Peter Van Loan

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have been attempting to work co-operatively with the other parties in finding ways to get bills passed and we have invited them to offer approaches on some of the most non-controversial bills. One of those is Bill C-28, to establish a financial literacy leader, something that the opposition NDP has called for and that everyone seems to be supportive of. I am hoping, having asked the members earlier how long it would take to debate this matter and still not having received an answer, that perhaps there will be unanimous support for the following motion, as my suggestion and effort at a co-operative approach to moving forward on simple non-controversial bills.

I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, not more than two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and turn every question necessary for the disposal of said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successfully without further debate or amendment.

This motion would allow two days of debate and then allow it to go to committee to be studied in detail. This is on a very non-controversial matter that I think everyone supports.

[Campaign Advertising, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest values in this country is freedom of speech. That is something we encourage in this country.

When we talk about questions like elections advertising and spending, there are very clear rules that are set out in the Canada Elections Act. It is up to Elections Canada to administer and prosecute if it sees the need for prosecution. As members know, it is an independent, arm's-length organization. I think the record on that is quite clear. Elections Canada does not follow the direction of the government. It follows its own direction. I am sure it will in this case as well.

[Campaign Advertising, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the laws and regulations are clear. This is a question for the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago a Liberal prime minister was saying that it was necessary for changes to be made to take account of demographic realities. That is exactly what we are doing, something that the Liberal Party never did.

What did the Liberals do? They voted against pension income splitting, something which helps a tremendous number of seniors. Where one member of the family was an income earner and the other spouse was not, pension income splitting has given them a measure of fairness, a measure of increased benefits, increased security financially in the long term. That is something the Liberal Party voted against.

The hypocrisy of consistently opposing benefits for seniors and now pretending to be on their side is unbelievable.

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, he is doing no such thing. As I said, he is ensuring that all those who are collecting old age security today will continue to collect old age security. The gentleman over there never seems to listen to that. For those who will be approaching retirement, it will be the same thing. Also, those generations to come will also be able to achieve old age security by ensuring its sustainability. That is what we are doing.

The real question is, why do the Liberals always oppose measures that we take to assist seniors? We increased the age credit. They opposed it. We increased the age exemption. They opposed it. We introduced pension income splitting. They opposed that. Why do they oppose helping seniors?

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, old age security will be there today, tomorrow and in decades to come. That is what is going to happen to OAS.

As for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it was just months ago he was saying that we have real demographic challenges and it was important for the government to take action. It was just months ago when he said there was a structural deficit and he wanted to see action taken to address that. All of a sudden, he has said these are no longer issues. I am missing the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer where he commends this government for having solved all those dramatic problems in just a matter of a couple of months.

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the actual risk to Canadians is if we had the kind of forward-looking policies of the NDP, those that simply ignore the future, ignore the realities, they would, if followed, result in future generations not having any old age security.

Our approach is to ensure that there is long-term sustainability, that there is a system there to ensure that those who reach their retirement 20, 30 or 40 years from now can count on old age security for the future. This is our priority. This is what we are doing. That is why we are having the discussion we are having now on how we can ensure old age security is there for those who are receiving it today and tomorrow.

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not appreciate what the priorities of this government are. The priorities of this government are jobs, economic growth and the financial well-being of Canadians. Those are our priorities. That is what we are working for every day.

That is in fact why we are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the old age security system for the future. It also includes ensuring that those who are receiving old age security today and those who expect to receive it in the years ahead will be assured that they will receive it. We also have to ensure, having looked at the demographic realities, that we have a system there to also serve generations to come, in the decades to come. That is our priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by re-extending my invitation to the opposition House leader to actually move forward on some of the most non-controversial bills before the House. For example, Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, will help to promote and enhance the financial literacy of Canadians. I know this is an issue that the NDP has often raised in the past, especially the member for Sudbury. I look forward to hearing a proposal from the NDP on how much debate it would like to see on that non-controversial bill before moving it to committee.

What will disappoint Canadians is what we saw this morning when the NDP rejected a responsible work plan based on the views actually expressed by all parties right here in debate last week to pass Bill S-5, the Financial System Review Act, before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Again, the NDP House leader is apparently blocking the will of the members of his own party, who are responsible for the legislation, on how it should be dealt with in the House.

Nevertheless, we will give the NDP another chance. We have asked for a debate on this bill next Tuesday. I hope that we will be able to move forward then and refer the bill to committee.

When we returned to Parliament last month, I laid out our government's plan for a productive, hard-working and orderly House of Commons. We are going to continue in that direction. Unfortunately, we have also seen the NDP lay out its own plans for the House. It wants to force the government to resort to time allocation in every case possible in the hope of running up the score. It wants to be able to quote the number of times the government has been forced to resort to time allocation to get bills advanced in Parliament. For this, it has refused to agree to processing even the most non-controversial bills, or in the case of the copyright bill, one that had only seven hours of debate before we all agreed to send it to committee in the last Parliament. This time, even after 75 speeches on the identical bill, it refuses to let it go to committee for detailed examination.

While the NDP hopes that this statistic, the running up of the score that it is forcing, will somehow help it in the next election, what the number actually stands as proof of is the NDP's commitment to paralyze Parliament, to obstruct and delay to the maximum and to refuse to co-operate on even the simplest, most straightforward and broadly supported legislation.

We demonstrated that yesterday with Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. We had to take action once we realized that a co-operative solution was not viable. Seventy-five speeches later, the end was still not in sight. During the previous session, an identical bill was sent to committee after just seven hours of debate, as I said.

Tomorrow, we will have the eighth and final day of debate on second reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, which would protect high-quality jobs in the digital and creative sectors. This bill is important to Canada's economy. Today, we will complete debate on the New Democrats' opposition day motion.

I am pleased to inform the House that on Monday and Wednesday we will deal with third reading of Bill C-19, Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. Next Wednesday night, we will have a momentous vote to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I can advise that I will be scheduling Friday, February 17, as the day, pursuant to Standing Order 51, on which the House will hold a day of debate taking note of the Standing Orders and the rules of this House and its committees. I also want to say that Thursday, February 16, will be the third allotted day.

Canada's economic stability and advantage in these uncertain times depends on political stability and strong leadership. That is why we will continue to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion.

[Railway Noise and Vibration Control Act, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been making considerable efforts to invite other parties to arrive at workable approaches to dealing with bills before the House. In fact, I have asked them on specifically 10 bills to agree to work plans. I am particularly optimistic on one bill and that is Bill S-5, because speakers from all parties have indicated that they are willing to move forward quickly.

Therefore, based on those speeches, we have proposed the following work plan in this motion, for which I hope there will be unanimous consent. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, shall be disposed of as follows: The bill shall be deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; if the bill has not been reported back to the House by Wednesday, March 28, 2012, during routine proceedings, it shall be deemed reported back without amendment and when the order for consideration of report stage of the bill is called, the bill shall be deemed concurred in at report stage without amendment and a motion for third reading may be made immediately and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill provided that the motion for third reading shall not be subject to amendment and that at the end of government orders on that day, when no further member rises to speak, the bill shall be deemed read the third time and passed.

This would allow ample time for study at committee.