Peter Van Loan

[Points of Order, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a brief response to the point of order raised on the issue of tabling of documents earlier today by the member for Malpeque.

After reviewing the blues of today's question, I want to respond to that. This was a request that certain documents be tabled.

At page 433 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it actually discusses the obligations of ministers of the Crown with regard to tabling certain documents. To be clear, O'Brien and Bosc, in referencing these instances, are referring to when documents are quoted by ministers in the House.

The blues, however, show that the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages did not quote from documents but in fact referred to the existence of letters from eight New Democrats who have asked to have temporary foreign workers approved for work within their constituencies. He did not, however, quote any of those letters.

The obligation to table documents does relate to when one is quoted from in the House or read from in the House. It is not an obligation to table a fact that a document exists or if a member or minister has made reference to the existence of a document that does not give rise to an obligation to table it.

I trust that this will satisfactorily address that question.

[Business of the House, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to designate Friday, April 19 as an allotted day.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few points. First, for far too long, women living on first nation reserves in Canada have been without the legal protections available to all other Canadians. Our government has introduced Bill S-2 to correct this inequality and to provide greater protection for aboriginal women. I must advise, however, that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at second reading of Bill 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.

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 that stage.

[March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, because routine proceedings was delayed without a clear indication of the time, the Treasury Board secretary will be back shortly to table the reports on plans and priorities. I would appreciate it if we could return at that time, with the consent of all, to that item.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season and in the spirit of truth telling, there is a difference. When the member gets up and says that the government is guilty of McCarthyism and then makes an oblique reference to perhaps other parties at some time having done something wrong, that is not the spirit of the season. That is not reconciliation. That is not reaching out his hand.

I welcome the member's kind spirit that he offers here, but the fact remains this is a question for the committee, and I hope we will see the same spirit reign at committee.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, more and more often when I get up in the House, there is a recurring theme. It is me responding to the opposition and asking why they are continually on a sanctimonious high horse saying “Do as I say, not as I do”.

Today's point of order falls four-square in exactly the same category. The concern is that a question was asked about someone's partisan affiliation, suggesting that perhaps the person's involvement in politics had tainted the credibility of the witness's opinion. It goes to the credibility as a witness. It speaks to the motive and why the witness is saying because of particular beliefs. That may or may not be valid.

However, those who are complaining of that today have engaged in exactly that practice, in exactly that committee, in exactly this Parliament. They did not rise on a point of order when that happened. The New Democrats did not get up and say “Hold it, one of us made a grave mistake and did something terribly wrong. Let's rise above it and do better now”. No, they rise and complain when someone else does to them the exact same thing they do again and again. It is sanctimony of the highest order and we are hearing it today.

The fact is, at this very committee, in this Parliament, there was a witness who appeared and a member of the opposition asked this question of the witness, “Are you the one who was a candidate in 1993 for the Conservative Party?” It was an inquiry into the person's background. Obviously, the NDP felt it was worthy of drawing attention to a partisan affiliation, albeit one that is two decades old, as a way of trying to effect the credibility of that witness and to say what was said say had no value.

At the same committee, following that lead in example and practice, a member of the Conservative Party did the same when another witness appeared. All of a sudden it is worthy of a point of order. Never before had it been.

We have had a year and a half since then for the New Democrats to seek into their own souls for a concern about this, to inquire and seek redemption. However, they do not seek redemption until they see the same thing happening to them. One way or another, however we slice it, where I come from, where my constituents are, that is what they call hypocrisy. That is what they call “Do as I say, not as I do”.

I appreciate that now we may be on a different path. Maybe now the New Democrats want to exclaim a truce and say that it is alright for us to them to take shots at us, but as soon as we take shots at them “let's all disarm”. That may be how they want to play the game. We will find out.

What I have heard right now is that it is alright for us to be criticized as a government and for supporters of the government to be criticized, but God forbid we should ever criticize anyone on the opposition side. That is crossing the line. That is bad when it comes to members' statements. That is bad when it comes to questions in the House of Commons in question period, Now it is bad for conduct at committee. That speaks for itself. It speaks to the quality of those members judgment and how they conduct themselves and their consistency and principles.

As for the actual rules in this case, they are clearly established. The practice of committees and the procedures at committees are decided by those committees. In this case, we have a really good situation because what the opposition members were doing was in the exact same committee. The conduct they complain of was the conduct they were undertaking in that committee. It is appropriate for that committee to deal with the question and resolve it.

As my staff likes to say on frequent occasions, “You know the references, they're in that green book” and the green book says that these are matters for the committees to determine themselves.

[Business of the House, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his very kind, thoughtful and sensitive comments and concern for our welfare over here.

This afternoon, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. This will be the third time that the bill has been debated at third reading. In the previous two days that it was debated, we actually heard from the comments of the New Democrats that they were quite supportive of the bill and that they called for it to be passed without delay. We are asking them to heed their own advice and allow this matter to come to a vote. The government shares the view that it does need to proceed quickly. If we do care about giving people a safe and peaceful Easter now and in years to come, we certainly want to have this kind of legislation in place to protect Canadians and ensure their peace from nuclear terrorism. I hope the NDP will back up those words and allow a vote to occur.

Monday, April 15, when we return from the time in our constituencies, will be the first opposition day of the new supply period where I understand we will debate a motion from the NDP.

Tuesday, April 16, will be the second opposition day, and I understand we will debate a motion from the Liberals.

On the Wednesday of that week, the House will return to second reading debate of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. The bill would finally provide the legal protections for the women on reserve that they have lacked for far too long. This discrimination should not exist. That is why aboriginal people and even the Manitoba NDP have been calling for the passage of Bill S-2. I would hope that the federal NDP would heed that call and allow a vote to take place, giving aboriginal women rights regarding matrimonial property.

If debate on S-2 concludes, the House will then debate at report stage Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I believe that this is also very close to the finish line.

Following that, we would consider Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act at second reading. Thursday, April 18, will be another opposition day for the NDP.

Before I conclude, let me wish all the MPs and the parliamentary staff a happy Easter.

[Business of the House, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, until 4 o'clock.

At 4 o'clock, my friend, the hon. Minister of Finance, will unveil economic action plan 2013, this year’s federal budget.

Of course, we will have to wait until that speech—which will not be much longer, I can assure the opposition House leader—to find out all of the important measures our government is putting forward to support jobs and growth for all Canadians, workers, families and the job-creating businesses that make all their lives better with the over 950,000 net new jobs we have created so far with, I am sure, more to come.

In the meantime, I can tell hon. members with certainty that with that objective of job creation in mind, economic action plan 2013 will not contain the NDP's risky proposals to hurt our economy and job creation. It will not include, for example, a tax hike on Canadian job creators, the one that was advocated by the leader of the NDP when he was on his visit to Washington arguing against Canadian jobs, a tax hike that Canadian manufacturers and exporters have said would cost 200,000 Canadian jobs off the top just in their sector.

The budget will not include the over $56 billion in reckless past NDP spending proposals and, of course, our economic action plan will not include the NDP's signature initiative, its $21 billion carbon tax, a concept that has already been rejected by Canadians. We will undoubtedly hear about these differences in priorities over the course of the four days of the budget debate, which our rules provide. Those days will be tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Finally, on Thursday, March 28, we shall start third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, before question period. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

[Commissioner of Official Languages, March 20th, 2013]

moved:

That, in accordance with subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act R.S.C., 1985, c.31, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, this House approve the reappointment of Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages, for a term of three years.

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the opposition House leader because it made my point about doing as I say, not as I do. All of a sudden, when I engage in the same kind of practice as the New Democrats, he was inflamed and upset and said it was not acceptable. That makes the case even stronger than I made it.