Brian Jean

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite curious when I hear the member and several other members in the House consistently suggest that they know the priorities of Canadians. I am curious because obviously they represent less than 50% of the population. I believe that particular member is from Toronto.

I have two questions. Where in the world does the member think he has the mandate of Canadians and knows the priorities of Canadians? Is there some secret poll out there? Did the government do a poll when it cut $22 billion in health care or when it spent $2 billion on a gun registry system that does not work? First, I am wondering where this member gets this idea that they speak for all Canadians.

Second, I would appreciate hearing the member's comments specifically in relation to the plan the government had but which changed dramatically when it found out it could buy the NDP votes. I wonder how the member feels about throwing money out without having any kind of plan, any agenda and any security that it actually will get to the places where it is allocated.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to represent the will of my constituents and speak in opposition to Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

I will begin by summarizing my position, the position of someone who has lived all his life in the north, someone who has actually argued constitutional and charter arguments in front of the courts in Alberta and someone who has immediate family members who are both in the homosexual community and in the treaty and Métis communities.

This is why I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and the nurturing of the children of the union. Our children are our future and must be protected.

While we respect the rights of others, we must also look to the future and guard our future generations. A stable home with a mother and father is the foundation of our civilization and although it may not always be attainable, I would argue that we should work toward this environment as it is the best environment for our future generations.

My logic is this. All words have three parts: first, the word itself; second, the meaning that describes the word; and third, the rights and obligations that flow from the word. The word “marriage” is no exception to this. It is simply that; a word that describes and identifies a group of individuals within our society. In this case, the group it describes is a relationship between one man and one woman in a state recognized contract.

It is my position that the rights and obligations that flow from that word need to be extended to other words to protect rights of minority groups throughout Canada.

I would submit that these other groups should receive not only the rights of married couples but also the obligations of married couples.

As the Leader of the Opposition states, we must respect all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation or other differences and all couples who apply for solemnization of their relationship should receive the respect and the rights and obligations of married couples.

I also believe that we should send a clear message of protecting minority rights to Canadians and protect not only married and same sex couples but also common law couples after a certain period of cohabitation. Some provinces even recognize this period of cohabitation now and recognize common law rights but not all provinces do and each province is different.

Each of these three groups should be defined individually because, let us face it and admit the facts, the descriptions are different between a man and a man, a woman and a woman and a man and a woman. Yes, even common law couples who have not formally solemnized their relationship before the state should also be afforded the same protections. All of these groups should have the same rights and obligations under the law and should be respected equally in all aspects of the law that flow from our natural state.

In terms of protecting rights, it is also my belief that as members of the House we must protect the rights of those who entered into marriage on their expectation of what that term means. Protecting rights is a dual obligation. Just as with every right comes a corresponding obligation, receiving a right can sometimes infringe on others' rights and expectations. Rights and respect work both ways.

If we want our beliefs respected, then we must respect the beliefs of others. With mutual respect comes the end of bigotry, hate and prejudice. That is the Utopia that I seek for all Canadians.

The Conservative Party of Canada is allowing a free vote in Parliament on this matter. We respect the supremacy of Parliament. I believe that we should respect the will of Canadians while at the same time protecting the rights of all minorities.

In my constituency of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, located in northern Alberta, I received less than 10 responses in favour of same sex marriage and over 1,000 responses asking to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken what I believe to be a reasonable compromise position on this issue, which is in accord with the views of the majority of Canadians. We want to recognize the traditional definition of marriage without detracting from the rights and obligations of people in same sex relationships.

The Conservative Party wants to create the status of a civil union to recognize the identical rights of all peoples. Religious institutions would be explicitly protected. We would protect public officials from reprisal if for religious reasons, as we heard from my colleague earlier, they feel they must refuse to perform same sex marriages.

The Conservative Party represents the only middle ground position on the debate from any political party. Canada's law should reflect the priorities of Canadian society, while protecting the rights of minorities. The Conservative position does this. This compromise respects all sides of the debate.

This debate is about that. This debate is about mutual respect. This Conservative Party has proven that we respect both sides of the issue and we respect all Canadians equally.

Now it is time for other members of this House to do the same and to respect our position.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the hon. member does not want to buy hot air over here. It is because there is none available. I, quite frankly, would suggest that the monopoly on hot air in the House is from the other side.

As far as supporting Kyoto at this stage, again with the democratic deficit what choice do we have? The Liberal government signed an international treaty binding us to terms on which we had no input.

With regard to the one tonne challenge and the things they have implemented, Canadians are running out and trying to lose weight. That is what they think the one tonne challenge means.

The Liberals are talking about a market based system. The market base will be subsidized by the government. The government will subsidize industry to implement this plan. The current rates that are set in Europe are far in excess of what the supplemental plan will be for the Liberal government.

If the member thinks that the economy is set from year to year and that it reacts from year to year on the basis of what the Liberals do, he has another thought coming. The Conservative governments in history have set the stage for the Liberal government to run us into--

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, I questioned the environment minister specifically about Canada giving billions of tax dollars to developing countries to in essence send taxpayers' moneys up in smoke in developing countries' smokestacks. The minister's response was unacceptable. I will quote that response today:

We will do it despite the opposition, which does not understand the link between the environment and the economy. The opposition does not understand that in global warming there is the word “global”.

Let me say that I understand what global means, but what the government is saying and what this minister was saying is this: in other words, no matter what the elected representatives of this country say, including me and including the members on this side of the House, no matter what we say, the Liberals are going to do it anyway. They are going to ignore the will of the people and the will of those elected representatives in making those decisions.

The Conservative Party does understand what will happen to Canada's economy if the Liberals fully implement Kyoto. Let me provide a little bit of background.

The Kyoto protocol, which of course was completed in December 1997 after nothing being done for several years, requires 55 countries, representing 55% of the emissions, to reduce greenhouse gases, to agree to do so. For Canada, our commitment is 6% below the 1990 level. We have to reach that by 2008-12.

It is estimated that in 2005 we must reduce our emissions by 270 to 300 megatonnes. What do those numbers mean? They mean a lot of things. They mean that this is going to hurt taxpayers a lot. There is going to be a lot of pain to reach these numbers for the Liberal government. Since 1990, in fact, because of the Liberals' inaction on this file and some growth in the economic sector of Canada's different industries, we have increased by nearly 30% our greenhouse gas emissions.

There has been no implementation by the Liberal government, no action up to this time, and now we are faced with emission problems and, quite frankly, a serious situation that, in my opinion and the opinion of many economists, is going to cripple our economy.

Recent studies actually indicate that Canadians will pay 100% more for electricity if the Kyoto plan is implemented and 60% more for natural gas. Indeed, we are already seeing an increase in gasoline prices at the pump. It is expected by some experts that we will see an 80% increase in gasoline prices as a result of the Kyoto implementation. Again, I say “ouch”. It is going to hurt a lot.

Economists say that this could even lead to a recession. Canada's buoyant economy will end up falling into the pit of recession. As a result, our economy obviously will lose many jobs and we will have serious problems.

I would like to talk briefly on what I am most concerned about. When we fall into a recession, as most countries do, the first things that are chopped are the environmental programs that have been implemented. I am concerned with that because we have a lot of problems in Canada's environment today. We need to protect and clean up our rivers. We need to clean up our lakes. We need to clean up our land sites; we have something like 30,000 contaminated sites in Canada that need to be cleaned up. There is absolutely no action on these.

I am concerned that the implementation of this Kyoto bill will actually work in reverse. Not only is it going to devastate the jobs and the economy of Canada, but it is also going to cut where we need the most action. We need action on the hands-on environment.

Even the government's own officials have admitted that the cost of Kyoto compliance will be at least $10 billion, not the original $5 billion that the Liberal government said it would cost.

My question is this. How can this government assure taxpayers that Liberal bungles will not cost us billions upon billions of dollars more and how is the government going to make sure we do not lapse into a recession?

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to Motion No. 165. This is a motion that concerns all Canadians and one that constantly grabs the headlines in our national newspapers, as it does affect every Canadian in their pocketbook.

The motion is about gas pricing and what the government an do to discourage and prevent price fixing. The motion requires that the government should take action with respect to gasoline prices by:

--setting up petroleum monitoring agency responsible for preparing an annual report on all aspects of the industry, including how prices are set and competition issues, whose director would be...appointed for a three-year term after consultation with sector representatives and the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology...and by bringing forward amendments to strengthen the Competition Act, including measures to ensure that the Competition Commissioner has the power to launch investigations, summon witnesses and ensure confidentiality.

In essence it is to set up an agency to monitor and report on pricing and to strengthen the Competition Act.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended legislation that did not go as far as this motion. The government has still not acted on any of these recommendations.

The Conservative Party does not support the motion as we believe it is the first step to regulating gas prices in the country which would ultimately hurt consumers and taxpayers.

On Thursday, March 30, the federal Competition Bureau ruled, “Low inventories of gasoline in North America and worldwide increases the prices of crude oil”. This led to the increase in retail gasoline prices in 2004 and indeed it was found that there was no evidence of collusion among gasoline companies.

This industry in Canada has been investigated by the Competition Bureau for collusion more times than any other industry, in fact 19 to 20 times. All these investigations have found no evidence of collusion among gasoline companies.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the idea of regulating gas prices. We believe competition is the right road to follow. We believe supply and demand in a free market economy is the best regulator of prices for consumers.

However, we must encourage those through legislation the ease of entry of other players into the market to keep prices fair without unconscionable profits by oil and gas companies. The Conservative Party recognizes, however, that there is a problem of perception or consumers in Canada. That perception is that there is price fixing, but there is no evidence of that so far. High prices are seen equally at every gas station.

We support further efforts by the industry itself and we also support further efforts by non-governmental organizations and by the federal natural resources department to provide more information to Canadians on the price of gasoline. Information is the key to beat any perception.

In short, the Conservative Party believes that the price of gas is an important consumer issue and that the government and industry should do more to explain to consumers: first, how the price of gas is set; second, why it fluctuates so greatly; and third, to ensure regulations are in place to promote a competitive environment and a competitive pricing environment that eliminates all forms of collusion in the industry.

This recommendation would go a long way to help Canadians' perceptions about the oil and gas industry itself with regard to the issue of price fixing.

In November 2003 the Conservative Party called on the government to immediately contact the oil and gas industry to encourage the industry to fund and appoint a petroleum information commissioner to provide information to all Canadians and help address consumer concerns.

Quite simply, gasoline is one of the most heavily taxed products in Canada, with taxes reaching approximately 40% to 50% of the retail price. If we take out the tax component, Canada ranks in the lowest percentile of all countries in the world as far as gas prices.

The leader of the official opposition has repeatedly demanded that the Liberal government take immediate action on the soaring gas prices by using its tax power to lower prices at the pump through tax reduction. Canada's gas prices have reached record highs and prices have nearly doubled since the Liberal government took power in 1993.

The fastest and the easiest way to give Canadians relief at the pump is for the federal government to stop charging GST on top of gasoline excise taxes. It is time to axe the tax on the tax.

Industry analysts estimate that for every 1¢ increase in gas prices per litre federal reserves swell by $32 million per year. Tax. Tax. Tax. That is the Liberal way.

The rapid changes in prices are a sign of healthy competition, not a sign of collusion, with the exception of course of the percentage of taxes levied by the Liberal government. Taxes are, indeed, the fastest growing component of the final price of gasoline.

Some other recommendations from the Conservative Party, other than tax reductions include: first, that the Competition Bureau should be provided with the resources necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of the Competition Act; and second, that the government should bring forward amendments to strengthen the Competition Act, but not for the sole purpose of regulating gas prices.

Due to the healthy competition of oil and gas prices, infrastructure developments in Canada by oil and gas companies and the government are part of everyday life. We are looking forward to, in my riding of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, some investment in infrastructure from a reduction in taxes and from the gas tax rebate.

I would like to give some examples of recent developments in my riding due to the fact that the government does not regulate gas pricing. Unfortunately, because the amount of investment in our infrastructure requirements in northern Alberta is, quite frankly, so pathetic, given our fast growth of 15% to 20% per year, there are no examples I can give of this type of investment.

We in northern Alberta continue to wait for investment for our infrastructure needs to replace our collapsing water and sewer systems, to replace our dangerous roads, and to fund our overtaxed municipalities. There is no question that a deregulated, competitive oil and gas sector would give us lower pricing, and would create more and better infrastructure in my region.

I am giving notice now, though, that I am not going to hold my breath and wait for the Liberal government to provide that type of investment. I am wondering however if the Liberal government would be prepared to hold its breath until we receive a fair return in northern Alberta for what we invest in Canada every year.

[Privilege, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I find this very amusing, as someone who has a Master's in finance and ran several small businesses for many years. A review is very clearly not an audit, and I would like to speak to that point particularly.

An audit deals with the source documents. The auditors get the source documents and trace them back. They have their own scope and perform that scope. A review is simply not that. A review deals with the documents provided, in this case by the Liberal Party, and they are limited in their scope by the persons of whom they do the review. It is directly different. If we look at the cost difference, we will find that an audit is sometimes four or five times more expensive than a review would be.

[Trade Compensation Act, April 14th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-364, an act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and to Canadian exporters who incur financial losses as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements involving Canadian products.

Madam Speaker, the title of my private member's bill is “Trade Compensation Act”. The intent of this act is twofold: first, to repay Canadian industry exporters their legal fees if they are subject to unjustified trade restrictions by a foreign power; and second, for the government to provide loan guarantees if a foreign government indeed requires a security deposit until the conclusion of a trade disagreement.

This bill is directed primarily toward those exporters who deal with foreign powers, specifically in this case toward farmers, on BSE, and toward softwood lumber.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I did not hear a particular question in that but as far as indicators go, I guess in seven years 30 offences under the Criminal Code is not enough. I suppose one officer for every thousand square kilometres in that area of the country is not enough. I guess three times the number of files that other places in Canada have as the average is not enough of an indicator for the Liberals. That is why we need a change in government.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, it is an honour for me to speak on the subject of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

On March 3 Canadians were bitterly reminded of the dangers and sacrifices that face our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and our friends who decide to make the move to join the RCMP. Four young constables were murdered by James Roszko. Of the four RCMP members, Constable Leo Johnston was from my riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

Constable Johnston was born and raised in Lac La Biche, Alberta and served the community with courage, pride and honour, and a determination to make a difference. Constable Johnston had a twin brother who is also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. His brother, Constable Lee Johnston, described Leo as:

Leo also knew what it was to be a fighter and what it took to be a warrior...He did not give up...He fought--refusing to believe in any outcome but victory.

And because of his determination and courage, he made a difference.

And he did make a difference.

In my riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, there are eight RCMP detachments, including Fort McMurray, Athabasca, Boyle, Faust, Fort Chipewyan, High Prairie, Lac La Biche and Red Earth Creek. In these eight detachments, there are a total of 157 RCMP officers who patrol the riding and serve our country.

The riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca is indeed very difficult to patrol. It is 167,000 square kilometres. That means one officer has to patrol over 1,000 kilometres. RCMP officers must patrol one of the most dangerous highways in Canada, highway 63, which has the highest death rate in Canada per kilometre.

In addition, many officers currently must commute to and from Fort McMurray to do their job because it is just simply too expensive to live in the community. Housing costs are astronomical. It costs $330,000 for a trailer. For young RCMP officers, the starting salary barely allows them to live in the community.

In Fort McMurray and Lac La Biche, RCMP members are severely overworked and severely underpaid. Northern Alberta is an expensive place to live.

Canadians may find this hard to believe but in Fort McMurray a truck driver working for one of the oil sands plants makes over double what an RCMP member makes. This is simply illogical and is not right.

The value of work that these brave men and women do for us is simply immeasurable. Their contribution is enormous. Their service to the community is invaluable. These men and women should be fairly treated and rewarded adequately for their service.

I was a litigator for over 10 years in Fort McMurray and I worked with RCMP officers daily. I have personal friends who are members. I understand the incredible sacrifices and the tremendous workloads that they have.

According to a 2000 statistical report, in Fort McMurray the police force handles, per officer, 118 Criminal Code incidents. That is three times the national average for a police officer and over two times the Alberta average. The average RCMP officer in Fort McMurray has three years experience. We need more police officers and we need adequate compensation for them. The Liberal government takes the position that we are still in the 19th century.

Journalist Peter Worthington reveals the Liberal strategy of law enforcement in an anecdote he wrote in the Winnipeg Sun :

An RCMP anecdote I grew up with as a kid on the Prairies, was the story of Chief Sitting Bull and his Sioux Indians, who sought refuge in Canada after annihilating George Custer and his 7th Cavalry at the Little Bighorn in 1876.

When the time came for the Sioux to go back to Dakota, the U.S. cavalry was waiting at the border to escort Sitting Bull back to a reservation.

A lone Mountie was at the head of the long line of Indians, and the nervous cavalry officer (the fate of the 7th Cavalry ingrained on his memory) asked the Mountie: “And where is the rest of your troop?”

The Mountie shrugged: “Oh, he's back at camp, cooking breakfast”.

I look forward to the time when a Conservative government can implement policies that can provide better resources for the RCMP. For example, a Conservative government will institute mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeat offenders. A Conservative government will require the registration of all sexual offenders and dangerous offenders. A Conservative government will repeal the expensive and ineffective gun registry, and will protect the public by prosecuting and punishing the criminals.

It is time for a change, not only in this government but a change in how we as Canadians serve and protect the people in the RCMP who serve and protect us.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would liken the question from my friend from Cypress Hills to the Liberal position on Kyoto and the lack of a clear vision or of any vision. The signatory to Kyoto should have had some laser surgery or something of that kind before signing it and committing Canada to an international treaty that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and that will be ineffective in reducing pollutants and smog or that will be effective in any way.

Mr. Murray's appointment at this round table is very much like the Prime Minister signing the Kyoto accord. He did not understand the science or what we really needed to do. He set the agenda and the focus on the wrong items. It is very critical for the person in the chair to have some expertise so we can be dragged out of this black hole of tax dollars and move us forward on a proper track with proper vision so we can see a point in the future of where we go and how we get there.