Brian Jean

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 9 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 11 and 12.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as a member of the bar from Alberta, that during the time that the conditional sentences legislation came into force, I was absolutely shocked. In fact, I practised criminal law in northern Alberta for years.

I will give a couple of examples of individuals who received conditional sentences: a woman who stabbed her husband to death, a three time convicted crack dealer, and a gentleman, I use the term loosely, who sexually assaulted two of his daughters. I was quite frankly shocked, appalled, and ashamed to be involved in those cases.

However, I would like to ask the member, what does he see as the future of this particular section and more appropriately, who would have access to this kind of conditional sentence? What types of crimes would be applicable for a conditional sentence, and not these types of bizarre situations where someone can afford a lawyer?

Quite frankly, I say to the previous questioner, the only people who can actually get conditional sentences are usually those people who can afford good lawyers. Unfortunately for us and it is shameful for us that it does not include aboriginal populations for the most part.

However, I would like to ask the member specifically, what does he see as the proper situation for this kind of application of the law?

[May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the member was in government months ago he had the opportunity to make the decision but did not, and now he brings that forward to us.

Now he is telling us that not only should we ignore the courts, but we should ignore the French interpretation that came from the judgment. It came from a French statute. There is an English and a French statute and the court interpreted the French statute as being more specific and more narrow.

Is the hon. member suggesting that we ignore the French interpretation? I would suggest not.

The minister will do what is in the best interest of Canadians. We have a universal postal guarantee across this huge country. The decision will be made but all members can be assured that the decision made by the minister, by the government and by the Prime Minister will be in the best interest of Canadians long term.

[May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the member, when he was sitting on the government side just months ago, did not do something about this issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal came out with a judgment over a year ago. I am wondering why, if he had the opportunity to do so, he did not.

I currently own three small businesses. I have run three or four others in the past and I can tell the member that there are competing interests. We are taking this seriously because it is a very important issue.

On another point, I can assure the House that we are not going to take any lessons at all from the Liberals on how to run a business or how to run a government effectively in the best interests of Canadians. I am hopeful the member is not suggesting that we ignore the court decisions that have been rendered, including the Ontario Court of Appeal. I am certain it is not his wish that this government should ignore the courts.

I am happy to rise today on the issue of international remailing. I can assure everyone that this is a very important issue to this government. That is why we were taking some time to make an appropriate decision which will be in the best interests of Canadians, having regard to the universal postal service that all Canadians have come to love and enjoy.

Canadians receive and send mail all over the country for a mere 51¢, whether it be one block or 1,000 miles, by ferry or by other means of transportation. This government cares about rural, urban and remote Canadian communities. That is why the minister will make a decision which is in the best interests of Canadians.

Canada's geography, low population density, outlying isolated communities, populations and climate provide, quite frankly, a larger challenge to Canada Post than other countries. In fact, I suggest that we have more challenges than any other nation's post office both in relation to delivery and also in regard to the environment, and other issues that are hot topics today.

Despite these challenges, Canada Post, an arm's length corporation, which means in essence that we are not supposed to deal with its day to day operations, has a 96% on time delivery of mail. What a great record to brag about for Canada Post.

Indeed, when we look at the entire world, Canada has one of the lowest domestic rates for any mail in the world. That speaks volumes about the quality of service. We do this without receiving any tax benefits or funding from Canadians taxpayers. This is done on a profitable basis. As a result, we have to take a look at what takes place.

Most importantly, we have a universal delivery service, which means that we cannot always deliver for 51¢. Obviously, a letter from here to Fort Chipewyan is going to cost more than 51¢ to deliver. As a result of that, we have to look at universal delivery, which includes what the courts have put forward as a jurisdiction that is within Canada Post's mandate. That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail. The court has found that, and I am certain my friend does not want this government to ignore our courts.

We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services. Indeed, these remailers employ Canadians, but Canada Post, of course, as everybody in the House knows, is the sixth largest employer of Canadians in Canada. These remailers actually collect the mail in bulk, ship it out of the country and then mail it locally at cheaper rates because there are cheaper rates available to them through foreign post offices. These--

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The Constitution is good when Quebec needs to use it, but it is not good when Quebec wants to leave. It is absolutely ironic. Quebec became part of Canada before Alberta and yet, what if Alberta wanted to leave Kyoto, and I am not saying it wants to. However, we are going to find the mechanism that works. If Quebec wanted to leave Kyoto, it is not good for Canada, but it is okay for Quebec to leave Canada. I do not understand dual roles.

We are going to work cooperatively and find solutions. We are going to use whatever mechanism, not just one mechanism on a piece of paper. We are going to find solutions and results for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the member has the first sentence mixed up. It was the Liberals that were embarrassing. The Liberals caused nothing but economic and climate chaos in this country for many years.

I am happy to answer the member's question about Fort McMurray. I can assure him that the development itself is good. Unfortunately, as a result of certain initiatives, one in particular the price of oil going up so dramatically, the quality of life for people in Fort McMurray must be improved.

We need to invest more in northern Alberta. We need to invest more in the people there. We need more schoolteachers and more doctors. We have the lowest doctor to patient ratio in the country. We need more roads. We have a highway with many fatalities. We need a lot more infrastructure.

I am looking forward to all the members of the House supporting this initiative. We have had huge growth in northern Alberta of 8% over the last 8 to 10 years, and we are projecting 8% more over the next 15 years.

On another point, Canada has 2.5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The Liberal plan is to get Canada involved in 180 countries with Kyoto which only account for a small portion on a large scale of emissions. We have the United States, China, India and Australia, 70% to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and the Liberals do not want to be part of that. I do not understand. Those countries did not sign Kyoto. Is there any logic in that?

The Conservative government is going to find solutions that work. We will participate and cooperate with those countries that are causing the emissions. We are not going to cause problems for people and companies in Canada. We will find solutions and those solutions are going to work.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the member who just spoke. We are prepared to forward the full package to clean up the environment and clean up greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

I am surprised by this particular motion from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie because it is ironic. I was not aware that the Bloc had actually signed on to the Constitution. I was very glad to hear that because my understanding is it is a separatist party, but the Bloc included that in its motion so I take it to mean that either I missed something or, indeed, the Bloc will be signing it in the near future and respecting the Constitution.

Nevertheless, I have had the privilege in the past of sitting on the environment committee with many of my colleagues here in the House. I have enjoyed that time. I have actually written a thesis, believe it or not, on the enforceability of judgments on cross-border pollutants. I participated in the Kyoto implementation study with over 50 stakeholders from private, public and non-government organizations. I have had the privilege of visiting Iceland for the Arctic Council on Climate Change. I saw the results of that.

I am an avid outdoors enthusiast. I would actually lay claim to the term “environmentalist”. I spend a lot of time outdoors. I am interested in a future for the environment not just for the present generation, but for my children, for my grandchildren, for all Canadians and all people who live on this planet Earth. I am very interested in that.

Although I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a title which I am very honoured to have, I actually have a keen interest in the environment.

I have read the Pembina Institute report on oil sands fever, greenhouse emissions and chemical contamination in the last two weeks. I even had the privilege of meeting with Elizabeth May, who at the time was the executive director of the Sierra Club. We talked about greenhouse gases and what we could do in northern Alberta. I met with a representative from the David Suzuki Foundation, Dale Marshall, in the last two weeks.

I have done all that because I am interested in the environment, just like everyone on this side of the House, every Conservative here. We want a solution.

There is no question that our Earth is changing, and it has been changing for the last however many years that it has been around. We know it changes. Temperatures fluctuate, and they have fluctuated since the beginning of time. In fact in this very place we sit today, I guess the place was not here, but a huge layer of ice was here at one time, thousands of years ago. So things do change, and things are going to continue to change.

But what does create greenhouses? What is contributing to climate change is not just the natural function of the Earth, but it is also things like forest fires, which have a great impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It is automobiles that people drive back and forth to work. It is factories. It is electrical generation utility companies that provide electricity for us. It is manufacturing facilities. It is natural resource extraction processes. It is even the use of any kind of fossil fuel. Those things cause greenhouse gas emissions. It is just about everything we do that causes some form of greenhouse emissions.

In fact in this House today and every day since I have been here, there is a lot of hot air that goes up all the time. I am hoping today though with this particular speech we will not have much of it. I am hoping that some people will be interested.

I do want to identify one particular thing in history, and that is it was actually a Conservative government that took the first step on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Indeed, that very gentlemen, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, was the first person in this House to bring forward legislation to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Brian Mulroney was honoured recently as Canada's greenest prime minister. I am very proud of the fact that he was from a Conservative caucus. Indeed he introduced a very good plan. It was called the green plan and the name itself speaks volumes. He committed to do something that the Liberal government never did. He actually set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He actually had ideas on how to do it and he set plans. But that was prior to 1993 and that was prior to the Liberal government.

Guess what happened in 1993 and subsequently until a few months ago. The Liberals cut not just health care, which we saw immediately, not just the military, not just infrastructure, but they shelved that plan. They killed the green plan. Not only did they do nothing for 13 years, but they killed the 10 years before that which were actually starting to add something to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and climate change reduction.

We had 13 years of Liberal ineffectiveness and incompetence, quite frankly. There was a lack of accountability, no reporting mechanisms and plans to spend $13 billion of taxpayers' money on a plan that had no chance of working and effected no results.

What were the results of this money? Some money was spent. I can assure the House that we have not had great results. Our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up roughly 35% since the Kyoto targets the Liberal government set, and are 43% above those targets currently. So we have gone backwards in time, not just for the 13 years, but for the time before that when there was a Conservative government that introduced the green plan.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is currently conducting a fair value for money audit and I am looking forward to those results. They will be coming out in the fall of 2006 and I really look forward to that audit. We do not want to blame people because we can do that all day. We want to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again that have been made by the Liberal government in the past. We want to find what worked and what did not work, and do an appropriate audit to implement the things that can work and to fix those things that did not.

I am from Fort McMurray in northern Alberta and I am proud to be from that area. I keep hearing that the oil and gas industry is bad, bad, bad. I am pretty sure everyone here drives a car to work. I am proud of the industry because I have seen what it is doing. Syncrude Canada, for instance, a company in my area spent $2 billion recently on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cleaning the pipes that exhaust the steam. I am proud of the role the private sector in Alberta has played and it is taking great steps.

In fact, the companies are taking steps beyond what is required by the government. Their children play with my children. The CEOs of those corporations are working there. They do not want to see health effects and side-effects. They want to create change to work toward a more positive environment for all of us.

As a government we will be focusing on achieving a better and stronger public and private partnership, something that was not done. We are not going to implement tasks that cannot be done. We are going to find solutions that we can work toward together. If the NDP and the Bloc had their druthers on this, they would close down all the factories and shut down all travel by car. In the wintertime, I am sorry, it is minus 30°, but we would have to turn off the heat and huddle in blankets. That would be their solution.

We are not going to take that approach because it is not helpful. We know that something has to be done but let us look at the realities. Here in Canada we have cold weather, some of the coldest weather in the world. We have long distances. We travel 25% longer than any other citizen of other countries on average. We have a very low population density and yes, we have a resource-based economy. I want to ensure that the members on the other side of the House heard that. Our economy is driven on the basis of natural resources.

This Conservative government will integrate the economy and the environment. We are going to put our money to work for the environment. We are going to work on our environment to help our economy. The two are not separate. They are not mutually exclusive. They are together and this government is going to ensure that we keep them together.

We are going to recognize energy as a key economic driver. We have lights on here today and probably some air conditioning, I am not quite sure about that because it is a little hot, but we use electricity and all Canadians use electricity. We have to recognize that energy is a key economic driver and we have to respect that.

Most importantly, something that was not done before, we have to have better management of government finances. We are the biggest company in Canada and we have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to take care of their money. We must do a better job of that.

In the budget we have honoured all of the promises that we made in the election campaign, something that is different than any government has done in the last 10 or 15 years. We are going to follow through on our promises. We are going to enact a clean air act. We are going to work toward fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. We are going to have more energy security and innovation in our marketplace. We are going to make the difference.

We are going to protect our Arctic. We are going to ensure that we have sovereignty over our soil and the safety of our northern citizens as well as ensuring that we keep their aboriginal culture intact. We are going to invest in research and clean air technology.

We have an economic factor that gives us a huge and competitive advantage. Other things that are going to take place include: innovative technologies such as clean coal, carbon capturing sequestration and hydrocarbon extraction techniques. Those are things we are going to look at and work on.

We will use NAFTA as a tool and other international tools to ensure we receive the cooperation of the United States. The Prime Minister and the government is going to deliver a Canadian solution for Canadians that will help the environment. I am proud to be a part of that government.

[Aeronautics Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what would be more important to pilots than to have the safe planes? I fly approximately 16 hours every week from my job here to northern Alberta and back. As a frequent flyer, I want to ensure that planes are as safe as humanly possible.

Both the Canadians Owners and Pilots Association and the Airline Pilots Association have said they want this. I would be surprised if they did not want more strenuous regulations. As a frequent flyer, I do.

I welcome any amendments that my friend or any member would put forward, which would be helpful in this.

[Aeronautics Act, May 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend that no part of Canada is more important than the people of Quebec. In fact, as he knows, the Prime Minister and most of my Quebec colleagues are in Quebec City today. As well, we met several days ago in my office and I assured him at that time that any information he wanted, any facts he wanted in relation to this act would be provided to him. We will ensure that it is provided in such a manner that he can make an informed decision as to what he believes is in everyone's best interest.

After his comments the other day, I did some brief analysis on how many investigators had been appointed over the last few years. To my surprise I found out that we had more appointed, although I have requested specific numbers on that to ensure that his questions are addressed.

As well, remember the government is going to require a minimum level for self-regulation. It works in other bodies. It works in law societies, hospital societies and all across Canada. There has to be a minimum level and the government will have a minimum level. I will answer all and any questions that my friend has to put to me before, now and any he may have in the future.

We want what is in the best interests of Canadians and we will get that, with his help.