Peter Van Loan

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows well that this government does not control the media in this country, anything but, and the issue he is talking about was written by respected journalists.

However, yesterday the Prime Minister clearly invited the hon. member and members of the opposition, if there were anything in that article that they wished to deny, to do that.

The main issue here is the lives that have been lost to terrorism. Over 350 Canadians lost their lives in the Air-India incident, one of the worst terrorist incidents in the history of the world. We need the tools to investigate those threats. We need the Liberals to vote for the anti-terrorist measures that they brought in themselves five years ago. We need them to support that legislation.

[Security Information, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government did no such thing. I believe the reference was to an article in The Vancouver Sun, which did not even get read in the House. If he has an issue, it is with The Vancouver Sun.

I would remind the member that in the reference he is making, the assertion is from a professor at the University of Ottawa, Errol Mendes, who has been a very significant contributor to the Liberal Party over the years.

[Security Certificates, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, how ironic to hear what the Liberal Party member is saying today.

In fact, his position has always been very much to the contrary. He has actually been a believer, unlike his leader, in the importance of protecting Canadians and their public security. I would encourage him to speak to his leader about that.

For example, at Royal Military College in 2001, he said:

Some people are arguing that we have not exhausted all such means, and it is important to be aware of something that has been forgotten in all the debate about 11 September. We must remind ourselves that normal tools of law and order — police investigation and prosecution of terror suspects — have been used and found wanting.

[Security Certificates, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it was the Liberal government that did nothing. Canada's new government thanks the Supreme Court of Canada for its ruling on security certificates. We have just learned the details of the decision. We will examine it closely.

Several decades ago, the security certificate process was brought in to protect Canadians from security threats.

The opposition parties are soft on terrorism and security. Our government remains focused on ensuring national security, collaborating with its partners to ensure the security of their—

[Security Certificates, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government takes very seriously the public security of Canadians. That is our number one priority.

With regard to today's decision, Canada's new government thanks the Supreme Court for its decision on security certificates. We have just received the new decision. The security certificate process has been in place for many decades and it was put in place to protect Canadians.

We will be reviewing that decision and, if we are confident we can, we will look for a way to reconcile the need to protect the security of Canadians with the directions to Parliament from the court to review this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the procedural motion on the strike, we would begin with this on the Friday. That would be an effort to set terms for the debate and if there were a consent by all parties, one could move very quickly. If that were not the case, one would have to respond otherwise. In terms of when we would actually get to the legislation itself, that would depend on the disposition of the procedural order.

I hope that satisfies the opposition House leader.

I once again ask that the motion regarding the procedural order on the Anti-terrorism Act be put at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will begin debate on the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation, to which the opposition House leader was referring. Also, we will have Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, following question period.

On Monday, we would like to conclude the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, which is very important for Canadians for public security reasons. We are also getting down to the deadline when certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset.

I have consulted with the other parties and I will propose a related motion at the end of my business statement.

Next week we will consider the following bills: Bill C-37, financial institutions; Bill C-41, competition; Bill C-11, transport; Bill S-3, defence; Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill C-36, Canada pension plan and old age security; Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties; and depending on developments regarding the railway strike, we may call the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation.

Thursday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

As I mentioned earlier, following discussions with the House leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion. I move:

Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, once the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act is called on Monday, February 26, and when no member rises to speak on debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act be deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at 5:30 p.m.

[Judicial Appointments, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to talk about their version of the much flaunted independence of the judiciary, as if there was no partisanship involved when they were in government.

In 2004 the Ottawa Citizen reported that since 2000 more than 60% of the 93 lawyers who received federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta donated exclusively to the Liberal Party in the three to five years prior to receiving appointments. I do not know how independent that was. I think they were all very good people, but it is a remarkable coincidence.

[Chief Electoral Officer, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, by prior agreement of all the House leaders and as was done the last time the House appointed a Chief Electoral Officer, I would seek the consent of the House to move a motion, which is seconded by the member for Wascana, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, and the member for Vancouver East. I move:

That, in accordance with section 13 of the Canada Elections Act, Chapter 9 of the Statutes of Canada, 2000, this House appoint Marc Mayrand as Chief Electoral Officer.

[Privilege, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply restate the point that I made. I did not hear any words spoken in this House. I did hear an article referenced. If the hon. member has a difficulty with what was actually in that article, words which were never spoken by any member of this House, then his remedy lies within the courts with that newspaper.