Peter Van Loan

[Privilege, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I heard the opposition House leader actually raising a question of privilege that did not relate to himself, and I understand that is not the way in which questions of privilege are to be raised in this House. Second, it is a very unusual question of privilege relating to something that was not said and that is particularly unusual.

I however would like to raise a question of privilege about something that was in fact said by the member for Wascana and therefore is very much in order, and that is his comments today where he accused the Prime Minister in fact of being deceitful.

As the Speaker well knows and all member of this House know, that is unparliamentary. On February 23, 1970 at page 3953 of Hansard and on May 19, 1970 at page 7087 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will find that it was ruled unparliamentary to accuse another member of being deceitful.

All of us who were here heard those words actually spoken by the member for Wascana, and therefore he should withdraw those words and apologize to the House.

[The Prime Minister, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again the member is talking about something that he is supposing we were about to say. Had it been said, I suppose opposition members could explain the article themselves. They had an opportunity to do that on the public record. They still have the opportunity to explain it and I do not wish to deny that to them.

The real issue is that this is a diversion. The real issue is that the big question of the day is the serious question of the Anti-terrorism Act and the risk that Canadians are being put at because the Liberals are pulling their support for those important public security measures.

[The Prime Minister, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no less partisan issue in the House than the question of the extension of the Anti-terrorism Act provisions. Hundreds of Canadians have lost their lives in terrorist acts. All Canadians are at risk should these provisions not be extended.

The question is not the issue that the Liberals are trying to divert us to today. The question is why the Liberals will not look at reversing themselves on this. Why have they flip-flopped on it? Why are they willing to give up those protections? Canadians need that explained to them.

[The Prime Minister, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I respect what the hon. member said about decorum. It would be nice to have a little in the House so we could deal with these issues.

However, it is a very odd situation. We are being asked to apologize for something that was about to happen. I think the Liberals should apologize for what they are about to do in terms of the Anti-terrorism Act.

The problem that is facing Canadians is a very serious one and it is not a question of games in the House of Commons. It is not a question of who is calling each other names or that kind of thing. It is a question of the security of Canadians. It is a very serious and profound question. The Liberals may be trying to dodge and divert, but the fundamental issue remains.

[The Prime Minister, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are getting into the realm of points of order here. I think the member may wish to raise those at the appropriate time.

I was in the House and I did not hear any allegation made. I know there was an effort to read an article. I often hear that being done by members on the other side.

However, the real question is why the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, with all the things he has said about the dangers of terrorism in this world and all the positions he has taken, which are far more aggressive than the Anti-terrorism Act, has now joined his leader in flip-flopping on this issue and wanting to oppose the Anti-terrorism Act protections that Canadians need to rely on.

[Canada Elections Act, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, while this amendment did not come from the government and the government opposed it at committee, we chose to no longer do that.

However, I should make it clear that in appearing before the committee on June 14, 2006, the Privacy Commissioner did agree that the measure would not be in contravention of the Privacy Act and that it was a matter for parliamentarians to decide, which they did.

[Canada Elections Act, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when this matter was debated at committee an amendment was put forward by the opposition parties, supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, to include the birthdates on the lists that were being provided. That amendment was actually opposed by members of the Conservative government.

However, it is very important, for the integrity of legislation, that it not proceed on a multi-partisan basis and, on that basis, we chose to no longer oppose it when it came back to this House so we could maintain that multi-level party support.

[Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that Liberal ministers did and it is something they worked very hard at, and that was spending money.

In fact, in the first quarter of 2005, this minister's counterpart spent $96,000 on travel while this minister spent $10,000 on travel in the comparable quarter.

In the second quarter, the Liberal minister spent $61,410 in travel while this minister spent $10,243 in the comparable quarter.

While we are at it, in addition to that money the Liberals spent, perhaps the members of the Liberal Party could tell us where all that sponsorship money went.

[Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there would be a lot more money to help out with the immigration system and immigration settlement if the minister's predecessors had not spent $247,308 in the last year of the Liberal government. That is $247,308 in travel expenses compared with $32,500 by the minister; seven and a half times as much. Now we know where all the money went.

[Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been working very hard on behalf of Canadians and a lot more frugally than her predecessor Liberal ministers. In fact, her predecessors in the Liberal government spent seven and a half times as much as her on their personal expenses. It is unbelievable.

What is more, she is not like the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country who, after the 2004 election, was given a taxpayer funded trip to Kabul by the Liberal government.