Peter Van Loan

[Business of the House, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, our government's top priority is the economy. Despite global economic challenges, nearly 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, 90% of them full-time. Through Canada's economic action plan our government has put forward focused and effective policies that have promoted job creation and economic growth in all sectors of the economy. That has been reflected in this week's successful jobs and economic growth week.

Our government will continue to focus on delivering important measures for Canada's economy. Thus, next week we will be delivering results on jobs week, and anticipate passing the next phase of our low tax plan for jobs and growth next week.

Beginning tomorrow, we will move forward on report stage for Bill C-18, Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. This important bill provides economic choice to western Canadian farmers. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a number of amendments on the notice paper, but keep in mind that getting this bill passed would give farmers predictability for next year's growing season, which is an objective. I am looking forward to a productive, efficient and civil debate on the legislation, which will finally deliver freedom to western Canadian grain farmers after seven decades.

We will continue debate on Bill C-18 next Wednesday. I am hoping that we will be debating the bill's third reading on Wednesday, if the debate tomorrow turns out to be productive and efficient. In the last election, we committed to moving forward with Canada's economic action plan, a low tax plan for jobs and growth. Canadians gave our Conservative government a majority mandate to implement our plan.

On Monday, we will have the final day of debate on Bill C-13, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, our primary bill in job creation and economic prosperity week. Bill C-13 implements important measures from our budget such as the small business tax credit and the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance to make our manufacturers more competitive.

On Tuesday morning, we will continue debate on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act. The bill has already been debated on three days, so I hope that following Tuesday's debate the opposition will allow members to vote on this bill that will allow the Senate to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will continue debate on the opposition's motion to block Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is another of our priority economic bills that the opposition is trying to prevent coming to a vote through what it calls a reasoned amendment.

Bill C-11 would create modern copyright laws to protect and create jobs, promote innovation, and attract new investment to Canada. This will be the fourth day that the bill has been debated. The time has come for members to have the chance to vote on this important economic bill. However, if the opposition continues in its efforts to delay and block the bill, we will again debate it on Thursday.

As is always the case, we will give priority to other important bills that may be reported back by committees. I refer especially to Bill C-10, as I understand that the justice and human rights committee is working hard, even as we speak, to complete its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill later today, I hope.

Finally, the next allotted day will be on Friday, November 25.

[Air Transportation, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will concede that, when it comes to flying Challenger jets, we have a lot to learn from a former Liberal cabinet minister . When we compare our record with the Liberal record, there is no comparison. The Liberals have us beaten by 100,000 kilometres, I bet, if not far more. They were in the air all the time. It is a hard thing to come down to earth like they have. However, when it comes to the use of Challenger jets, it is lower under our government than it has been under any other government in years.

[Points of Order, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will first deal with the question of disclosure that has been made by the CBC in forwarding documents.

My friend suggested that somehow this is not a voluntary disclosure but rather one that has been compelled. We have the unusual phenomenon before us where the corporation, which is required to disclose information under the law, has done so, but the opposition House leader is making the case that it should not have done so. It was the choice of the CBC to make that information available.

There was some information under seal which the CBC obviously believed to be of concern, but some that was not under seal and obviously CBC believed it to be open. The committee has not yet had an opportunity to turn its attention to those items to determine whether it is satisfied.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, for any determination to be made by you in advance of the committee having decided whether the voluntary disclosure it has received is satisfactory would be premature. It would be highly unusual for you to offer an opinion in advance of the facts before you.

Further, the opposition House leader characterized, or mischaracterized, the parliamentary law clerk's letter as a finding. It is not a finding. It constitutes advice. My friend is a lawyer and I am trained in a similar fashion. We all know there are such things as legal opinions. We all know there is a diversity of legal opinions. We all know that unless they are made by a judge, or the Speaker in the context that we are in, or the chair of a committee in that context, they are not findings. They are merely letters of advice.

Not only has the member elevated it in his arguments to the level of a finding, he has created this very unusual device where he wants you, Mr. Speaker, to be the police officer to enforce his interpretation of what that legal advice is to the committee. That is a stretch many steps too far.

It is the member's interpretation of the law clerk's advice that he is now purporting you should make into an order that must be enforced. There is no such order. His interpretation, with the greatest of respect, is not one that is shared by others. It is certainly not an appropriate role for the Speaker to do that. It certainly is highly inappropriate for us to essentially displace the role of the Speaker by that of the law clerk and suggest that this advice somehow displaces any decisions that are made by the chair of the committee or by you, Mr. Speaker, ultimately as Speaker. Again, that is not appropriate.

The committee has the benefit of that advice. It can act on that advice and it can interpret that advice. It is the role of the chair and members of that committee to interpret that advice as masters of their own universe. It is not the member's place to provide that interpretation in a definitive fashion.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in asking you to deal with this, he is asking for an interpretation of law or of the Constitution. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are abundant rulings, including some by yourself already in your short time as Speaker, that make it clear it is not the Speaker's role to interpret law or the Constitution.

Finally, I listened very carefully to my friend's arguments. He said that it was appropriate for the Speaker to intervene when there is a clear breach of a standing order. However, I do not see any here. I listened very carefully to my friend's arguments, but I did not hear him say what standing order had been breached. I would invite him to rise and state which standing order has been breached, and if there is none, I think that disposes of the question definitively.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government tabled a budget in March 2011. Today is November 16, 2011, a number of months later, a number of months after the election and after numerous debates on the budget. Now we are debating whether it is possible to hold a vote on that budget and give the other place, the Senate, the opportunity to review the matter. The same process needs to be followed there in order to see this through.

I have a simple question for the hon. member. Why does he not want to see an immediate improvement in the wage earner protection program and have it apply to more workers affected by an employer bankruptcy or receivership? Why does he want to block this very important measure for workers in New Brunswick and across Canada?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend opposite. He is interested in talking about jobs. Apparently, he is more interested in talking about jobs than allowing us to get on with creating those jobs. Will he come around and agree that we should be creating jobs?

Why do the opposition parties want to delay, for example, enhancements to the wage earner protection program? While people around the world are losing their jobs, we want to protect the wages of Canadians whose businesses face challenges or who might lose their jobs. Why does the member want to delay that protection further? Is it for the satisfaction of talking a few more times on the bill that he has already talked on dozens of times? Why is that his priority?

Our priority has to be hard-working Canadians. We have to get on their side and deliver for them. That is what this government is doing.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the experience of the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London corresponds exactly with my experience. I thought it corresponded with what the opposition wanted because those members used to ask about a jobs plan. They wanted to see some action on jobs. We are delivering action on jobs.

While we are doing that, not only does the NDP have its folks down in the United States trying to kill Canadian job creation, but it is right here with another group in the House trying to keep job creation plans from going forward, trying to block a tax credit for job creation, trying to block benefits to allow businesses to invest and become competitive.

Whether we are talking about industries like sealing, asbestos and oil, opportunities to export, or job creation tax credits, the opposition parties have a clear track record: they are fighting against the creation of jobs for Canadians. We are working to create jobs for Canadians.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to do with those questions from a party that received less than 30% of the vote.

We have had a phenomenal amount of debate on this budget. At a time when we see economic meltdown in Europe, challenges in the global economy, the Americans wrestling with debts and deficits far in excess of ours, the real question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we make sure that we are delivering on the economic priorities of Canadians?

Our government is focused on the economic priorities of Canadians: job creation, a tax credit for the creation of jobs through small businesses, economic growth by allowing businesses to invest and create jobs to become more competitive and allowing mining exploration to proceed--

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised to hear the member say that a measure such as political party subsidies is not a spending question. Subsidies cost millions of dollars each year. I understand that the NDP wants to receive money from taxpayers for their political activities every year, but we feel that this is an unnecessary expenditure. It is now up to parties to raise their own money. That is our government's opinion.

We debated these issues in the election and they are important spending questions. However, right now we are really focused on jobs, economic growth and creating the right environment for Canada's economy to continue its performance, which is better than that of all the other major western countries, but it needs to keep on track.

What we see today is an example of opposition parties that simply do not understand the fundamental economic priorities of Canadians today.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree that there seems to be a difference in priorities.

The priority of the opposition is to have more opportunity to hear itself talk, to debate, but not to take action. However, the priority of the government is to deliver on the tax credit for job creation; benefits so that businesses can create jobs, invest and become more competitive; tax credits to further support clean energy generation; tax credits for mining exploration; and tax credits for families so that their children can continue to participate, even in challenging times, in activities like music and dance lessons to enhance their quality of life and create jobs in local communities.

Those are our priorities. It is not a priority to have another month of debate after we have already had six months and an entire election to talk about it.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the members of this House, through the course of an election campaign and the months that followed since the adoption and debate on the budget itself and now on the budget implementation act, have had ample opportunity to pass the bill.

I am concerned about the Canadians with families who are looking for the major earner to find a job. They are looking for that job to be created. The people who are waiting for us to pass our small business job creation tax credit need to see that stimulus in the economy. Businesses are waiting for the assurance to make investments that can be written off on an accelerated basis so that they can create jobs and help local economies compete.

I think that six months is plenty of time for the opposition to have debated this issue. Now we need to deliver real action for Canadians. That is what Canadians are really concerned about. When are they going to see these measures put into law so they can enjoy the benefits of economic growth and jobs?