Peter Van Loan

[National Defence, September 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers expect government officials to conduct the nation's business at a reasonable cost. It is something that our government takes very seriously.

I want to be clear. Our use of government aircraft by our ministers is always in compliance with policy. We do follow the policies, and we have reduced the use of government aircraft significantly, as we have said.

When we look at Challenger use by the Liberals who spoke earlier about this issue, we have reduced our use 80% since they abused them as personal limousines constantly. We only use them for government business.

[Weekly Statement, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a brief point of order to correct something in the Hansard on the Thursday question. I am told I said that all the combined bills for the safe streets and communities act had been before the House, in one shape or another, for a combined total of 2,700 days. The actual total is 7,200 days. That would make it 20 years, as I said. Therefore, it is time to get on with this bill.

[Business of the House, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as the opposition House leader quite astutely noted, our priority is the economy. We saw that already with successes this spring when we introduced a budget that was adopted by the House. We introduced a budget implementation bill with measures like an increase to the old age security payments, which was also adopted by the House. We continue to pursue that economic agenda.

Our other priority is also related to having a sound economy, and that is having safe communities and safe streets by combatting crime. As members know, there is a strong linkage between severe crime and harm to the economy. We obviously want to change that, and this is why we have moved in that direction. That is what we have been debating this week, primarily.

In the next week, our government will continue to move forward with important bills that Canadians elected us to implement. Today we will continue debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. We will continue to debate that next week until it is dealt with.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House just how long the measures in the safe streets and communities bill have been before this House and the other place. When we tally up all the days since those bills have been introduced, it has been a combined total of 2,700 days since their first introductions. That is almost 20 years of elapsed time that those bills have been before the House in one form or another.

We have already had over 180 speeches given in the House on those bills, important law and order proposals as they are. Unfortunately, right now we are no longer actually debating the safe streets and communities bill; we are technically debating an opposition motion to delay and obstruct our efforts to tackle crime and get that bill passed.

I urge all members to put aside their parliamentary maneuvers designed to delay and obstruct and give all members the opportunity to vote, once and for all, on the important measures included in the bill.

Tomorrow, we will be debating Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act.

As the Prime Minister stated earlier in the week, the government will be introducing a motion to extend our involvement in the UN-sanctioned NATO-led mission in Libya. I will be scheduling that debate for Monday.

Next Thursday, September 29, will be the first allotted day.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office responds that the second official language proficiencies of deputy ministers, chief executive officers of crown corporations and heads of agencies are not monitored, as there is no statutory requirement to establish a proficiency level for these individuals who are appointed at the discretion of the governor in council.

However, all governor in council appointees have an obligation to support and promote the objectives of the Official Languages Act by personally promoting the use of both official languages in their institutions. This is a term and condition of employment. Additionally, deputy ministers or others appointed by the governor in council from the executive group, EX, of the public service were required to meet a linguistic profile of CBC/CBC according to the Treasury Board policy concerning the language requirements for members of the executive group, established in 2003.

The language proficiency of an individual constitutes personal information, and is protected in accordance with the principles of the Access to Information Act.

[Member for Mississauga—Erindale, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure what this has to do with government business and I do not know what inquiries into people's personal lives have to do with the new tone of decorum.

The member for Mississauga—Erindale has been quite clear in his statement. He denied any inappropriate behaviour. There is no information to suggest otherwise.

[Member for Mississauga—Erindale, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga—Erindale has denied any inappropriate behaviour. We, of course, have found no information to suggest otherwise.

[Business of the House, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is my job to launch with the pedestrian business of the House. I am doing that with a motion to deal with the upcoming visit of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is a motion that I believe has the support of all the parties. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Thursday, September 22, 2011, the House shall meet at 10 a.m. and proceed to government orders; at 11 a.m. members may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31; not later that 11:15 a.m. oral questions shall be taken up; at noon, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, followed by government orders, at 2:30 p.m. the House shall stand adjourned to the next sitting day;

that the Address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to be delivered in the Chamber of the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m. that day before Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and form part of the records of this House; and

that the media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to established guidelines for such occasions.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, I paid tribute, on behalf of our government, to the pages who had served us so well. Earlier today I paid tribute to all the staff on Parliament Hill who serve us so well. That was in answer to the Thursday question earlier today. As the calendar shows it is still Thursday, I am about to change that. I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, this debate has been going on for quite some time, and my constituents are very interested in having a resumption of mail service. They are not really interested in whether it is management that is at fault or if it is the union that is at fault. All they know is that they are not getting their mail. They need their mail for the good of their businesses. They need it for the health of their economy. They need it to meet payrolls.

Families need those payrolls to be able to put food on the table. The New Democratic Party is carrying on a filibuster that is preventing a law that will allow workers to go back to work.

I hear in the hon. member's speech that it is because the New Democratic Party members think there is a wage decrease in the proposed legislation. I counted it up. There is a 7.5% wage increase in the legislation. That is an increase in excess of what many of the people in my constituency are receiving.

Has the hon. member looked at the bill? Is she aware that there is a 7.5% wage increase?

Would the member not agree that it is a good idea to give workers the opportunity to go back to work, have the benefit of that wage increase and allow our economy to have the benefit of the mail service, rather than having our economy crippled at this fragile time?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are some ironies in the current debate, Right now the NDP is perpetuating an effort to delay an end to a corporate lockout. Apparently, its members wish to have the workers of Canada Post continue to be locked out and have Canadians denied service. I know they have an affection for work stoppages.

When we hit 11 a.m. this morning, this back to work legislation will have been delayed longer than any of the other 32 times such legislation has been tabled in Canadian history.

Is it really the case that the members opposite are so committed to the New Democratic Party that they will do everything possible to deny Canadians postal delivery and everything possible procedurally to keep the Canadian economy from having the benefit of the postal service it depends on so strongly?