Voting Records

Candidate, Brian Jean

Conservative Party, Fort McMurray - Athabasca, AB

Bio

Brian Jean
Not Supportable
Not Supportable
CLC rating: Pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage
Rating Comments: As soon as he ran for leadership of the Wildrose Party, Jean abandoned his former pro-life voting record on abortion, telling journalists that "Abortion…is a boat that has already sailed…I am not interested in pursuing these issues". He confirmed this evolution again by responding "No", when a Calgary Sun reporter asked him if he is a "social conservative", adding "It’s none of my business what people do behind closed doors in their personal life."

According to media reports, he planned to march in Calgary's 2017 homosexual pride parade.

Until very recently, he agreed with the NDP government's policy of keeping parents in the dark if their son or daughter were to join a “Gay-straight alliance club”. GSAs are a type of gay pride activist club where students typically spend their time agitating for normalization of the homosexual lifestyle and demonizing teachers and other students who believe in traditional marriage. However, after Kenney started speaking up in support of parental rights, Jean suddenly changed his tune and began to criticize some of the government's curriculum changes as "ideological". Voters in the United Conservative Party leadership race ought to be wary of such a convenient, last-minute conversion, seemingly brought on only after witnessing Kenney's support grow due to his pro-parental rights stance.

Jean made his hatred for pro-life/pro-family Albertans very clear to the media, referring to social conservatives as "nuts", "nutbars" and "crazies", telling the media he would at first "manage" them, and eventually, drive them "ruthlessly" out of the party. Jean, quoted in the Calgary Sun:

“There are nuts in every party. Everybody has these people in their party who others would classify as nutbars.”
“What do we do with them? Well, at first, we can try to manage them and then we get rid of them. That’s the truth of it."
“Albertans need to be able to trust us. When they see our reaction it will be quick. It will be ruthless. It will make sure Albertans know they can continue to trust us and know we’re not some little gang of crazies."
Position: Finance Committee
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2004.06.28
Previous Occupation: Barrister and solicitor, businessman, farm worker, instructor, logger, publisher
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1963.02.03
Percentage in last election: 67.1%
Victory margin last election: 54.2%
Religion / Faith: dissident Christian

Contact

Brian Jean
Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
324 West Block
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-992-1154
Fax: 613-992-4603
Constituency Offices
102-9912 Franklin Ave,Fort Mcmurray,T9H 2K4
5101-50th Ave, Athabasca, T9S 1T2, Alberta
Tel: 780-743-2201(Fort Mcmurray), 780-675-8100(Athabasca)
Fax: 780-743-2287(Fort Mcmurray)
Brian Jean

Here is Brian Jean's voting record relating to life and family issues:

Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision Vote Score
Motion 312: Studying Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being
Motion 312 (sponsored by MP Stephen Woodworth) called for parliament to review Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth.
Yes ok
M-221, child protection motion
To raise the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16 [Sep 28, 2005]
Yes ok
Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage
[Dec 2006]
Yes ok
C-38, A bill to abolish the true definition of marriage
[June 28, 2005]
No ok
Bill C279 - 3rd reading of 'transgender & transsexual' empowerment bill which added the radical concepts of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison sought to invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote March 20, 2013 - passed 150 to 137]
No ok
C-484, Unborn victims of Crime Act
Common sense legislation that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the childs mother is the victim of violent crime. This cannot be considered a "pro-life" bill because it specifically excludes deliberate acts of abortion by the woman. Nonetheless, it is a good "pro-family" bill because it protects women and their wanted children from violent crime. (Mar5/08)
Yes ok
C-313, Age of Consent child protection bill
Raised the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16 [Sep 28, 2005]
Yes ok
Bill C389, 3rd reading of the "Transsexual Bathroom Bill"
This radical bill sought to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would've endangered women and children by creating a legal right for men who "identify" as the opposite sex, to use female public washrooms. Male sexual predators or peeping toms would have certainly used this as an opening to enter the girl's washroom. It is unconscionable for legislators to put women and children in such a compromising position. It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. This bill passed final reading in House of Commons by a 143-135 vote on February 9, 2011, but then, thankfully, died in the Senate when a federal election was called.
No ok
Bill C279 - 2nd reading, to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code.
This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison would invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote June 6, 2012 - passed 150 to 132]
No ok
Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler
Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008)
No comment --
Bill C-384, Legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide
A horrible bill that would have given doctors permission to kill people who are seriously ill but not dying and who in fact, have a treatable condition. Doctors would also have been permitted to kill people suffering with treatable chronic depression. This bill was defeated on second reading, 59 votes in favour to 228 votes Against.
[Apr 21, 2010]
No ok
Bill C-510, to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort
This private member's bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, also called Roxanne's Law, was a common sense bill to protect women and their unborn children from coercion to abort. Abortion coercion by boyfriends, husbands, relatives and even physicians is very common in Canada. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in 2nd reading by a vote of 97 to 178. [December 15, 2010]
Yes ok
Bill C-304, 2nd Reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
This clause enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 158-131. (Feb 15, 2012 )
Yes ok
Bill C-304, 3rd reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Section 13 enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 153-136. (June 6, 2012 )
Yes ok
Brian Jean

Here are quotes from Brian Jean on various life and family issues:

On the definition of Marriage:  "The word 'marriage' ... describes a relationship between one man and one woman in a state-recognized contract. The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and for the nurturing of the children of the union...In my view, a stable home with a mother and father is and has always been - the foundation of our civilization and, although it may not always be attainable, I would argue that we should work toward this environment as it is best for our children. Our children are our future and must be protected." [Hansard transcript, Dec. 7, 2006]

Brian Jean

Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Brian Jean on 2008.

Question Response
If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? no response
If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? no response
Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) no response
If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate euthanasia of a human being or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? no response
Brian Jean

There are no videos available for Brian Jean.

  • Legend for Light Rating System
  • Green Light
    GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE
  • Red Light
    RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE
  • Amber Light
    AMBER light means voters should be cautious about the candidate. CLC is still evaluating this individual, does not have enough data, or their record is mixed. View their quotes & voting history to help you decide.