Brian Jean

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could give me her specific understanding of what is going to happen, as far as the precedent-setting case in this particular circumstance.

We have in front of us the International Joint Commission that may or may not look at this particular issue. If it does not look at this issue, the ramifications of setting a precedent, especially with our unique interests between our borders, could be amazing and dramatic. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to use a cliché that was used by a friend of mine earlier today but I do not remember being in government and spending $300 billion. Possibly the gentleman does, but I was too young to be involved in politics at that time. To receive blame for somebody else's mistakes, if that is indeed the case which I do not believe it is and when I get to the answer of my next question he will understand exactly what I am saying, I was probably nine or ten when that happened. I am certain that the member was quite a bit older than that.

The case is clear that economics is not about today, tomorrow and the next day. It is about 10, 15, 20, 40 and 50 years from now. That is why companies use long term planning instead of 10 year planning. That is why we need a Kyoto plan, that companies can see in 50 years from today what the repercussions are going to be, not in two years or three years when the $5 billion used to buy hot air credits has gone. We need long term, strategic financial planning, a strong economy long term and not sporadic spending.

The member is clear on his position that he supports a budget that has been drawn up on a napkin after a couple of phone calls and an amount of $4.6 billion has been pulled out of the air. He is clear that he supports that, but the Conservative Party will not support that. We believe in long term forecasting and strategic management. That is not the case here.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the member. It just so happens that all those wonderful initiatives that he has brought forward have already been passed in the form of Bill C-43 and with the full support of the Conservative Party. I am wondering what his question is about.

Quite frankly we have been living in a nightmare and I am hoping that the people of Canada will see the dream possibilities for our future with a Conservative government. I hope that answers my friend's question.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-48, the NDP buy off budget, what I like to refer to as BOB. I actually thought that I should call it REG, ruining economic growth, but I could not find anything to tie it to so I will call it BOB.

The theme of my speech tonight is the Canadian dream. I believe Mr. Harry Bruce from the Halifax Herald summed it up the best. He stated:

Nothing has more clearly shown why [the Prime Minister] should not be a prime minister than his Faustian campaign to remain one.

His chief claim to virtue and ability in government had been fiscal restraint but, in a pathetic deal to save his prime ministerial skin, he recently betrayed the sensible budget of his own finance minister.

The budget's defeat in the Commons would have brought down his government, and to avoid that fate--apparently worse not only than death but in standing up for principles one had long claimed to believe in--[the Prime Minister] told the NDP leader that if the NDP would only support his budget, he'd add to it no less than $4.6 billion for assorted social programs that [the leader of the NDP] happened to like.

Thus it was that, overnight, [the finance minister's] budget became the NDP's budget.

Overnight, in one fell swoop, billions of taxpayers' dollars that were unavailable in the original federal budget are now miraculously available to be spent on programs that do not even exist yet.

I remember the Minister of Finance standing in the House several times and telling Canadians that there was simply no more money in his pot. There was no more money for anything and now, all of a sudden, there is $4.6 billion to buy, with BOB, 19 votes from the NDP. I find it, quite frankly, incredible that our government would run like this.

This blatantly demonstrates the Liberals' thirst for power and desperate actions that they are willing to take to hold on to power. The question is, why? From my surmise of this, it is either to continue to hide the actions of the past or to repeat those actions again.

It clearly shows a failure of any long term vision, an inconsistent vision for Canadians. I believe the Liberal government has had no future vision for Canadian families. BOB or Bill C-48 exemplifies the Liberal government's terrible record of managing Canadians' money. The Liberals' formula in this particular case is to tax more than 50% of our income and then to spend more money on their friends, bad programs and luxurious trips. This has absolutely no value for Canadians.

One day it is one budget, the next day it is BOB, and the next day it is yet another budget. Canadians must see this as vote buying and support it no more.

If this were a Canadian family business, it would be broke in months. It could not operate under the premise of not having a plan. As we have seen time after time, it will continue to operate because the Liberals can simply up taxes one more time. Canadians will pay because they have no choice but to pay.

Does the Liberal government not want Canadians from every region to enjoy economic growth and better opportunities for their children? Does the government not want every family in Canada to be able to go to bed at night knowing that their children will have a chance to live the Canadian dream, to get a post-secondary schooling, to find a good well-paying job, and to afford to have children? Why can people not buy a house? It is because they cannot afford it. They cannot save for their retirement because they are overtaxed. They do not even have a little money left over to send their kids to summer camp or to go on vacation.

One can only do those kinds of things if the government does not tax too much and leaves some money in people's pockets and that is just not happening. The government spends not only like a drunken sailor but a drunken sailor with only one last night on leave. That is exactly what the Liberals have done by striking this deal with the NDP to form BOB.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in the Canadian dream. We believe in solid values, long term commitments to programs and solid fiscal management with a plan, something different than we have in front of us today. The Conservative Party believes that our goal should be to give Canadians the highest standard of living in the world so they can enjoy life.

As soon as we become government, we want to implement those dreams and values to help Canadians achieve the Canadian dream, to let Canadians spend their own money, not some billionaire who controls our finances but does not even let his own family company pay taxes in Canada. Is this the example of a Prime Minister that we hold high?

More specifically, Bill C-48, or BOB, deals with environmental initiatives, low income housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid, all four things that the Conservative Party has great platforms on. I note that my friends on the other side agree with me.

Let us be clear. With this Liberal-NDP BOB, there is no plan for where the money is going to be spent. There is no detail. In fact if we look at the Monopoly rules, we will see there is more detail in the Monopoly game rules than there is in this particular budget.

The Conservative Party of Canada has very long, specific commitments to these issues, which by the way were not hastily thrown together on a napkin overnight. We have taken into consideration financial things that may give a good example to the Liberal government.

For example, on the issue of the environment, the Conservative Party believes that in order to have a strong economy we have to have a balance between the environment and the economy. Let us start by cleaning up 30,000 sites that are all across Canada and which make Canadians sick every day, polluted sites that have been developed over the last 100 years of neglect.

The Conservative Party also believes that Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own homes, to have safe and affordable housing. For instance, my constituency in northern Alberta needs 5,000 more affordable homes. One would think I would jump at this chance, but how can I jump at a chance when there is no plan, when there is no detail, when there is no strategy, when it was thrown together on a napkin in an overnight meeting? I cannot support something like that. Anyone with proper fiscal management cannot support that either. There is no plan in BOB.

The Conservative party believes in greater accessibility to education as well by eliminating as many barriers as possible to post-secondary education. We believe in transferring money to the provincial governments so they can utilize that money for their benefit and their priorities on a pro-rated basis that would be fair.

We believe strongly in provincial jurisdiction, and that we must respect that provincial jurisdiction. The provinces should be able to spend that money how they see fit.

The Conservative Party is also committed to strengthening Canada's foreign aid. There is a difference between these four principles that have been put forward by the BOB consortium and the Conservative principles. We believe that we should have a plan for this, that we should have a clear mandate for development assistance, a clear mechanism for policy coherence, monitoring of the plan, accountability and reporting for the plan, specifically to Parliament. We believe that we should enhance public transparency.

None of those things are in the $4.6 billion backroom plan that was made by the Liberal government and the NDP. The Liberal government does none of that. With 400 words in this bill spending $4.6 billion, that is $11.5 million per word. That is a lot of money. It is surprising because most of the time the Liberal government has no lack of irrelevant rhetoric.

Most important, a Conservative government would reduce business taxes and personal taxes for lower income Canadians. This would create jobs that would lead toward the Canadian dream. Reducing taxes would encourage foreign and domestic businesses to invest in Canada and encourage spending, meaning more and better jobs for Canadians.

Lower business taxes mean greater returns for pension plan members and those who have RRSPs so they can actually retire some time in the future, those people who want to retire but cannot because of this drunken sailor spending attitude. There is no detail regarding programs that would be developed as a result of this. As such it cannot be supported. There is no long term vision, no safeguards and no plan.

The bottom line is that BOB clearly demonstrates that taxpayers' moneys will be wasted without a proper detailed plan. In no way would it result in anyone receiving the Canadian dream, which we should work toward. It is time for the Liberals to wake up and for this nightmare to end. Vote no to BOB, no to the buy-off budget of the NDP and the Liberals.

[Kyoto Protocol, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while weighing our Conservative priorities and policies, my thoughts actually went to two important principles.

In this case, these two important principles are in conflict. The first principle is of course the division of powers and the respecting of provinces. The second is the national and international effects of Kyoto and how best in this case to deal with that issue.

In all issues of conflict a balance needs to be struck. On this particular issue I think there needs to be a real balance struck between the competing interests and what is ultimately going to benefit all Canadians.

While the Conservative Party does of course support the division of powers as set out in the Constitution, we must also recognize the larger picture of the planet and of course the international treaty, which in this case is Kyoto.

In respecting provinces and provincial jurisdiction, the Conservative Party understands that the provinces want that control of what they should have: the powers that they were originally given in the division of powers under the BNA Act. Of course, they have been infringed over the last 50 years, primarily by the Liberal government taking over many of the jurisdictional powers of the provinces.

We further encourage provinces and provincial governments to take the initiative in issues that cross provincial and federal jurisdiction, such as this particular issue. For example, Alberta is proceeding with its own climate change plan and other provinces are working with provincial and federal departments to make changes to implement Kyoto strategies most effectively for the particular province.

However, the waste demonstrated by the Liberals today when it comes to the administration of their Kyoto file has members of the Conservative Party extremely concerned.

In weighing the two competing interests in this case, we have come to the conclusion that implementation of Kyoto in just one province or in one province at a time would be undesirable, as it would lead to inconsistencies and instabilities in the Kyoto protocol itself and would jeopardize our international commitments, which are so important to the world at large and of course to most Canadians.

Therefore, the Conservative Party cannot support this motion.

We believe that the Kyoto targets are unrealistic and unattainable at this stage, only because there has been total inaction by the Liberal government over the past 12 years. As Sierra Club director John Bennett has said, the only reason Canada will have to spend $5 billion over the next five years purchasing hot air overseas is because of no action since 1992.

As such, the Conservative Party cannot support a motion that would lead to Kyoto implementation in one province while ignoring the rest of Canada's concerns. We prefer a made in Canada solution. We prefer a North American solution.

Because this motion deals with two very important issues, respect of provincial powers and Kyoto, I would like to talk a little about each issue.

The Conservative Party believes in federalism. There is no doubt that we believe in the federal system. As government, the Conservative Party would restore the proper and legal constitutional balance between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments.

The Conservative Party is committed to the federal principle and to the notion of strong provinces within Canada, which will make for a stronger united Canada. A Conservative government would work cooperatively with the provinces to improve the lives of Canadians while still respecting the balance of powers.

A Conservative government would ensure that the use of federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions is limited to what provinces actually want. Provinces would be able to use the opting out formula with full compensation if they want to opt out of any new or modified federal program in areas of shared or exclusive jurisdiction.

With regard to the Kyoto accord itself, the Conservative Party has solid policies in that area, such as the following: long term energy framework policies, an environmental principle policy, clean air principles, and of course respect of international treaties.

There is no question in this case that Canada has some unique natural economic advantages. We have an abundance of fossil fuels, an abundance of hydro power generation, some of the world's best wind regimes for wind power, and other renewable and non-renewable sources.

The Conservative Party, if government, would develop a renewable and non-renewable energy framework that takes into account our unique differences in Canada and our outstanding obligations, which would meet our long term requirements for domestic consumption and export, not just the short term requirements but the long term requirements.

In essence, we need to keep our economy hot but, at the same time, clean up the 30,000 contaminated sites across Canada that are making Canadians sick every single day. We need to eliminate smog and at the same time protect the world through reducing climate change.

The Conservative Party believes that strengthening the energy market integration will ensure greater reliability of energy supplies across Canada and, most important, will secure our economic and environment future, another balance that we have to strike.

A Conservative government would explore ways to reduce barriers, which I believe in this case the motion speaks to, in particular to the movement of energy products across provincial and other borders.

A Conservative government would initiate a review of all environment and energy initiatives, including the Kyoto protocol and our targets. We would also adopt a new environmental strategy at the international level to actually get results, not just to spread more hot air.

Talk is cheap; results take planning, effort, strategy and innovation. The Conservative Party, through our members, has those initiatives.

We would reduce CO

2

by reducing government talk and rhetoric and concentrate on getting results. We would legislate caps on smog causing pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic components.

We learned recently that in Ontario alone 5,000 people will die from smog related diseases just this year. It is incredible.

As a Conservative government we would negotiate power plant and smoke stack emission limits with the United States and the northern border states, which we see as a very important step in this process. Of course, most obviously, we would begin by building a good relationship with our friends in the United States, instead of using name calling or sarcasm.

Lastly, before entering into any new major international treaties or undertakings, a Conservative government would ensure that Parliament and this House is fully informed, and that we have full debate and discussion of those issues before binding action is taken. We would not do any backroom deals. We would deal with the people who represent the people.

This speaks to the motion itself and, more important, it shows respect. The provinces would be fully consulted and respected if such treaties were to have a direct effect on the authority and finances of the provinces themselves in their areas of responsibility, which of course this does, and it would be respectful to do so.

The Conservative Party, however, in this case, opposes Motion No. 162, not because we do not respect provincial jurisdiction, but because this is an issue of national and international critical importance that has lagged far behind in the last 12 years because of inaction by the Liberal government. There is no question that Kyoto targets are just simply unreasonable and unobtainable at this stage because nothing has been done.

Again, this is not an issue confined to Quebec, to Alberta, to the Northwest Territories or to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is an issue of national and international importance and it needs a national solution taking into account national economic and geographic considerations which are tied to all provinces and territories, not just one, because we are a unique country with unique needs across the country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is in relation to this particular file because I am a little bit curious. First, we have 22 forest fires that are burning in northern Alberta and my understanding is that the carbon dioxide from those fires will be greater than by all the vehicles in Canada in the next 10 years. It makes me curious as to why we are not controlling those forest fires in Alberta and the ones burning in the rest of Canada.

In the transfer of wealth that obviously the Liberal government is supporting to third world countries my question is twofold. First, why are we going to transfer this wealth to third world countries that obviously will be supporting their foreign workers and the factories owned by these foreign countries but which are not bound by the Kyoto responsibilities? They are not Kyoto signatories. I wonder why we would be sending money to them without any safety net.

As well, I am curious to know if the member agrees with the statement of the Sierra Club that the only reason we have to do the transfer of wealth, to send $5 billion in the next five years to third world countries, is that the Liberal government has done absolutely nothing since 1992 on the file. Does the member agree with Mr. Bennett, director of the Sierra Club, on that statement?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can sing and dance anywhere they want, but it is what is on tape that matters.

It appears that some of the most senior members of the government are involved in unethical and illegal behaviour. Yet they continue to ignore the questions and deflect blame on adversaries.

If the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and one of his senior ministers were actually aware that these actions were illegal, why did one of them not report it to the RCMP?

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 10th, 2005]

More talk, no action, Mr. Speaker. Over the past several weeks we have been so busy looking at a single tree that we have ignored the rest of the corrupt forest.

Why does the government continue to ignore and not answer questions on why the Prime Minister's chief of staff and right-hand man was involved in an illegal vote buying scheme to keep the Prime Minister in control of the public purse?

[Marriage, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the same sex marriage committee, I have heard from a number of witnesses who have expressed that their greatest concern is the empirical evidence which suggests that children will suffer the most harm during the government's same sex social experiment. It is time for the Prime Minister to do what the United Nations, the European Union and every other country and high court in the world, except for two, have done and recognize marriage as between a man and a woman.

Everybody knows the difference. Over 98% of the world's population understands that the word marriage is not a right. It is just a word describing a term that belongs to a set of defined facts. In Canada that word is already taken by a large percentage of people having specific religious beliefs that conflict with the group that wants to share this word.

Does the government really want to risk our children's future? It is time to do what has been done so many times in the past. It is time for the Liberal government to make another promise and break it.

[Audiotaped Conversations, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree it appears that they do not hold anything back in getting votes.

Tim Murphy has filed conflict of interest compliance reports with the Ethics Commissioner as recently as May 31, 2005.

In the Prime Minister's message attached to the conflict of interest code, he states, “Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard, and this responsibility falls uniquely on all of us as public office holders”.

As the holder of the highest public office in Canada, does the Prime Minister believe that having his ministers and his chief of staff discuss illegal vote buying schemes is upholding the public trust to the highest possible standard?