Peter Van Loan

[Digital Privacy Act, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at the report stage and second reading stages and the third reading stage of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

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

[Members Not Seeking Re-election, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this Parliament, we are aware that there are a number of our colleagues who have already indicated their intention not to seek re-election. As such, there have been discussions among the parties about how we can appropriately accommodate an opportunity for these members to provide a valedictory or departure speech summarizing their significant contributions to our country. As a result, I expect you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That a take note debate on the subject of Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, June 9, 2015; and

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House begins the said proceedings, and for the duration of the debate,

(a) no Member may speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that any Member rising to speak may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member;

(b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair;

(c) after four hours, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the debate shall be interrupted, rather than terminated; and

(d) the debate shall be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, and concluded at 12 midnight or when no Member rises to speak.

[The Ministry, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been focused on ensuring that Canadian tax dollars are guarded carefully and husbanded carefully. That is why we have delivered, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, a balanced budget this year. That is why we have the strongest fiscal position of any of the major developed economies in this world.

Everybody who is watching today knows there is only one party in the House of Commons that is seriously committed to taking care of tax dollars, and that is the Conservative Party and this government.

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, during the debate today on the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its Members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the Minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, Members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

[Business of the House, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we have no shortage of very important work to attend to.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debating Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, to implement important measures from the spring's budget, such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit and a reduction to the small business income tax.

The parties across the way have made no secret of their opposition to the excellent tax reduction measures we have proposed, and this week the hon. member for Papineau explained why. As he told the House on Tuesday, “benefiting every single family is not...fair”. Well, that is consistent with his approach to fiscal policy, that budgets balance themselves.

However, our budget implementation bill will deliver those benefits to every family, because that is the fair Canadian thing to do.

After our constituency week, on Monday, May 25, we will debate Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act at report stage. This bill will improve opportunities for economic development north of 60.

After question period that same day, we will take up Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at report stage, and hopefully third reading. Unnecessary, cumbersome red tape facing law-abiding gun owners across Canada will be reduced, thanks to this legislation.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I am appointing that day, Monday, May 25, as the day for consideration, in a committee of the whole, of all votes in the main estimates, for 2015-16, related to finance.

Tuesday, May 26, will be the fifth allotted day. We will debate a Liberal proposal. I expect the Liberal leader will explain why helping every family is not fair.

We will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, on Wednesday, May 27, when I am hopeful that it will pass.

The following day, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act. In debate last week, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Soon, we will pass this bill”. I look forward to her NDP colleagues proving the hon. member right.

Later that Thursday, we will start the report stage for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which will re-affirm this Parliament’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

moved:

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 two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill;

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 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 shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second 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 the said stage.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, during the debate today on the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15-minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its Members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the Minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, Members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

[Canadian Heritage, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes great care to ensure that our appointments are of a high quality and have high merit. This is another example of where we will be doing that.

We have been focused on reforming our intellectual property regime. Our recent budget includes changes to extend intellectual property rights for those in the creative classes in Canada. They are very appreciative of those changes, and we are going to ensure they have the fullest protection possible to allow our creative classes to flourish.

[Privilege, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will just offer a few preliminary thoughts and will in all likelihood return perhaps with more to say.

The first point I would make is that the matter of this question of a response says that we will not comment on matters before the courts. That is actually simply a restatement of the sub judice convention, which does apply in this case. In the arguments that my friend just made, he made specific reference to Mr. Duffy in the question of his residence. As I think all of us are aware from media reports, the question of Mr. Duffy's residence has been said by the prosecutor in that matter to be central to the case that he is making. We also understand from those media reports that there has been evidence led in that regard, so there can be no question but that it is an issue that is before the court in a criminal proceeding.

O'Brien and Bosc House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 504, sub judice convention is summarized as follows:

Over the years, a practice has developed in the House whereby Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters before the courts, or under judicial consideration, in order to protect those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry against any undue influence through the discussion of the case. This practice is referred to as the sub judice convention and it applies to debate, statements and Question Period. It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice.

There is a footnote to the reference of question period. Footnote 80 says “It also applies to written questions and their responses”. That is exactly the case here.

From that perspective, the response that has been provided to the question on the order paper is the proper response in the case of a matter like this. It is no secret what issue the member is getting at. He referred to Mr. Duffy, in fact, in the argument just made. That is exactly his concern.

Further, at page 505, O'Brien and Bosc says the following:

Although Members...customarily observe the convention during Question Period, the Speaker has ruled out of order questions concerning criminal cases, noting that the Chair has a duty to balance the legitimate right of the House with the rights and interests of an ordinary citizen undergoing a trial.

That states quite clearly and strongly that the convention would apply here.

I might also further go on to the question of the response, if he does not accept the sub judice convention, and I certainly think that is sufficient, and that is the question about the Speaker even reviewing such responses.

At page 522, O'Brien and Bosc says the following:

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 regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be of a prima facie breach of privilege.

It goes on also to say:

The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct”.

Furthermore, to heighten the explanation of that, on the role of the Speaker in reviewing the adequacy of answers, whether it be in question period or on order paper questions, at footnote 221, it indicates:

The Speaker has also suggested that if the Member is not satisfied with the response, the Member could resubmit the question for placement on the Order Paper...or ask that the question be transferred to debate under the Adjournment Proceedings...

Therefore, there are other avenues available to the hon. member. However, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we do not need to deal with that second set of questions because, very directly, the sub judice convention does apply. I may wish to come back for more submissions later.