Brian Jean

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about ripping up things. What the member is and has been ripping up are the facts. I would like to reiterate the facts for him. First, Canada asked for and received an exemption for domestic Canadian flights flying through U.S. air space. Second, the legislation only facilitates the sharing of information for flights to the United States or over U.S. sovereign air space to a third country.

If passed, any information that air carriers will be required to share with the United States are full name, date of birth and gender. This would amount to less information than is required to be included in a Canadian passport to cross the border. I do not understand what the member is trying to put forward, but clearly, if the information is confirmed not to be linked with terrorism, it will be erased after seven days.

I do not know what the member is going on about and the fearmongering that he is trying to cause, but clearly the information given to the United States is less information than that which is already given by individuals in a passport. What is the member on about now?

Would he please tell Canadians the facts because that is not what he has been talking about so far.

[Rail Transportation, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this government is already addressing concerns about rail freight. We review it through the rail freight service review. The independent panel leading the review released its interim report on October 8 and will present its final report and recommendations later in 2010.

We all know what the members of the NDP want to do. They want to close our borders and close our industry. If they had their way, that is what they would do.

This Conservative government will not do that. We will open markets to ensure Canada's economy remains strong and Canadians have jobs.

[Rail Transportation, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that when it comes to farmers, they cannot depend on the NDP to perform in any way. It is this Conservative government, as usual, that performs for farmers and acts in the best interests of farmers.

We will not take any lessons from members of the NDP who want to close our borders and close our export markets. We will listen to the farmers and to all Canadians and do what is in the best interests of Canada.

[Infrastructure, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member's statement is false. The Conservative government is working hard and is producing positive results for Quebeckers.

Let me continue. There would be no water supply to Canadians in Quebec, no waste water for Quebeckers. No universities or colleges would be upgraded and there would be no green infrastructure for Quebeckers.

If those Bloc Québécois members had their way, there would be no economic action plan in Quebec, there would be no money for Quebeckers and there would be no good economy in Quebec.

This Conservative government acts in the best interests of Quebeckers.

[Infrastructure, October 22nd, 2010]

In June of this year, Mr. Speaker, the FCM asked the committee and the government to be fair, reasonable and flexible and the government has said that it will do exactly that.

Let us be clear about the facts here. If it were up to members of the Bloc Québécois, who voted against Canada's economic action plan, there would be no arenas and no recreational centres in Quebec. There would be no roads or bridges repaired in Quebec. There would be no trails and no new buildings.

This Conservative government stands up for the people of Quebec while those people do not do anything.

[October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I am sorry, but I still do not buy it.

Today we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We heard from people in Quebec who deal with municipalities. They are ecstatic about the amount of infrastructure in which this government has invested throughout Canada. One billion dollars in stimulus money in Quebec alone has helped it put in new water pipes, new sewer systems, new roads and bridges.

I thank the member for supporting us in that. I wish the Bloc and the NDP had supported Canada's economic action plan. Fortunately, this Conservative government continues to make good investments across this country. We are going past political lines. We are getting the best job done for Canadians and their quality of life.

[October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to respond to that question.

The Government of Canada has been clear all along that its investments in projects through the G8 legacy fund were intended to showcase the communities in the region and to provide a legacy to the area for hosting the G8 summit.

The town of Huntsville received funding to expand and rehabilitate its community centre in order that the facility could be used as the G8 administrative centre. The Muskoka Tourism Visitor Information Centre was also rehabilitated.

Over 10,000 reporters attended this event, not 10,000 reporters from Ottawa, not 10,000 reporters from Canada, nor even from North America, but 10,000 reporters from around the world. We were showcasing Canada to the world at this particular event and it was important that the world see Canada in its best light. We believe we accomplished that.

We rehabilitated and renovated some of those facilities so that tourists in particular would be more easily informed of all that the Muskoka region has to offer visitors.

Additional projects were also undertaken throughout the region, including improvements to parks and public spaces, in order to better showcase one of the most beautiful places in all of Canada, with the exception of course of my own beautiful riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca in northern Alberta.

As my colleague said before and I will say again, the Allister Johnston Bridge previously referred to by the member is not a project being funded through the G8 legacy fund. The span of the street that was rehabilitated through this Government of Canada investment began at the base of the bridge and spanned the length of the main street.

The G8 summit brought together in Canada people from the world's leading economic powers: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This was the first visit to the region for many of the delegates. The G8 legacy fund's investments helped to showcase the local area to delegates and invested significantly in the region's tourism industry.

The member suggested that there was favouritism. I do not buy that at all. He is mistaken. Every day when I am in this place and away from my home in northern Alberta I travel across the Alexandra Bridge. For the past year it has been undergoing major renovations paid for by the federal government's infrastructure fund. On one side of the bridge is a Liberal riding, that member's riding, and on the other side of the bridge is another Liberal member's riding. If there is favouritism, I would suggest that the member should speak up and tell the facts to the Canadian people. The facts are that we have been fair, we have been just, and we have treated all Canadians equally because we are interested in all Canadians' quality of life.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do have some points to make on this particular bill. Obviously, you saw me stand up several times asking questions--

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I actually have the same questions for this member that I had for the last one because they simply were not answered. Again I ask, is this trade agreement not a great first step for the people of Panama, a great first step for their ability to have the things we enjoy here in Canada, the great employment rights that we have, the right to speak our minds, and to have the democratic right to vote?

In this place we all want to have an opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation, except for the NDP members, but they are trying to use some sneaky tactic that is allowed in this place, and I agree to it, but it quite frankly allows a very small minority in this place, a very small number of people who represent a small number of people in Canada, compared to the rest of us, to actually hold up a piece of legislation that would help the rights of people in Panama.

It will actually allow the products of our farmers to be sold in Panama and it will help Canadians, Canadian trade, and the people of Panama. Certainly, the influence Canada has in the world will assist us to trade with Panama and help the people there.

I wonder if the member might answer that question and why we cannot have the democratic right to vote today.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, could the member answer the following questions?

I understand in part what he is saying, but it does not seem to compute. Does he not see this as a good first step for the people of Panama and Canada? How does it help the people of Panama if we do not remove artificial barriers, if Canadians do not buy their products, if Panama is not able to sell its products here? How does it help the people of Canada if they do not have more choices, if they cannot buy more products and sell more products to Panama? I just do not understand how this does it. Could the member answer those questions?

Also, would he mind answering the question that is on the minds of most Canadians? New Democrats are using a type of technicality to thwart the democratic will of the people of Canada and the majority of members in the House. Could he answer why NDP members are so anti-democratic and why they do not want to help the people of Canada, farmers in particular, and the people of Panama?