Peter VAN LOAN

VAN LOAN, The Hon. Peter, P.C., B.A., LL.B., M.A., M.Sc.Pl.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative
Constituency
York--Simcoe (Ontario)
Birth Date
April 18, 1963
Website
http://petervanloan.com
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=aa58e8f5-4a46-4c79-8e97-b9ebe28c9d9a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Email Address
peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca
Profession
lawyer, professor

Parliamentary Career

June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
CPC
  York--Simcoe (Ontario)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
CPC
  York--Simcoe (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs (February 7, 2006 - November 26, 2006)
  • Minister for Sport (November 27, 2006 - January 3, 2007)
  • Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (November 27, 2006 - January 3, 2007)
  • President of the Queen's Privy Council (November 27, 2006 - January 3, 2007)
  • Conservative Party House Leader (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
  • Minister for Democratic Reform (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
October 14, 2008 - March 26, 2011
CPC
  York--Simcoe (Ontario)
  • Conservative Party House Leader (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
  • Minister for Democratic Reform (January 4, 2007 - October 29, 2008)
  • Minister of Public Safety (October 30, 2008 - January 18, 2010)
  • Minister of International Trade (January 19, 2010 - May 17, 2011)
May 2, 2011 - August 2, 2015
CPC
  York--Simcoe (Ontario)
  • Minister of International Trade (January 19, 2010 - May 17, 2011)
  • Conservative Party House Leader (May 18, 2011 - November 3, 2015)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (May 18, 2011 - November 3, 2015)
October 19, 2015 -
CPC
  York--Simcoe (Ontario)
  • Conservative Party House Leader (May 18, 2011 - November 3, 2015)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (May 18, 2011 - November 3, 2015)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 7 of 683)


October 18, 2017

Hon. Peter Van Loan

Madam Speaker, I went through some of the messages I was sent. I actually skipped some. There were quite a few that actually made the exact point the hon. member has made. Why is it that we are sending money overseas and at the same time are taking away the money that was helping improve our local environment? What kind of trade-off is that? Someone asked, “Is this the Government of Canada or the government of some other faraway place?”

People care about their communities. I did not want to quote those things, because I am not going to necessarily dispute that we have a role internationally. I think we have a role to help internationally. However, our very first role is to help our own communities, to get our own house in order, not the environment somewhere else. If we cannot get our own house in order, if we cannot clean up our own lakes and our own lands and focus on them, then we are not doing our job.

That is why I say that it is not words like “sustainable development” that matter but actions that show that we are actually making sustainable development happen.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Federal Sustainable Development Act
Full View Permalink

October 18, 2017

Hon. Peter Van Loan

Madam Speaker, again, that is chutzpah at work.

This member comes from Winnipeg. Who set up the Lake Winnipeg cleanup fund? It was the very government of Stephen Harper, who the member was criticizing. It was a parallel fund to the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. Once again, it was something that focused on real results, on the ground, for the environment. Where did it come from? It was the Conservative government once again.

The member stands up and complains about what happened. The actual facts are that in Manitoba, what happened was that the Lake Winnipeg cleanup fund was created. For the first time, there were real measures undertaken, which had never been done before by any previous government, particularly the previous federal Liberal government, which claimed to care about the environment but never spent a penny on it, not one penny.

Along came a Conservative government that did it. Why? It is because there were real results. It was not words. It was not going to a fancy conference. Jetting off to fancy conferences is Liberal action. Funding small community groups to do cleanup projects, to do tree planting, to do shoreline restoration, and to try innovative ways of reducing phosphorous inputs, working with hundreds of citizens, that is Conservative action.

It was not as fancy as the trip to Paris, and there was maybe not as much in carbon emissions as the trip to Paris, and there were maybe not as many great meals. Tim Hortons kicked in some Timbits. It was not like those fine dining opportunities the Liberals had at the climate change conference in Paris with all their friends. However, I put it to members that the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund did a lot more in terms of real results for the environment here.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Federal Sustainable Development Act
Full View Permalink

October 18, 2017

Hon. Peter Van Loan

Madam Speaker, one often gets moved by the concept of chutzpah. Today we just saw a good example of chutzpah, when someone complained about the changes to the navigable waters act, which a mere couple of hours ago an NDP members noted the Liberals had said they would change but had not done so. Words but no action, I believe, was the theme I was speaking about. Judge them by their actions. That is what Canadians are doing increasingly.

My constituents in the Lake Simcoe watershed are not the kind of people who have a lot of time to sit down and write letters. They are busy people. They have busy lives, but the cancelling of the Lake Simcoe Clean-up Fund, shutting down the best thing that has happened to the environment here in years, has had an impact.

I do not want to say bad things about my predecessor in my riding because I believe she cared passionately about the environment. She said that Lake Simcoe was her top priority. She was there for over a decade, and not one penny was provided for Lake Simcoe. There was not one legislative change to help Lake Simcoe. There were none of the regulatory changes we brought in to ban the dumping of waste waters, the mandatory rules on invasive species to stop bilge water from being dumped into the freshwater Great Lakes, and things like that. We did all of those things. There was no ban on phosphates in dishwasher detergent, like we did. None of that stuff happened. However, she did have some success at the end of her time. She was appointed Canada's ambassador for the environment. That was something.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Federal Sustainable Development Act
Full View Permalink

October 2, 2017

Hon. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, today marks World Architecture Day. Architects make the framework of our lives and architects dream the future of where we live, work, and play. When architects dream well, their work becomes part of the story of our lives.

Preserving our built heritage benefits all Canadians. That is why I introduced Bill C-323, which would create a tax incentive for Canadians who restore and rehabilitate their heritage properties. This bill has the support of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, which said it was good news and an opportunity for all members of all political parties to support the retention of Canada's historic buildings.

Canadians care about outstanding architecture around them. We are worse off when magnificent buildings are demolished or neglected. We now have an opportunity to support Canadians working to preserve historic buildings so they can be enjoyed by generations to come.

On World Architecture Day, I encourage all members to help preserve our built heritage and support Bill C-323

Topic:   Statements by Members
Subtopic:   Architecture
Full View Permalink

September 27, 2017

Hon. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the wartime government of Robert Laird Borden introduced an income tax. Believe it or not, Liberals actually opposed the new tax—but wait: Liberals opposed the new income tax because it was not high enough.

The Liberal whip of the day said that it would be “a mere flea-bite”, and complained that the new tax “does not take from men enough to make it hurt.”

I give them full marks for consistency, but after 100 years of Liberals continually pressing to raise taxes, is it not time to stop making it hurt so much?

Topic:   Oral Questions
Subtopic:   Taxation
Full View Permalink