Rob Anders

[Question No. 68, March 9th, 2005]

With regard to the transportation of armed forces personnel: ( a ) did the government rent Antonov planes to transport the DART Team to South Asia for disaster relief, and, if so, how much did it cost and for how long were they rented; ( b ) what type of planes were used, how much did their rental cost, and who were they were rented from, to transport Canadian Forces to Manitoba for assistance during the 1997 floods; and ( c ) what type of planes were used, how much did their rental cost, and who were they were rented from, to transport Canadian Forces to Quebec for assistance during the 1998 ice storm?

(Return tabled)

[Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a new poll has just been released which shows that 99% of women know that drinking alcohol while pregnant can cause birth defects, yet the Liberals along with their big government friends want to force costly mandatory labelling on our brewers and distilleries.

Telling people what they already know is a waste of money. What is next, the Liberals forcing mandatory labels on bottles of pepper spray saying, “May irritate eyes”?

This measure will end up costing Canadian businesses millions of dollars with no results. The issue of birth defects is too serious for misplaced government intervention. We should be focusing our efforts on educational prevention programs which have actually proven to be effective.

The only label I am in favour of is a label on Liberal politicians which states, “Electing this politician to office will affect the health of our economy and cost people their jobs”.

[Petitions, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also present petitions on behalf of many constituents who support the traditional definition of marriage because it just works so well.

[Petitions, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. The group's goal is to encourage the spread of democracy and democratic values. They think Canadian foreign policy should support democratic nations like Israel, India, Taiwan and the United States.

[The Environment, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in just five short days the Kyoto protocol will come into effect. To meet the requirements, Canada will be forced to either slash and burn our economy or pay off foreign countries. The government's only plan so far has been to hire a comic. That is funny because the Liberal plan is a bad joke.

Even government bureaucrats are telling us that we are going to be significantly short of the Kyoto targets. Will the minister tell us if the Kyoto plan is to bankrupt Canadian industry or force a taxpayer revolt?

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not as though we are talking about private foreign investment. This is another government. That government, by the way, is right now the fourth largest recipient of foreign aid. Two years ago it was the largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid.

Noranda, responsible for 15,000 employees, will not receive any guarantees of fair treatment with regard to the Chinese government. The Chinese government, with regard to mining, has the worst safety in the world. Noranda controls strategically vital deposits of zinc, nickel, copper and other minerals. Nickel, particularly, is involved in the hardening of the armour of the side of warships, intercontinental ballistic missiles and space technology.

Canada's trade deficit with China has been growing to the point where now it is $14 billion a year difference. In other words, we import $18.5 billion from China and China buys $4.7 billion from us. It does not sound like a fair relationship.

It is the moral aspects of these things. The idea that Chinese dissidents--

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow up on a question that I previously asked in the House of Commons. I would like to repeat it.

The government of China is trying to buy Canada's largest mining company and has now also expressed interest in Alberta's oil sands. It would be state ownership of Canada's natural resources. It sounds like the national energy program all over again, except this time by a totalitarian regime with an appalling human rights record.

Government ownership was a disaster for western Canada that destroyed businesses and families, and ended up costing Albertans $60 billion. Why is the government supporting NEP 2?

That was my original question to which I received an unsatisfactory response. Hence the reason why I would like to raise some of the following issues and ask questions in relation to them, and go into greater depth.

I would like to talk about national security concerns or considerations. These are increased cooperation with China, including technology transfers and resource acquisition that are a threat to our national security.

First, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has warned that foreign agents have illegally targeted Canadian science and technology sectors and used visiting Chinese students and scientists to obtain classified information.

Second, there is significant evidence to suggest that the Chinese government has been one of the worst offenders in the proliferation of nuclear high technology. Credible evidence points to China as playing an instrumental role in the development of the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea.

Third, China has 600 missiles pointed at Taiwan and has threatened to use them. During Taiwan's 1996 election China launched two missiles over Taiwan.

Fourth, and this is a quote from Lt. Gen Xiong Guangkai, Deputy Chief of China's General Staff in January 1996. He said, “...you care a lot more about Los Angeles than Taipei”. He was making a threat that if China were to launch an invasion of Taiwan, an amphibious assault, that the possibility of using nuclear strikes against the United States would prevent people coming to the aid of Taiwan in its hour of need.

The second big category that I would like to talk about is national interest.

Canada needs a review mechanism with some teeth to protect the national interest. The investment review division has reviewed 11,000 transactions since it was established and has rejected zero. Government acquisition of strategic natural resources is an important issue. If it is not okay for the Canadian government to own it, why is it okay for a foreign government? That is one of the questions I put across the way.

Why did the federal government enter into an agreement with the government of China on energy without having consulted the provinces? Why have the agreements not been released? Will the government commit to releasing them? I have those agreements with me here. They were on January 19 and January 20. They are agreements that deal with minerals and metals.

The second agreement deals with increased energy security and new technologies, particularly the oil sands, uranium resources, oil sand technologies, collaboration in the nuclear energy sector, extensive capabilities in nuclear research, advanced nuclear energy technologies, et cetera. That was talked about and put out as a press release on January 20.

I would also like to note--

[Question No. 40, January 31st, 2005]

For each year since 1995: ( a ) how much funding was provided to the University of British Columbia's Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues; ( b ) by which departments, agencies and Crown corporations was funding provided; ( c ) who requested the grants and signed on behalf of the Liu Centre; and ( d ) does Lloyd Axworthy's name appear on any of the grant or loan applications?

(Return tabled)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will probably wind up being the last speaker before we break for Christmas so I want to make this speech about the Canada that could have been and the Canada that should be.

First, we should look at the problems the government is embroiled with. When I look at the bill, I see that it is all about taxation and priority. I look at the terrible tax and spend record of the government where it gives away hard-earned Canadian tax dollars to regimes that abuse their own citizens, abuse their children and do all sorts of nasty things with slave labour conditions, et cetera. Our government rewards those people for bad human rights practices by taxing Canadians in order to give aid to thugs.

Second, the Liberals suffer from elitism. They have a cabinet that disregards a lot of what their own backbenchers have to say on things. I think of the Minmetals deal. I know the cabinet is in favour of it but I also know a lot of people in their caucus do not want to see Canada's resources sold to a regime, which uses slave labour and has committed egregious human rights abuses, so it can go ahead and further its agenda.

Third, the Liberals suffer from top down problems as well. We have the Prime Minister's handlers who abuse and mistreat MPs and disregard them. I have heard complaints from many of the MPs across the way on the green buses as we travel about this place. They suffer from that too.

That brings me to my fourth point, which is the arrogance that is suffered on the other side. I look at the sponsorship scandal and how the Liberals can stand up day after day and defend tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent to advance their own aims and own little political agenda and how they lined the pockets of their friends and gave payola to their cronies.

Fifth, they suffer from broken promises on the other side. The Prime Minister promised there would be 5,000 new troops for the Canadian Forces, but he stood in the House today and on many days in the past defending the fact that they will not be putting those soldiers forward. We have many people, some being my former staff, serving in Afghanistan who are overworked, tired and do not have the equipment and the government chintzes them right, left and centre.

Sixth, the Liberals also suffer from being out of touch. They want to give the Governor General all sorts of ridiculous amounts of money so that she can gather dozens of her friends and fly to Russia to try to twist Vladimir Putin's arm. Can hon. members imagine the ludicrousness of that. The idea that government wanted to give Adrienne Clarkson, our Governor General, millions of dollars to twist a former KGB agent's arm on the idea of Kyoto by bringing artists to Russia is obscene.

I want the hon. minister who is heckling across the way to think of the millions of dollars that were spent on that and what that could have done for Canadian kids and for housing. It would have gone much further than housing the Governor General in Russia.

I come to the seventh point and that is the failed policies of the government. Over the last 30 years, we have seen the government pull funding from things that are core functions of government only to waste it on things that are non-core functions of government. I think of the RCMP. The Liberals have sucked money out of the RCMP and have deprived the RCMP of the resources to crack down on crime and do their jobs. To what end?

That only covers seven of probably fourteen points that I have, but my time is up. We will continue in the new year and I hope the priorities of the Liberals will change over Christmas.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is once again misplaced priorities. Last year the government gave $50 million in aid to the People's Republic of China. That money is now being used to make offers to buy our mining companies. It is money that supports a regime that has egregious human rights violations, that uses and abuses children. It does all sorts of nasty things to Falun Gong practitioners and then goes ahead and commits cultural genocide against Tibet. The government is giving money to a regime that is corrupt.

How can the government justify taking hard-earned Canadian tax dollars and giving it to a government that abuses its own citizens, abuses other citizens and tries to abuse our own?