yukon Party MLA , Steve Nordick. presented a motion demanding that the member opposite return to the legislature to explain his actions.

When the member gets up today trying to represent his people, he needs to be accountable for some things. Steve Nordick said that the member opposite should tell his constituents “why he chose to follow the dictates of the Liberal Party leader...and breach his commitment with Yukoners by voting to save the long gun registry”.

The premier later accused the member opposite of making a commitment to Yukoners “when soliciting their votes” but then later changing his position. The premier's line was “Obviously, once he's received the paycheque, [he] has entirely changed his mind”.

Even the Liberal leader in the Yukon said that territorial Liberals have always opposed the long gun registry.

It is okay for the member to be here today to talk a bit about the oil spill issue, but the reality is that he has been trying to change the channel. He needs to be accountable to his constituents. He needs to stand up and explain to them why he broke his word.

[September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my last answer talked about the partnership and commitment the government has towards these projects already. However, I need to state, as I did before, that it is not the role of the federal government to insert itself into provincial or municipal matters.

We are listening and we have heard that residents in big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary are fed up with congestion and they want some alternatives. That is why the Conservative government is investing in public transit projects across the country. Those investments will encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transit, which in turn will reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

I could talk a lot about the specifics of this, but I think the funding initiatives that I laid out earlier really indicate and demonstrate the commitment this government has toward public transit across the country and in the riding of the member opposite.