Peter Van Loan

[Justice, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we get an answer from a minister that confirms we are right: Justice Gomery has no authority to look into the judge appointments.

The guy who ran Liberal headquarters has admitted that a Liberal loyalty litmus test was a regular step in the appointment of judges. He provided confirmation of candidates' Liberal credentials to the appointment council. This is a very serious matter with alarming implications. The Minister of Justice says it is up to somebody else to look into the matter of shocking admissions of political interference. Gomery is not allowed to inquire into it.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act and to do something to protect the independence of the courts?

[Justice, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the former director general of the Liberal Party has admitted that he was involved in the process of selecting judges by confirming candidates' allegiance to the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said he did not need to take any action because we already had the Gomery inquiry. The minister is well aware that Justice Gomery does not have the authority to investigate political interference in the process of appointing judges.

When is the Prime Minister going to take this scandal seriously and demand an inquiry?

[Justice, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister of Justice would take more seriously his obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary.

We now know that a step in the process of appointing judges is for a member of the supposedly non-partisan appointments committee to confirm with Liberal headquarters how much work nominees have done for the Liberal Party. This is a very serious matter, calling into question the independence of the judiciary. At a time when Canadians are looking to the courts to deliver justice to sponsorship players facing criminal charges, this news corrodes public confidence in the courts.

In light of these additional revelations, does the Prime Minister still deny that there was partisan involvement in the judicial appointment--

[Justice, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made with respect to the appointment of judges. The former director general of the Liberal Party has said he regularly received calls from a member of the judicial selection committee to find out whether candidates had done enough work for the party. When the answer was yes, the candidates were appointed judges.

Can the Minister of Justice tell Canadians whether he has called for an inquiry into these serious allegations?

[Government Appointments, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal definition of marriage is different from any I have ever heard.

The biggest difference between the Prime Minister and his predecessor is that the Prime Minister sends disgraced cabinet ministers to the Senate instead of Denmark.

He has endlessly been saying that Liberals implicated in the sponsorship scandal will be punished. If the Prime Minister awards Art Eggleton with a Senate appointment, is that the kind of punishment Liberal sponsorship offenders can look forward to?

How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to deal with sponsorship wrongdoing when he rewards those who break the rules?

[Government Appointments, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Art Eggleton was removed from cabinet for giving his girlfriend a questionable contract.

After losing his cabinet position, and then his seat in the House of Commons, Eggleton is now being rewarded with a comfy seat in the Senate.

Could this Prime Minister's ethics actually be worse than those of his predecessor?

How can we trust this Prime Minister to clean up the sponsorship scandal, if he continues to reward Liberals who break the rules?

[Sponsorship Program, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should talk to the transport minister.

Let us look at the government's track record and its disrespect for the inquiry process when the truth appears to implicate it.

The APEC inquiry was shut down when Jean Carle's name came up too often. The Somalia inquiry was shut down as well. The Krever commission was prevented from naming names. Now the Minister of Transport appears to have joined Jean Chrétien's campaign to shut down the Gomery commission.

Why does the Liberal Party push around commissions of inquiry with threats that they be may be shut down when the going starts to get rough?

[Sponsorship Program, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this government has launched a number of inquiries, but put a stop to them when it did not like the truth.

The inquiry on the APEC summit was stopped without any reason, because Jean Carle's name was surfacing too often. There is also the Somalia inquiry. Now, the Minister of Transport is using the same technique as his Liberal buddy, Jean Chrétien, to abolish the Gomery commission.

How does the Prime Minister explain his party's obsession with stopping inquiries that will further tarnish its reputation?

[Sponsorship Program, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that minister of the Crown seems to think that he is able to comment without any restraint on the evidence at the commission and I think that is contrary to what he directs at everyone else.

We now know that Richard Boudreault, who was a Groupaction employee, was clandestinely paid to work for the Liberal Party. He was put on the payroll of another firm, which then billed Groupaction with bogus invoices for fictitious services.

This was obviously a very sophisticated, carefully structured, systematic operation to use the taxpayers' money to finance the Liberal Party. How many people were paid using sponsorship funds to work for the Liberal Party?

[Sponsorship Program, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works is fond of casting doubts on the evidence at the Gomery commission, calling it mere allegation.

An elementary lesson: it is not allegation, it is evidence. It is sworn evidence given under oath. The giving of false evidence is a serious offence. It is called perjury. To imply that those witnesses are perjuring themselves is to comment seriously not only on the evidence but in a very negative way.

Will the Prime Minister order his Minister of Public Works to stop accusing witnesses of perjury or to at the very least stop commenting on the evidence in a fashion that bullies Gomery--