Peter Van Loan

[Ethics, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister in question has been doing a superb job in carrying out his responsibilities as Minister of Industry for Canada, carrying out our elements of the economic action plan, helping in his part to deliver the 610,000 net new jobs for Canadians, focusing on the priorities of Canadians.

The NDP has focused on these kinds of questions. He has focused on doing a good job for Canadians. He has not, in a single case, dispensed one penny of government money inappropriately. He has been focused on doing his job and we stand behind him.

[Ethics, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member attempts to paint quite a different picture than reality, the reality is that there is no evidence of any impropriety in any of the cases involving the minister. The minister's conduct has been exemplary throughout. There has never been any question of any improper use of government funds. For the hunting trip in question, he used his own funds for his own purposes.

In fact, this government actually campaigned against having funding for professional sports arenas. It was that party that campaigned for government funding for professional sports activities.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has made much of the answer being shorter than the question. My response here may be somewhat shorter than her intervention as well.

However, the rules here are quite clear and spelled out in our authority for Standing Orders, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, O'Brien and Bosc. At page 522, we find the following, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”

I will say that again. “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.” This is, of course, what you, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to do. It goes on to say:

Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

That is not the role of the chair. It is set out quite clearly here, though speakers have in the past provided some helpful advice. I notice the member did read the entire answer in, and it was very lengthy, which gives some indication of how long the question was.

There were very good reasons why some parts of the question were not responded to. The government has stated orally in the House that much of what was asked was premature. Such information did not exist. The helpful advice that has been provided by speakers in the past might be the kind of advice you, Mr. Speaker, would give again, as indicated here in footnote 221, “The Speaker has also suggested that if a Member is not satisfied with a response, the Member could resubmit the question for placement on the Order Paper.”

The question could be resubmitted in a different form to recognize changing situations as the office is being evolved and developed. However, quite clearly here, there is no role for you, Mr. Speaker, in assessing the adequacy of the answer here.

The same, of course, is the situation for questions in the House. That does not prevent members of the opposition from asking questions again that they have asked in the past. They seem to do that repeatedly. That would seem to be an invitation that has been offered in the past.

Quite clearly there is no role in assessing the adequacy of the answer. I think the answer was a quite full and lengthy one as it was read in the House. As the office is established by the Department of Foreign Affairs over time, more information will obviously be available in response to future questions.

[Business of the House, March 27th, 2012]

moved:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Oral Questions today, a Member from each recognized party, the member for Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour and the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands may make a brief statement and the time taken for these statements shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I anticipate unanimous consent.

[41st General Election, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the opposition House leader well knows, these are questions that are properly asked at the committee, of the committee. In our House of Commons, the committees are masters of their own process. They make the decisions about which witnesses they will call. I expect they will deal with that matter when we return after the constituency week.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rarely rise on these kind of occasions. I have to express some frustration, listening to the hon. member complain about the lack of time available.

The time we allocated for this was based on the best we could get from our consultations with members of the other parties, some of whom are not prepared to tell us how long they want. But this was an exception. Some people did tell us.

In fact, even on the second day of debate, the member for Winnipeg North asked, “What's the hurry? Why can't we allow for 15 to 20 hours of debate?” That was asked after two days of debate had already taken place and a further 15 to 20 hours of debate was already in the motion. We were doing exactly what he stood and said we should be doing.

Now the Liberals are complaining that there is inadequate process. Members can see my position as House leader, trying to deal with them. Clearly, there is no willingness to co-operate, to give clear indications of the time.

My question for the whip from the Liberal Party is, will you commit, today, right now and here on this floor, in view of the complaints you are making and your public declarations, that you will actually give public declarations of how long you wish to see each bill debated so that we have a reasoned co-operative process in this House?

[Business of the House, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It has been suggested in the past when we have had budgets on Thursdays that we were doing that so we could go out and talk to Canadians about it for several days. Clearly, our interest is to tell Canadians about our economic action plan 2012 which is focused on keeping taxes down and creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. We hope we will be able to speak about it a lot to Canadians. We are confident that they will see that we share their priorities strongly. I thank the opposition House leader for giving me the opportunity to explain that.

We will conclude this hard-working, productive and orderly week in Parliament by continuing debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act this afternoon and tomorrow. We will also debate that bill on Monday, March 26.

Next week is a constituency week where we will all be hard at work in our ridings.

The highlight of the week we return to Ottawa will be when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to present Canada's economic action plan 2012. That will be on Thursday, March 29 at 4 p.m. Canadians can look forward to our economic action plan which will include, as I indicated earlier, important measures focused on jobs and economic growth.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to a responsible work plan for its study of the financial system review act, Bill S-5 so that this House can pass the bill before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Canada has the world's soundest banking system. It is important that we keep it this way. That is why I trust we will see a responsible approach to this bill in the House, similar to what we saw at committee. In anticipation of the bill being reported back to the House tomorrow afternoon, I will be giving priority to report stage and third reading of Bill S-5 on Tuesday, March 27 and Wednesday, March 28.

If we have additional time on those days, I hope we can finish second reading debate of Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and then deal with Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday, March 29, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, before question period. After question period, the House will turn to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Friday, March 30, shall be the first full day of debate on the budget.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government response to Q-416 reports funding from departments, agencies and crown corporations sent to the constituency of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles from April 1, 2004 to January 26, 2012.

Information regarding program funding and any changes in funding profiles by organization can be found in the departmental performance reports on departmental websites as well as on the Treasury Board Secretariat’s website, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/index-eng.asp. Information regarding funding and budget profiles of crown corporations can be found in the organizations’ corporate plan summaries, which may be posted on their individual websites.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Government Business No. 10, I move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

[Points of Order, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as one of those who pledges to uphold the rules of the House, as do other House officers and all members pledge, I find the statement of the hon. member of his intention to violate the rules of the House, and to make that statement on behalf of his entire party that this is their intention in practice in future at all committees, to be one that is very alarming. It may well come close to drawing the attention that you require, as Speaker, to intervene.