Brian Jean

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to this place, but he asked a very important question. He asked how he could solve the problem in his riding. I have a proposal for him.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act brought in tougher sentences for organized drug crimes and mandatory minimum sentences for violent offenders. It increased penalties for sexual offences against children and ended house arrest for serious crimes. We have the opportunity to put people in jail for committing serious crimes for a certain amount of time, keeping them off the streets and keeping citizens safe. Instead of voting against that and opposing our legislation to keep serious criminals in jail, New Democrats should support it. This is how to do that. It takes years to do it and he has the opportunity to support our legislation and keep criminals in jail where they belong.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the test of reasonableness in my colleague's speech today, which is suggested by the legislation itself, the reasonableness of a judge who has had legal experience and legal education, and has seen these cases many times before.

Does he have a problem with the government suggesting that judges should use their discretion to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances? If so, why does he have a problem with judges deciding that? If he opposes the legislation, the very crux of the issue is the reasonableness of the judges and the interpretation of the law by them, and what is reasonable in the circumstances based on that citizen.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to his portfolio but he was not at committee to hear the testimony. We heard testimony that suggested that, in this particular case, judges should use their discretion for victims instead of criminals, as that member's party has been saying.

We also heard experts at committee say that for years they have been seeking clarification of the law on self-defence. During my time practising criminal law there was a tremendous amount of confusion to say the least relating to many aspects of self-defence. I wonder if the member would not agree that we should listen to the experts in this case. Even the Canadian Bar Association said that it wanted clarification of the law.

Would my colleague not agree that it is a good thing for the government to stand up for victims instead of criminals and allow judges to use their discretion as well?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 25th, 2012]

With regard to questions Q-386 through Q-509 on the Order Paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?

[New Democratic Party of Canada, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader has a new shadow cabinet. His team believes Canadians need higher taxes, bigger deficits and fewer jobs. His new team consistently puts the rights of criminals ahead of victims and actually travelled to the United States to lobby against Canada developing and selling its own resources.

The new NDP House leader, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has repeatedly called on the government to restrict natural resource development. He strongly opposes an efficient streamlining of the review process for major economic projects. These changes will ensure timely and fair hearings in the best interest of Canadians without unnecessary delays driven by foreign funded special interest groups.

It is time for the NDP to stop trying to hurt Canada and to stick up for Canadian jobs, workers and families. Will the NDP please join us today and in the future as our Conservative government works hard for Canadians, for economic growth and for prosperity for today and for the future?

[Financial Statement of Minister of Finance, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I do know the shell game the Liberal member was talking about because when he was in the Liberal Party, which was some time after he was in the Conservative Party, the Liberals actually played a shell game. That was $25 billion in social transfers. My province of Alberta will never forget when the federal government said no to health care and no to education. We remember that shell game and I think most Canadians remember the Liberal shell game.

I had an opportunity to ask some questions earlier. I know the NDP member who spoke earlier got on tweeters and was starting to quote some people. I asked my own questions about that. I was wondering what people thought about what he was doing and I received some questions and comments on it. One comment was from Bruce from Toronto who said, “It hurts him more than you and me. He is waiting for a truck to arrive with a new shipment of policy and talking points”.

I would agree with him because I think that is exactly the situation. The NDP does not have any policy and therefore the only solution it has is to criticize our policy.

What is more clear than anything is when we recognize what our budget is. The budget in brief is available to all parliamentarians and I would encourage the members from the NDP and the Liberal Party to read it. If they cannot get the bigger book, which is also available to them, they might like to read this because it goes through, in very simple terms, what we are doing for Canadians. I think the title says it all, “Jobs Growth and Long-Term Prosperity”.

I did ask the NDP earlier whether he would stand up for pennies. He thought naturally, because I mentioned eliminating the penny, that is what I was asking. However, what I was asking him to do was to stand up for taxpayers because taxpayers are the ones who earn the pennies. They are the ones who earn the dollars and give us the right to be in this place by electing us.

I was doing some calculations earlier, because there are cutbacks in this place, as there are cutbacks right across the country. There are cutbacks on my pension. I have been in a wage freeze for a few years now, so I know that. However, he has taken 13 hours of this place in debate. Those 13 hours do calculate down to time and this place costs $440-some-odd million to run for a year, so he actually has taken about $6.5 million worth of taxpayer money to have his little shenanigans and to try to stifle debate by the Liberals.

I am not proud of that and I am not proud to be a member of Parliament who has the ability to do so. Although he has the right to speak, we also need to respect the penny and respect taxpayers and I do not see that respect coming from the other side.

I would like to talk about some of the great things in this budget--

[Financial Statement of Minister of Finance, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering what the member thinks about some of the things in the budget. He talks about productivity and encourages the government to move forward with productivity. The budget provides an additional $50 million over two years to the youth employment strategy to assist more young people in gaining tangible skills and experience. It provides $6 million over three years to extend and expand the third quarter project to key centres across the country and it improves labour market opportunities for Canadians with disabilities. Further, it invests $74 million over two years to ensure that EI claimants benefit from accepting work.

Those are all things that are about productivity, about Canadians getting jobs, about Canadians having more opportunity and about small and medium businesses having more opportunities. Did the member not read that in the budget?

[Financial Statement of Minister of Finance, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it sounds like bickering among good friend fellows.

I am curious. We know what happened in the 1990s. We know that $25 billion was cut from the provinces for health care and education by the Liberals. We know about the $125 billion infrastructure deficit that the Conservative government took over from the previous Liberal government. How does the member feel about the last 13 hours of debate by one member of the NDP? How does he feel about him trying to stifle debate, and in particular stifling debate of the Liberal Party?

[Financial Statement of Minister of Finance, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am curious. I heard what the NDP said in relation to the motion. Frankly, I know that many of the NDP members, from their talk over on the other side, must live in fantasy land. This is the proposal they are making. They are finding cuts that do not exist, suggesting there are cuts to certain programs.

The hon. member has left out discussion, in the last 15 hours of his predictable yet unimportant speech, on the penny. We know what will happen to the penny. He must have left it out for political reasons.

The rest of his speech was in fantasy land. However, will the hon. member not to get behind the government and support it on the elimination of the penny? Will he do that for us? We know it will be better for retailers and for Canadians. It went out of style some time ago. Will the hon. member support the elimination of the penny?

[Alberta, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Stats Canada has released the most recent figures on migration between provinces.

I thank Ontario, as Ontario has contributed more to the growth of Alberta's population than any other province. Over 200,000 people from Ontario have moved to Alberta.

Alberta's strong oil sands economy has increased employment and provided fantastic work opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. This employment is boosting tax revenue and in turn creating a much better quality of life for all Canadians.

We need to encourage cross-country employment. We need to encourage Canadians to take Canadian jobs. Everyone is better off if Canadians are working, regardless of where they work in Canada.

I invite hon. members to my home, the oil sands, where opportunity awaits all of Canada.