Brian Jean

[October 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, additional prevention measures include the requirement for polluters or potential polluters to have contracts with responsible organizations, something unusual for this particular brand of industry. This also includes increased monitoring of vessels.

Finally, operators must contribute to Canada's ship-source oil pollution fund. This can immediately pay compensation for spills, if they do ever happen, for ships of all classes. This fund would actually go after the polluters, so it is a polluter-pay principle. We have double-hull vessels. We ensure that everybody is properly trained as far as pilots go in these narrow passages. We ensure there is a preparedness plan in place. We are doing everything to keep Canadians and the environment safe and we will continue to do that.

[October 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, again on the same issue, but I understand that she is looking for more information.

As members know, oil tankers have been trading safely and regularly along British Columbia's coast for many years. British Columbia's coast includes a voluntary tanker exclusion zone that applies to loaded oil tankers moving between Alaska and the west coast of the United States which protects the coastline from potential spills.

We have a rigorous policy in place and regulations and legislation to protect exactly what the member is speaking about.

I do want her to know, however, that 250,000 jobs across this country rely on that oil and companies are trying to find another route to transport that oil. Some 500,000 jobs in the future will be dependent on the very oil that she speaks of.

Oil is very important to Canada's economy, especially having regard to what is happening in Ontario with the auto workers and in Quebec with manufacturing. Some 40% of these jobs are located in those two provinces, so it is a very important access point for Canada and for Canadian jobs.

The zone that is currently in place was mutually agreed to by Canada and the United States working together co-operatively to come up with a system that was designed to keep these tankers at a safe distance from shore so that if a loaded tanker, for instance, becomes disabled, there would be sufficient time for a salvage tug to come in and actually move that tanker and keep it at a safe distance from shore or anything that would cause problems with that tanker.

While it is a voluntary zone, this is a situation where the industry observes it to the letter of the law. In addition, the Pacific Pilotage Authority has five compulsory pilotage areas in the region. This means that certified pilots must be used for vessels in those particular areas. Over the last 10 years, I am glad to report to the House and all Canadians, there have been no pilot related oil spills and, further, the authority has been handling crude oil tankers of all sizes through Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver Harbour and Haro Strait for many years without any incident whatsoever.

These waterways actually present more navigation difficulty than do the waters leading, for instance, as the member says, to Kitimat. In fact, during the last five years 1,302 tankers arrived at the Port of Vancouver and 187 tankers arrived at the Ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat, no small feat. These tankers are huge but they are safe.

In fact, Transport Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for the oversight of ship source pollution and it strictly enforces regulations through ship inspection and pollution incident investigations. Many of these things happen prior to any possible incident coming to light. Operators must also maintain a minimum level of preparedness and have oil pollution prevention emergency plans in place for any eventuality that could take place.

Both the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and Canada's regulations for the prevention of pollution from ships and for dangerous chemicals contain requirements for double hulled tankers. That is right, not just one hull on these tankers but two hulls to ensure we do the most we can as Canadians to protect our waterways and our natural environment. This further reduces the risk and double hull tankers provide the containment for the oil and, in the event of damage to the outer hull, this protects the environment. This has been recognized worldwide as the primary method of reducing the impact of spills.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I heard quite a bit of misinformation and lack of facts coming from the member opposite. However, I have several questions for him.

Did the member know that this government asked for and received an exemption for domestic Canadian flights flying through U.S. airspace? That means Toronto to Vancouver, an exemption. This government got that exemption from the United States.

Did he know that this legislation only facilitates the sharing of information for flights to the United States or over the United States sovereign airspace to a third country?

Did he know that if passed, the information that air carriers would be required to share with the United States is the full name, date of birth and gender, which is actually less than what is on a Canadian passport today?

Did he know that passenger information that is confirmed to not be linked with terrorism will be erased after seven days?

Further, we all know that passports are required at every U.S. entry point. So this will be less information and it excludes domestic flights.

Let us be clear on something else. Did the member know, did the Liberals know, does the Bloc know that without these amendments that we are proposing, flights leaving Canada will no longer be able to travel over United States airspace?

That is the repercussions of the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberal coalition in standing up against Canadians and their wish to travel abroad. They should be ashamed of themselves for fear-mongering and spreading misinformation.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I would trust the rule of law that is imposed in Canada and the United States over almost any other nation in the world. I would suggest, first, I trust in the rule of law that is applied in North America by the court system that is independent and impartial.

However, as far as the fearmongering by the members opposite in relation to domestic flights that were, in part, negotiated to be excluded from this, I ask the member to check who negotiated that. Was it the previous Liberal government? No. It was this government that negotiated with our southern neighbours on many aspects of this and other treaties to make Canadians safer.

The member asks how will this make Canadians safer. I think it is clear from what happened in 9/11 that we are all subject to terrorism. We in this Conservative government will keep Canadians safe by negotiating and also sharing information that will otherwise put Canadians in peril. Let us be clear. Terrorism knows no boundaries. This government will keep Canadians safe.

As far as insulting our American neighbours, I ask that member go back in time to a national TV broadcast where one of the Liberal sitting members of Parliament stomped, jumped up and down, on a figurine of the United States president at the time. I am sure that did a lot to help our friendship with the United States, since the Liberals were in government at the time it took place. What happened to that member? Zero, zip. She continued to sit in the House and the Liberals did nothing.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 19th, 2010]

It's their land.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on this particular issue.

I know my friend always has something to say on any issue, as we sat on the committee together. I wonder what he would suggest in this particular case.

If we were to reverse roles and instead of our southern neighbour, talk about our northern neighbour, Russia, flying over our sovereign Canadian space and challenging our sovereignty, would we expect them to comply with Canadian rules and regulations?

I am not saying that what the member said is not for some possibility correct or that we as a government would not amend some of the legislation that would come before us. Certainly the government would respect privacy rights of individuals.

However, I would ask the member opposite what he would suggest if the role were reversed. If we were challenged by Russian airliners coming across our space and we told them they had to comply because of the danger they might have against us, what would he suggest to that?

[Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act, October 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the gentleman across the way from the NDP espousing the virtues of his party and how it stands up for criminals, I am wondering if this is a change of focus for the NDP.

Could the member tell me if this means that, instead of sitting down every time one of our bills to protect victims comes forward, the NDP is now going to start standing up to protect Canadians? Is that what he is saying?

[October 5th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that his party was in government for 13 years just a short time ago and never in those 13 years has any provincial or municipal government seen the level of infrastructure funding that this federal government has provided in partnering with the city of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and all provinces and territories in this great country. Never has there been an historical level like this, not even close, since the second world war.

It was through mechanisms like the building Canada fund and the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, which finances large scale projects, including public transit projects, as well as through ongoing and permanent transfers that this government made permanent to municipal governments through the gas tax fund, it was this government, not that government, that made those permanent so that municipalities would know long term what their money would be and what money would be flowing in from the federal government so they could make long-term investment solutions. It was this government that did that. This government has reached a level of investment in transportation and public transit projects that is unprecedented in modern times.

We are proud of our record. We look forward to that member and the Liberal Party joining us in future endeavours to support the people of this great country.

[October 5th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the electrification study being undertaken by MetroLinx regarding whether, and under what conditions, the GO system would convert to electrified trains is due to be completed either late this year or early next year. It is important to wait for the results of this before entering into any discussions with the Government of Ontario and local municipalities regarding their priorities for transportation system investments.

As the House knows, we continue to work with our partners at both the provincial level and the municipal level in getting things done. Obviously, in this particular case, the provincial government has jurisdiction in relation to most of the decisions.

To wait for the report, to me, seems to be the most logical way to proceed, recognizing that it is those levels of government, both the municipalities and the province, that are accountable for knowing their systems and are best able to speak to the systems' most pressing needs. As the member has brought forward some of those needs, I am glad he has been meeting with the provincial government and the other government members in the province of Ontario because, of course, that is their jurisdiction.

I want to be very clear. This Conservative government has responded to local transit needs by partnering with the Ontario government and the municipalities, including the City of Toronto which has received a lot of federal funding because of its large population and we recognize it is in need. These investments by the Conservative government have been identified by the provincial government and the municipal governments as essential transit projects and that is why this government has invested in them.

In addition to these numerous projects in the greater Toronto area, we have also committed up to $600 million for rapid transit in Ottawa. We have listened closely to the local government in Ottawa and it has identified this need as well.

Also, we have invested $265 million for the Waterloo region rapid transit, which was also identified by the province and again by the municipal government.

When this government talks about infrastructure funding with our provincial counterparts, we make an effort to meet the identified priorities at a local and provincial level because, of course, those levels of government are closer to the people and can better identify their priorities. That means working directly with our partners in areas like transit where the jurisdiction, as I mentioned, is at the provincial and municipal levels, and it means listening, which of course we do. As they identify their key priorities on a continuous basis, this government will continue to listen and act on those priorities.

[September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the line defining the zone varies from between 25 and 85 miles off the British Columbia coastline.

In addition, both the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the Canada Shipping Act regulations for the prevention of pollution from ships and for dangerous chemicals contain requirements. These requirements include, among other things, the double hulling of tankers, which further reduces the risk.

Finally, operators must contribute to Canada's national ship-source oil pollution fund, which will actually pay compensation for spills from ships of all classes, including the tankers the member speaks of. The fund is liable to pay claims for oil pollution or damage, even anticipated damage, which is amazing, at any place in Canada or in Canadian waters, including the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

Clearly, all Canadians can count on the Conservative government to keep Canadian shorelines safe and secure, just as they can count on us to keep all Canadians safe and secure.