Peter Van Loan

[Points of Order, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today with respect to the point of order that was raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment the last Friday we met, March 8. The parliamentary secretary rose in response to the disrespectful nature of comments made by numerous members of the NDP during question period, which were not conducive to maintaining order and decorum in this place.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP argued that disrespectful name-calling, on that day in particular, in relation to female ministers on International Women's Day, no less, should be perfectly acceptable. I cannot disagree more. I agree with the hon. parliamentary secretary's submissions and would like to point out why I think it is incumbent upon the Chair to rule this kind of immature name-calling out of order.

Page 613 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states:

During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names but rather by title, position or constituency name—

Then I underline the following:

—in order to guard against the tendency to personalize debate.

The approach employed by the NDP not only personalizes debate, but it does so in an offensive and inflammatory fashion. Consider what we might expect to hear if the NDP position became the accepted practice in the chamber. If this kind of name-calling is allowed, it would apply not just to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, of course, but to opposition shadow ministers. For example, the hon. member for Halifax, the NDP's environment critic, could well be referred to as the NDP spokesperson for creating a crippling carbon tax.

According to the NDP, this would be parliamentary language. I do not believe it is. Instead of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park described as the NDP finance critic, she could instead be called the NDP spokesperson for bigger government and higher taxes, or perhaps the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay could be the spokesperson for unethical interference with independent electoral boundary commissions or, since he changed his vote on the long gun registry, maybe he could be the spokesperson for betraying rural Canadians.

Again, the NDP argues that this is an entirely acceptable approach and is parliamentary. I do not agree. However, based on the response of the NDP's deputy whip on this point of order, I would surmise that he thinks it would be just fine.

Since this betrays the NDP's numerous by-rote decorum pledges, maybe its most recent champion of decorum, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, should be described as the NDP spokesperson for do as I say, not as I do. However, I do not agree that should be considered parliamentary. I raise these examples to point out the logical outcome if the NDP approach on arguments on this point of order prevail.

When you review Hansard from the previous sitting, Mr. Speaker, you will see that this kind of petty name-calling does not contribute to decorum, nor does it assist you in maintaining order here. It should not be accepted. Instead, let us rise above the NDP's petty stunts, avoid the name-calling and only refer to each other by our constituencies or our titles, as the rules expect of us.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council Office has no records related to this request.

[Parliamentary budget office, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Actually, the parliamentary budget office is part of the Library of Parliament. That is how it is structured. We are pleased that Ms. L'Heureux is actually quite qualified to carry out this responsibility on an interim basis. I am surprised that New Democrats lack confidence in her. She is a very capable individual.

However, I will say this. Today, we have some more news, proving that this government is on the right track when it comes to economic matters, and that is the breaking news of today's job numbers: 50,000 net new jobs and 950,000 jobs since the economic downturn. When it comes to following the right path of job creation and economic growth, it is this government that is doing it.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, we want a Parliamentary Budget Officer that is non-partisan and a credible source of opinion for us on fiscal matters.

The Library of Parliament is carrying out a search for a new PBO. I am pleased, and we thank Ms. L'Heureux for accepting this interim appointment.

When it comes to fiscal responsibilities, our leadership is clear. We have reduced the deficit and we are on our way to a balanced budget, unlike the NDP, which wants higher taxes and a huge deficit.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course we want a Parliamentary Budget Officer who is non-partisan and a credible source of opinion for us on fiscal matters. We are very pleased that the office of the Library of Parliament and Ms. L'Heureux have agreed to take on that responsibility on an interim basis. They are, of course, carrying out a search for a new officer.

When it comes to fiscal matters, Canadians know there is really no reason to listen to the NDP. Our government has been delivering. While it talks about higher spending and higher taxes, we have been delivering on a plan to get the fiscal house in order. That is why the deficit has been cut in half and we are on our way to a balanced budget.

[Business of the House, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our focus as a government is on an agenda that puts at the forefront job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity, with a very clear focus on making our streets and communities safer. With regard to that clear agenda, we have several items to propose for the time ahead.

Today we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act. That is a cornerstone in making our communities safer. After that, we will return to second reading debate on Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

Tomorrow we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, again resulting in a more stable and secure economy.

After we return from our constituency week on Monday, March 18, the House will consider Bill C-55, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Tse act, at report stage and third reading now that it has been reported back from committee. This is an important justice measure. I must remind the House that this legislation responds to a Supreme Court decision that takes effect over the Easter adjournment, so it is very important that we be able to pass it here and get it to the Senate for it to deal with before that time.

Once the House deals with Bill C-55, it could then consider Bills S-9 and S-12, if they are still held up in the House; Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, at report stage and third reading, since that bill has now been reported back from committee; and Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, at third reading.

All these bills are necessary and important for Canadians' safety.

Wednesday, March 20, shall be the seventh and final allotted day. As a result, the House will then consider the usual supply motions and appropriation bills that evening. We will give priority to debating Bills C-15 and S-12 on Thursday and Friday, March 21 and 22.

I hope that makes clear the agenda that the opposition House leader has apparently been unable to perceive of the government, our clear agenda of delivering on job creation, economic growth, long-term prosperity and safe and secure communities for all Canadians.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, March 7th, 2013]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, 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 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.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to provide the following notice.

I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

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.

[Privilege, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Attorney General will want to add something to this, but I would like to respond initially to some of the claims made by the hon. member.

First, a matter like this of course has to be raised at the earliest opportunity, and this is old news. The member claims he is raising it at the earliest opportunity. In fact, he is relying on allegations made by one Edgar Schmidt in a court docket that was filed December 14, 2012. We are talking about matters that are already a quarter of a year old. He has not raised them at the earliest possible opportunity. They could have been raised when the House resumed in January. They could have been raised throughout February. He is only now raising them, well into March, so he does not pass that test at all. In fact, there are literally dozens of entries in the court docket that have occurred in the intervening period of time. There were dozens of additional instances. He has not raised any of this in the House. What is before you, Mr. Speaker, certainly is out of order on that basis alone.

Additionally, I would note that the member is asking you to deal with a matter of law. It is well established under the proceedings of the House that you have no jurisdiction over questions of law and matters of law; those are for the courts. You have jurisdiction over matters that relate to the procedures and rules of the House of Commons, Standing Orders and practices, not questions of law. On that alone, it is also not appropriate to deal with it.

The third point he touched on is that of the sub judice convention. This is before the courts right now. The questions are being resolved in the courts under our practices and rules. We cannot relitigate them in a parallel fashion in the House when they are before the courts. The sub judice convention prevails, and that is what should be done with them.

I have to say that I take very strong personal exception to the intent of this question of privilege that has been brought. The Attorney General is an experienced barrister and solicitor of very high standing. He is subject to oaths, as a solicitor, to exercise his professional obligation, and he is subject to similar oaths as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of this country. The suggestion is that he has not been exercising his professional obligation in that regard. This is a scurrilous, scandalous and defamatory allegation on the part of the hon. member, and it is inappropriate when we have an individual as esteemed and professional as the Attorney General whose obligation it is to exercise his own professional judgment.

The essence of his argument is that because, according to the hon. member, he is not agreeing with somebody else's professional judgment, somehow his judgment is to have no value. Actually, it is quite the opposite. As the Attorney General, and a barrister and solicitor, it is his obligation and duty to apply his own professional judgment as to the law. To suggest otherwise, in my view, would be an abandonment of his oaths and obligations. I am very saddened and disappointed that we have heard this point of order raised by the opposition today. It is below him.

I expect the Minister of Justice will want to say more on this matter. I put it that there are several bases on which it can be easily dismissed. It simply does not raise a question of privilege, and I expect we will hear more from the Minister of Justice.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, March 6th, 2013]

moved:

That, in relation to C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third 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 the third reading stage of 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.