Brian Jean

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that he does not need to tell us again that he was a minister of public works. I think he mentioned it six or seven times. We all know that when the Liberal Party actually had more than 30 members in the House and was in government some time ago, he was a minister. I wanted to let him know that.

In relation to part 7 and part 11, shared services in particular, he mentioned that we were keeping these secret. I just want to let the member know that if he read the budget implementation act, they are mentioned there. The secret has been published. It is no longer a secret.

What is not a secret is that most Canadians would be shocked to find out that up to this point, many government departments could not share services between each other. They did not have the ability to do so.

This government, in looking at ways not to cut jobs but actually to save money for taxpayers, is looking at ways like that of sharing services.

In mentioning the prudent Liberal policy, is this particular member talking about the policy where they cut $25 billion from the most needy people in Canada, including from hospitals, schools and the elderly? Is that the policy he is talking about as so prudent?

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if she is objecting to this particular section now, I would like to know from the member why, at that particular meeting when she and the NDP had an opportunity to vote against the bill, they actually voted for it. They did not vote against it. As we mentioned earlier, this is a classic example of sucking and blowing at the same time.

The member opposite should make up her mind. If she is now going to vote against the bill that she had voted for in committee, it sends the wrong message to Canadians. They want to see this Parliament work and that is what we are trying to do.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I also had the opportunity to be at that meeting and I recognize that the member was there as well.

I would like the member's comments in relation to the response that was given by the witnesses stating that the increase the government was proposing would not increase percentage risk to Canadians by 1%. In fact, they suggested that this would be good for the economy and good for Canadians and, quite frankly, bragged significantly about the current good news story of CMHC, how well it was doing and what a great profit it was giving back to the Canadian people who own it and ultimately will receive the benefit of it. They stated clearly that we have an excellent marketplace here in Canada and that things are going very well in Canada relative to the rest of the world. It actually was a very good news story.

I do not know how the member can take something bad out of that but I would like to hear her comments in relation specifically to the fact that no increase in risk to Canadians would happen as a result of this particular amendment.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was a solicitor in Fort McMurray for some period of time and owned some businesses there. I have to be honest that we used Canada Post a lot. In fact, I would say that for 20 to 30 years we used Canada Post more than any other business in our area. We received cheques from businesses and sent out bills and did advertising that way, sending out millions of flyers and promotional material. I can assure you that there was such an integral lock with Canada Post that the relationship continued for 35 years before our family business closed down, in particular our printing and sign shop.

Clearly, every single day that Canada Post workers do not deliver the mail, it has a dramatic impact on the small businesses in this country, who employ a huge number of people.

First, I would ask the member, what do I say to those small businesses facing closure? It is a serious concern. They are not operating with the margins of large companies but with small margins. What do I say to them when they get to work and do not have any mail to open, do not have any cheques to deposit and do not have any money coming in? As a result, they will suffer hardships.

Second, what kind of evidence do the members have who have suggested there was any collusion between the minister or this government and Canada Post management? It is absolutely ludicrous.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that in 1997 or thereabouts the previous Liberal government actually—

I find it difficult to ask my question because of the Liberals across the way. As the leader of the Liberal Party said, there is some noise in different places and it is very difficult to think when it takes place.

In 1997, the previous Liberal government did something similar in comparable circumstances with Canada Post. I notice today that the leader of the Liberal Party is taking a different position. Of course, he was previously an NDP leader and I am wondering if this is the preliminary notice of a joint venture between the NDP and the Liberals in all future governing matters and positions on legislation or, indeed, if this is the new policy of the Liberal Party and the NDP leader.

I would like him to clarify that for us to find out where he is going long-term since it seems to be such a divergent path from a responsible governing party as the Liberal government used to be.

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker. I remember when remailers had 10,000 jobs, in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and they were on the hook. The NDP did not support those workers.

I come from a constituency that has the largest number of union members per capita of any city in the country. They tell me clearly that they want Canada Post to get back to work. They need their mail because some workers get their cheques by mail, just like the seniors who get their cheques by mail, which they cannot get right now because Canada Post on strike.

NDP members voted against the economic action plan, the biggest investment ever by any government in Canada's history in real dollar terms. How can they say today that workers do not use roads, or do not use bridges or do not use all those investments, the green infrastructure that went into the economic action plan? Why do they now stand and say that? Is the hon. member red faced because he is doing too much sucking and blowing? That is what it causes, a red face. It is not fair that today he says he stands up for workers.

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to what the member said, and, in particular, about voting records. That member's party voted against the economic action plan, which has obviously saved the country from the downturn in the economy and many thousands of jobs. In fact, we have created more than a half million jobs since this started, with consecutive quarters of straight growth.

How can the member sit in a party that voted against Quebeckers, against improvements in roads and bridges and against multiplexes? In particular, it voted against the $1 billion for a green infrastructure fund for the country. It voted against $1 billion for clean energy. That is the part I do not understand.

In fact, in Quebec there are many contaminated sites and the economic action plan looked at investments there as well, and her party voted against that.

How does she justify that today, especially given that infrastructure is used by seniors throughout the country and that was the largest investment for infrastructure in the history of the country in real dollar terms? How does she justify sitting on that side now when her party voted against that?

[March 24th, 2011]

I do get it, Mr. Speaker. The member is talking about the rent charge which is less than 1% of the total ticket price or an average of less than $4 per ticket. Speaking of sense, that is actually what it is, just cents.

Is the hon. member suggesting that we should compromise the security and safety of Canadians at our airports? Is he suggesting that the airports should not have to pay a return on investment to the taxpayers who originally paid for all those improvements? Is he suggesting that we should provide to them free? They already have tax situations that are advantageous, but they should pay taxpayers for what the taxpayer invested in those airports, and certainly they should keep Canadians safe. That is what this government will do.

I understand the NDP is not interested in that, but this Conservative government will keep Canadians safe and secure and keep the economy rolling very well, as we have been managing to do quite well.

[March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had seen it all and maybe it is the season, but I see now NDP members standing up for private industry, competitiveness and open borders. I thought I had seen it all in this place, but it must just be because the NDP plans to take down our government tomorrow, and they plan to challenge the government on the basis of the great work that the Prime Minister has done in regard to building the economy and protecting us from the economic global recession. I am not sure how and why the member has positioned himself for this. It just does not make sense and I think most people who listen understand that.

However, let us talk a bit about Canada and why it is different from the United States because the member suggested that we should compare it to the United States. First of all, we are a bigger country and we have about 10% of the population, so we have one of the greatest, most diverse and lowest density of populations in the world. Clearly, it is a different scenario for us than it is for the United States and I wish the member would understand that. Part of Canada's context is our extended border with our southern neighbour. Certainly most countries do not have this particular implication in their economies, but we do have that.

The close proximity of many of the American airports is of course a situation. The United States has 10 times the population and a little less than a third less land mass. So certainly this is a situation that is troubling, but at the same time it is good for consumers. We stand up for Canadian consumers because we understand that they want choice and they also want to have the opportunity of not having taxes levied for something they are not utilizing.

We have to look at that in context, because comparison of the Canadian air transportation system to that of the United States is very difficult indeed, given the various factors at play. As I said, the United States is 10 times larger with a passenger base almost 13 times larger than that of Canada. Unlike Canada, the United States also has an extensive network of low cost carriers that specialize in greatly discounted domestic airfares for United States leisure destinations. We do not have that same system here, at least not to the same extent.

The Canadian air transportation system subscribes to the user-pay principle, and I think most taxpayers do too. The United States does not adhere to that as much as Canada, believe it or not. So we are proud of that and most Canadian taxpayers want that. All elements of the Canadian transportation industry, including air carriers, airports and NAV Canada are operated by private entities. These are independent of the government. That ensures that they are not only trimmed and doing the right job on the basis of the economy and what they have allocated to them, but they are also independent of public interference. I certainly hope the member opposite is not suggesting that now we need to interfere in NAV Canada, airports and air carriers. That would be the wrong message to send to our economy while it is doing so well.

Like any private entities, these entities seek to recoup their costs through various fees and charges. Our government is committed to helping maintain competitiveness in the Canadian aviation industry. We have one of the most competitive industries in the world and one of the most competitive airport systems in the world. Over the last decade, we have also provided over $400 million to the industry for safety and infrastructure related projects. To be clear though, airport rent is not a tax. As a matter of policy and good business practice, on behalf of all Canadians the government chose to lease rather than sell its airports. Rent is charged to Canada's largest airports as a return on taxpayer investment. Taxpayers paid for those airports. Do they not deserve to receive that money back?

It is clear that this government has taken the right position, and the members opposite are only opportunistic, trying to have an unnecessary election at the cost of taxpayers. It is not necessary at all.

[March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the humour of my friend opposite, but, frankly, let us talk about some of the facts. We know we have added 538 net new inspectors. That means new from the time the Liberals governed. That is 538 more people to make sure that Canada's food supply remains safe.

Do not listen to me. Let us talk about the executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, who stated that the grain growers are pleased with the announcement of a $50 million fund for research and innovation.

The Canadian Pork Council stated:

The Canadian pork industry is grateful that the government has recognized the importance of animal health...The funding extension...[will allow] the industry to continue to improve its capacity to react swiftly to emerging animal health challenges.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others all say the same thing. They support our governments initiatives and this budget, but the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition is going to take down the government even though industry experts have said we are doing the right thing.