Brian Jean

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Joliette. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and the staff especially for this opportunity because there were many Conservatives who wanted to speak to this motion because we see the mischief in the Bloc. We see that the Bloc members are trying to change the channel from their position of not supporting Quebeckers in Canada's economic action plan, not standing up for Quebeckers when they had the opportunity to do so.

I know the Bloc members are ashamed of that and they would like to go back and change the channel, but we are not going to let them. We are going to ensure that all Quebeckers realize that Bloc members, when they had the opportunity to do so, did not stand up to invest in Quebec. It was the Conservative members from Quebec who stood up for Quebeckers and I am proud to be part of a caucus that has those members in it.

It is a very clear and shameful attempt by Bloc members to play partisan games that actually do not benefit people, that do not benefit Canadians, and to avoid discussing the real issues.

The members are laughing and cackling while we have a global economic crisis. They are laughing and they are bringing forward mischief motions and not substantive motions.

We need to concentrate on the jobs of Quebeckers and Canadians. We need to concentrate on the economy of Canada. That is what we have been doing and it has been very successful.

Look at the other nations in the G20. We lead the way in the world today with our economy and we are proud of that. However, we have done that without the help of the Bloc, and we continue to do that without the help of the Bloc. It is important for Quebeckers and all Canadians to know that.

I am sure if we were to ask Canadians in every region of this country, in particular Quebec, which the Bloc members say they represent but we know they do not represent, it is the important issues such as the economy and protecting jobs that are important to Canadians and Quebeckers. Bloc members should be ashamed of themselves for their position in the past and, seemingly, their position today. While we are trying to concentrate on creating jobs, protecting jobs, they are concentrating on silly, political games that do not do anything for Canadians, that do not create jobs, that do not protect our economy.

However, this should not be a surprise to anyone. Just as we saw earlier this week with a similar motion from the Liberal Party, the opposition clearly is more concerned with motions that are outrageous in scope and in nature. This one is no different.

We heard the NDP members stand earlier and try to throw the minister off, which of course was unsuccessful. They also opposed Canada's economic action plan and I know they are trying to change the channel too. They are not going to get away with it. Canadians are not going to be fooled and this Conservative government is not going to let it go unnoticed. Now--

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, of course prorogation has happened 105 times in the last 143 years. In fact, most sessions only last a year, and that is pretty much on par with what happened the last time. Thus Bloc members are trying to change the channel and we know that. We need to get back to what they are trying to change the channel from.

I do not know if many people in Quebec realize that the Bloc voted against Canada's economic action plan, the plan that is taking us out of the global recession. In fact, Bloc members voted against every improvement to roads in Quebec, against every job initiative that we have had in Quebec, and against repairs to bridges and all of the wonderful work that is going on in Quebec right now.

I would ask the member, is that why the Bloc is putting forward motions like this and playing mischief in Parliament? It makes sense to me, but I want him to be clear on that as well.

[Syncrude, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Syncrude Canada supports the aboriginal people of northern Alberta in many ways through its aboriginal relations program. Those of self-declared first nations, Métis or Inuit descent make up 8.6% of Syncrude's workforce. Syncrude is proud to be one of the largest employers of aboriginal people in Canada.

Syncrude invested over $1.3 million in aboriginal community projects in 2009, and the total business of Syncrude with First Nations and Métis owned companies since 1992 is over $1.4 billion.

Syncrude funds numerous scholarships and programs for research and development. It has received a variety of awards, including the Environmental Stewardship Award from Alberta Venture magazine, gold level certification for progressive aboriginal relations from the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Businesses, the Alberta Human Rights Commission's Diversity Leadership Award of Distinction, and the Alberta Emerald Foundation's award for research and innovation.

I commend the great Canadian company Syncrude for its advancement of our aboriginal people and for the great work it does for Canada in northern Alberta.

[STRENGTHENING AVIATION SECURITY ACT, February 18th, 2011]

If you fly over U.S. airspace.

[STRENGTHENING AVIATION SECURITY ACT, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear one thing from the NDP member that was correct; that is, she labelled this an issue of Canadian sovereignty. She is right. It is an issue of Canadian sovereignty. Just as the United States expects us to respect its right to its sovereignty and its right to its air space, we expect it to respect our right to our sovereignty and our airspace.

How can we expect the U.S. to do so if the NDP will not even let us pass this law in order to respect the right to sovereignty and expect the U.S. to do the same?

She asked for examples as to where this was used in the past, where the U.S. has actually filtered a list, utilized it and passed it on to enforcement agencies. For the hundreds of millions of passengers a year who pass through the U.S., we have received information from the ambassador that it has been done three times. The fearmongering by the member and by the NDP through its filibuster is simply ridiculous.

However, I will say this to the NDP member. She actually has an advantage. Because of the hard work of the Minister of Public Safety, he received an exemption for Canada, the only country to receive an exemption, for those flights that fly from Vancouver, for instance, to Ottawa, they actually pass through U.S. airspace. The member takes advantage of that. I would think she would stand and say “Thank you, minister, thank you, Conservative government, because you got an exemption for us and your hard work is paying off for Canadians, keeping us safe, keeping our economy strong”. That is what she should be standing and doing right now.

[Airport Fees, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government supports a strong and competitive Canadian airline industry. We understand there are concerns. We are continuing to look at the situation, just like all situations, for the interests of Canadians.

However, there are many factors influencing a passenger's decision on which airport to use, including convenience, connectivity and routes.

It is also worth noting that the Bloc Québécois voted against every investment that this government made in Quebec, including every infrastructure investment, new roads, new bridges, et cetera. Its members should be ashamed of themselves.

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is launching a pre-election tax hike tour this week, and the Toronto Star is reporting that the Liberals are angling for a May election. A needless election would distract our national efforts from creating jobs and sustaining our fragile economic recovery.

The Liberal leader's plan is a high tax agenda that will stall our recovery, kill jobs and set hard-working families back. He is calling for a tax hike to be included in the budget or he will vote against the budget and force an unnecessary election. The last thing we need is the disruption of a needless election or the uncertainty of a reckless coalition that would jeopardize our economic recovery just as we enter the home stretch.

As the Liberal leader travels Canada calling for an unnecessary election and advancing his high tax agenda, our Conservative government will keep its focus on our low tax plan for jobs and growth in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Infrastructure, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the joint study by the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated and Le ministère des Transports du Québec will be finalized and delivered to the government by the end of February. Conclusions of the study will be made public after an analysis of the results. Everyone can be assured that we are going to act in the best interests of Quebeckers.

My question is, why did the Bloc members vote against every economic action plan investment that this government put in Quebec, every bridge, every new road? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Transport, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Air Canada continues to man operational and overall centres in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga.

The application by Air Canada before the Canadian Industrial Relations Board is a private matter between the airline and its labour union. We understand from Air Canada officials that there will be absolutely no job losses if the application is approved.

I appreciate working with the Bloc members on this particular issue, and if they have more questions I would be happy to answer them.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member across the way for his many hours of thought on the final outcome and how we arrived at where we are today.

My friend said, and the NDP also alluded to it, that if the Americans ask it of us then why do we not ask it of the Americans. Some people may not want to get into that debate. Hundreds of thousands of people a day travel the skies. Who will pay for the cost of taking that data from the United States and assembling it, and for what purpose? Just because the Americans ask for it should we ask for it?

Canada has a great tradition of protecting human rights, standing up for the world at large and standing up for people. We are in a different threat situation than the United States, but no less serious. However, if we do ask for that information,what will we do with it? Are we going to get it because we gave it to the U.S.? What is the purpose of that?

My understanding is that it would cost billions of dollars over time to get that data and to do something with that data. For what purpose? There is no purpose that I could defend to the people who voted for me to get me here today.

I appreciate the member bringing forward that amendment but I would like to know exactly what we would do with that data, because I see no great conclusion in relation to it if we were to receive it.