Peter Van Loan

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, consistent with folks rising and not quite exactly on point, and further to last Thursday's statement, I am rising to confirm that Wednesday, December 3, shall be the seventh allotted day.

It is not exactly a motion, but it is an important piece of information for the House.

[Business of the House, November 25th, 2014]

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

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House,

(a) any recorded division deferred, or deemed deferred, to Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Tuesday, December 9, 2014, and Wednesday, December 10, 2014, shall be taken up at the conclusion of oral questions, provided that there shall be no extension of the time provided for Government Orders pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1); and

(b) any recorded division demanded in respect of a debatable motion, other than an item of Private Members' Business, on the days listed in paragraph (a) shall be deemed deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the next sitting day which is not a Friday.

[Business of the House, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his usual Thursday question, his optimism, and his hope. We are happy to see optimism and hope over there. I can assure members that on this side of the House we share some of that optimism and hope, and we look forward to better days for the NDP.

I also want to thank him for his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn. It has meant that practically every day we have had a chance to have a say on the hard work our committees do and specifically on the report the NDP tabled between the throne speech and the summer adjournment. In just the last five sittings since my last Thursday statement, this House has considered and adopted reports prepared by the Canadian heritage committee, the veterans affairs committee, the finance committee, and even the procedure and House affairs committee.

As a former international trade minister, I took great joy in seeing our debate and vote on the agriculture committee's report on the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. The NDP's concurrence motion allowed my colleague, the agriculture minister's parliamentary secretary, to bring forward his own motion reflecting the developments that followed the committee's work calling on the House of Commons to endorse this free trade agreement. In the past, the committee and the NDP had expressed concerns that they could not commit to a position until the agreement's text was available. Now that the agreement's text is available, they had an opportunity to endorse it right here in this House. Having seen the text of that agreement, I was disappointed that the NDP voted against it. It would be the single largest boost to the Canadian economy in a generation, one that would produce billions of dollars annually to the economy.

That being said, we have other business to attend to in this House.

With respect to the business of the House, let me acknowledge the co-operative and productive conversations we and our teams have had this week with the other parties. This afternoon and tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading. Monday, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act.

Tuesday morning we will consider Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at report stage and third reading. In the afternoon, we will switch to the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, which I hope will be passed quickly given the apparent support for it.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

Next Thursday will be the sixth allotted day when the NDP will bring forward a proposal for debate.

Wrapping up next week, on Friday we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which is known more affectionately as Quanto's law.

Finally, for the benefit of all of the committees of this House and their planning, following some consultation with my counterparts, I am currently looking at Wednesday, December 3, for the final allotted day. However, I will formally confirm that sometime next week, I expect.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, 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 provided for government business 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.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear my friend from the Liberal Party reveal that perhaps there is no unity in the Liberal Party after all. Perhaps there are some good old troopers still fighting for the Canadian nationalist ways of the 1960s and still resisting free trade. I am glad to hear that there is no unity in the Liberal Party and that there are still people who are opposed to free trade, because that makes me fondly remember those great debates, which I think were some of the greatest times in Canada. It was a time when Canadians had clear choices, as I think they will again in the future, and perhaps this agreement will provide that opportunity.

In terms of supply management, I would say that we have quite clearly defended it through free trade agreements with literally dozens and dozens of countries. At every step of the way, we have successfully defended the system of supply management.

In terms of the changes in the quotas that would be allowed into Canada at lower tariffs or tariff free, those changes actually reflect less than the projected growth in the market in Canada over the same period of time. Therefore, there should actually be no impact on the supply managed sector, and it should enjoy continued growth, thanks to supply management.

We made a commitment that in the unlikely event that they do not see continued success and they suffer a negative impact, we will protect them. It is a fairly significant level of protection that we do not see too many countries offer when they enter into free trade agreements. We have done that with the supply managed sectors, and we were proud to do that. However, we are confident that we will not ever have to pay it out, because we know that our supply managed sectors are so successful and continue to do very well. In fact, we have secured for them opportunities through access to markets in Europe through this agreement.

In terms of protecting investors, I think anyone who is a Canadian investor, anyone who is doing business abroad, understands the importance of that, because guess what? We have the best rule of law in the world for defending people's property rights, whether they are from this country or not, when they are doing business here.

We do not always enjoy peer reciprocity in these matters from other countries. In fact, Canadians normally find it risky to do business abroad. If we want Canadians to do business abroad, create job opportunities here, export more, invest elsewhere, and grow Canadian prosperity by opening up to the world, which is something Liberals used to believe in, but not this member apparently, then we also have to get them some measure of protection, the same kind of protection other countries get here in Canada, and that is what this agreement delivers.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the negotiation of the Canada-European Union free trade agreement was one of the most fascinating ones for Canada because of the unprecedented extent of consultation and transparency. In fact, it was so transparent that people would look at the issues being discussed and claim that one side's negotiating position, because it was public, was already agreed to, which, of course, was never the case.

One of the things that was remarkable about those negotiations was that the provinces, which are critical to making it an agreement of such depth and breadth, were actually at the table as negotiating partners with a say on the issues that were of relevance to them. Every single provincial government was there advocating its case and every single province agreed that this agreement represented the best interests of the provincial economy and the economy of Canada as a whole. For a while, Newfoundland and Labrador held out, but in the end, it came to the table.

That is why this was a phenomenal agreement in how it was negotiated. I know that when I was trade minister, I was in numerous consultations, whether it was discussions with the interested sectors or discussions with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for example, and all kinds of municipal groups. All the people who had interests were actively involved at every step, and I credit our negotiators for the tremendous work they did.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first, before I begin my address, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

I am honoured to rise here this evening to take part in the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the free trade agreement between our government and the European Union, and specifically the effects it will have on the agriculture sector.

I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, the NDP's deputy agriculture critic, for moving this motion, letting the House have a chance to talk about our government's free trade agreement with the European Union. As I said on October 31, there is a lot of interest on our side of the House.

I also want to thank our agriculture committee for undertaking its study on the free trade agreement with the European Union and its impact on Canada's agricultural sector. The committee initiated this study last fall, after the agreement in principle was concluded in October 2013. As noted on page two of the report, the particulars of the final agreement were still being negotiated during the committee's study. However, after the committee's work wrapped up and its report was tabled, those negotiations were finally finished, and we now have a detailed legal text available for members and all Canadians to study and assess.

Before the last election, and during the midst of these trade negotiations, I had the great honour and privilege of serving as Canada's Minister of International Trade. In that role, I had the opportunity to meet with various Canadians, those with a real, tangible interest in getting a free trade agreement signed, sealed, and delivered. One segment of the Canadian economy that was among the keenest to see action was the agricultural sector.

I am pleased to say that our Conservative government has delivered. This free trade agreement would give new market access in Europe for key Canadian agricultural exports of beef, pork, and even bison. Specifically, there would be new duty-free access for up to 80,000 tons of pork, 65,000 tons of beef, and 3,000 tons of bison every year. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the agriculture industry estimates that the Canada–Europe free trade agreement would achieve over $1.5 billion of new exports for Canadian farmers every single year. While that would be a vital boost for our economy, it is just one of the components of Canadian economic growth, over $12 billion a year some estimates say, that would be realized by the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

This opening for Canadian exporters would be accentuated by, as page three of the report notes, the fact that Canada would be the first large economy with free trade agreements with both the United States and the European Union. In fact, we would be the only major developed economy in the world with such access. For investors looking to build a facility to create jobs and to export both to the U.S.A. and Europe, Canada would be the one place to go in the developed economies if they were looking for a place to locate. This would be a major gain for Canada, the place for job creation and long-term prosperity. That being said about manufacturing and similar kinds of activities, let me return to agriculture, the subject of this report.

Our agri-food industry will benefit from an incredible opportunity and enjoy a leg up on its competitors around the world. It is no wonder that the committee recognized this and made a recommendation that states that approving the agreement quickly will expedite the economic benefits for Canada.

This free trade agreement, with our second-largest trading partner and the world's largest economy, represents the greatest single boost for the Canadian economy since the previous Conservative government reached a free trade agreement with the United States. What is more is that this free trade agreement with the European Union is historic in its reach. It is Canada's most ambitious trade initiative, broader in scope and deeper in ambition than the Canada–United States free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement.

As ambitious as the negotiations with the EU were, our Conservative government continued to defend Canada's supply management system, and I am pleased to say that we succeeded in that aim. Under the Canada–Europe free trade agreement, the three pillars of our domestic supply management system would remain intact.

No only did we defend supply management, as the committee recommended in its report, but we also opened new trade markets for the products of these sectors.

Canadian dairy farmers would, for example, gain, through the agreement, unlimited access for their products on European shelves. The excellent balance we have achieved for Canada's agricultural sectors is a major component of what makes this free trade agreement the masterpiece it is for our economy's growth.

The benefits to be enjoyed by agricultural exporters will go a long way toward making free trade with Europe the great success that I know it will be. Farmers, and Canadians generally, recognize this free trade agreement for the success that it is and the opportunity it represents.

The general consensus, which now prevails, that free trade is a good thing emerged following the very exciting election of 1988, when Canadians were called to the ballot box over the issue. In the early 1980s, when I was in university, free trade was a very hot issue. The consensus of the media, academics, Liberals, and socialists was that free trade was a terrible thing and a bad thing for Canada. The debate that went on through those years culminated in that gripping election of 1988.

I remember that campaign well. Those of us at the time had become accustomed to campaigns being about music, who had the best song, or who had the best looking leader. It was the first election I remember in my lifetime so focused on policy, and in that particular case, on one issue, and in fact, where the debate went back and forth, as did the lead through the election. Of course, they were vigorous debates.

Over time, having been defeated in that election and having seen the tremendous benefits of free trade, the Liberals have come around to supporting free trade, but the New Democratic Party still, reliably, has opposed free trade bills. However, the consensus for free trade continues to grow, so much so that this year, we saw a very fascinating event: the NDP actually backing one of the many free trade agreements we have brought forward in bills. I bet my New Democratic classmates from a quarter-century ago would have laughed in my face had I told them that this would ever happen.

Of course, we are awaiting the NDP view on this agriculture committee report and on this free trade agreement, but we will soon hear from an NDP MP in this debate. Farmers and agricultural exporters are certainly waiting to hear.

In closing, I want to extend my thanks to my counterpart, the NDP House leader, because it is through his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn that MPs have this opportunity to speak and vote on the issues raised in this report and on the exciting trade agreement with the European Union, which the agriculture committee studied.

I personally take great pride in this. When I was trade minister, as I said, my number one priority was seeing progress on this. I am very pleased that my successor has brought it to a satisfactory conclusion, and I look forward tremendously to the benefits to all Canadians. With the people-to-people links we have between Europe and Canada, the opportunities are tremendous. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say, but more importantly, I look forward to all this free trade agreement will mean for the creation of growth, long-term prosperity, and jobs well into the future for our country.

[Privilege, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide some additional comments to those I provided in a preliminary way to the question of privilege that was raised by my former NDP counterpart, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It has been a while since the two of us have debated a privilege question, so I am pleased to have this opportunity.

Having reviewed, however, the hon. member's arguments and the precedents on the point, I have no hesitation in saying that there is no prima facie case of privilege here. If anything, the whole question of privilege is nothing but an attempt to deflect attention away from the excellent address that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, made last week and the news it contained, which was news about the strong state of our government's finances, the imminent elimination of the deficit and the relative success of the Canadian economy in the face of very uncertain global economic circumstances. This is news that Canadians were delighted to hear from the Minister of Finance.

However, on the question of privilege relating to that statement being delivered where it was, I would like, from the outset, to read a passage from page 444 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. It states:

A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.

There are a couple of points raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley which I specifically want to address.

First, the NDP finance critic argued that the economic and fiscal projections should have been presented to the House “as is custom”. Let me remind the hon. member that since the tradition of an annual economic update started a couple of decades ago, only two updates have been given here in this chamber in the House of Commons. That was back in 2000 and in 2008. No other economic fiscal updates have been delivered in this chamber.

Since the hon. member wanted to take the House down memory lane yesterday, I would like to reciprocate the gesture by reminding him of our government's effort to present the 2007 economic update in the chamber. In fact, we did try to do that. I did at the time seek to get the consent of the other parties to do so. Unfortunately though, since that required unanimous consent, it was notable that there was one party that denied consent to have the economic and fiscal update delivered on the floor of the House of Commons. If the NDP finance critic were to ask his predecessor from the time, and that is the hon. member for Outremont, ironically, he would learn that consent was actually blocked by the NDP.

There is some irony in the New Democrats' standing in the House and complaining that the economic and fiscal update was not delivered here when in the past they have been responsible for the fact that it was not delivered in this chamber when this very government sought to do exactly that.

First, I have often remarked that “do as I say, not as I do” has been the watchword of the NDP's approach to life in the House. That is indeed the case here. In fact, I mentioned that only 2 out of the 20 economic and fiscal updates have been delivered here in the chamber. However, that number would have been higher were it not for the NDP blocking more of them from happening right here in this chamber and setting in place the tradition of it now travelling around the country to communities where people can hear about the good news from our government.

Second, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited a “complaint” that was raised in March 1977 to Mr. Speaker Jerome. Let me offer instead quotations from two rulings your learned predecessor gave that same month.

Ruling on a question of privilege from the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, arguing that the Liberal transport minister should have announced a new policy in the House, Mr. Speaker Jerome said, on page 3579 of the Debates from March 2, 1977:

The only question is whether the minister has a discretion to choose to make statements outside or inside the House.

Not only is it clear that any minister would enjoy that discretion, in fact the language of the Standing Order says particularly that, when the procedures of the Standing Order are to be taken advantage of, a minister of the Crown may make a statement inside the House. That is the language that is used. His discretion, therefore, is not only, as always, to take whatever action he wants outside the House; the discretion even is one of an option for the minister to use the House for that purpose....

The language of the precedents is very clear. Nothing in the Standing Orders in any way interferes with the minister's discretion.

Later that month, on March 31, 1977, Mr. Speaker Jerome said, at page 4515 of the Debates, “The matter seems to have been canvassed rather thoroughly, again.” He went on to say:

—the precedents have been made clear in the past and the language of the Standing Order remains clear that a minister may make a statement in the House...

Then he went on to say:

Clearly, it is optional. So long as the Standing Order remains unchanged, the precedents remain applicable. There is no possibility of the Chair finding on a question of privilege. It would run directly counter to the interpretation of the Standing Order that has been upheld several times...

With respect to my comments yesterday that the Minister of Finance's economic update was not required by any rule of this House, in that sense it is very different from a budget in the budget debate, which is not specifically contemplated in Standing Orders, the Chair may wish to note Madam Speaker Sauvé's ruling, on August 4, 1982, at page 20017 of the Debates. She said:

I must remind hon. members that the members of the executive, the government, have the choice of announcing whatever they want to announce in any way they choose unless they are required under the Standing Orders to do otherwise. Of course, this particular area and this particular matter is not covered by the Standing Orders, and therefore although members might not approve of the way the minister has decided to announce...the hon. minister has the choice of his means.

Now, lest the member attempt to argue that given the economic nature of the Minister of Finance's speech, everything changes, let me be clear that it does not.

As I said yesterday, the Department of Finance routinely publishes a number of reports and statistics, year-round. The reports include the "Fiscal Monitor", the "Official International Reserves", the "Quarterly Finance Reports" and, occasionally, private sector forecasts received, to name a few. None of these is the subject of speeches delivered in the House by the Minister of Finance. I am sure, in view of the good news they would usually contain, the NDP would undoubtedly, as it did in 2007, refuse necessary consent for an address of that type.

Following a speech given outside of the House by the former finance minister, Paul Martin, a speech that talked about Canada's financial circumstances and the state of the surplus, Deputy Speaker Peter Milliken, as he then was, opened his September 20, 2000, ruling, at page 8414 of the Debates, with these words. He said:

The Chair has listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. members on this point. I have to say that when this particular chair occupant was in opposition I raised the same point. I am familiar with the argument but I am also familiar, unfortunately, with Speakers' rulings on this point, so I have some bad news for the members who raised this issue.

Mr. Milliken's comments echoed those of Mr. Speaker Jerome, at page 2792 of the Debates , on February 1, 1979. He said:

The hon. member for St. John's West, (Mr. Crosbie), raises a familiar question of privilege related to the action of ministers making statements elsewhere. I say it is familiar, because it is as old as the history of parliament.

The question of privilege from the NDP finance critic is just, as I said, an effort by the NDP to distract from the following key facts: that our government's latest tax cuts and benefits represent close to $27 billion back in the pockets of families over this year and the next five years. In fact, we had a vote in the House on a ways and means motion on just that question. Of course, the NDP and the Liberals opposed those measures.

It is also an effort to detract from the fact that every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will have more money in their pockets because of these tax reductions and benefits and, of course, the good news that the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in over half a century.

These are certainly things the NDP does not want Canadians to know. That is why they do not want the Minister of Finance talking about it anywhere outside Ottawa, anywhere out where Canadians are doing their normal business, anywhere where Canadians are trying to work hard and make ends meet and appreciate the help that our government is delivering to them.

It is disappointing to see the NDP members disguising that effort to distract behind this bogus question of privilege, which is steeped in the irony of the fact that it is only the NDP that has ever refused the consent necessary to have these kinds of statements delivered in the House and now complain that they are not always delivered in the House.

It is quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that no prima facie case of privilege can be found in this case. The facts do not support it, history does not support it and certainly any consistency of behaviour from the NDP does not support it.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at 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 tum, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill—