Brian Jean

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. This is a very important bill. I think the very fact that it has not been brought into effect until this time, especially after 9/11, speaks volumes to the negligence of the previous government.

It fills a long-standing gap in our legislation and finally gives Canadians the ability to protect critical infrastructure, to protect our international bridges and our tunnels. What could be more important than protecting our citizens, the safety of our citizens, the safety of Canadians, the safety of our economy through trade, to protect our friends and relatives traveling to work, live and play every day?

This bill will create Canadian jobs. It will grow Canada's economy and strengthen our international relationships, especially and of course those with the United States. Most important, as I said, this bill will safeguard Canadians and Canadian interests.

Canada's border with the United States is some 6,400 kilometres of land and water. It is the longest undefended and unguarded border in the world. Unfortunately, this border is only as secure as its most unsafe and weakest part. There are 24 vehicle bridges and tunnels, 5 railroad bridges and tunnels and also 130 border crossings. All of these are very difficult to protect.

Over $1.9 billion worth of goods is transported across the border each and every day. This means that 11 million trucks cross the border every year. That means 30,000 trucks a day or one truck every three seconds. In fact, since I stood up, over 100 trucks and $5 million in products have crossed the border. It is incredible.

In fact, the four busiest international bridges alone handle over 50% of this volume. This represents 33% of all of Canada's trade with the United States. These are very important crossings, and we need to protect them not only for the safety of citizens but for our trade. Let us face it, before September 11, 2001, we took these bridges and tunnels for granted. They are both publicly and privately owned, and no one really expected security on this border to be such a critical issue, especially in catching people, and also critical to our economy. Now we understand how critical these bridges and tunnels are to our economy. We need to protect those assets. We need to keep traffic flowing, as it is so vital to our economy.

As government and as members of Parliament, we have an obligation to ensure that our citizens and those assets are protected. This legislation will indeed protect them. It will go toward ensuring that we have an interrupted flow of goods and people across the border. It will ensure that the manner in which these bridges and tunnels are managed and maintained keeps security and safety as job number one for the government. Finally, as I have said, it will protect our national interests on an ongoing basis.

After 9/11 we recognized the need to conduct threat and risk assessments and to improve the overall security of our perimeter all over the country. After 9/11, Transport Canada launched a process in cooperation with the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association. Their study proved that we need to conduct security reviews and threat and risk assessments for all of our international crossings. The results and recommendations of this study include everything from specific engineering analysis to general operational security analysis.

One of the reasons this legislation is so important is that currently each bridge is owned, operated and managed differently. Some are privately owned. Some are federally controlled. Indeed, some are controlled by provinces and states jointly or by each independently. All of these parties currently have different regulations, rules and standards and, quite frankly, different expectations of what they want out of the bridge or international tunnel. This legislation will create one standard for all bridge and tunnel crossings, a standard that is in the best interests of Canadians and guarantees the safety of Canadians on an ongoing basis.

Job number one for the government is to keep Canadians safe. Canada does and always has had constitutional authority over international bridges and tunnels, surprising as it may be. We may ask why this particular legislation has taken so long to come in, especially after 9/11. It is shocking that nothing has been done but under the vision of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government, this is one of the first pieces of legislation that we have put forward because of its importance to Canadians. What could be more important to Canada than our safety and our economy?

The legislation would work toward the security, the safety and the economy of all of our border crossings. Even U.S. agencies have identified these crossings as potential targets for terrorists. They have even identified them as choke points. They have said that the terrorists' objectives could decimate these crossings and our economy and our safety.

The bill would give the governor in council the authority to make regulations for the safety and the security of international bridges and tunnels. For example, this may include setting the minimum security standards for bridge and tunnel operators. It may include provisions to prepare and submit regular threat assessments and vulnerability assessments for particular bridges or for all of them. It may include the development and implementation of an emergency response. We do not even have an emergency response system set up to know what we will do in cases of dire emergencies in this country for international crossings.

The very lack of this legislation currently being alive in this country was a glaring and obvious gap. I cannot believe that for five years, since 9/11, the previous Liberal government could not find the initiative and motive to protect Canadians and to push this legislation through. It is a priority and we will work toward getting this through with the other parties. The safety and security of Canadians is a real priority. We know the Prime Minister and the government will work with the United States and Mexico to set up systems to protect our critical transportation infrastructure, which is so important for us as a trading nation.

The government will be working on a transportation security action plan. The government will get expert analyses from governments, industry and international partners on how to keep Canadians safe. As I said, that is the government's number one priority and we will work toward that.

The bill is a first step only. It would give the federal government the ability to keep our international bridges and tunnels secure. We believe that nothing could be more important than this bill and we are asking for all party support on getting the bill passed as quickly as possible. I fully support the bill and I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House today to join me in keeping Canadians safe and secure.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is obvious that our Prime Minister and this government are very committed to farmers. The first act the government did was to release three-quarters of a billion dollars to farmers immediately.

The member and his caucus have supported other initiatives that the Conservatives have put forward, particularly the trade compensation act that was supposed to help farmers and softwood lumber producers in the late fall. Will the member and his party support the government's initiative in relation to the CAIS program, to divide it into two programs, the emergency relief and the income stabilization?

[Petitions, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I present on behalf of my constituents today deals with the twinning of Highway 63 in northern Alberta. Currently, the highway is only two lanes going north and south. There are tens of thousands of people who travel that highway every week and sometimes every day sometimes.

The petitioners ask, since $123 billion will come out of my riding in the form of taxes over the next 15 years and some 150,000 people will be living there in approximately 10 years, that this highway be twinned because of the type of traffic that uses the highway. This is the first of many petitions on this subject, which has over 1,500 signatures.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased speak in the House today to this bill, the trade compensation act, which would help so many people in Canada involved in exports, including lumber, cattle or whatever it may be. I think the bill would certainly help our companies internationally to compete more effectively and make international companies and other countries realize that Canadians are serious about supporting our industry.

I first want to thank my colleagues for their support and input, including the members for Vancouver Island North, Calgary East and St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I especially want to say to my friend from St. John's South--Mount Pearl that the more Newfoundlanders who would come to Fort McMurray, either permanently or temporarily, would be most welcome to work in the many high paying jobs in that area.

Finally, I wish to thank my leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, for his support, his hard work and his leadership. I can assure Canadians that with his leadership and example I believe we would be much better off as a country.

As well, the situation speaks volumes about the government and its role when it takes a Conservative member of Parliament to introduce legislation that would offer real support to Canadian industry, especially industries that have been so often placated and so often abused by foreign countries that are taking advantage of their own internal legislation to put our exporters at risk in their own jobs.

This trade dispute has especially devastated the Quebec forest industry and the B.C. forest industry. I think it is our role as Canadian parliamentarians to stand up for Canadians throughout Canada, wherever they may be, to ensure they are fairly treated.

The bill offers tangible, concrete support to our exporters. It offers them the help they so desperately need right now. The bill in fact should have been introduced by the government and it should have been introduced a long time ago.

What we have before us is a bill that is unanimously supported by all opposition parties. No member, I understand, from any of the opposition parties takes exception to the bill or what it sets out. Some 65% of Canadians are supporting this type of bill and this particular bill. I would suggest, if we look at the members opposite from northern Ontario, Quebec and B.C., they would have no choice but to support the bill and it would pass with a large number of members supporting it if the government would provide it with a royal recommendation.

I think voters should ask themselves why the Liberal government is not allowing the bill to proceed. I would suggest that they ask that question especially during any time that they have the opportunity to tell the government how they feel about supporting Canadians and supporting Canadian industry.

The government is playing politics with softwood lumber producers' lives, with exporters of cattle, with exporters of all types of industries across Canada. I suppose the best that workers affected by these actions can hope for is a deathbed conversion by the Liberal government and perhaps it will make an announcement.

But wait. The government actually has $1.5 billion that it announced just recently for softwood lumber. But what is it for? It is for retraining unemployed softwood workers, people who are unemployed and cannot find jobs because the government will not support the industry. It is for finding other markets.

What I find is that the Liberal government's answer to this particular crisis in industry is to retrain workers for other jobs and to actually throw more money at bureaucrats to find other markets. Does this mean the world is not aware that we sell wood? Do we not compete in markets around the world currently? Do we have to now buy our customers or is the Liberal government using this money to explore the solar system to establish new markets where they have no earthly competition?

Most likely this $1.5 billion, like most Liberal promises, will indeed go to the solar system. It will disappear in smoke never to be seen or heard from again, another bad use of taxpayer money.

I submit that the workers and the industry in Canada deserve better. They deserve a government that will stand up for our country, for our exporters and take immediate action on issues, not wait and wait and make announcements that have no substance. They deserve a Conservative government.

It has been decided that we need a royal recommendation. I do not appreciate that answer, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciated you looking into it. The questions Canadians need to ask themselves are: Why will the Liberal government not provide a royal recommendation? Why will the Liberal government not answer to Parliament, to the 65% of Canadians represented in this Parliament who want this bill to go ahead? Why are the Liberals opposing it at this stage? I would suggest that they will not because they will not cooperate with the rest of Parliament.

If the Conservatives form the government, we will cooperate with the rest of the parties. We will get work done and we will work for Canadians.

[Points of Order, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on October 19 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order to question whether or not Bill C-364 required a royal recommendation, and I would like to respond to that.

The Standing Orders were revised in 1994 to remove the requirement that a royal recommendation had to be provided to the House at the time of introduce of bills.

On page 897 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

--since 1994, a private Member may introduce a public bill containing provisions requiring the expenditure of public funds provided that a royal recommendation is obtained by a Minister before the bill is read a third time and passed.

Marleau and Montpetit provides an example of this happening. Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, had been reported back to the House from committee on June 16, 1994 and debate at the third reading stage began on December 6, 1994.

The bill was given royal assent on March 26, 1995, more than nine months after it was reported back to the House from committee.

A royal recommendation clearly can be provided after the bill has been introduced so long as it is provided before the bill is read a third time and passed by the House. It does not prevent the bill from being debated at second reading, referred to a committee for study or allow for amendments to be proposed. As such, the motion of the parliamentary secretary with respect, Mr. Speaker, is premature.

The parliamentary secretary also argued that Bill C-364, the trade compensation act, clause 3, constituted an appropriation for an entirely new purpose which was not already legislatively authorized.

The Minister of International Trade, on April 15, announced funding for the softwood lumber industry associations in the amount of $20 million and before that in the amount of $15 million. It may be argued that such spending then, Mr. Speaker, is already legislatively authorized.

Under clause 4 of the bill, which refers to loan guarantees, it also may be argued that the government by way of the Business Development Bank of Canada already provides loan guarantees in similar circumstances such as this bill proposes.

I submit, with respect, that the parliamentary secretary is premature, first, with his objection to the bill. Second, it is arguable that the bill may not even need a royal recommendation.

These concerns however, notwithstanding the above, can be addressed at the committee level and amendments may be brought forward such that the bill may not require a royal recommendation.

I also have written to the minister to seek the support for a royal recommendation should it be required. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that once the House sends the bill to committee and the minister sees the support for the legislation, the government will gladly furnish a royal recommendation if required before it is read a third time and passed.

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we have problems with infrastructure all across this country, especially in places such as British Columbia and Alberta and even in Fort McMurray where 98% of this great country's oil is located. There is a single lane highway going in and out of Fort McMurray which some 30,000 to 70,000 people travel on frequently. We do have an infrastructure deficit.

I would like my friend to comment on some of the issues that were brought up by the previous speaker when he said that this government had been firm with our trading partners.

I started to add up the issues in my head. There is the softwood issue. The government has thrown loop into Bill C-64 by trying to stall it for guarantees for the softwood industry. The government says it has been firm with the United States with respect to our cattle industry. There is also the safety issue around shipping in Atlantic Canada that has been brought up by some of our members. The fishing industry is an absolute failure with the U.S. and other countries.

Other issues the government says it has been firm on with respect to the United States are textiles, wheat and especially the environment, for instance, sumas energy 2, which our caucus, especially the member for Langley, has been so adamant in trying to fix with the U.S.

I fail to see where our government has been firm with the United States with respect to acid rain, the Great Lakes and Devils Lake. Could my friend enlighten me as far as the Liberal government's firmness is concerned during any of the years it has been in office?

[Softwood Lumber, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this Hallowe'en the scariest thing we have in Canada is the government's trade policy and the lack of action of our Prime Minister in the softwood lumber dispute.

In the last few months, the Prime Minister's policy has changed no less than five times. At first we were negotiating with the United States, then we pulled out of negotiations and then we were not negotiating with the Americans. Suddenly he was prepared to negotiate with them, and now, of course, the Prime Minister is not prepared to negotiate with them.

I have two questions for everyone in the chamber. After last week, will the Prime Minister have any time to resolve the softwood lumber dispute? After last week, will the president have any time to resolve the softwood lumber issue?

Bill C-364, the trade compensation act, would solve this dispute. It would keep Canadian industry alive and send a strong signal to the United States that Canada supports its industries, all of this with a minimum cost to taxpayers.

The bill is a vote for exporters, for softwood lumber producers, for farmers and for manufacturers, for everyone in Canada. The bill is fair, it is good business and it must go through for our industry to survive.

[Unanticipated Surpluses Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that particular tar sands is in my constituency so I can tell the member why the Shell expansion was so overbudget. I can assure the member that almost all of the expansions in that area are overbudget and that is because the government lacks vision.

The government had an opportunity last year and this year to put some money into northern Alberta which would have created jobs for Canadians. We have so many jobs available in northern Alberta that it is not funny but we just do not have enough people to fill the jobs. We also do not have any affordable housing. I think the government put $3 million into the area out of the $3 billion it took out last year. We have problems in northern Alberta because the government has no vision for sending Canadians to Alberta instead of leaving them on unemployment insurance.

I can assure the member that we on this side of the House understand Reaganomics, Keynesian and economics but I do not think Canadians, if they were given a choice between Reaganomics and steal-onomics, would pick steal-onomics, and that is what we have had from the government over the past.

I have two questions in particular that I would like to ask the member. How much of the $6 billion out of last year's surplus was actually paid on debt? What is wrong with paying off debt? What is wrong with leaving our children and grandchildren with no debt?

[Unanticipated Surpluses Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have an opportunity to stand in the House and actually agree with any policies or position of the NDP, but in this particular case I can say that I am prepared to do so because this bill is in large part a farce.

Some comments have been made about Alberta being in perfect shape and how wonderful Alberta is, yet we have a similar situation there. Our premier is planning to refund $400 to each and every taxpayer in a vote-buying scheme similar to what is anticipated to be taking place here. I would like her comments on that.

I live in an area in northern Alberta which has one of the most dangerous highways in Canada. We have been asking that it be twinned but it is not going to be twinned for some time. I do not think it is even planned on the books. We have a water treatment centre that has enough capacity for 50,000 people and yet 75,000 people depend on it. We have some water issues. Alberta has 15% growth per year, but no land has been issued for people to put houses on because the Alberta government controls that. I see what the Liberal government is trying here with Bill C-67 to be a similar situation.

The Conservative position is to lower taxes and to put more money back into the hands of Canadians, but to do so in a way that will not cost money. I know from a previous job I held that it would cost the college I sold to more than $100 to issue a cheque for whatever amount. This seems very similar. Instead of giving tax cuts and leaving the money with the people who know how to spend it best, the government takes the money and decides to roll it back in the form of vote buying. I would like to hear my NDP colleague's comments on that as well.

[Unanticipated Surpluses Act, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, this bill of course seems very attractive. I think it is appropriate that we are speaking to this bill at this time because it is a lot like Halloween: it comes to us in the form of Prince Charming and when we take off the mask we have Lex Luthor, the arch-enemy of Canadians.

In a situation like this one I look at five questions: what, when, where, how and why. In this particular case, and I would like my friend to comment on it, I see that we have a situation under this legislation where we will not receive anything, even if it is possible, until March of 2007.

In fact, the most interesting part is that we have had a huge surplus of late. Of course the papers have been covering it and everybody has been talking about a $6 billion surplus, but the reality is it that it was spent down to $1.6 billion. Taxpayers would have received absolutely nothing, even with that large surplus, because of the discretion involved in this particular case.

Indeed, I think the most obvious part of this particular message from the Liberal government is that it has missed those Canadians who are most in need, such as the low income earners who actually do not pay taxes, homeless people, and seniors, the most important group of people in our society because they built this country but are not receiving anything back. In fact, we know that after the tax cuts from the former finance minister, now the Prime Minister, over the last 10 or 12 years, this is the part of society that lacks most and needs the most help.

I am wondering if my friend could comment on that and on how in this particular case there is absolutely no guarantee of any tax relief to Canadians, because the Liberals can fritter it away and spend it on absolutely nothing, as they have done over the last 12 years. They have spent it on things of no substance, things that obviously anger most Canadians, such as the sponsorship scandal and the many other scandals that have taken place.

They continue to do this and yet they come forward, as I have said, with a mask of Prince Charming that turns out to be Lex Luthor in disguise.