Peter Van Loan

[National Defence, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader has been getting a message and I hear he will be in Sherbrooke today, which is quite timely because he will be with his NDP candidate there, his own hand-picked candidate since he chose them all, and that is the candidate who is now an MP who said, “In my campaign, I said sovereignty will be done in Quebec”. He went on to say, “we will respect sovereignty in the NDP”.

I guess the reason the NDP leader is in Sherbrooke today is to try to prevent a repeat of what we saw yesterday.

[The Economy, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP members show that they do not really grasp economics. If they saw the numbers today, they tell a pretty good story, that Canada is actually leading the G7 in economic growth. What is more, five of the other six countries are experiencing an economic shrinkage. The next best country is the one that is facing a fiscal crisis right now.

If people want to see an example of what happens when NDP spending plans are adopted, including this week's proposal for a $5.5 billion housing plan, they can just look south of the border and see what happens when a country is in debt up to its ears.

[Points of Order, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday the opposition members asked the government to table in the House documents relating to costing that was conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in response to Bill C-400. This is the NDP private member's bill for a national social housing program. I have the document here today, which I am proud to table in the House, and it shows the clear reason our government could not support it. It would indeed put us $5.45 billion further into debt. I am pleased that we were able to do this work for the New Democrats since apparently they had not costed the document. I would like to table the document at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating third reading of Bill C-42, the enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, a bill that would give the RCMP the tools it needs to strengthen accountability and enhance public trust. I am puzzled why the NDP is putting up member after member to delay and block bringing accountability to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The New Democrats should let the bill come to a final vote so that these much-needed reforms can be put in place. In fact, the RCMP commissioner, Robert Paulson, was in front of the committee yesterday, and he called for swift passage of the bill.

If the New Democrats heed the commissioner's advice and allow the debate to conclude, we will be able to start third reading of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act, and help keep Canadians safe that way.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. This bill proposes to put public safety as the first and paramount consideration in the process of dealing with accused persons found to be not criminally responsible. It accomplishes this change without affecting the treatment these individuals receive.

The debate on Bill C-54 will continue next Thursday and—if necessary—on Friday. Monday, we will consider Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, at report stage and third reading. We will continue that debate on Wednesday.

Tuesday, March 5, shall be the sixth allotted day, which will go to the New Democrats.

Finally, I hope that the opposition will support our hard-working approach to business so that we could also consider second reading of Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; the second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

In addition, in response to what I will take to be an invitation from the oppostion House leader, I would like unanimous consent to propose the following motion. I hope the opposition will not block it.

I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Unanimous consent for this would show that they really do care about Senate reform.

[Rail Transportation, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have given the opposition ample opportunity to help us reform and develop a more democratic, accountable Senate.

We had a bill to make senators elected. Opposition members keep opposing it. They had an opportunity yesterday to pass it; they blocked it.

We debated it 17 times. On September 30, 2011, they blocked it. On October 3, they blocked it. On November 22, they blocked it. On December 8, they blocked it. They are bloc in all but name.

[Ethics, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a concrete proposal to allow Canadians to make the Senate truly accountable by choosing who represents them in the Senate. What has happened when we have had that bill debated in the House? It has been blocked 17 times by NDP members of Parliament, including, for example, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

What did this NDP member say about the concept of Canadians actually having a say on who should represent them? That member said, “The bill the Conservative government has introduced is a travesty of democratic reform and an affront to Canadians' intelligence”.

It is an affront to Canadians' intelligence that they get to choose who represents them. That is what the NDP gives a standing ovation to.

[Ethics, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question was put to Canadians in 2006, when we proposed an elected Senate; in 2008, when we proposed an elected Senate; and in 2011, when we proposed an elected Senate.

None of those times did the NDP support it, but Canadians did. They elected a government committed to delivering Senate reform. We brought forward legislation on Senate reform and the NDP has blocked it every step of the way.

What is the real agenda of the NDP? Appointing its own senators. That is the agenda of the NDP.

[Ethics, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it quite clear that we want to see the Senate review all these matters in terms of expenses, which it is doing, to ensure that the rules they have pertaining to expenses are appropriate, and of course to report publicly on that.

The real question is, why does the NDP continue to resist real reforms toward a democratic Senate? Why does it not put forward a plan of its own, if it has a different plan?

The fact is, NDP members may have a plan, but they are not telling us. The member for Timmins—James Bay was asked what the NDP would do about the Senate and his answer was, “I cannot say what the NDP leader will do after the next election”.

[Ethics, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think that I already answered that question. We want the Senate to report publicly on this issue.

Our government is moving towards a more democratic and responsible Senate by demanding clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada. The government has also introduced a bill, in this chamber, to make the Senate truly democratic. Yet the NDP is opposed to it.

Why is the NDP against real, progressive Senate reform?

[Ethics, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, we are committed to ensuring that all expenses and the rules governing them are appropriate. We have also committed to reporting back to the public on these matters.