Peter Van Loan

[The Environment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what I find remarkable about the NDP members is that they continue to come to the House and demonstrate that they are simply not ready for prime time. Yesterday, we heard about their failure to understand procedure. Today, we are hearing about their failure to actually read the statutes that are the law of this land, in this case, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which refers to and protects navigation in this country. The member thinks it is about something else. She obviously has not read the act. The only thing she will find referenced in there is the protection of navigation in the law, in black and white.

Take a look. It will be very educative for the member.

[The Environment, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to protect navigation. The act is about navigation. It only refers to navigation and has only referred to navigation for over a century.

The people who are interested in hiding things are not us, but the NDP. It is the NDP members who have been standing in the House trying to suggest that our drawing attention to their proposed carbon tax is not accurate. Yet here it is in black and white in their own platform at the costing on page 4: $21.5 billion authorized by the registered agent.

[Business of the House, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

[Privilege, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say the House leader for the NDP significantly mischaracterized my remarks. I said that as members of the government we frequently get correspondence from members of the opposition, forwarding correspondence to us that they received that are in areas of our responsibility. They do that all the time and I have never ever considered that to be a breach of my privileges.

They have numbered in the thousands on occasions in the past when there were significant issues, and this is a case where the hon. member himself acknowledges having gone to the public and stimulated thousands of such responses and been proud of having done so.

As I said, I do not consider it a breach of my privileges when opposition members forward correspondence from concerned constituents or other Canadians who have written to them. I find this complaint a little bit unusual.

[Privilege, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know a great deal about the facts of this situation but as I understand it I can tell the House that as a member on this side of the House, and I know many of my colleagues experience the same thing, we very often have correspondence forwarded to us from members of the opposition on subject matters that are our responsibilities. I have never considered such forwarding of correspondence in the area of my responsibility to be a breach of my privileges.

I find it particularly ironic in a case like this that the member himself says he has been trying to stimulate this kind of feedback, except the feedback apparently is good when it goes to everyone except for him. I find that a bit unusual as a claim of privilege but I am interested in learning a bit more about it and we may come back to you, Mr. Speaker, with further submissions.

[Foreign Investment, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member appears not to understand the rules of the House. I can understand that because this government changed the rules for ratification of treaties and significant agreements. For the first time ever, these are submitted to the House, creating an opportunity for debate. That is the step the government has taken.

The next step is up to the opposition. They have to decide if they think it is an agreement worthy of debate and if they want to see a vote on it. The NDP had three opportunities to debate it, and the Liberals had one. They all chose other subjects because they did not think it was important.

He has to ask his own House leader why he did not think it was important enough.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our economic action plan is working and it has helped support the creation of over 830,000 net new jobs since the downturn, but there is more to do. To continue this work we need to implement our plan for the passage of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Thus, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at this stage. It is my intention to propose four further days for the second reading debate of Bill C-45.

[Points of Order, October 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the leader of the Green Party has risen when I have been here on this matter. What I find curious is her suggestion that somehow it is inappropriate for members of the House to stand up for the views of their constituents. Certainly, speaking for the Conservative Party, our platform has consistently been one of opposition to new taxes, to carbon taxes and to higher taxes, and I can think of nothing more representative for a member of our party, certainly in my case when I talk to my constituents, than to come to this place and let my views be known on taxes, including the inappropriateness of the NDP proposed carbon tax.

I find it very unusual that a member like her, who is always fighting to have her voice heard, rises repeatedly to try and suppress the voice of others in this House. Both of these seem paradoxical to me, especially when we are talking about members' statements under Standing Order 31, one which has been the greatest tradition in this House of allowing members the utmost freedom to speak their mind. However, the member of the Green Party seems to want to keep them from speaking their mind when it is not an issue that she disagrees with, the carbon tax, and I find that quite disturbing.

[Business of the House, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on any day C-15 is under consideration at second reading, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.