Brian Jean

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend in relation to this particular topic and he has hit the nail on the head. Clearly even the media seems to indicate that the path the Conservative government is taking is clear, it is fair, and it rewards those people who are prepared to stay in line.

Most Canadians, Canadians we know, are prepared to stand in line for a movie or shows of different kinds, or even just stand in line to be polite to other people who have been there for a longer period of time, no matter what the topic is.

In this particular case, some of the opposition members are suggesting that if one commits a crime, if someone is prepared to pay somebody illegally to enter Canada, he or she should be rewarded for that. I do not understand that, because Global National specifically said, “The Conservatives want to send two message: First, that Canada welcomes immigrants as long as they play by the rules. But, for those who don't, they can expect to be harshly punished.”

I would like my friend to comment a little more on the tactic of the opposition members who want to reward those people who are prepared to jump the queue.

[November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not only do they vote against the stimulus package during a tough economic time, and all the infrastructure across the country, but most of the New Democratic Party, which purports to stand up for rural Canada and for farmers, voted against abolishing the long gun registry.

In my riding, they are going to have to answer to that in the next election, and I think they will answer to that.

More importantly, the government is taking action in relation to farmers. We continually take action for farmers and we continually improve the transportation system, but we do it from a positive perspective. We try to get the parties to work together, to collaborate and get both sides of the argument, and then make a decision that will ultimately be in the best interest of Canadians, Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy, which is simply better for all of us.

[November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was right in some of what he said, but farmers cannot count on the NDP. As we are aware, NDP members seem to vote against all our motions to help farmers. They voted against our position when farmers clearly indicated they did not want a Wheat Board in western Canada anymore.

They voted against the infrastructure stimulus fund. In fact, every area of the country received benefits from the infrastructure fund, yet that member and his party voted against it. They have voted against arenas, bridges, roads and the 430,000 jobs this Conservative government has created.

When it comes to Canadian farmers, he is absolutely right. Canadians can count on the Conservatives to help them and not on the NDP because it votes against everything. I know he is clear on that.

The government also recognizes that both farmers and railways play a very key role in Canada's economic prosperity. In fact, our country was built on railways and the ability to extend and connect our great country.

As a government, we will ensure the railways and the customers who depend on them are well positioned to meet the challenges, not so much in Canada because we do not compete against ourselves. We are competing against other countries such as the United States, the European Union, Asia, et cetera. We want to be more competitive. We want to ensure that shippers and railways work together to create a net benefit for themselves and, at the same time, all Canadians. We are going to continue to do that.

Over the past 27 years, western grain transport has shifted from a regime of rate controls and heavy government subsidies toward a progressively more commercial framework. Fortunately, under this Conservative government that has happened and it has been very successful.

The revenue cap regime was introduced in 2000 based on over a century of evidence of the shortcomings of cost-based regulation, including massive government subsidies and a lack of incentives for railways to invest in their infrastructure. The rail infrastructure was falling apart across the country.

Under previous approaches that kept rates artificially low for farmers, the railways incurred significant losses and were unable to invest in grain cars or rail lines. Substantial government subsidies were required to keep western grain transport viable, including almost $540 million for the purchase of hopper cars and $4.8 billion, from 1967 to 1983, to subsidize the railways losses on grain transportation. Imagine the drain on our economy with these massive subsidies.

Another $1.3 billion, from 1986 to 1990, was spent to rehabilitate branch lines because of the failure of railways to invest in their infrastructure, because of exactly what the NDP suggested, which is to subsidize them. We also spent $7.9 billion, between 1982 and 1996, to subsidize freight rates. Imagine the drag that kind of thing had on the economy.

The current revenue gap regime creates incentives and it continues to make Canada and the Canadian economy prosperous. We are going to stand up for Canadians and Canadian farmers.

[Junior Hockey, November 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, volunteers in Fort McMurray have organized the first outdoor junior hockey game in Canadian history.

This Friday night, November 26, fans will cheer on Fort McMurray Oil Barons and the Drayton Valley Thunder hockey teams in the biggest gathering of fans in the history of the Alberta Junior Hockey League.

The rink, ice machine and native youth flown and bused in from isolated communities are all courtesy of local businesses, and all proceeds of the game will actually be given to local charities.

This sold-out Northern Classic event represents the spirit of northern Alberta: big dreamers that make their dreams a reality.

Today I would like to congratulate the Northern Classic organizing committee and all the citizens of Fort McMurray and Wood Buffalo for showing us once again that we in northern Alberta are really Canada's northern light.

This Friday night I ask everyone to tune into TSN for the best quality hockey in the country. And, of course, “Go, Oil Barons, go”.

[National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and congratulate and thank it for the great partnership it has with this Conservative government. We have worked together to keep Canadians safe and the quality of life for Canadians better.

Actually, today is also the National Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims. Nearly 2,800 people are killed each year on Canada's roads and highways and another 195,000 people are hurt.

We must encourage all Canadians to drive safely and reduce the number of fatalities and injuries. Every member in the House is united today as we pay our respects to road crash victims and their families.

Our government, through the economic action plan, has partnered with the provinces and municipalities across Canada to make our highways and roads safer. We need drivers educated to keep themselves and others safe, and we look forward to a new year of safer driving for all Canadians and their families.

[November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that over the years some lighthouse keepers have taken on services in addition to their regular function of keeping the lights operational, which is of course very important. Mariners and aviators have grown accustomed to these additional services, which actually add quite a value to these communities.

That is why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has asked the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to look into these issues and report back by the end of 2010. We anticipate hearing from the Senate committee before Christmas and that report will help instruct the minister and coast guard as they move forward.

In conclusion, our government understands that lighthouses have made a significant contribution to our history as a nation. Lighthouses have stood tall as constant reminders of our maritime heritage. The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act provides an opportunity to ensure that an important part of our history is preserved for future generations of Canadians, and at the same time, we will keep mariners safe and secure throughout this country.

[November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time to thank the Conservative member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, my seatmate, for his education. He has taught me a lot about lighthouses across the country.

I am very happy to have this opportunity to talk to the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The purpose of this act is to preserve and protect Canada's most iconic lighthouses for the benefit of future generations.

My constituents are very interested in this as well. As members are aware, I represent some 30,000 Newfoundlanders, 5,000 Nova Scotians, 5,000 New Brunswickers and some 5,000 Quebeckers. This obviously is a very important issue to them as well.

Canadians, particularly those living in coastal regions, such as my constituents who come from those areas, care deeply about lighthouses. The way the member spoke, I am certain the she also cares, as do her constituents. They are reminders of Canada's culture and history and are part of the heritage of our country and our landscape.

Lighthouses have made a significant contribution to maritime communities and to the development of our nation. This contribution deserves to be commemorated and to be respected. That is exactly what this Conservative government is doing.

Despite their historical contribution to the economic development of our country, the role of the traditional lighthouse has evolved over time as a result of advances in marine navigational technology.

In many instances, the principal function of the community-based lighthouses can now be reflected in tourism-based ventures that have been established at these sites, to which the member previously alluded. That is good news again because it creates an economy where there was not an economy before.

The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act requires that the federal ministers publish a list of all lighthouses that could subsequently be made available for ownership by outside interests, and there is a lot of interest in that. These new owners would be committed to preserving the heritage character of the lighthouse and maintaining an ongoing public purpose for the property. This is very important. I just had a chance to look at the lighthouse at Peggy's Cove. I had many opportunities to visit the east coast. They are beautiful things and they need to be preserved.

The publication of the list of surplus lighthouses under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is an extension of existing practices related to lighthouse divestiture. There is quite a history to that. In fact, the history goes back to previous Liberal prime ministers. In fact, this started under a Liberal prime minister. Since 1995, over 20 operational lighthouses have been successfully divested for ongoing public purposes and further facilitation of such opportunities is one of this act's main purposes. Communities all across the country have assumed control over the conservation of their historical landmarks, and many more are willing and able to take upon this task.

I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss lighthouse automation in Canada.

Lighthouse de-staffing began in 1971, under the leadership of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In fact, in the early 1970s, 189 lighthouses were automated. This process continued over three decades, most recently in 1997, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when he de-staffed 51 lighthouses.

The results of automation throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s is that manned lighthouses remain in only two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

I will get to the rest of my speech in a moment.

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this and I do not understand. To me, what is ridiculous here is that we are dealing with something so serious as murder, which usually involves greed or rape or something where an innocent person's life is extinguished, and the majority of the questions of the members opposite are about the title. They do not like the title. I just do not understand why they would not concentrate on the more important aspects, the substantive part of the bill, which is actually what it is all about. The member's argument is that it has never happened, therefore we should not change it. Even though I believe he is wrong, the reality is that we should be talking about the substantive part of the bill. We are trying to protect Canadians. We should be joining together. They should be coming across with hands open to support this bill, which is actually meant to protect Canadians and to punish those people who take another person's life as a result of greed or as a result of lust or something that they have no business being involved in, in the first place. Why do they not deal with that instead of the title? It is shameful.

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very impressive speech, and as a criminal lawyer for over a decade in this country, I had the opportunity to see many times injustices and miscarriages of justice as a result of exactly what the member speaks of.

Based on the passionate nature of her speech and what I thought was a very accurate depiction of what actually takes place at the courthouses across this country, I am wondering if the member has any other positive comments to make in relation to this and indeed whether she has first-hand knowledge of what has taken place in the past other than what she has mentioned, because it certainly seems she is well versed on these particular issues.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and ask the hon. member a question.

I think the hon. member misses that this is actually about safety, security, and keeping people safe. When the hon. member's constituents go from Windsor to the United States, when they even try to walk, drive, or fly across the border into the United States, or maybe to go to Mexico or Central America, they need a passport. They are required to present that passport to the United States official at the border, who in turn can deny them the right of entry into that sovereign space or in fact allow them.

What I do not get is that the legislation we are proposing is actually in the same manner. It is for people who are actually going into the United States' sovereign airspace, into another country. They are required to give their name, gender, and birthdate, which is actually less than what is required with a passport. That is what I do not understand.

This government actually already received an exemption. I would think the hon. member and the NDP would stand up and congratulate the Conservative government for standing up for the people of Canada, for receiving a personal exemption for flights that are going into U.S. sovereign space but are actually just going to take off in Canada and again land in Canada. We received an exemption for that.

Why is the hon. member not up here today congratulating this government for a great initiative, finding an exemption for Canadian citizens and making sure that we are working with our partners in the United States to keep Canadians and all the people we possibly can safe from terrorism? Why is the hon. member not up there today congratulating us for this great effort?