Brian Jean

[September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, we need to be clear about current provisions that protect British Columbia's coast. Tankers do not move unabated along the coast. In fact, a voluntary tanker exclusion zone, mutually agreed to by both Canada and the United States, does exist off the coast of British Columbia.

First, the member should apologize for suggesting that the minister has been deceptive in his answers. The minister is very hard-working. He is honest and works hard for the people of Canada. She should apologize for that remark. I am sure it was not meant at all as intentional.

I always find it humorous when a Liberal stands and says, “If only we get to be the government, we have an innovative and decisive plan”. The Liberals were in government a very short time ago. I am sure if they were the government again, they would implement all those things they never had the chance to do time and time again.

Let us be clear. This Conservative government is keeping the coast of British Columbia clean and pristine. We protect all the coasts of Canada with real action, with real decisions and with real environmental policy and the funds to back it up.

The exclusion zone applies solely to loaded oil tankers moving between Alaska and the west coast of the United States. For example, tankers transporting U.S. crude oil from Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington State would remain west of a line that roughly parallels the coast of British Columbia. This line defining the zone varies between 25 and 85 miles off the British Columbia coastline.

This zone was designed to keep these tankers at a very safe distance from shore so in the event that a loaded tanker became disabled, there would be sufficient time for a salvage tug to reach the tanker and provide assistance before it could possibly drift and risk running aground.

Canadians know they can count on a Conservative government because of the great initiatives we have taken over the last few years while in government to set aside huge lands and national parks, to set aside money so our Coast Guard and other officials, including Transport Canada, can guard and keep safe our coastlines and have a plan in place to ensure we can clean up a spill if something happens.

While there is a federal moratorium in place that applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploration and development activities, this moratorium does not extend to the storage or the movement of tankers. I suggest the member is a little confused on this issue.

Tanker traffic is permitted along the British Colombia coast. In fact, oil tankers have been trading safely and regularly along our west coast for many years. I understand there has not been one incident of crude oil leakage thus far from any ship. We have a track record and clearly our laws are becoming better and more onerous for those tankers. I will get into that later on in my speech. Measures exist to ensure the safe transportation of petroleum products to and from Canadian ports.

The lead federal agency is Transport Canada and it strictly enforces pollution prevention regulations through ship inspection for compliance with international pollution prevention provisions and through incident investigation. Clearly Transport Canada is vigorous in its inspection and in its enforcement. Operators must maintain a minimum level of preparedness at all times and must have oil pollution prevention emergency plans in place.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I would suggest to him it is extremely relevant. It is extremely relevant for Canadians to know whether or not that member will now stand in his place and apologize for flip-flopping and whether he will stand up for his constituents. Clearly he does not understand what his constituents want. If he knew what they wanted, he would have voted for them. He had the opportunity last week to vote for them and he did not do so.

As to oil spills, Canadians know that they can count on this government to keep oil spills in check if necessary, but to prevent them in the first place. That is the key.

That member is part of a party that was in government for many years. They had the opportunity to make actual steps in relation to the environment, but just like every other issue involving the environment, they did nothing. That is why we are here to clean up their mess.

My question again to the member is this, and he should quit trying to avoid it. Why would he not stand up for the constituents who voted him in? Why would he not abolish the long gun registry when he had the chance? The vote of 153:151 is close enough that his vote made a difference.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have a very stringent regulatory regime in relation to the question he asks and all Canadians are concerned by the devastating environmental and economic impacts of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and they would be concerned. It is only right that we have a good look at our own situation and ask tough questions about safety and security when it comes to offshore activities in Canada, and those are the questions that we ask in this government.

In the meantime, I want to assure Canadians that there are currently no active authorizations for drilling of any kind in the Beaufort Sea and we will keep Canadians safe.

For the member opposite, I am a registered trapper and I have lived in northern Alberta almost all of my life. The motion to quash the long gun registry was defeated 153:151. The member opposite promised his constituents that he would vote at every opportunity to ensure the gun registry was abolished. The people of the north understand how important it is. When the issue came to a vote on May 15, 2009, he voted to abolish it, but then several days ago he voted to keep it.

In preparing for tonight and the address of the member, I looked at the news and found a CBC report from the member's premier, Premier Fentie. On Thursday, in the legislature he said:

We don't change our mind, like the Liberals, on the long-gun registry. We didn't hide from our verbal commitments to Yukoners. We backed it up with action.

He went on to say, “It is about trust and the Liberals are all in it together”. The premier added, “Yukoners cannot trust them”.

In the Yukon legislature on Thursday, Klondike Yukon Party MLA Steve Nordick, presented a motion demanding that the member return to the territory to explain his action. Has he gone back there and explained his action to the legislature there? I know in northern Alberta a long gun rifle is a tool, just like a shovel is. As a registered trapper, it is very important. The gun registry makes it almost impossible for aboriginals to abide by the law and as such, the member's failed promises have made criminals out of many people in Canada who quite frankly do not deserve that.

Mr. Fentie went on to say, “Obviously once he's received his paycheques”, and he was speaking about the member, “he has entirely changed his mind”.

Has the member returned? Has he changed his mind again? What is going to happen with that?

[Infrastructure, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that our government continues to work with our partners and we will continue to be fair and reasonable.

Let us understand where we are today. This Conservative government passed some great legislation to get infrastructure money out, to get stimulus money out, and the Bloc voted against every single one of these efforts. The member should be ashamed of himself for standing in this place and asking that question.

[Infrastructure, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Our government has had a great partnership with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and with groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In fact, 99% of these projects are well under way and the overwhelming majority of these projects, more than 12,000 of them, will be completed on time. Our government will continue to take a fair and reasonable approach.

I would remind the member that we have six months left before the deadline, and that the provinces will be reporting in short order. Once we have talked to the provinces and heard from them, we will be fair and reasonable.

[Hurricane Igor, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the member of Parliament representing the city of Fort McMurray.

Many of my constituents would jokingly say that Fort McMurray is one of the largest cities in Newfoundland. By some estimates, between 20,000 and 30,000 Newfoundlanders call Fort McMurray home.

After the tragedy that hurricane Igor has left in that province, many of my constituents are simply in disbelief. They are concerned for their families and friends whose homes are flooded, whose roads are washed away and whose properties are destroyed.

I stand in the House today to grieve with those from Newfoundland and Labrador and to make known that they are not alone. We stand together as Canadians and we will offer all the support and resources necessary. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them.

[September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that did hurt a little but coming from the member opposite I understand. Sometimes he goes on and on. However, being in the pockets of the airline industry is quite ridiculous. I probably fly a lot more than he does and to suggest that we would somehow be in collusion with the airline industry is absolutely ridiculous.

Frankly, I know the member brought forward some comparisons before, the European Union, for instance, and now the United States. Canada has a different industry. We have a different geography and climate with some of the harshest winters in the world. We must consider these aspects before we move forward.

We have very isolated communities in the north where there are 30,000 or 40,000 people within a 200,000 or 300,000 kilometre geography. It is just not acceptable to compare a place with a population density as low as Canada's to places like Europe and New York. It just cannot happen.

We are doing the best for consumers, for the airline industry and for Canadians.

[September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this Conservative government is very concerned about Canadian families that experience travel delays when flying, especially during the Christmas and holiday season.

Airline passenger rights are already enshrined in the Canada Transportation Act, which actually requires that terms and conditions of carriage be made readily accessible to consumers.

In the event that a carrier does not respect its terms and conditions of carriage, and passengers are not satisfied with an airline's response, they may actually file in Canada a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency, better known as the CTA.

In September 2008, the government actually launched Flight Rights Canada, rights for consumers, and established a code of conduct for Canadian air carriers. Since airlines incorporated Flight Rights Canada into their terms and conditions of carriage for international and domestic travel, they are now legally enforceable by the Canadian Transportation Agency and are subject to that agency's complaint process. That is good news for consumers.

Indeed, with respect to tarmac delays, as the member brought up, these airlines are now required to offer passengers drinks and snacks, if safe and practical to do so, and if the delay exceeds 90 minutes and circumstances permit, because as we know, a lot of issues come up, these airlines will offer passengers the option of disembarking from the aircraft until it is time to depart.

That is a significant step forward, and of course, I am quite surprised that the NDP would propose that we adopt an American solution, a U.S. solution. Instead, this Conservative government is concentrating on a made in Canada solution for Canadians.

The purpose is to alleviate passenger inconvenience during air travel while making sure, at the same time, that our air travel industry, our air carriers, are financially viable. This is a big economic time. We know how difficult it is for most companies, most consumers, and most workers in Canada right now. It is very difficult, and we are at a sensitive time, so we will make sure that we have a vibrant and good industry to serve Canadians and serve passengers.

Although Bill C-310, which the member proposed before and which went to committee, had some positives, which, in fact, the government looked at, it was problematic. Some witnesses at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which that member participated in for some period of time, and some government and even opposition members, voiced serious concern that the bill's long list of fines and penalties could reduce the financial viability of many airline routes in Canada.

That member flies about the same amount I fly. If we were to adopt the American approach, both of us would probably be millionaires within a couple of years, but quite frankly, we would have no airlines to carry us, and that is not acceptable. In fact, the very goal of the proposal by the member actually contradicts this Conservative government's goal in our economic action plan, which aims to support local communities that have been most affected by the economic downturn. In fact, we heard that most northern communities and isolated communities would actually lose their air service because of some of the difficulties air carriers have, especially in the winter months, in, for instance, places like Newfoundland and other places across Canada.

After hearing detailed testimony, the standing committee voted, all parties in the House at the standing committee voted, that Bill C-310, which the member is speaking about today, not proceed any further. That is the situation. The government will stand up for the people of Canada, for the consumers of Canada, and make sure that we continue to have a very vibrant industry in Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to thank the NDP member across the way for supporting a Conservative finance minister. I hope he does that for more than just the province of Alberta and supports the federal Conservative finance minister, the number one finance minister in the world.

We will eliminate duplication and unnecessary costs through this process. It is a situation where there will be no office closures and no loss of jobs. It is voluntary. I do not know what the member does not understand about it being voluntary, but it is a voluntary system and it gives Canada a competitive advantage.

My interest is in what we would lose as a result of not going ahead with the system. I have looked at some of the reports by, for instance, the Canadian Bankers Association and the Investment Industry Association of Canada and they have clearly said that we are losing opportunity in Canada.

I am wondering if the member could comment on John Coffee's Colombia University study which shows that Canada loses about $10 billion a year in economic output and 65,000 jobs. Why has this not been done before? Could the member elaborate a bit on what we are losing as an opportunity cost?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, we are eliminating duplication and unnecessary costs. There are going to be no office closures and no job losses. It is a voluntary membership. It is a competitive advantage because we are competing against the world.

I would like this regulatory office, if it happens, to actually be located in Fort McMurray, since I understand some 30% of the TSX is related directly to the oil sands.

My question to the member is this, why is the passport system not working as effectively as it could be to compete against the rest of the world, which is our competitiveness in this case?