Rob Anders

[Committees of the House, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-298, the perfluorooctane sulfonate virtual elimination act. At the beginning of the bill reference is made to, “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada”. It is important that since we are paying respect to Her Majesty, we congratulate Her Majesty on her 80th birthday. We recently saw on the news all the fanfare that was associated with her birthday. She has been a long reigning monarch and has done great service to our dominion, along with many of the other countries in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty is a fine royal example for our assembly, as well as for many others.

I was recently at Spruce Meadows when His Royal Highness Prince Edward was there. He was presenting the Duke of Edinburgh awards. It was a lovely event. He was handing out awards to young people. The awards encourage young people, I believe starting at the age of 14, to participate in volunteer activities. As long as they have completed an expedition along with other aspects of a certain amount of community hours, by the time they turn 25 years of age, they are eligible for the Duke of Edinburgh award. That is something that is highly valuable and encourages young people to do volunteer work in their community. I congratulate members of the royal family in terms of their involvement and support for that program.

I will now turn to the intricacies of Bill C-298 which relates to the Conservative Party's environment policy. I am very supportive of what our party and government has done on this matter, in that we are pursuing a made in Canada policy.

There are many others in the House who support the idea for Canada's environmental policies to be made in other places. For example, when it comes to the Kyoto accord, they would prefer that our policies were made in Japan, or that in a sense we pay homage to Russia with regard to environmental policies by shipping credits and money to those countries that have worse environmental records than Canada's record. Some people in this place in their support for some of the Kyoto provisions would have us send money and credits and whatnot to China. That is a serious problem. We have to be mindful that it is far better to support a made in Canada policy.

Another country that has an incredible number of people along with some policies that could be questioned is India. India is a large parliamentary democracy. We want to make sure that our policies are made in Canada.

What we are talking about with Bill C-298 is the idea that we will be dealing with waste water treatment here in Canada. We will be dealing with landfills here in Canada. We are not dealing with exporting credits or moneys, Canadian taxpayer dollars, to other jurisdictions in order for them to look after some of their concerns. The environment is a global concern, but we must look at what we can do here in our own backyard before we look overseas internationally.

We can suggest things to those other countries as they can suggest things to us, but it is very important that we look after Canada first. As a matter of fact, as legislators, Canada is our primary responsibility. It is important that we are mindful of that, that we look after our own backyard. We must do the best for our children and grandchildren.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Liberals mentioned a program he had seen or knows of that deals with the harsh situations in east Vancouver. I have family and friends who live in that city. He mentioned that he thought there were benefits to the program in highlighting some of the drug use issues and the prostitution that exists in that neck of the woods and making the rest of Canadian society aware of this.

I posed a question previously about how much money we spend on these things. Let us pull a number out of the air. Let us say, for example, that a program on an issue like that costs $10 million. I think that is probably a fair guess. When we look at how many police officers that could actually put on the street at $50,000 per police officer, that is probably about 200 police officers.

I wonder what would be better for that community. Would it be to have their plights and their problems glamorized on TV and have actors and actresses portraying drug users and prostitutes spread out across the rest of the country serving as an example? Or would it be to have 200 police officers, law enforcement officers or maybe even social workers on the street in that community? That $10 million could be applied to the drug use problems and the crime that goes on there to try to end the cycle of drug use and crime. That might be a better use of money. I pose that question to the member.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question earlier asking by what percentage the member and the other members in this place wanted to regulate what Canadians do. The member mentioned that under the content rules that he dealt with as a broadcaster, 30% of what was put on the air had to be of Canadian content. It is about regulation.

We have the number of 30%, for example, in the act. Maybe some of the people in this place would like to force people to watch, listen or perform more Canadian content.

If it is about regulation, which costs money, that poses a second question. Is $1 million enough? We spend more than that on it in this country and that would probably be a single episode of a single program. Is $10 million enough? We spend more than that in this country and that amount is probably good enough for an entire program. Is $100 million enough? That is probably enough to fund an entire station. Is $1 billion enough? That is what we spend for one channel in this country with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Is $10 billion enough? When we take into account all the various programs and the department that is associated with this, we spend probably about that.

Would they want $100 billion? It comes down to a cost as well in terms of this regulation. A money value is attached to it. It also has real repercussions. Artists, such as Bryan Adams, have left this country because Canadian content rules have forced their music to be overplayed, such that they will move to the United States just to avoid some of those overplay issues.

A money value is attached to this and there are consequences where we lose some artists due to these practices.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard some members stand up and say that they want to see more Canadian content. They do not think Canadians watch enough Canadian television or enough Canadian programming, or listen to enough Canadian music or this, that and the other thing.

The question I have is kind of a philosophical one. What is the right amount? How many Canadian movies do the Liberals or other parties in the House think Canadians must watch every year? Is there a certain percentage? In other words, if Canadians watch television, must they watch 20% Canadian content? Must they watch 10% Canadian content? Must they watch 50% Canadian content? How much do the opposition parties want to regulate the lives of Canadians? When it comes to music, how much must they listen to? Should they be forced to listen to Canadian music?

I would take the perspective that people should be allowed their free choice and their free will on these matters. If they choose to watch programming from other countries or listen to music from other countries, so be it. Let that be their choice.

It is an intriguing question that I posed to the other participants in this debate. What is the magic percentage? What is the right amount? Would they want 20%, 50%, 30%, or 100%? What do they ask of Canadians? What do they demand of Canadians that they must participate in that is strictly of a Canadian nature?

[Conservative Party of Canada, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to humbly thank the voters of Calgary West for allowing me to represent them in this 39th Parliament. This was made possible through the efforts of the many dedicated volunteers and supporters who worked tirelessly knowing that change was in the air. Change is now here.

The Conservative government will crack down on crime, putting the rights of victims and their families before the criminals who have harmed them, and restore safe and secure communities across the country. This includes raising the age of consent for sexual relations between children and adults from 14 to 16 years. Police will now be able to crack down on those who prey upon our children. Canadian families need protection from such predators.

Once again, I would like to thank Calgary West for electing me and allowing me to be part of this new Conservative government.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the Liberals mismanaged Technology Partnerships Canada to the point that the program was mired in scandal and controversy. They kept day to day operations of the program secret. No one ever knew if money borrowed by the private sector had been repaid and lobbyists like David Dingwall collected millions of dollars in securing grants for their clients.

Audits were done on the TPC program. Could the industry minister provide this House with an update on these audits and if companies are compliant?

[Petitions, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition on behalf of 77 students at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna. They are very concerned about what is going on with the People's Republic of China and its suppression of the people of Tibet, the unprovoked aggression and invasion of that country, the thousands of Buddhist monasteries that have been destroyed in Tibet and the banning of religious activity by the Chinese authorities and the attempt to eliminate Tibetan religion and culture.

The petitioners are asking our government to call upon China to cease those practices that deprive Tibetan people of their fundamental freedoms and rights.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Then let us use life imprisonment.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Life is not in Canada. It is in the U.S.