Peter Van Loan

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there has been ample democracy in this case. We have already had six days of debate and some 65 speeches in this House of Commons this session. As well, this measure dates back to previous Parliaments; we had eight days of debate in the previous Parliament and seven days at committee. There has been lots of ample debate. The problem is that the NDP does not want to see this pass and, as they so often do, they are willing to resort to every measure to stop job creation and economic growth measures.

The member asked why it has to be passed now. It has to be passed now because we are in a fragile world economic situation. Canada has had strong economic growth but remains threatened by conditions elsewhere, and Canadian workers and Canadians are looking for the economic growth, job security and opportunities that flow from an agreement like this.

We want to see those tariffs reduced so that Canadian manufacturers of machinery, farmers who are exporting meat, people in the mineral and fuel sectors, and those in the paper and paperboard-producing sectors of the economy who have been challenged recently can be more secure by exporting more to Panama and seeing their personal economic prosperity benefit, as well as that of their communities.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Liberal member said that the real issue here is parliamentary procedure. I know we are taking advantage of the standing rules and moving forward on that, but I think for Canadians the real issue is actually the economy. The real issue is job creation and economic growth, and the real question is whether the people here in the House of Commons are committing themselves to making decisions that reflect the interests of Canadians and advancing those objectives of job creation and economic growth for all Canadian.

For example, people working in the sector of manufacturing machinery are exporting products to Panama right now, but they know that they face very steep tariffs. They would like to see those tariffs removed. For over two years we have had a free trade agreement with Panama that seeks to do that, but we have to pass the law in this Parliament in order to have the benefits of that agreement.

Canadian manufacturing workers want the benefits of that agreement so that their products can be exported to new markets, so that their jobs will be more secure, so that we will have prosperity into the future. Those are the issues I think Canadians are most concerned about, not parliamentary procedure.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is why the New Democratic Party continues to resist any measure that brings into place legislative measures that are designed to achieve economic growth and prosperity for Canadians. The purpose of this bill to implement the Canada–Panama free trade agreement is to create economic opportunities for Canadians.

In 2011, Canada's exports to Panama totalled $111 million. That was a 20% increase over just two years earlier. We export a wide variety of goods and services to that country, and the result is the creation of jobs and economic growth and prosperity here in Canada.

We want to see those exports grow. We want to see those markets grow so that Canadians have more opportunity to benefit from the jobs that would result. The real question is why NDP members always resist, to the fullest extent possible, such measures to create jobs for Canadians.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, not more than seven further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

at the expiry of the seven hours, 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 said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will say initially that in terms of budget consultation, we had probably the broadest public consultation in Canadian history in preparation of this budget. Literally hundreds of consultations were done by the Department of Finance. As well, cabinet ministers and members of Parliament prepared summaries and submitted them to the Department of Finance for its consideration in preparation of this budget. That is why, when the word “countless” is used, it is actually quite accurate.

I carried out a number of those myself, and I cannot recall how many women were involved, how many women led the groups with whom we spoke, or whether I could say that someone was the leader of a group of not.

Mr, Speaker, while I appreciate that the member may wish that there was some kind of excessive record keeping when we consult the Canadian public, I think you will see that the nature of the consultation—how broad it was, and how many thousands of Canadians participated in the many consultations—makes what he is seeking difficult to provide. In any event, I expect I will be back with some further submissions on this.

[June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as enthusiastic as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, but I will try.

This morning, my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc and chair of the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance reported to this House that Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, has passed the committee and been recommended for adoption by the House.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance followed the lead of the House with respect to the longest debate on a budget bill in the past two decades. The committee gave this bill the longest consideration for a budget bill in at least two decades. That is in addition to the subcommittee spending additional time to consider the responsible resource development clauses.

This very important legislation, our budget implementation legislation, economic action plan 2012, will help to secure vital economic growth for Canada in the short, medium and long term. Given the fragile world economy that is around us, this bill is clearly needed, so we must move forward. Therefore, I plan to start report stage on the bill Monday at noon.

In the interim, we will consider second reading of Bill C-24 this afternoon. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with Panama, which I signed when I was international trade minister, some 755 days ago. It is now time to get that bill passed.

Tomorrow, we will consider third reading of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, so the Senate will have an opportunity to review the bill before it must become law, within a few weeks' time.

Next week I plan to give priority to bills which have been reported back from committee. It goes without saying that we will debate Bill C-38, our budget implementation bill. I am given to understand that there is a lot of interest this time around in the process of report stage motion tabling, selection and grouping.

Additionally, we will finish third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The House will also finish third reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is a vital tool to unlock the potential of our creative and digital economy. It is time that elected parliamentarians should have their say on its passage once and for all. I would like to see that vote happen no later than Monday, June 18.

If we have time remaining, the House will also debate second reading of Bill C-24, the Panama free trade act, if more time is necessary, as well as for Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

[Ministerial Expenditures, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said many times, only appropriate expenses have been reimbursed.

[Ministerial Expenditures, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I have answered many times in this House, we seek to deliver our services to Canadians with the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. Ministers follow that direction, which is why our costs are significantly lower than they were under the previous government.

In the case of the minister in question, only appropriate costs that were expended have been reimbursed.

[National Defence, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft are nearing the end of their lifetimes. Therefore it is necessary, if people believe in supporting the military, something the Liberals do not have a record of doing, as we do by purchasing new equipment and by providing them with the equipment they need to do their jobs, to make a commitment to purchasing those aircraft.

We have established a secretariat to deal with the purchase of new aircraft to meet those needs. We have in place a seven-point plan that deals with the best process to ensure the military gets the equipment it needs and taxpayers' interests are protected.

[The Budget, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have increased transfers to the provinces to the highest levels in Canadian history. That is this government's record. We have given the provinces the tools they need to do this work in their own jurisdictions.

Compare what we are doing now with the actions of the Liberal Party, which made massive cuts to transfers when it tried to balance the budget. Much like the former NDP premier of Ontario, the Liberal Party of Canada is familiar with the consequences of such a decision.