Peter Van Loan

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is right now only one proposal before this House of Commons to reform the Senate. In fact, in the last three Parliaments there has only been one proposal, a proposal from the Conservative Party of Canada.

The NDP has simply resisted that effort to democratize the Senate, every step of the way. If it wants to know why we have an unelected Senate that is not as accountable as it should be, they are the reason. They have blocked an elected Senate. They have blocked an accountable Senate.

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the NDP does not know too much about Nunavut. If they did, they would know that Senator Patterson is actually a former territorial premier; that he fought to establish the creation of Nunavut; that he represented, as an MLA, the constituency of Iqaluit and that he has a residence in Iqaluit. This is what the NDP thinks is unacceptable.

What we think is unacceptable is the NDP effort to resist reform that would deliver a truly democratized, accountable and reformed Senate. It has resisted every step of the way. It should instead support our reasonable practical reforms to let Canadians choose who is representing them in the Senate so that they are truly accountable to Canadians.

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government expects that the results of the reviews that are taking place, and the audits, will of course be disclosed publicly.

However, the question is why the NDP stands here and postures that it is defending Canadians when it does not even trust Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. It has a bogus plan that it knows it cannot pass. The last time it had an opportunity, when it was in coalition discussions, it was planning who to appoint to the Senate.

We have been appointing people who have been elected. We have legislation to get more people elected to the Senate, to give Canadians a say in who represents them and to deliver a truly accountable Senate, but the NDP stands against it every step of the way.

[Democratic Reform, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the NDP is on the side of Canadians. However, it will not even let Canadians have a say in who represents them in the Senate.

We have legislation before this House that it has opposed at every opportunity, to let Canadians pick who represents them in the Senate. Yet, the NDP has ensured it does not pass and does not get adopted.

I call upon the NDP, if it is serious about respecting Canadians, if it is serious about reforms, if it is serious about seeing a better Senate, to support our reform proposals to democratize and deliver a truly accountable Senate, one that Canadians choose.

[Ethics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about elections because we have a bill that provides for elections to select senators.

Unfortunately, the NDP is opposed to this plan. At every opportunity, it tries to stop our plan to democratize the Senate. If the NDP is serious about reform, let it support our bill for real Senate reform.

[Business of the House, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the implicit offer of assistance from the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

I look forward to discussions with him later on the possibility of moving forward both Senate reform and Bill C-12 on a unanimous consent basis straight to committee. I would be happy to do that with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating the Liberal opposition day motion. Tomorrow we will hopefully finish second reading of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, a measure supported by all three parties. After that we will turn to third reading of Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act; third reading of Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act; and second reading of Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act.

When we return from our constituency week on Monday, February 25, we will start second reading of Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act. This bill needs to be passed by mid-April before the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, which would render the important powers available to police ineffective.

After Bill C-55, we will consider Friday's unfinished business.

Tuesday, February 26, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will go to the Official Opposition, and it will therefore choose the subject of debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will continue debating the bills I have already listed.

Additionally, Bill C-47, Northern Jobs and Growth Act, was reported back from committee yesterday, and I anticipate Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act, will be reported back soon. So we could also call these bills at report stage and third reading, if we have extra time next week.

Finally, on Friday, March 1, the House will start the second reading debate on Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. The Prime Minister announced this bill last week as part of our efforts to ensure we have a justice system that puts the rights of victims first.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, again, Senator Wallin's expenses are comparable to those of parliamentarians from that region. There is nothing out of the ordinary and those expenses do relate to her travel from Ottawa to Saskatchewan, where she was 168 days last year.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated, Senator Wallin's spending on travel is comparable to that of other parliamentarians from the same region, including western NDP parliamentarians. Apparently it is all right for them to spend that money, but when a Conservative senator spends it, travels and represents her community and is there for 168 days for the people of Saskatchewan, it is somehow inappropriate.

The NDP members' real concern is that Conservatives are representing their communities. Their problem is that they do not have anyone in Saskatchewan to represent the NDP.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is surprising that Pamela Wallin supports the Conservative Party. I think most members of our caucus do. That is certainly not an unusual thing to do.

However, senators are expected to maintain residences in both Ottawa and their home region. Senator Wallin spent 168 days in the past year in Saskatchewan proudly supporting our government, proudly supporting our party and advancing the causes that Canadians believe in: jobs, growth and a stronger economy, which is something she fights for every day as do all of us on this side.

[Ethics, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question.

Conservative Senator Wallin spent 168 days in Saskatchewan last year. She spent as much on travel between Ottawa and Saskatchewan as an average MP from the region, including NDP MPs.