Peter Van Loan

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations cover abuses committed between 2000 and 2005. The former Liberal government was incapable of dealing with it but we will take things in hand.

In fact, it is kind of funny. I was listening to the radio today and I heard a Liberal complaining that perhaps we are taking action too fast, we are going to get answers too quickly and, gosh, guess what, it might happen before or during an election that the truth comes out. It was thought that was a bad thing for the Liberals.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a little amusing coming from the Liberal Party. It was actually back in April 2004 when the member for Crowfoot, a Conservative, asked that this matter be investigated and said:

My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. Are the Ottawa police investigating the commissioner's conduct as well as the misappropriation of funds?

To which the deputy prime minister and minister of public safety at the time, who was a Liberal, said:

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure everyone in the House that there is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated.

If there was a cover-up, if there was a delay, it came from the Liberal side obviously.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned about the allegations made before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding the poor management and abuses of the RCMP pension fund. That is why our government is taking immediate action to shed light on the matter. Public investigations will complement our understanding.

Canada's new government wants answers now. Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Business of the House, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Liberal House leader has a lack of confidence in the ability of his leader to carry him through an election, but I did not realize he had such a lack of confidence that he thought it would take a few years for that confidence to return.

However, the amendment only just arrived. It took the Liberal senators almost six months to figure out what they wanted to do with a very short bill. I honestly have to say that I have not even seen the bill, which arrived last night in its amended form. Perhaps we should look at it as a government before we decide what we are going to do when we consider the amendments that were put to us.

I know there is a different standard on that side, in that we should do what the Liberals say in 12 hours and they should do what we say in maybe a year or two, but we think it should be a little more even.

[Business of the House, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill C-16, it is obvious that the Liberal House leader is very concerned about having an election and wants to do anything he can to stop it. Having watched the news last night and having seen some numbers, I can understand his sentiments. That is not surprising.

However, I am also not surprised that he could not remember what the bill was about. That is because it has been out of this House for half a year while the Liberal Senate was trying to deal with it. If those members wanted it passed quickly perhaps they could have avoided making amendments to it. However, there are amendments and we have to consult about them. As well, certainly, the information about everyone having consented is very different from the information that has been provided to me by the other parties to this point.

We will continue to pursue that and we hope to move forward on democratic reform. At the same time, as we said earlier, we will invite the other parties to move forward with Bill S-4 in the Senate. If they want to see things move quickly, that would represent good democratic reform. As well, we invite them to indicate their support for Bill C-43.

However, this afternoon we will continue with the list of bills on today's Projected Order of Business.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. When the House returns from the Easter break, it will continue with the budget implementation bill if it is not already completed tomorrow.

Also on the list of bills for that week are: Bill C-33, on income tax; Bill C-40, on the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-10, on mandatory and minimum penalties; the Senate amendment to Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, if we can get everyone's agreement on that to move quickly; Bill C-27, on dangerous offenders; and Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, 2007.

Thursday, April 19 shall be the first allotted day in this supply period.

The Liberal House leader continues to make comments about moving quickly today. I wish he had been over there in the Senate talking to his Senate friends for the past six months while we were waiting. Perhaps while he is busying hurrying things up he can go and talk to the senators about Bill S-4.

I have a motion that I would like to make at this time.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the remaining debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, April 18, at the end of government orders; and notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), government orders shall conclude today at 5:30 p.m.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, March 29th, 2007]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 30, marks the 10 month anniversary of the introduction of the Senate term limits bill, but after six months of delay and obstruction in the unelected Liberal Senate, we had a glimmer of hope.

A new Liberal leader was chosen and he said he supported term limits. Later he said, “Do not worry, I will get it done. The Liberal Senators will pass the bill”.

It turns out he did not get it done. The bill is still, after 10 months, mired at committee in the Senate. It is the same old Liberal story: promise it, talk about it, but just cannot get it done.

[Minister of Public Safety, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very old story.

If the member is worried about people who have engaged in acts of inducing people to give up their office, perhaps he could talk to his own leader who, in order for him to have a seat in the House of Commons, the previous MP was given a seat in the Senate. It sounds like an inducement.

[An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion is in relation to Bill S-3. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act, a member from each recognized party may speak for not more than 10 minutes, following which the said bill shall be deemed read a 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 the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[An Act to Amend Certain Acts in Relation to DNA Identification, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for two different motions. The first motion is in relation to Bill C-18. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be deemed to have been amended at the report stage as proposed in the report stage motion in the name of the Minister of Justice on today's Notice Paper, be deemed concurred in at report stage and amended and deemed read a third time and passed.

[Government Appointments, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the member's question. We made it quite clear that no appointment was offered by this government and no appointment was given by this government. Perhaps he would like there to have been an appointment offered.

I think usually a scandal results from an appointment, not from the failure to offer an appointment.