Peter Van Loan

[Business of the House, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, we introduced the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity bill and on the same day we indicated we would have the second reading vote on the bill on May 14. As part of the fair process we have set out for the bill, this vote will follow the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least the last two decades. We will keep our commitment.

Given the events of today, I would like to advise the House of a change in the designation for the next allotted day. It will now be Wednesday, May 16.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to Question No. 549 on the order paper.

[Ethics, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly a big job standing up for Canada's sealing industry against threats abroad, but the real problem is when one starts getting stabbed in the back by one's own Canadians.

Why does that member not talk to colleagues in his caucus? Maybe the ambassador should have gone to members of the Liberal caucus and told then to stop introducing bills on their side to shut down the seal hunt. That is what the Liberal Party has done. That is what we have been trying to combat.

They should get their own house in order and they should stand up for the sealing industry for a change.

[Ethics, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government expects all public officials, including those who represent us diplomatically abroad, to live an appropriate lifestyle.

In fact, if members look at our measures in the current economic action plan 2012, they will see that we are taking steps to ensure that government business is done at an effective cost for taxpayers.

As for the individual in question, we are very proud of the work he has done, standing up for Canada on important critical fisheries issues, standing up for our sealing industry, our sealers and our first nations who engage in that industry against threats from abroad. We are proud of the work that he has done.

[Business of the House, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I would like at this time to designate Wednesday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 29, 2012, in regard to the allegations of wrongdoing during the 41st general election.

During his appearance, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that Elections Canada received approximately 70 complaints during or immediately after the election, alleging various forms of improper telephone communications. The Chief Electoral Officer further indicated that close to 40,000 people have since contacted Elections Canada to express concerns. Of these contacts, over 800 were complaints alleging specific occurrences of improper or fraudulent calls across the country. As indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer during his appearance, providing further details on the complaints would risk interfering with the confidentiality and integrity of the Commissioner of Canada Elections’ ongoing investigation. Therefore, consistent with the spirit of the Access to Information Act, which recognizes the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the Commissioner’s investigation, Elections Canada is not in a position at the present time to provide additional information, including information specific to the Province of British Columbia.

[Budget Implementation, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we have set aside a record amount of time for this budget to be debated is because we want to know who really speaks for the NDP. Is it this member, the party whip, who says that moving to balance the budget by reducing the size of the bureaucracy is bad for the economy? Or is it their leader who said that one of the ways that we will succeed is by reducing the size of the bureaucracy? That is what he said when he was in government. Canadians have a right to know who really speaks for the NDP. That is why we want a lengthy budget debate.

[Democracy, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the time set aside for debate on this budget bill is much longer than the average amount of time set aside by any Liberal government.

This is the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least the past two decades, perhaps the longest ever, but the Liberals are against it. Why? It is because that party is led by someone who does not recognize this kind of budget because it does not increase taxes, something his party did 32 times when he was premier of Ontario. It does not result in a massive deficit. It works, in fact, to balance the budget, which is something he never did when he was in--

[Democracy, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the priority of this government is job creation and economic growth and that is what economic action plan 2012 delivers.

We are proud that we have set aside more time for the debate on this bill than any other budget implementation bill in the last two decades, probably longer, but that is as far back as we went in our research. It is certainly a contrast with the party that the hon. member was part of when it was in government. The Liberals passed one budget implementation bill and sent it to committee, limiting debate to three hours.

We are happy to have this bill debated for the longest time in this House because for once we want to hear members from that side talk about the economy. That is our priority.

[National Defence, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, members should listen carefully to the deputy's words, because the hon. member opposite has put a very different characterization on them.

The deputy said:

The government decided to communicate exactly the same way they have communicated since 2004 on the acquisition of major airframe assets—acquisition costs and sustainment costs.

That is since 2004. That is before even this government. That is the way it was done under previous governments. That is the way I understand it has always been done, and we continue to do that. That is according to the deputy minister. That is what he said, not what that hon. member is suggesting he said.

[National Defence, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, jobs and economic growth for Canadians are an important priority for this government, which is why we are moving on economic action plan 2012, which I know the opposition opposes. That is why we are also exploring replacements for our existing fighter jets while at the same time looking for opportunities for Canadian industry to participate, many of which already exist.

The one thing that is clear, though, is that if the NDP were in government, there would be no replacement fighter jets, there would be no jobs and we probably would no longer have any aeronautics industry in Canada and no aeronautics jobs. We are ensuring that will continue. The NDP would wipe it out.