Peter Van Loan

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good one. I certainly do not hold the Liberal Party at fault in this case for our not having come to an agreement on the appropriate amount of time for this bill. Had it only been a matter between us and the Liberals, there would have been no difficulty in coming to such an agreement. As I understand it, we share a perspective on this particular bill and on the appropriate way in which to manage House business.

I will remind the hon. member that we saw that remarkable experience this past Friday, when for the first time ever, the NDP stood up and said no, it did not need time allocation and was prepared to let a bill advance. Therefore, we can assume that what happened in all the other 60-plus cases, in terms of the NDP's perspective, was that it did not have the view that it was not necessary. In fact, it made it quite clear that it was necessary and it enjoys seeing the tally run up.

What we have tried to do as the government is adopt a balanced approach to try to assess as best we can the amount of interest in speaking to each particular bill and to utilize time allocation, as I think it was originally intended by those who inserted it within the Standing Orders, as a scheduling device to allow for adequate and appropriate debate but also to allow for decisions to be made. This is an important matter on which we need to have such a decision made, because it is a question of a free trade agreement that was entered into some time ago.

There have been criticisms, oddly, from the opposition, which claims to be concerned that free trade agreements are not moving quickly enough, yet now we are trying to advance a free trade agreement, and there is from that same opposition party the complaint that we are advancing it. We can see that between the lines, it really only has one perspective, and that is the perspective of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster that free trade is a bad thing. We disagree. We think free trade is a good thing. It delivers jobs. It delivers economic growth for Canadians. It delivers prosperity and opportunity for the future.

That is why we are very pleased that we will be having the opportunity, in the days ahead, to allow every member of Parliament a say in whether Canada will have a free trade agreement in place with Honduras and whether we will be able see the growth in sectors such as agricultural products and food products. Where we already have some trade, we have seen huge opportunities for future growth, opportunities for farmers to benefit, opportunities for those who work in the food processing sector, and opportunities for Canadian investors to benefit more. These are all good news for Canadians, and that is why we should be allowing this to advance to a vote and allowing Canadians an opportunity to share in the benefits of free trade, even with Honduras.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are pursuing this is that our government has an agenda that is firmly committed to the subject of free trade, because free trade has been key for Canada's success economically. It is a major reason for our prosperity, starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has allowed our economy to enjoy considerable success and avoid the fate of many other countries that did not do likewise.

In fact, with a country of our size, for us to really enjoy the kind of economic success that our human potential and our natural resource potential allows us, we have to be able to find markets for those goods and services. As an island by ourselves, selling and consuming only what we produce and selling only to ourselves, we could never enjoy the kind of prosperity we can enjoy by sharing our goods and products with the world and enjoying all that the world has to offer.

That is why, as a party, we are firmly committed to the concept of free trade. It delivers jobs. I understand that the hon. member comes from a party with a very different perspective, and he said it well when he said the following. This is the House Leader of the Opposition:

We should be holding multilateral negotiations based on fair trade, not free trade, because free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

We disagree. I understand that it is the perspective of New Democrats, but we actually believe profoundly that free trade is a good thing; that taking away taxes on goods and products people wish to buy is a good thing; that allowing Canadians to sell their goods and services into other countries around the world is a good thing; that less money to the government in taxes and tariffs is a good thing, if that money stays in the pockets of Canadians; and that more opportunity to sell what we have to offer, to show the talents Canadians have, and to benefit from the selling of our goods and services means more prosperity and jobs for Canadians.

That is the fundamental difference. We think free trade is a good thing. The hon. member and his party think free trade is a bad thing. That is why, of course, we have not received their agreement to advance the bill further, and that is why it is the case that we have to ensure that we bring this matter to a vote.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 3rd, 2014]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration of 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 said stages of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the House 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 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. House leader of the official opposition made on Friday afternoon.

I was quite prepared to see the House advance Bill C-17. I was prepared to leave it at that and take the victory for what it was and move on. However, since the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster confirmed at that time that he wished to continue with his point of order, I do want to supplement my hon. friend's intervention on it.

First, I did want to make the point that the NDP House leader told the House that the hon. member for Oakville made comments in the House “with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement”. I appreciate my counterpart's sense that my powers are all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, I can assure the House that in this case my hon. friend from Oakville proceeded entirely on his own initiative in the comments on Bill C-17 that he made, as every MP has the right to do.

That being said, I do wish to congratulate the hon. member for Oakville for his very successful efforts. I am proud of him as a colleague for having taken the initiative, even if I cannot share in any credit or blame for his having done so. His persistence last week in seeing the bill through to committee clearly paid off, given that the NDP did change its tune late on Friday afternoon on this matter.

Turning to the substance of his point of order, the opposition House leader claims that the time allocation notice, which I gave on Thursday evening in relation to Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, should be rescinded because he alleges there were no consultations on the bill.

As the deputy government whip said on Friday, our party does not reveal the content of the discussions of the House leaders' meetings.

It is common knowledge around here that the recognized parties' House leaders and whips and their deputies and staff gather every Tuesday afternoon to discuss upcoming parliamentary business, along with the Clerk or her representative in attendance. Some weeks, such as last week, the House leaders will even gather for a second meeting. That is on top of the innumerable exchanges that take place by email, informal meetings, and phone conversations among these various actors.

Last week's House leaders' meeting would have been held on the heels of the NDP's Tuesday filibuster of Bill C-17, when it has been the expectation and hope of all other parties that the second reading debate would wind up that morning.

Astute observers of the business of the House would conclude that it was not in isolation that I gave time allocation notices on Thursday evening for Bills C-17 and C-27. Indeed, I only gave those notices once it had become obvious that no agreement for a time allocation motion under Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2), let alone any other firm agreement, could be reached among the required parties with respect to those two bills.

I can absolutely assure the Speaker and the entire House that both myself and my staff did put proposals on Bill C-17 to the NDP House leader and his staff, both verbally and in writing, last week. I have no difficulty whatsoever in assuring the Speaker that the requirement for consultations contemplated in the standing orders was fulfilled.

As to what that requirement is, I would refer the House leader of the official opposition to a ruling of the Deputy Speaker on March 6, 2014, at page 3598 of the Debates, in response to a point of order raised by the previous NDP House leader, where he opened by making reference to page 667 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:The notice in question is to state that the agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion...The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)...That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.

In this case, while I might welcome such an investigations and Canadians, I can assure the House, would be most interested in its findings and I would be most satisfied for them to receive those, I do also understand the policy rationale for not conducting them. That is a policy rationale of encouraging full-ranging negotiations without a concern for potential investigations like that.

Finally, I would like to note the significance of the point of order raised by the opposition House leader. He has, however, inadvertently, given Canadians an insight into how the NDP approaches the business of managing the progress of legislation in the House of Commons.

The NDP members make a great deal of fuss every time the government makes use of time allocation to ensure MPs can get to vote on a bill. The NDP members keep track of how often it happens and make a big deal about that statistic. I have been heard to remark myself that often they seem to enjoy compelling us to run up that statistic.

Why does that happen? The NDP has now finally told Canadians why it happens. In raising this point of order it has asked that a notice of time allocation be rescinded or withdrawn on the basis that it is not necessary. The NDP is prepared to allow the bill to advance. This is the very first time the NDP has done that, the very first time it has told the House that it is prepared to advance a bill and thus that a time allocation motion need not be moved. Never before, since this Parliament began, some three years ago, has it taken this step. Never on any of those many occasions when New Democrats stood up to denounce the use of the scheduling device of time allocation have they pre-empted that step with a statement that they are willing to advance a bill. This, however unintended by the NDP, has given Canadians a valuable insight into the approach of the NDP and why, as a result, the government makes use of the standing orders provisions to bring some certainty to the scheduling of debates and votes.

I hope, however, that this marks the beginning of a new approach by the NDP and not merely an unusual exception to the rule, brought on by the very effective comments of the hon. member for Oakville on the matter of Bill C-17.

I hope that we will see many more occasions where the NDP makes it clear that it is prepared to see a bill advance and, as such, resorting to Standing Order 73 is not required. There are several such notices on the order paper. I invite the NDP to advise the House which of those bills it is prepared to see advanced. Such a gesture would be welcome, and I am prepared to assure the House leader of the opposition it will be received in a non-partisan and co-operative manner.

Either way, I wish to thank the opposition House leader for having done a service in revealing to Canadians how it is that the NDP approaches debate in the House. This revelation will, I am sure, help to inform the views of all those who follow the work we do.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; andthat, at the expiry of the five hours provided for 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 turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Veterans Hiring Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).

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 of the said bill.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

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 of the said bill.

[Business of the House, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House leader of the official opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

at the expiry of the five hours provided for 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 said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.