Peter Van Loan

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to focus on job creation and economic growth, and to deliver both. They expect their parliamentarians to make decisions. When this government uses time allocation, it does so in a fashion that is designed for scheduling, to allow certainty of debate and certainty for members, but most importantly, to allow members to make decisions. I know that some in the opposition are skeptical about that, but the proof is in the numbers.

I know many of them hold out the British Parliament, the mother Parliament, as the model of how things should be done. Compared with the British Parliament, we in this Parliament, compared with the parallel one that just finished off in Britain, have had more than twice as much debate on every bill that we have passed.

In fact, we have had the same amount of debate at second reading alone than the British Parliament has had for all three stages. We have had 3.3 days at second reading whereas it had one. We have had 1.6 days longer at report stage than its 1.1 day. Again, at third reading, we have had double the amount of debate that the British Parliament has had, which is two days versus its one day.

That goes to show the House that not only have we allowed considerable and substantial debate here, we have also been able to make decisions and get things done for Canadians on what matters to them most, which is making Canadians safe, and delivering economic results and job creation for Canada.

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

I move:

That in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provide provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament, June 9th, 2015]

moved:

That this committee take note of members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

[Points of Order, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to scramble. My comments will be brief as a result.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did not provide me with any notice that she would be raising this point of order, so I had to take some time to try to get some record out of the blues, which I did only a few moments ago. I did want to respond to the points she raised which relate to the decision you will make on the admissibility of her amendments, and in particular the application of Standing Order 76.1 and the practices around it.

I think what she is proposing is a dangerous route for the Speaker to go down. She is asking you to make amendments admissible that otherwise would not be on the basis of when certain evidence was heard at the committee.

The difficulty with this proposal is that it would, of course, require the Speaker to become the judge and arbiter of all the evidence that is heard at committees, when it is heard and the details of it. That is not really the Speaker's job. That obviously goes into the realm of what happens at committees. I think it would put the Speaker in a very difficult position, and a very difficult position that would also involve questions of judgment in terms of policy and in terms of values and in terms of issues which go well beyond where a Speaker should go.

Certainly, when it comes to the question of making amendments, there has never, ever been, to my knowledge, a requirement that the amendments that members propose have to be related to evidence that has been presented by witnesses before a committee. There simply has never been any such relationship required. The implication of the obligation the member wishes to place on the Speaker's job is, in fact, to create such a linkage. It has been a significant aspect of a member of Parliament's privileges that members can propose an amendment on any subject that is relevant to the bill in front of them, regardless of whether or not it was supported or presented by a witness appearing at the committee in evidence. I think it would be a dangerous step to go down a path suggesting that there is, there has to be, in some way, some linkage between the two, and that would not be appropriate.

I will point out that there is, under the existing rules and practices with the resolution presented at the committee, absolutely no bar to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands presenting, on time, amendments identical to those she presented, out of time, for consideration by the committee.

Simply put, if one looks at how this rule is applied in practice, if we look at Standing Order 76.1, one of the notes says, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.” It does not say anything about selecting amendments that an MP did not have the idea to present at the time the committee met and considered amendments. It is that “could not be presented”.

Wherever the stimulus comes from for an amendment is not at all material, nor should it be material in the decision the Speaker makes on the admissibility of amendments. I think if we start going down that path, it will next be questions of what they read in the newspaper or calls they received, or indeed, input they received from people who intended to be witnesses at the committee and did not appear, or were hoping to appear but were not selected for whatever reason by the committee in its decision on who to hear evidence from. Again, I think that would be a very dangerous step for the Speaker to take.

The fact is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did present amendments, did present very many amendments, and has had an opportunity to partake.

Certainly it would be an undue expansion of this rule and of its practice for one to now start allowing this relationship to evidence before committees, and as a result to give some members an opportunity to present proposed amendments after the deadline contemplated and thereby, of course, have knock-on consequences throughout a process of all members in the time of this House.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 9th, 2015]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-7, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and third reading stage of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at a future sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings of the said stages of the said bill.

[Telecommunications, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the approach of our government has been to engage communities constructively on these decisions. We have, in fact, changed the rules affecting the location of cellphone towers in such a fashion that there was heavy reliance upon community. In fact, in 99% of the cases that come forward, the approach of the government was to rely entirely upon the decisions made by the communities.

I do not know the particulars of the case. They have not been brought to my attention before. However, that certainly has been the policy and practice under this government when it comes to location of cellphone towers. We work together with and co-operate with communities.

[Business of the House, June 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, continues on its commitment to help out families, not just by lowering the costs they pay for products and services but, most important, by lowering taxes that they are required to pay to the government and providing more money in their pockets to help them make ends meet. We think that is one of the most meaningful things we can do as a government: help Canadians succeed and meet their aspirations and dreams for a brighter future.

This afternoon will be dedicated to today’s NDP’s opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up the third reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This will be the sixth day of debate for that particular piece of legislation, which would support economic development north of 60 while ensuring the preservation of the environment.

Monday shall be the eighth allotted day when we will debate another NDP opposition day motion. Regrettably, I have noticed that the NDP leader has never taken me up on my suggestion that he allow the House an extended debate on one of their proposals, under Standing Order 81(16)(a). As a result, next week, we will have the 88th time-allocated opposition day of this Parliament.

That evening, as required by the Standing Orders, we will debate the main estimates. Then, we will consider an appropriations bill, the supplementary estimates, followed by a second appropriations bill.

Tuesday morning, we will consider Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at report stage. This legislation will help streamline regulations and ensure that important safety rules keep up with evolving developments and standards.

In the afternoon, we will take up Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015, No. 1, at report stage, in anticipation that it will be reported back to the House tomorrow.

This package of essential measures—such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit, and a reduction to the small business income tax—is an important priority for our Conservative government and I think, more important, a priority for Canadian families.

Since the budget was delivered this spring, however, the Liberal leader has let us and all Canadians in on his economic plans.

First, we learned he thinks that “benefiting every single family is not...fair”.

Then, he topped it off when he told Canadians that the Liberals are looking at a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would mean a $1,000 tax hike for a typical earner and for that earner's employer, and that $1,000 tax increase on two sides would be a significant potential impairment and drag on our economy. Certainly, it would be a huge drag on the personal finances of Canadian families.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-59, if additional time is needed.

Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-35, which is the justice for animals in service act, Quanto's law, at report stage and, ideally, third reading.

This is an important bill, which would ensure appropriate criminal penalties for killing or harming police animals and other service animals—dogs, horses, and so on—and speedy consideration of it would be favourable because that would allow it to pass and make it to the Senate for its consideration this spring.

I would remind the House the bill has already received four days of second reading debate and was in the justice committee for over five months.

That afternoon, we will again consider Bill S-2, and I hope it will be at third reading.

Next Friday, we will return to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at report stage. The House will recall that we are debating the opposition's amendments to gut the bill of its entire contents—contents that demonstrate our Conservative government's commitment to end violence against women and girls.

[Ways and Means, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise that there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion related to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Ways and Means motion No. 24 to introduce an Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts be deemed adopted; and that the bill on notice entitled “An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts be deemed introduced and read a first time, deemed read the 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 the third time and passed.