Peter Van Loan

[Corporate Takeovers, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP policy now is that people cannot even sell their shares in a company. Stelco has not even been sold yet to anybody. It is just up for sale.

While we share the member's concerns and hope that Stelco will continue to be viable, we do not want to see that to be its priority. The law provides that any investment decision by a foreign takeover is approved on the basis of the best interests of Canada.

We should look on the bright side. Unemployment is now at its lowest in 33 years. Since the Conservative Party became the government, almost half a million new jobs have been created and, guess what, that is 1,000 new jobs a day. That is a pretty good record for working people.

[National Unity, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, every day we sit in this House and we listen to members like that launch this kind of attack against proud Canadians who are standing up for Canadian values, the Canadian values that we believe in, freedom, opportunity and hope, the values that my family came to this country for after they suffered persecution under Soviet rule and after they suffered the kind of fate that people are suffering elsewhere in the world right now under authoritarian regimes.

We are standing up for that kind of freedom because it is the most important Canadian value. We will never stop standing up for freedom.

[National Unity, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are very proud real Canadians who stand up for what Canadian values are and for what Canadians believe in, everyday, ordinary middle class families, not jet-setters.

We are proud to be engaged in the world and that is important, but we also put our country first. We put Canadian sovereignty first. We put our commitment to the country first.

As for the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the only reason one raises his commitment is because of his own words when he speaks of himself almost as American, when he uses phrases like the one in the New York Times of March 14: “As usual we were talking about ourselves, what America is--”

[National Defence, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our military. We are very proud of our Minister of National Defence. We are proud of him because he served this country in uniform for over three decades. He understands the military inside out because he has served on the front lines. As our troops are doing today, he has put himself at risk, and he made the decision to sacrifice the best years of his life in the service of his country. That is something we should all be proud of.

That is why we ask members of the opposition to treat our military with respect, from the Minister of National Defence on down, instead of with the kind of casual smear they love to throw around all the time.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the continuation of debate on the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I think there would be unanimous consent for the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 concerning the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion to concur in the report be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Business of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

[Points of Order, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, again, it has been available to all parties since last December. We have sought to have unanimous consent. We are happy to do that or any other agreement that all parties can come up with.

[Points of Order, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the order paper. It has not yet been introduced in the House. However, if we were to have agreement from all the parties to have it approved at all three stages as we had sought in the past, we would be happy to move it.

[Ministerial Expenditures, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated of course, everything is disclosed properly or has been directed to be disclosed.

As I indicated, in that first year, for Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, the total expenses under the Liberals were significantly higher than those under the Conservatives.

The bottom line is that when it comes to minding taxpayers' dollars, Conservatives put taxpayers first. Liberals put their own wining and dining first.

[Ministerial Expenditures, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think we heard clearly from the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism that he has directed that those expenses be disclosed. He is quite prepared to do so. They have all been filed and he has directed that they be disclosed.

But I can tell the House that there is a difference in the lifestyle of Liberals living in government and the lifestyle of Conservatives living in government. We can see that the hospitality expenses of the former minister of heritage on the Liberal side in her last year were 321% higher than those of the Conservative minister in her first year.