Peter Van Loan

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to appointing the finest judges in terms of merit and legal excellence. Part of doing that is having a judicial advisory committee that is composed of quality people, all of whom I might add, are serving at no cost to the taxpayers, as volunteers.

They are serving as volunteers for the benefit of all Canadians.

They are doing this with a mind to putting on the bench the very best people possible. When we look at the people that we have coming forward to serve in this role, one sees they are indeed people who all Canadians can be confident will do a fine job.

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is very clear. We want safer communities and streets for Canadian families. In terms of the judicial system and how our country works, Canadians are clear. They want a Parliament that passes laws and they want a judiciary that is independent, interprets those laws and applies the laws. Everything we are doing is designed to achieve that objective.

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are maintaining the balance, but we certainly remember when the Liberals were in power. There were phone calls to the Liberal Party's chief organizer for consultations concerning appointments. The Liberals never questioned the fact that their colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal—Minister of Justice, at that time—appointed Yves de Montigny, his chief of staff, as a Federal Court judge. That is interesting.

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government will continue to appoint judges based on merit and legal excellence with input from a broad range of stakeholders. In fact, as is known, the government has announced that it is getting representatives from the law enforcement community.

It is odd that the Leader of the Opposition would consider members of the law enforcement community to be rigid ideologues. We happen to believe they are people who know something about the justice system and have something to add. We think it is a good thing that they are being added to the judicial appointment process.

[Chief Electoral Officer, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, biographical notes of Mr. Marc Mayrand, who the government is proposing to be appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer.

Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), this matter is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to have the Minister of Indian Affairs get back to the member on that question.

[Business of the House, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the statutory order concerning the Anti-terrorism Act. That is for the extension of its provisions.

Next week will be justice week, when the government will showcase part of its safer streets agenda, starting on Monday with the continuation of the debate on the Anti-terrorism Act if it is not completed on Friday.

On Tuesday we plan to begin debate on Bill C-35, which deals with bail reform, and on Wednesday we will resume debate on the second reading stage of the dangerous offenders legislation, Bill C-27.

Thursday, February 15 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum penalties, on the assumption that the justice committee can have it to the House by that time.

For each day, we will have the following business scheduled as backup bills: Bill C-31, the voter integrity legislation; Bill C-44, relating to human rights; Bill C-11, on transport; and Bill C-33, the technical income tax act.

I will be working closely with my counterpart in the Senate with respect to progress on Bill S-4 or, as we keep hearing, the lack of progress.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a strong, effective and responsible government must speak with one voice, whether it be in the Senate or the House of Commons. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate cannot present the same position on Bill S-4 is further evidence that the Liberals are currently not fit to govern. I certainly would like the opportunity for this House to deal with that bill.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today is day 254 since the bill to limit Senate terms to eight years was introduced in the Senate.

On May 8, 2006, the current leader of the Liberal Party stated to the Canadian press that he supported term limits, if members can believe it, but last week the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate described the role of senators as follows:

You are appointed. You're not accountable.

That is the attitude of the Liberal Party. I am not surprised. It has been the attitude of the Liberal Party for some time.

We have a very different view. That is why we brought in accountability. I would challenge the leader of the Liberal Party to call his--

[Travel Expenses, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe when the member for Churchill asked me a question, I responded with some information about travel expenses of the now Liberal leader when he was minister of the environment, actually his chief of staff, that were apparently for improper purposes; travel with the minister for electoral campaign was the stated purpose. I would be happy to table that.

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was anything unparliamentary in any of the language that was used and I would invite the Speaker to tell me otherwise.