Peter Van Loan

[Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote from what the hon. member said in this House on February 25. He came to this House and said:

I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made. It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House, for which I have the greatest amount of respect.

He came to this House and he apologized. That is what we expect of members. In fact, the Chair in his ruling on March 3, 2014, said:

The Chair takes...note that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville...has apologized for his mistake.

This was, of course, the Speaker's ruling that led to the motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that we are now debating.

What is interesting is that subsequent to both of those, we have, for example, the leader of the opposition's critic on these very matters, the member for Toronto—Danforth, saying:

That was not an apology. We must keep in mind that our colleague said it twice. If this had been phrased as an apology, we might be in a different universe. We might not have had a question of privilege.

It was an apology. He said “I would like to sincerely apologize”, yet the leader of the opposition's critic for this very matter says the member did not apologize. Did that member misspeak? Did he mislead the House when he said that? Is that the kind of matter that the member for Toronto—Danforth should now, as is happening to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, be held in contempt for?

In the Speaker's own ruling, it is a matter of fact that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville apologized, yet subsequent to that the member for Toronto—Danforth denies it and says no such apology occurred. It is a misstatement of fact.

However, if we go down this path the opposition wishes to go, that is the kind of thing that leads to an ongoing argument for contempt and finding of contempt.

The opposition should acknowledge there was an apology made, and it should be accepted by all of us as gentlemen and gentlewomen.

[Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House have a custom of taking people's word as the truth. With that custom comes a heavy obligation, the heavy obligation that they must always tell the truth. Although rhetoric and debate at times may tempt people to stretch the truth, the fact is that it is a very serious duty and obligation.

In this case, the hon. member, having misspoken, took that obligation sufficiently seriously enough that he came back to the House and corrected it. That is as it should be. When members find they have misspoken, they must come back to the House and correct that. It is an important duty and obligation.

The only thing that precipitated this motion even being in the House is the fact that the member came here himself and corrected the record. The paradox is this: should he face consequences for doing so? We would be creating exactly the opposite of the incentive we wish to see. We would be creating a situation where people would no longer be encouraged to come to the House and correct the record and tell the truth for fear of facing a contempt action, for fear of having their name dragged through the mud. We would be creating exactly the opposite of what I think we all agree is the right thing, coming back and correcting the record when members have misspoken.

That is a another reason we should not take this matter further to the procedure and House affairs committee. It would create, if I may say, an environment where people would be discouraged from carrying out their important duty and obligation of telling the truth here in the House.

[Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the question we are dealing with is one that is quite clear-cut. There is a motion that the comments of the member be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. The question we have to ask is whether that would serve any utility. There is no dispute about what happened. The member made comments in the House. He came back and corrected those comments to the House. He apologized to the House for his incorrect comments. The question then becomes what would be served by reference to the procedure and House affairs committee. There is nothing new that we would learn. The facts are there. They are simple. Therefore, there is no utility in that exercise, the same as there is no utility in continuing to discuss and debate it in the House.

We know what happened. The hon. member corrected the record and apologized, which certainly should have been accepted at that point. One cannot picture anything of great utility that would come from a further discussion of the matter at the procedure and House affairs committee. If one wants to know what kind of insight could be derived at the procedure and House affairs committee, one need only look at the speeches that have occurred so far in this debate on privilege from the official opposition, that being lots of noise, no light, no illumination, and no new facts.

We know what the facts are. They are quite simple. It is time to move on.

[Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the privilege motion of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House right now is actually a report from a committee dealing with the fate of certain Jewish refugees in the Middle East and their treatment and the history there. It has probably escaped many people watching at home on television that it is what is being debated right now.

Since that is the actual item before the House, I was wondering if the hon. member, on behalf of the NDP, as their lead speaker on this very important item of public policy to many Jewish-Canadians and people who take an interest in the Middle East, could tell us the position of the NDP on the two recommendations in the report we are actually debating right now.

[Business of the House, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in light of this afternoon's debate, I did want to make a short statement with respect to the business of the House.

First, the sixth allotted day will not be tomorrow. I will return to the House at a later time to designate a new date.

Second, the first item to be considered tomorrow under government orders shall be Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act, at third reading.

Finally, I give notice that with respect to the consideration of the privilege motion of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, at the next sitting a minister of the crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

[Natural Resources, February 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this has to be the height of irony. The NDP members, who have long called for action to have higher prices on carbon and higher prices on gas to limit consumption, which it thinks is a bad thing, are today complaining about the very things they have called for.

I can tell them one thing. A Conservative government will never impose a carbon tax, a carbon tax that would hurt all Canadians, a carbon tax that we know the NDP wants to see. We will not do that. We are going to stand on the side of Canadian consumers and keep gas prices—

[The Budget, February 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, everyone understands that agents of Parliament who are independent do their own financing and their own budget references. In fact, we are quite pleased that many of them have actually reduced their spending in line with what our government wants to see, and that is the balancing of our budget in 2015. We are working hard to do it, and we appreciate the efforts of others to do the same.

We also recognize that we need to see savings made in the Senate as well, and we look forward to finding ways in which to do that.

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, for the government side, that we had wording that was presented today that we were willing to accommodate. It was the same with the wording yesterday, which we were willing to accommodate. However, notwithstanding our willingness to accommodate those particular wordings, we believe that there is a practice here, and I adopt the comments of the opposition House leader with regard to that process and how much better it would be if we could indeed have true consensus here in this House.

We have been very accommodating and will continue to work with the evidence to try to come to something that everyone can agree on.

[Business of the House, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of the procedure and House affairs committee are very much looking forward to when the NDP members cease their filibuster and actually allow the committee to get on with the business of hearing from witnesses. It is the NDP, in fact, that for many months called on this government to ensure that legislation was in place by the end of this spring. Oddly, its efforts to prevent any evidence from being heard on this legislation is in contradiction to that. I look forward to that changing, now that the House finally voted on that question conclusively this week.

I would also like to note that something else the House voted on this week is Canada's economic action plan 2014. The House endorsed a plan that sees our government on track to balance the budget next year, all the while keeping taxes low and protecting the programs and services upon which Canadians rely.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Papineau voted against this sound budget, which received both accolades and praise from all parts of the country and diverse sectors of the economy. Perhaps the member does not appreciate the extraordinary effort that went into such a fiscally sound budget. After all, the Liberal leader does hold the view that budgets balance themselves. We know better. We understand the hard work that fiscal leadership actually requires and the hard work that governing demands, something with which he is apparently unacquainted.

With the budget adopted, the House will work on other legislation. Today, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act. That debate will continue next Wednesday, if need be. Monday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day. Finally, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.