Peter Van Loan

[Minister of Public Safety, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the RCMP dealt with that matter many years ago. It is an old matter.

Perhaps while the opposition is concerned about these kinds of issues I could read this to the House:

“Ontario Grits paid candidate to step aside: $25,000 deal set up by MP after McGuinty ousted contestant”

Ontario Liberals paid $25,000 in compensation to nomination contestant David Merner after Premier Dalton McGuinty anointed Madeleine Meilleur as the provincial party's candidate in Ottawa-Vanier in 2003. According to Mr. Merner, the man who brokered the deal was a federal Liberal cabinet minister, the MP for the federal riding of Ottawa-Vanier.

Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask for his resignation today.

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is no news here. News reports and opposition questions have suggested that Canada had given no money to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

For example, an Ottawa Citizen article from March 19 reported: “Canada had earmarked just over $2,000 for the commission, but its report indicates that money was not disbursed”.

I felt obliged to reassure the House that this was simply not correct. The Canadian government had, as the member just pointed out, given the commission $1 million. That is a fact and that is what we told the House.

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very proud of the excellent work of our Minister of National Defence and I think most Canadians are very proud as well.

We have entered into an agreement that ensures that the independent human rights commission has the opportunity to investigate and report back to us on any reports or any questions on the treatment of detainees.

Of course, the original agreement with the Afghan government ensured that the International Committee of the Red Cross also had the same type of access. As a result, we are satisfied that the protection of detainees is ensured under the Geneva Convention.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks stand for themselves. I welcome the apparent conversion of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore whereby he is now embracing this notion that we must stand by the charter, but I will quote once more from the Edmonton Journal of May 9, 2004:

The siren song in any war on terror is “let slip the dogs of war. Let them hunt. Let them kill. Already, we have dogs salivating at the prospect.”

And then he goes on with his comment about herbivores and carnivores.

I have simply relied on the words that the member said, admittedly before he was a member of Parliament. If he wishes to say that his views have changed, I will fully accept that, but I have no intention of withdrawing comments that are obviously accurate in the context of what he has said, on which I relied.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore because he has said some other things that are very different, in fact, on which I based the very comments I made in the House. I am quite happy to provide these to the House.

In the Edmonton Journal on May 9, 2004 he said, “To defeat evil we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations“--I think that is torture--“targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war”.

Again in the Edmonton Journal on May 9, 2004 he said, “But defeating terror requires violence”. Violence; I think that is torture. “It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights”.

Then in the Toronto Star on May 5, 2004 he said, “Defeating terrorism requires violence. Putting the problem this way is not popular”. I suspect he feels that way right now. He continued, “But thinking about lesser evils is unavoidable. Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us”. Well, I think the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has demonstrated he is a pretty good carnivore.

[Business of the House, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the opposition House leader takes a very broad view of the definition of technical. However, we hope that Bill C-16 will progress and will be approved in a form that is appropriate and reasonable to approve and that we will have it here to deal with in the House quickly. That has not happened yet, however, and therefore today we are going to continue with the Liberal opposition motion and the business of supply.

Tomorrow we will continue debate on second reading of Bill C-35, which is the bail reform bill. This is one that has been the subject of positive words from the opposition, and we hope that we will be able to move to unanimous approval.

That would allow us to get on with other issues such as Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; Bill S-3, which deals with defence and justice matters; and Bill C-33, which is an Income Tax Act item.

On Monday, we will be having day three of the budget debate. On Tuesday, we will have the final day of the budget debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday we will continue with the unfinished business from this Friday, including hopefully, the addition of Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, which I know the opposition House leader will want to add to his package of justice bills he wishes to enthusiastically support.

On Friday, March 30 we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill.

I would like to designate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), Wednesday, March 28 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and Thursday, March 29 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

There is one further item that the opposition House leader raised which was the question of the labour bill. I believe he heard a very generous offer from the Minister of Labour today. I believe the ball is now in the opposition's court on this.

[Minister of Public Safety, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new here. The RCMP investigated this matter. It looked into all the things, which the member for Ajax—Pickering has alleged, and concluded that there was no wrongdoing.

I do not know what other RCMP investigations he wants reopened, perhaps into the income trust scandal or perhaps into Shawinigate. Perhaps Nancy Drew over there could put himself to good work for the taxpayers of Canada and find out where that missing $40 million from the Liberal sponsorship scandal went.

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are united when they are proud of our troops serving overseas. Canadians are united when they see a Canadian government standing up for human rights in China, which did not happen under the previous government. Canadians are proud of a government that has, as its cornerstone to its foreign policy, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is a commitment people will see from this government that they never saw from the Liberals.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to accept his resignation on behalf of the government and we encourage you to do the same.

After the member for Halton became an independent member, he held a town hall meeting in his riding to ask what he should do. Forty per cent of the people said that he should stay independent while others said that he should negotiate with the Conservative Party. Does the House know how many said that he should join the Liberal Party? Zero per cent.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is somebody who does not get it. I am surprised that the member for Halton is still here to ask questions, after all, back in February of 2006 he said, “I think anyone who crosses the floor should go back to the people for ratification”.

We want to help the member for Halton stand by his word and stand up to his principles. He can resign and we will call a byelection right away.