Peter Van Loan

[Employment, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to, at this time, express the support of our government for the American people and the efforts of the American authorities as they respond strongly to the difficult challenges they are facing, in particular the violent terrorist threats. Serious threats require decisive and serious responses.

With regard to the question of temporary foreign workers, we are, of course, taking action through our economic action plan to ensure that Canadians have first crack at jobs that belong to them and that the program is appropriately reviewed and improved.

The difficulty for the NDP is that they always say one thing and do another. They say here they have problems with the program, yet they continually write to our government asking for temporary foreign workers to be brought to their constituencies.

[Points of Order, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak with the minister involved. I am quite sure that she will be able to find this letter that he has not been able to find fairly quickly. Perhaps we can have a discussion and solve the matter after that.

[Points of Order, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it would be quite easy for the hon. member to go through his records and find any letter he might have sent to the minister asking for additional foreign workers for his riding. Perhaps the mistake is that the member has so many letters he has written requesting them that he does not know which one the minister is talking about. I do not know if that is where the problem arises. However, if it is a question of his having written only one letter, it should be fairly easy for him to find it. I can only presume, from the hon. member's remarks, that there must have been several letters, and he just wants to know which one the minister was waving about.

[Points of Order, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of some standing in the House. He raised the subject earlier in the week. The member is aware of the rules. It is quite clear that if one quotes or reads from a document, there may be a requirement for tabling. However, simply indicating that one has a document in one's possession and that it exists does not give rise to an obligation to table. That being said, the minister certainly has the right to table it at some point if she sees fit.

[Business of the House, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader expressed concern that the scheduling of several opposition days, on which the opposition gets to determine the subject matter of debate in the House of Commons, showed a complete absence of a plan and a complete absence of any ideas for policy innovation. Having heard the debate and the resolutions coming from the opposition for debate on those days, I am inclined to agree with him.

Sadly, they have shown that when the opposition has the agenda, there are no new ideas and there is nothing of value spoken. However, the Standing Orders do require us to have those opposition days scheduled as part of our procedure, and that is what we are doing.

I would like, however, to respond a little bit to his comments on the time allocation on the bill yesterday. Yesterday's bill was Bill S-2, a bill to give aboriginal women and their children on reserve the same matrimonial rights that other people have. It is a bill that has been in Parliament for five years, through a series of Parliaments, in fact, and it has not yet come to a vote. To paraphrase the President of the United States in the recent State of the Union address, the aboriginal women and children of Canada deserve the right to a vote. That is why we did what we had to do, after five years of obstruction from the opposition preventing the bill from coming forward.

The bill would provide the protection they have been denied for decades. It is truly shameful that, starting with the Leader of the Opposition, every single opposition member stood up against this bill at second reading. They voted against the principle of protecting aboriginal women and children and providing them with rights equal to those of all Canadian women off reserve. They voted against giving them protection from violence in the situation of a domestic family breakdown and giving them the same rights to matrimonial homes that other women have had for decades in this country.

It is another example of how the NDP approaches things. It claims that it is for women's rights and aboriginal rights, but when it comes time to actually take action, it does not. It is “do as I say, not as I do”.

This afternoon we will continue the New Democrats' opposition day. Tomorrow is the fourth allotted day, when the New Democrats will again propose our topic for debate. Monday shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see a Liberal motion debated. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day, with a further New Democratic motion being considered.

Next week is victims week in Canada, so on Wednesday, the House will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which aims to put the protection of society and of victims front and centre.

On Thursday morning we will consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, at report stage. After question period on Thursday, we will start report stage for Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which was reported back from the transport committee this morning.

Finally, next Friday, Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, will be again considered at report stage.

[Ethics, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear throughout that we want to see respect for Canadians' tax dollars.

Canadians work too hard to have their tax dollars taken by excessive and irresponsible government spending. We want to see the Senate apply the rules. Canadians do not want to see the tax-and-spend approach by the NDP.

What Canadians do want is a chance for them to actually be treated with respect by political parties. They want to see an opposition NDP, instead of saying Canadians do not have the maturity to select their own representatives in the House, actually support real democracy and support our legislation to give Canadians a say in who actually represents them in the Senate. That is what Canadians want to see.

[Ethics, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we want to see that the expenses incurred by senators are appropriate and that all the rules are followed. That is what the Senate review has been seeking to do.

The more important question is we also want to see fundamental change to the Senate. This week, taking his seat is one more elected senator actually chosen by the voters of his province, Scott Tannas. We are pleased to see he is there.

What Canadians want to know is why is the NDP is standing in the way of having real democracy and having all senators selected by the people of Canada?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I have the honour to table, in both official languages, documents entitled the government's responses to questions on the order paper numbers 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210 and 1211.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, April 17th, 2013]

moved:

That, in relation to S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, 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 this 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.

[Privilege, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two hon. friends for raising this point, as they have done, at the earliest possible opportunity. That is one of the disadvantages they labour under. The other disadvantage is that they are asserting facts about a meeting that they did not attend and are relying on assertions from a news article written by somebody who also was not in attendance at the subject meeting.

I can clarify this matter fairly simply to make it clear that in the case of this caucus meeting on this particular legislation that is on notice in draft form, there were no draft copies of this legislation circulated at any caucus meeting that the Conservative Party held today. There were no draft copies displayed for anybody to review at this meeting. There were no sections of the bill on display, and there were no excerpts provided. None of what he is alleging, in fact, happened. I can assure him, with 100% certainty, notwithstanding the normal practice of not discussing what happens in caucus, that this is something that did not happen in caucus. Therefore, I feel quite comfortable discussing it here on the floor of the House for all Canadians to hear.

While the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, I agree, has an abundance of precedents, what he lacks are any facts. The fact is that what the members are alleging simply did not occur.