Brian Jean

[Canada Marine Act, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, because I think that for all the people who have been listening to the last 10 minutes of the member's speech, that speech really has proven to Canadians that two years and three months ago they actually made the right choice and elected a government that is getting things done for Canadians, that listens to stakeholders, as it is in this case, that quits wasting time, and that really gets the best things done for Canadians. That is what we are doing.

I thank the member for that and I hope all Canadians were watching, because sooner or later they are going to have the opportunity again. I wonder if the member thinks that this is what is going to happen again.

[Canada Marine Act, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is always very good at speaking and is a great orator, and I know he wants to take credit for another Conservative bill that we got passed because the Liberals simply did not get it done for so many years, but notwithstanding that, this is debate is on the amendment. It is on the letter “a”.

I am wondering if the member could actually deal with the letter “a”, because that is what the amendment is all about. It is about bringing the French and the English into consistency. It is not about the bill itself. We have already dealt with that. Could the member deal with the amendment itself?

[Canada Marine Act, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the amendment was put forward by the government and accepted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The amendment we are debating today corrects a drafting oversight to correct a reference to reflect the new numbering of paragraphs in the proposed amendment to section 25. It brings conformity between the French and the English in this case.

I will not waste the time of taxpayers. We have already debated the issue of Bill C-23, and I do not want to be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, as you would do if it went anywhere except for the amendment itself. I do not want to delay such an important bill. How much can we talk about an “a”, which is simply the change?

I would like to read supportive quotes in relation to Bill C-23 from the Shipping Federation of Canada, the Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, but again, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order because it is not on the point of the “a”.

Clause by clause took 27 minutes, almost a record in the House, because this is such an important bill for our marine industry. However, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order, so in this case I ask that all members of all parties support the bill and the change in the “a”, which is so important to bring conformity between the French and the English.

Having said that, I am done with the debate.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with apt attention to my friend who has the riding just north of mine in northern Alberta. He asked me to say something as an Albertan MP.

I noticed he was a little nervous about the security of his own riding after the Prime Minister visited it and made some great announcements, and I understand his nervousness. However, some of my constituents received an increase in the northern living allowance. After 20 years, that is the first increase in the northern living allowance. I am very proud of our government for that increase.

As well, I want to let the member know that yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with the minister of transport in the Northwest Territories. He is very happy with the federal government. He is very happy with the initiatives we have taken. He is very happy with the money we have invested in the building Canada fund and the other issues in the Northwest Territories.

Has the member had an opportunity to speak with members of the governing body for the Northwest Territories and talked to them about how happy they are with the Prime Minister and how excited they are with this government for the steps it has taken to help them after nothing was done by the previous Liberal government?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and would like to ask my friend a question. I know he is very passionate about issues such as this.

Indeed, as the member knows, I spent some time in a logging company some years ago in Alberta. I recently had a lumber company in northern Alberta close down as a result of obviously economic conditions that affect his province as well. That happened in High Prairie, Alberta, in my constituency, where I am going to be tomorrow and hopefully meet with some of those people who are affected by this.

As the member knows as well, Canada has one of the lowest gasoline prices in the world. It is probably because of the federal taxes that we do not apply that many countries do.

I wanted to let the member know as well that on my flight back here last weekend I had the opportunity to sit behind two full rows of people from Quebec. I flew here from Fort McMurray because that is my constituency. I had an opportunity to practice my French. There are many Quebeckers in my constituency and I am very proud of that. I represent them here today and I represent them in all the things I do.

Indeed, I wonder if the member is aware as well that of the 500,000 jobs in the oil sands that have been created in this country, 16% or 80,000 of those jobs are actually in Ontario and half of them are spread out across this country and contribute tremendously to our economy.

I am also curious as to my friend's comments in relation to the budget as far as it deals with immigration. The Winnipeg Free Press has said:

In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

I wonder if the member is prepared to vote against such clear and decisive policy that is going to help Canadians, especially new Canadians and help our economy.

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure this member that our intention is especially to keep the National Capital Commission in its entire state of today. I came here almost four years ago from northern Alberta and chose a place to live for my work here. I chose to live in Gatineau, as the member knows. I did that because it reminded me of northern Alberta, which is one of the most beautiful places in the world that I have ever seen.

I use the national capital area. I use it for rollerblading and biking, and yes, I use it for the 45 minute wait every day to come across the bridge. It is a very beautiful area. I love it and I can assure the member that it is going to be kept in the best possible way it can be for Canadians.

[April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we agree. The national capital greenbelt is a key element of the 1950 Gréber plan that shaped our beautiful capital into what we know and cherish today.

Established in the late 1950s, the greenbelt today consists of 20,000 hectares of land, including farms, forests, wetlands and sites for national research institutions. It is the symbolic expression of rural Canada, of all of Canada, as well as large, ecologically sensitive ecosystems. The greenbelt allows Canadians to experience these very important elements of Canadian geography and society.

This destination for visitors and residents actually attracts more than a million visits per year. Canadians should be very proud of that. I am very proud of that. Today the greenbelt is a unique urban space and is unequalled in any other North American city.

The greenbelt is owned and managed by the National Capital Commission in accordance with strong planning and management tools, such as the 1996 greenbelt master plan.

It is important to note that National Capital Commission chair Mr. Russell Mills said at the first public board meeting, held on November 7, that his comments on the greenbelt, as expressed by my friend, were “stating personal views...and not stating new policy for the NCC”.

That said, the government believes that the model of the greenbelt is still relevant for a large urban area like Canada's capital region, like what we have here today.

We have noted, however, in regard to the recommendations from the National Capital Commission mandate review panel, that the 1999 plan for Canada's capital should be subject to approval by the Parliament of Canada.

Second, the panel recommended that properties comprised in the national interest land mass be reassessed through a process involving public consultations, both the public that lives here and all Canadians, because we are proud of the national capital region.

Also, in keeping with the National Capital Commission planning framework, master plans are reviewed every 10 years. As the current master plan is 11 years old, the NCC has also begun its review and evaluation.

While many recommendations from the initial plan have been implemented, some need to be re-examined in light of today's reality. Over the last decade, many factors, such as increased transportation, infrastructure requirements stemming from urban growth, increased fragmentation pressures, and global agricultural issues, reinforce the fact that the plan needs to be updated.

Through the review of the policies, different perspectives from diverse audiences will be collected during any public consultation process. The National Capital Commission is committed to open the dialogue with Canadians to ensure that the vocation of the greenbelt reflects today's reality.

As parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, I can assure members that the government believes the model of the greenbelt is still relevant for today's capital region.

[March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be representing the people of Fort McMurray—Athabasca. Last year on the highway that goes north to Fort McMurray, 23 people lost their lives as a result of the highway not being twinned.

Fortunately, this government has put $150 million plus into twinning that highway and it will be done. I can assure the member that if we stop driving our cars in Canada, we will have no more car accidents, but that does not seem like a very plausible possibility.

Indeed, we will move forward on the safety and security of Canadians, the health of Canadians, and the environment. We will ensure the economy keeps going for the people of Quebec. That is what we are going to do on this side of the House.

[March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the question raised by my colleague from Western Arctic.

Indeed, since the member asked this question on December 6, 2007, this government has granted its approval to the proposed LNG project in Rabaska.

This decision was announced on March 4, 2008. It was rendered following a very lengthy and rigorous analysis which included a number of departments at the federal and provincial level.

Safety and security is this Conservative government's primary responsibility and we take it very seriously. Let me provide a little bit of context.

This LNG project has the potential to be a tremendous benefit to the Quebec economy. The Quebec government supported the proposal and asked us to do a review of the report of the environmental assessment joint panel review.

This government's job is to ensure that if a project like this is to proceed, it does not pose a significant risk to the environment or to the health of Canadians.

A comprehensive environmental assessment has indeed been completed and it has shown that this particular project is safe from an environmental point of view.

Now that the entire process has been completed, the federal government concludes that the Quebec government and the developer can indeed pursue the procedures for implementing the eventual Rabaska LNG terminal. It is safe.

Should the project move forward, the Government of Canada will indeed ensure that the developer implements all mitigation measures identified in the report, as well as the required monitoring and review programs. There is ongoing monitoring to make sure that the project remains safe as well.

My colleague has made reference to the LNG project in Passamaquoddy Bay in southwestern New Brunswick. As the member knows full well, each and every case is different and unique. Indeed, all of them need to undergo a very rigorous federal environmental review. Each case is judged on its own merits based on its safety, the security issues, and indeed environmental issues.

In the case of Rabaska, a review was conducted and was shown to be safe from an environmental and safety perspective, and in the best interests of the people of Quebec. We are going to act on their behalf in this case.

In keeping with our commitment to protect the environment, the panel recommended several mitigation and follow-up measures should the project proceed.

Twelve recommendations pertain to federal areas of responsibility, implicating Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada, and this government will ensure that appropriate follow-up measures are implemented to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures and ensure compliance with any conditions that are eventually set out in the regulatory approvals or authorizations that may be issued under the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Therefore, any such conditions will only be known for certain at the time of those approvals or authorizations.

I am happy to inform this particular member, because I know he is interested in it, and all members of this House, and in fact all Canadians, that this Conservative government and this Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has finally acted to review and modernize the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is applicable in this particular case.

This act was written in 1882 and is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Canada.

The provisions contained within this act do not serve the people of Canada any longer for the purpose for which they were intended. A new, more flexible regime must be established for the review of works constructed in Canadian waters. It is long overdue.

The act is currently being studied by our committee and we are getting the job done.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2008]

I lost track of that, Mr. Speaker, because there was so much rhetoric.

However, let us talk about something someone has said in reference to the bill the NDP has now proposed. Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said in relation to the bill:

That (revised bill) could end up having some perverse impacts, in terms of fleet turnover, and the ability of people to afford these vehicles.

There is no question that the NDP, from time to time, comes up with these perverse ideas that could not work. We know that.

However, let us talk about some really good things that are happening. We did a good eco-auto program. We had a two year program. It worked well. It brought to the attention of Canadians what was important. What is important with the fleet and what is important for Canadians is what we are doing. We are taking positive steps.

The rebate program raised consumer awareness on fuel efficient models. In fact, the industry even added new fuel efficient models to its fleets.

Let us talk about some of the things we are doing. We have invested $33 billion, the biggest investment ever, in things like public transit and cleaning our water. Infrastructure investments in our latest budget, which the Liberals supported us on, and I thank them, include $500 million for public transit capital investments, $250 million over five years to support research and development for greener more fuel efficient vehicles, $63 million over the next two years to look at ways to get older polluting vehicles off the road and $13 million over two years to accelerate access to renewable fuels for cars and trucks.

We are getting the job done for Canadians, for a better quality of life. cleaner air and the environment.