Peter Van Loan

[Business of the House, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I do believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, not withstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House,

(a) Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed;

(b) Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed;

(c) when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 21, 2015, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; and

(d) when, at any time the House stands adjourned until, and including, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, a Standing Committee has ready a report, that report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House upon being deposited with the Clerk.

[Privilege, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really want to interrupt, but there was a point of privilege raised earlier today. We reserved the right to respond to it, and I will provide a brief response. This was the point of privilege raised by the member for Mount Royal.

His point of privilege related to order paper Question No. 1229. At its essence, the hon. member really seemed to be raising a point of order, claiming that Standing Order 39(1) had been breached. The rule states in part:

...no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same...

The public safety minister's answer on the question that we are dealing with, he claims, is opinion. However, my view is that the answer is responsive to the question and the issues raised in his question. In view of the nature of the questions he raised, it would be impossible for the government to respond with anything other than the kind of response that was received.

The learned professor's question is expressed in some 819 words, I should point out, so I will only offer the Chair portions in order to save time. On five different occasions he asked, with regard to the program, “what was its objective”. Another five times, he asked “what was its outcome”. Twice, we can read in the question the following “what objectives was the government seeking to achieve”. Likewise, there were two requests for “how will the objectives...be achieved”. We also see in his question the phrase “based on what factors did the government decide”.

All of these read very much to me like questions probing for value-oriented facts.

To combine the opening words—or the chapeau, as it would technically be known—two of these questions ask:

With regard to funding for programs that facilitate the reintegration of offenders into communities following incarceration...what objectives was the government seeking to achieve...?

Why should it surprise the hon. member that the public safety minister answered, “...the government believes that dangerous sex offenders belong behind bars”? He is objecting that he got that kind of answer, but that is the very objective that the government is seeking to achieve, which he asked for in his question.

The hon. member for Mount Royal seeks value-based answers and he has been given in reply an answer setting out the government's perspective and policies. The perspective and that policy are facts. That is the government's position.

The answer continues, “That is why the government...”, and it goes on. It is quite clear that the opening of the answer is both responsive to his request for value-based answers but is also, with respect to the continuum of the answer, “necessary to explain the same”, to quote Standing Order 39(1).

The hon. member for Mount Royal might well dislike the government's policies and views on taking a strong line on sex offenders, criminals whose offences frequently turn on the abuse of vulnerable persons, but that does not mean he can start claiming that a statement of fact about the government's views is a violation of his parliamentary privilege.

In any event, other than establishing that I think that the statement has gone some distance to actually answer the question, the things he is complaining about are the very things he asked for.

I would go on to note that it is a commonly cited maxim here that Speakers do not have authority under our rules to judge the content or quality of responses to questions. What is more, it should not be a burden that we try to place upon them.

Pages 522 and 523 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice are often cited in the chamber for this proposition. They say:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House...; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

The hon. member for Mount Royal is effectively—and creatively, I might say—attempting to invent some new approach for you, Mr. Speaker, to do what you traditionally do not do, and I encourage you not to go there. Otherwise, this will be forever a rabbit hole, in which we are asking the Speaker to evaluate every aspect of every question. It will involve research into the programs, in a case like this, to find whether the programs really have these objectives, and whether he agrees with that or not.

He asked for these answers and he got them.

Another saying around here is that we are not to do indirectly what may be done directly. That is, of course, what the member for Mount Royal is seeking to do with his point of privilege. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that you are on a very sound footing to simply dismiss the hon. member's complaint about the answer to Question No. 1229.

[Business of the House, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Standing Orders, this will be the last Thursday question of the spring. Therefore, I would like to first take some time to thank the people who have been busy behind the scenes.

The parliamentary pages have been hard at work all year, making our time in this place run more smoothly. They have supported all members in the House in their daily tasks that we may take for granted, but certainly supporting us with things we need. Outside of their important role here in Parliament, the pages have had to balance a full academic schedule. This being considered, their hard work, devotion and enthusiasm during busy question periods or late night debates are especially impressive.

As many members know, my wife was a page when she was a student, and she still talks about the experience that she enjoyed during her page year. Just to illustrate what an impact a year like that can have, next week, almost three decades later, she will be delivering the toast at the wedding of another fellow page. Joining her in giving that toast will be another page, who is now the chief of staff to the leader of the Liberal Party. They will not be the only former pages from that year in attendance at this event.

I am sure this year's pages have built similar friendships and fond memories of their times here. I know they have experienced what has been a particularly eventful year, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavours. I hope this will be a tremendous foundation for very successful lives ahead.

I also cannot forget to thank the clerks of the House of Commons, who work diligently with all of those who organize the debate and proceedings in this place. Their support is crucial to keeping things running smoothly.

Of course, there are many administrative and support staff that I have not mentioned who work every day to keep the House running and support all members and Parliament as a whole.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for presiding over the House for the past four years. You have had quite a job to do, but you have shown a great deal of patience in your role. Back on the first day of this Parliament, you told the House:

It is an old maxim that one learns by doing and I have certainly learned a great deal with first-hand experience in the chair.

Some 505 sitting days later, you have proven a sound claim and then some, having cited that maxim.

Speaking of the Chair, I do want to note that your number two and number three in command, the hon. members for Windsor—Tecumseh and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, will both be retiring from the House. Their service to the House has been truly appreciated. I want to thank them in particular. I would also like to thank your fourth in command, though I hope to see him here again after the next election.

I also want to extend my thanks to my six counterparts during this Parliament—the honourable members for Outremont, Westmount—Ville Marie, Windsor—Tecumseh, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Beauséjour, and Burnaby—New Westminster—for their co-operative approach some days, and for making the job a lively one on the rest.

An immense debt of gratitude goes to my colleagues on the Conservative Party's House management team. I could not ask for a better team. It has done superb work, and I appreciate the tremendous support and our superb team atmosphere.

This week I heard an interview on the radio with a country singer. He was being asked about the difficulties of touring and the difficulties of the business and all the travails he goes through. His answer was interesting. He said, “You know, when I was helping my mother move recently, I found this picture of myself as a 12-year-old with a guitar, and if that 12-year-old heard me complaining about where I am today, he'd kick my ass.” I thought it was a worthy observation. Who among us would not face a similar admonition from a younger version of ourselves?

For all its challenges and difficulties, and there are many—this is a business that does take a very thick skin from time to time—this is an amazing place to be. It is a rare opportunity to serve and to make a difference. All of us are remarkably fortunate to be able to help people—to help our constituents as individuals, but to also help shape the greatest country in the world and help to deliver change for the better.

We have had ample opportunity to do that in this Parliament. During the course of this productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, all hon. members have participated in a lot of lively debates, by day and sometimes by night, in this chamber. All told, the 41st Parliament has been the most productive in terms of legislation for the last two decades. About 160 bills have become or will become law after the hard and diligent work of MPs. This is 20% greater productivity than the average Parliament since the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker became prime minister. Of course, I was actually born around the time he was prime minister.

What stands out, though, amidst this productivity is the unprecedented number of private members' bills that have become law. More private members' bills have become law during the 41st Parliament than during any of the 40 Parliaments before it. In fact, the number of private members' bills to become law during this Parliament almost surpasses the total passed during the five previous Parliaments combined. Under our Prime Minister's leadership, at least three times as many substantive private members' bills have become law than under any other prime minister in history.

There are some—the pundits and the experts—who like to say that individual members of Parliament do not count, that they do not matter. It is a sentiment that has been around a long time, since one prime minister called backbenchers “nobodies”. Frankly, that is disrespectful. It is also ignorant, because it is wrong, and the statistics in this Parliament demonstrate that fact. Individual members of Parliament have made a huge difference to the future of this country and have rewritten the laws of this country.

It is not just the business on the floor of the House that keeps members busy. The sixth report of the Liaison Committee, tabled Monday—a document that has dominated the headlines all week—actually paints a picture of the House’s committee landscape becoming increasingly one of hard-working, cost-effective, and productive groups of dedicated MPs.

The number of committee meetings is up. The number of substantive, thoughtful reports, too, is up. The number of meetings spent talking about inside politics is down—which means the amount of time focused on real issues of consequence to Canadians has, in turn, gone up.

What is more, all this committee productivity was achieved with the lowest expense in at least a dozen years, if not longer.

Now that you have indulged me that preamble, Mr. Speaker, let me say, with respect to the business of the House, we will take up Bill C-53, the life means life act, at second reading. Should additional time be available before we adjourn for the summer, we will tackle other bills on the order paper.

[Points of Order, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will just answer that briefly. From what I heard of the question, the member was asking about the foster care system in Manitoba and then he started speaking about the incompetence of the provincial New Democratic government in Manitoba.

I do not want to reflect on whether that might or might not be accurate. I would not go there, but I think that was what provoked a response from the other side here. I think that was the cue to the Speaker, in his defence, that the question that was being asked was about the provincial government, since it sounded as if the member was asking about its incompetence.

If the member wishes to ask questions about federal administration, he should be clearer about it.

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our agenda that we have delivered on, and also of the agenda that we are laying out. The work of this government continues and includes important bills, including on gun crime.

We have a bill that has been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that would deal with the question of mandatory sentences for possession of illegal handguns, a response to the court decision but a critical piece of legislation to respond to.

It is the right thing to do to tell Canadians how we are going to make them safe and how we are going to combat gun crime. That is important for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

[Committees of the House, June 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of a Parliament where we have delivered results for Canadians on the things that matter to them: job creation and economic growth. We are ensuring that the security of Canadians remains first and foremost in what we are doing. We are proud of the work that has come from our parliamentary committees in doing this.

As a result, this Parliament will go down in history as one of the most productive in terms of delivering results on new justice bills that are making Canadians more safe and secure. We thank the justice committee and so many other committees that have helped make our legislative track record a success.

[Committees of the House, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Tuesday, June 16, 2015 shall be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), for the purposes of completing debate on the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in the 41st Parliament, the government has responded to more than 2,500 written questions placed on the order paper. Producing the information requested is not feasible in the time period required for this response. Furthermore, the only response the government considers to be official is the paper copy tabled in Parliament.

[Business of the House, June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that my friend the opposition House leader was out in the foyer of the House of Commons yesterday having a press conference at which he showcased the incredible productivity of the House of Commons during the 41st Parliament. Of course, these were actually Conservative initiatives he had on display, which were passed thanks to our diligent, hard-working, orderly, and productive approach to Parliament. However, I sincerely appreciate the New Democrats' efforts to associate themselves with the record of legislative achievement that our government has demonstrated.

Before getting to the business for the coming few days, I am sure that hon. members and Canadians will have noticed that we have been bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation in recent days, and we will continue to do so for the days to come.

These bills will give effect to important policy initiatives that the Conservative government believes are important for Canada's future. Together they form the beginning of a substantial four-year legislative agenda that our Conservative government will begin to tackle under the Prime Minister's leadership after being re-elected on October 19.

Thanks to the productive, hard-working, and orderly approach that I just spoke about, we have delivered real results on our legislative agenda. In fact, over 90% of the bills that were introduced by our Conservative government between the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the beginning of last month will become law before Parliament rises for the summer.

Now I will go on to the schedule for the coming days.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law, at third reading. I am optimistic that we can pass it later today so that the other place will have a chance to pass it this spring.

I also hope that we will have an opportunity to have some debate today on Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations bill.

Tomorrow, we will finish the report stage debate on Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act. Early and forced marriages, honour-based violence and polygamy should not be tolerated on Canadian soil, but unfortunately the opposition disagree and are striving to rob Bill S-7 of its entire content.

On Monday, we will consider Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, at third reading. This bill will reduce taxes, deliver benefits to every Canadian family, encourage savings with enhanced tax free savings accounts, lower the tax rates for small businesses, introduce the home accessibility tax credit, expand compassionate leave provisions—and the list goes on.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill S-7 at third reading.

On Wednesday, we will take up third reading of Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act, which will provide new protections for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online.

On Thursday I will give priority to any legislation to be considered at the report or third reading stages. On that list will be Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference bill, which would help keep our laws up to date in response to emerging scientific and technical recommendations.

Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, will also be considered once it has been reported back from the procedure and House affairs committee. This legislation would play an important role in accommodating the decision of the Ontario Superior Court should we not have the benefit of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in time for this year's election.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, documents containing the government's responses to order paper Questions Nos. 1,187 to 1,193, and 1,195 to 1,205.