Peter Van Loan

[Government Policies, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we came here with five clear priorities and we have been delivering on those priorities, or we have been trying to, except for one thing. The opposition parties continue to stand in front of our priority on getting tough on crime, on making our streets and communities safer.

I talked about mandatory penalties for gun crimes. I know that is heavy on the minds of Canadians. It was held up just at committee, not in the House, 232 days.

Let me talk about Bill C-23, the Criminal Code, 224 days and counting at committee; age of protection, 175 days at committee.

[Government Policies, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been trying to get legislation through this Parliament. The difficulty is that with the opposition, in particular the Liberal Party, it is very difficult to do so.

Bill C-10, the mandatory penalties for gun crime, something that I know Canadians care about a great deal right now, was held up at committee for 252 days and then all the relevant portions of it were gutted by the Liberals. We had to rely on the hon. members of the NDP to restore those provisions. I could go through justice bill after justice bill where that has been the case.

What is more, they have used other devices, like concurrence motions, to take up, on 20 occasions, three weeks of House time with delay and obstruction tactics.

We are the ones who are trying to get the job done. It is the opposition parties that have been obstructing.

[Points of Order, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if I said that, I misspoke. Of course the provision in the statute is as the member said, one that right now denies to first nations on reserve the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The purpose of Bill C-44 is to give them the rights that that act provides to every other Canadian. It was not under the charter. It is indeed the Canadian Human Rights Act that we are trying to restore their rights under Bill C-44.

When I was referring to the efforts by the opposition to delay that legislation over the summer, it was not with regard to the charter. It was with regard to denying first nations people the human rights code protection.

[National Defence, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly simply because I cannot accept the unacceptable smear, the personal smear, that the member continues to engage in by calling our dignified Minister of National Defence, who has served for many years, an arms dealer. It is unacceptable.

Let me tell the member why we have to fund the military now. It is because over the past 13 years Liberal governments cut back resources to the Canadian Forces “because a philosophical choice was made to diminish the military's place in Canadian society”. Who said that? The Liberal Party's democratic society task force on the military. Its members said this themselves. That is why we now have to make up the funding for the shortfall and support our military.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our motion recognizing Quebeckers as a nation, but we are also proud of our bill on democracy and democratic representation.

I want to quote Jean-Marc Salvet in Le Soleil:

What would happen if the ridings in Quebec had more people than those elsewhere in Canada? We would hate to see the vote of a Quebecker have less weight than the vote of an Ontarian. We would demand corrective measures. As it turns out, the members from Ontario represent 21,000 more people on average than members from the other provinces. Disparities like that do not—

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our approach is based on principles. I want to quote an article by Jean-Marc Salvet, in Le Soleil, where he says:

—the bill to readjust electoral boundaries rests on indisputable logic. It is based on a sacred principle in parliamentarianism, which is equal representation of the people.

Our bill is fair. That is our government's approach.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

No, Mr. Speaker, but I am happy to blame the Liberals for complete, utter delay and obstruction, as they have done in the Senate. I have talked about their unwillingness to deal with Bill S-4, which they have punted off until June. They dealt with Bill C-288 in 43 seconds.

I found out why the Liberals want the month of May available. I saw this memo that says that the Senate has reserved the services of Mr. Jean Luc Lavallée. Mr. Lavallée will be giving chair massages every Thursday afternoon during the month of May in the Senate, May 17, 24 and 31, from 1 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. I thought they were sitting then but apparently they are sitting in massage chairs at that time, which is why they cannot deliver on Bill S-4.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have already talked about the success of the Liberals in resisting our agenda to make our streets and communities safer on justice. I have talked about their resistance on democratic reform. On the private member's bill the other night the Liberals refused to even allow Buzz Hargrove to speak at the Liberal dominated Senate committee. That is their idea of an open, full process.

A year of delay and obstruction over there and yet they can get their own bill through in 43 seconds. I guess the senators want to keep the month of May open. I do not know what they have in mind. It must be busy over there in May.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me say what Canadians want to see this Parliament do. They want to see this Parliament deliver on legislation to make their communities safer by getting tough on crime. They want to see us deliver on Senate reform, the term limits in the Senate, that has been stalled for a year by the Liberals in the Senate.

When they have something they want passed, in 43 seconds they pass a Liberal private member's bill without allowing one Conservative to speak. That is not exactly what I would call deliberative consultation.

On Senate reform, a year without even touching it is the Liberal approach to delay and obstruction.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the obstruction playbook was written by the opposition, which has held up, as I said, justice bills at committee, not in the rest of the House, 252 days for mandatory penalties for gun crimes, 214 days for the Criminal Code and 175 days for age of protection.

Those are things we committed to do for Canadians and those are things Canadians want. They want stronger communities and safer communities. The opposition pulls out every stop it can to obstruct and then it gets upset when a matter gets debated for two hours at committee.

We will work hard to get our agenda through because Canadians want to get tough on crime.