Peter Van Loan

[House Affairs, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, during the debate this day on the motion to concur in the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent; and that at the end of the time remaining for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested.

[Business of the House, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period I made reference to the budget implementation bill of the government of the province of Quebec when the leader of the opposition was a member of that government. I would like to table it right now. It is one of the rarer things that actually dwarfs me at 778 pages in length.

[The Environment, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the opposition continues to complain about the size of the bill, I do have to get up and correct myself.

I earlier quoted the length of a Quebec budget implementation bill as 383 pages. Unfortunately, that is only the English version of the budget bill when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Quebec government. When we have it bilingual, as ours is, it is actually 778 pages long, far longer than any budget bill from this government.

[Public Safety, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government is asking several committees to scrutinize the legislation, but I always find it interesting when the NDP members say, “Do as we say, not as we do”. They complain that this bill is too big, but when the NDP does budget bills in Manitoba, they are omnibus bills. When the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government in Quebec, it had a budget implementation bill 468 sections long, 383 pages.

The Leader of the Opposition says, “Do as I say, not as I do”.

[Points of Order, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the hon. member that I have tabled before the House a copy of the platform under which he ran, in which there was a $21.5 billion—

[Points of Order, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I regrettably rise to raise some questions about unparliamentary language, which was utilized by the member for Burnaby—Douglas under the rubric of member statements under Standing Order 31. As members know, it is not appropriate to accuse other members of lying in the House. That is considered unparliamentary language. I know when the NDP became the official opposition, its members made a great deal of their commitment to a new decorum and to improving the level of debate in the House. That appears sadly to have slipped away in the member's statement today.

In referring to the member for Lethbridge, the member for Burnaby—Douglas accused him of “outright untruths”, “propagating...falsehoods”, “statements [known to be] untrue” and “regurgitation of falsehoods”. These all fall into the category of unparliamentary language. What is more and what is worse is that these are all in reference to statements about the NDP carbon tax, and the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas actually ran under a platform that had on its fourth page a commitment to a $21.5 billion carbon tax. These statements not only are incorrect but they are unparliamentary and he should—

[Foreign Investment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Green Party, in quoting the Prime Minister, is referring to comments that arise out of World Trade Organization matters, not out of this foreign investment protection agreement. Chinese investors in Canada for years have been able to rely on the Canadian rule of law. Now, finally, Canadians will be able to rely on this agreement to protect their investments, and that is the reason we moved forward with this, to protect Canadians and their investments.

[Foreign Investment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her question on this issue. It is good to see recognition that the opportunity provided by this agreement is to protect Canadian investors.

Interestingly, Liberal Party members have been asking questions about this after not having done anything to protect investors and businesses in China for some 13 years. In contrast to their record, we now have an agreement in place that will protect Canadian investors, protecting their efforts to do business in China to create success, economic growth, prosperity and jobs back here at home.

[The Environment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the attack we are concerned about is the attack on Canadians by a $21.5 billion carbon tax proposed by the NDP in the last election, and the examples do keep piling up in black and white. Here it is in the NDP leader's leadership platform where he talked about using a tax like that to generate billions of dollars of new revenue, more than the $21.5 billion in their election platform. Now we have the latest, the report this month from the NDP think tank, the Broadbent Institute, calling not just for a carbon tax but for an across the board 10% increase in taxes on Canadians. That is an attack on Canadians.