Vic Toews

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to the member's comments, an issue came to my mind which deals with the Canadian Wheat Board. I know he touched on that very generally, but I am always troubled about this issue. I know that in my riding there is a division among farmers about whether the Canadian Wheat Board is a good thing or a bad thing. There is some controversy in that respect.

My colleague indicated that he would feel very comfortable for any farmer who wants to market their grain under the Wheat Board to be able to do that. I had always understood, until I was educated by farmers in my riding, that the Canadian Wheat Board was the Canadian Wheat Board, but in fact what I find is that it is only the western Canadian Wheat Board and that in Ontario farmers operate under very different rules.

That is, in western Canada our farmers are forced to sell their wheat through the Wheat Board, whereas in Ontario farmers have a measure of freedom of choice where they can use the wheat board there as essentially some kind of marketing board. It is not compulsory and they are not sent to jail for selling their grain outside of that Ontario wheat board.

Why would a government take this difference to parts of the country? One would think that if the system is good in one area of the country it should also be good for the other. And why the penalties that attach to western Canadian farmers? This is something I simply do not understand. Perhaps the member can explain it to me.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to add some comments to the debate. Although my profession is not out of the agriculture business, I come from a rural riding that depends heavily on various sectors of agriculture, including supply management, grain, hogs and cattle. In many ways it is a microcosm of all of Canada. My farmers are struggling because of the unsatisfactory trade mechanisms in resolving international disputes.

One thing I do not understand, and perhaps many of my constituents do not understand, it this. Whether it is grain disputes, hog disputes, or even softwood lumber disputes because I have softwood lumber in the northern part of my riding, how can we ask our farmers, our producers to put up money at the border when the disputes have dragged on for years? Although they eventually get their money back, there is no financial disincentive for those objecting to the trade from making these complaints. How can we improve this?

[Human Rights, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians welcome those comments.

The government has failed to speak out on Chief Nelson's comments, despite his active role in Liberal politics in Manitoba. It simply wanted to ignore it. A clear government statement a week ago could have done more to tell Canadians about human rights than any hate crimes prosecution in the country.

I want to compliment the minister for his comments today, but why so late?

[Human Rights, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us follow the comments by the Minister of Public Works about just discrimination. Canadians of every ethnic background were horrified to hear the anti-Semitic comments of Liberal organizer Chief Nelson of Manitoba.

Anti-Semitic comments are not simply the concern of Jewish Canadians, they are a slur against all Canadians.

Chief Nelson has now apologized. Why has the government chosen to say nothing about the comments of Liberal organizer Chief Nelson? Is this just a just discrimination because Chief Nelson is a Liberal?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, his special counsel hands out cards with that name on it.

The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, has denounced the recent anti-Semitic remarks of Liberal organizer Chief Terrance Nelson of Manitoba. In his comments, Chief Nelson blamed native anger on the “Jewish controlled media” and specifically named the Asper family of Winnipeg and a Winnipeg broadcaster.

Why does the Prime Minister remain silent about racism when it comes to racist comments made by senior organizers of the Liberal Party of Manitoba?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice to denounce the horrible comments of his special counsel, Beryl Wajsman, who said that cultural communities have only two functions for the Liberal Party, as slaves during election campaigns and to buy fundraising tickets.

I ask the minister again, why have four days passed since these racist statements surfaced and he has still not condemned the statements of his special counsel?

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that last paragraph. The actions of our government over this past decade are a shameful reminder that the mere expression of lofty constitutional principles is not sufficient to prevent the corruption and abuse of our democratic institutions.

I, too, would invite Canadians to take a moment to mark this important anniversary. However, I would invite them not only to learn about the significance of section 15, but also to ponder the irony of marking this anniversary at a time when corruption has never been as evident.

I believe this disgraceful state of affairs is a clear reminder that ultimately it is not the words found in a constitutional document or the power of the judiciary that will ensure the continued growth of our democracy. The growth of our democracy and the assurance that Canada will take its rightful place as a world leader can only be accomplished through the determined will and actions of each individual citizen to hold its government accountable.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with others in the House today to mark the 20th anniversary of the coming into force of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beginning with Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights in 1960, and with the passing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 1982, there was a fundamental shift in the framework of our democracy. Instead of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures collectively having unlimited legislative power, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms restrained those legislative bodies from enacting legislation or taking action that would violate the principles set out in the charter.

In order to determine whether the activities of government contravene these principles, the charter assigned that responsibility to the judiciary. Section 15 of the charter, the equality provisions, provided the citizens of Canada with a constitutional mechanism that required governments to enact laws and carry out their activities in a way that promoted human rights and protected the people of Canada from unwarranted interference by government. Its purpose is to prevent governments from carrying out activities or making laws that make inappropriate distinctions in respect of the people it serves.

This provision came into force three years later than the rest of the charter in order to provide legislative bodies time to ensure that their practices and legislation complied with that provision. However, although the charter, and specifically section 15, has become a fundamental expression of Canadian values, it is important to note that constitutional documents are not a guarantee of ethical government.

And so it is that 23 years after the coming into force of the charter and 20 years after the coming into force of section 15, Canada is faced with an unprecedented example of our federal government abusing the trust of its people. Beginning with the findings of the Auditor General and the hearings of the public accounts committee last year, and continuing with the ongoing hearings of the Gomery commission, the Canadian people have seen the corrupt activities of its government, activities committed in a systemic and ongoing manner over the course of the decade, exposed for the entire world to see.

At the same time that our government was casting itself as a world leader in the promotion and protection of human rights, the sad truth is that its activities undermined the basic principles of a responsible democracy and the very principles set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The actions of our government over this past decade are a shameful reminder that the mere expression of lofty constitutional principles is not sufficient to prevent corruption and abuse in our democratic institutions--

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, then why will he not denounce those comments of that special counsel?

This week a senior Liberal organizer in Manitoba, Chief Terrance Nelson of the Roseau River Indian reserve stated that the David Ahenakew hate trial in Saskatoon was the fault of “Jewish controlled media”, naming specifically the Asper family of Winnipeg. Days have passed and the Prime Minister has said nothing to denounce these racist, anti-Semitic remarks by a member, worker and organizer in his party.

Why does the Prime Minister remain silent when a senior Liberal makes these comments about--

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that statement was entirely incorrect.

The special counsel for the Minister of Justice believes that cultural communities in this country should be seen and not heard. Beryl Wajsman in Le Devoir today said: “Every time the Liberal Party needs cultural communities it is for two reasons, as slaves during an election campaign, or to buy tickets”.

Will the Minister of Justice stand up and denounce these horrible comments, or is his special counsel simply telling the truth about Liberals?