Vic Toews

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Yes indeed, as my colleague from Newton—North Delta, one of the prime movers of the motion, says, the Liberals campaigned on that in 1993. I want to thank him for the incredible work he has done on behalf of his constituents who are directly involved in this. However he would not suggest that this is a private matter between the families and the Minister of Public Safety. I think he would be one of the first to stand and say that a public inquiry is in the national interest.

I want to thank that member for the leadership he has shown in that respect. The people, not just his particular riding but in Surrey generally, should thank him for the leadership he has shown.

A former leader, John Turner, led calls in the House of Commons in 1988 for a royal commission to look into the disaster.

In 1994, the solicitor general at the time, Herb Gray, said, “I would like to keep the idea of a royal commission under consideration”. He was responding to a Toronto Liberal MP, John Nunziata, who was urging a public inquiry.

Now Mr. Gray was known as the “grey fog”. That would be about the closest that man ever came to making a commitment in this House. I think it should be given some weight that he actually said he would like to keep the idea of a royal commission under consideration. That is as firm a commitment as one would ever get from that hon. member and I think the Liberals should take that under consideration.

There are so many compelling reasons to commence a public inquiry into the Air-India disaster and absolutely no reasons to refuse one.

Three hundred and twenty-nine people lost their lives when a plane flying from Vancouver was bombed by terrorists. The acquittal by the British Columbia judge brought no closure to the victims' families and no closure to that issue insofar as the opposition parties are concerned, the Conservative Party specifically, and the member for Newton—North Delta.

I want to stand with the member for Newton—North Delta and say that the families of the victims and Canadians need answers on the investigation of the crime and on the crime itself. Although the MPs on the other side of the House called for an inquiry when they were in opposition, they now refuse to be accountable to Canadians on this matter.

I want to encourage all members on the other side to defend the victims of this terrorist act, to defend the integrity of the justice system in Canada and to support the motion to ensure that justice is finally done.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the official opposition motion calling for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India disaster of June 23, 1985. Although the disaster occurred over 20 years ago, Canadians still feel the profound horror that this crime created as the single worst terrorist act to affect Canadian citizens in the history of our nation. This terrorist act was not only a crime against those who died in the aircraft, nor only against their families, or even the entire East Indian communities in Canada. The scope of this crime reached every home in Canada.

Terrorism by its nature is a coercive method of intimidation that leaves no citizen free of its force. Therefore, we must not see this terrorist act as a crime in isolation from the rest of society. This is not a crime that simply happened against a specific ethnic community or a group of families.

After the accused in this case were acquitted, the Leader of the Opposition called on the government of British Columbia to closely examine the ruling to determine whether there were avenues for appeal. Failing an appeal, the serious questions that have been raised about the investigation into the bombing deserve to be answered. The Conservative Party believes that the best mechanism to do this would be through an inquiry.

On June 22, 1985 Air-India flight 182 exploded off the coast of Ireland killing 329 people. The majority of the victims were Canadians. Less than an hour earlier, another bomb had exploded at Tokyo's Narita airport killing two baggage handlers. For the next 15 years the Air-India investigation languished, with the exception of the 1991 conviction of Mr. Reyat in the Narita bombing case. Police presented evidence linking components of the bomb remains found in Tokyo with items that Reyat had purchased in the preceding weeks, among them a Sanyo stereo tuner that police believe housed the Narita bomb. Mr. Reyat served 10 years for manslaughter in the deaths of the two baggage handlers at the Tokyo airport.

In October 2000, charges were laid against two individuals. They were charged with murder, attempted murder and conspiracy. On June 4, 2001 the British government agreed to allow Canadian authorities to charge Mr. Reyat in connection with the bombing. As a British citizen already extradited to Canada for his trial on the Narita charges, Britain had to agree before these further charges could go ahead.

After the British courts approved the waiver of extradition rights, the RCMP formally arrested Mr. Reyat on seven new charges, including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy in the Air-India bombing and the explosion at Tokyo's Narita airport.

On February 10, 2003 in a dramatic turn of events, Reyat changed his story. He pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and a charge of aiding in the construction of a bomb. All other charges against him, including the murder of 329 people, were stayed and he was sentenced to five years in jail for his role.

On April 28, 2003 the trials of Mr. Malik and Mr. Bagri began. The testimony, presentation of evidence and arguments lasted until December 3, 2004, just over 19 months.

Why is an inquiry necessary? There have been allegations that the RCMP and CSIS bungled the investigation. It is very important to remember that these are national police forces. Even though the British Columbia government and the attorney general's department there prosecuted, these are national police forces. There were allegations that somehow the RCMP and CSIS had bungled the investigation. There were also allegations centred around the government's lack of action in the face of apparent knowledge of impending attacks by Sikh extremists and knowledge of the perpetrators themselves.

The investigation and the prosecution of the accused have been the longest, most complicated and most expensive in Canadian history. It is estimated that the costs are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $130 million.

The legal process has been agonizingly slow for relatives of the victims. The trial faced one setback after another.

The RCMP's key suspect, a Mr. Parmar, died in 1992 under suspicious circumstances, the result of an alleged gun battle with the Indian police. Problems with defence counsel forced the trial to be postponed twice. Some witnesses are in the police protection program, unable to live in their cultural communities. Reporters covering the story at trial were harassed and had death threats issued against them.

Families of the victims have said that the only way for the government to rectify what they see as a second tragedy is to convene an inquiry. The public safety minister has said that she would have to be convinced that there is anything to be gained from a public inquiry, although she at least acknowledged that she would have to review the judgment and speak to the attorney general of British Columbia before commenting further.

The minister also did offer to meet with family members of the Air-India bombing victims to explain how investigative and intelligence gathering operations have improved since the bombing.

There is a fundamental flaw with that approach. There is somehow the idea that the victims and the families are the only ones involved. That is simply a poor way to proceed. It misinterprets the fundamental nature of an act of terrorism against a nation itself. It may well have been that the victims were mainly East Indian, but that is like suggesting that after 9/11 the American attorney general would only meet with the families of those individuals who were actually in the buildings that were hit by the airplanes. That is simply not a satisfactory resolution. This is a national issue. It is not one that is a private matter between a minister and the families. I do not believe that the families would be satisfied with simply having a visit with the minister.

The minister did offer to meet with the families, but clearly that is not an appropriate way of dealing with a matter that affects not only the families, but the nation as a whole. These meetings would not be in public and the scope of terrorism is not limited to these families. All Canadians deserve to know what happened and what went wrong in this investigation. As well, the scope of the inquiry would be much broader than simply the criminal investigation and the evidence presented at trial.

As we know, at a criminal trial the evidence is tailored to prove the guilt or innocence of a particular accused. There is all kinds of evidence that simply is not relevant. There are a number of constitutional and evidentiary reasons why that evidence could not be brought forward in the actual trial.

The public inquiry could consider some of the evidence that was already provided. We do not necessarily have to re-hear from all of those witnesses, but some independent fact finder looking at this issue, looking at the public inquiry, should take a look at the evidence given at the criminal trial, plus the much broader scope that individual would have in having a public inquiry.

Furthermore, with an inquiry we simply do not look at the evidence related to the substantive act of terrorism as is the case here. What the inquiry could also do is take a look at the investigation itself to determine the shortcomings. The government owes it to the RCMP and owes it to CSIS to bring forward what their involvement was and whether or not they did everything possible in the circumstances.

No one is suggesting that this was an easy case to either investigate or prosecute. Indeed, the judge himself would have had many difficult decisions to make during the course of the criminal trial.

However the public inquiry could look at the investigation and at least satisfy Canadians that the investigators and the relevant government agencies, whether provincial or federal, did what was prudent and necessary in the circumstances. If they did not do what was prudent and necessary, the inquiry could make recommendations to ensure that those problems have been addressed or should be addressed. If there were problems in the investigation, I would hope that over the last 20 years CSIS or the RCMP have improved their procedures, which is what Canadians need to know in the aftermath of the criminal trial.

In addition to the opposition parties, the Canadian public and the victims' families, there are many others who support an inquiry into this matter. Even the health minister, who was the former British Columbia attorney general, did not rule out an inquiry. Specifically, he said, “Let's await the outcome of any appeal or appeals. Once that is exhausted if it would serve a useful purpose we'll certainly take a look at it”.

That is not necessarily encouraging in terms of him being onside of a public inquiry but, unlike the public safety minister, he has not closed the door to that. He is no doubt sensitive to the fact that he comes from the community where many of those families and others were affected by the tragedy.

On CTVs Question Period on March 20, 2005, he said, “Well I want you to know that I don't think anyone has ruled out an inquiry”.

The health minister is not the only one from the government benches saying this. Some have gone further and have offered their full support for an inquiry. The Liberal MP for Edmonton--Mill Woods--Beaumont, who wrote the book Betrayal: The Spy Canada Abandoned about the links between a Canadian spy and an Indian plot for a second terrorist bombing, told the Hill Times last week that the government should hold a public inquiry.

Senator Jaffer, in a CP wire story from March 23, 2005, said that “her government should do the right thing and launch a public inquiry so that all Canadians can know how and why justice failed to convict those responsible after so long”.

I am suggesting that her test here is a little wrong because it is not to say why justice failed to convict any specific individuals. I think the purpose of the public inquiry is to put the facts on the table.

A former Liberal cabinet minister, Herb Dhaliwal, who sat in the House with us, has spoken out the most strongly by saying that it would be “a betrayal of years old Liberal promises if the government refused to hold an inquiry”. He further said that “the public safety minister's offer to meet with victims' families to explain how police intelligence procedures have changed since the bombing is absolutely not enough”. This was quoted in the Globe and Mail in March 2005.

Clearly it is not enough to explain this to the families. Canadians have a right to know whether there were failings in the police investigation and whether they have been addressed, to what extent they have been addressed and to what extent they have not been addressed.

Although the public safety minister has all but closed the door to an inquiry, Mr. Dhaliwal said, correctly, that the Liberals will be breaking a promise that dates back to the 1980s if they fail to call one.

It might be said that Liberals have broken promises before but whether that is correct I think the record is clear. They made a specific promise to call the inquiry and they are under a moral obligation to to do that.

[Sponsorship Program, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Brault flowed sponsorship money through his corporation which landed up in the pockets of the Liberal Party. Jean Brault donated over $1 million to the Liberal Party, all donated under the table. Will this government commit itself to returning every cent today?

[Sponsorship Program, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is now public. We know that misappropriated sponsorship money funded the Liberal campaigns in 1997 and 2000. Jean Brault said he knew that sponsorship money his company received was to go to the Liberal Party.

Will the Liberal Party and the government commit today that every dollar taken will be returned forthwith?

[Judicial Reform, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, from all reports, it is a promise made and a promise broken, which is the only consistent pattern with the Liberal government. Whether it is Senate reform or the appointment of judges, the Prime Minister has broken his word on curing the democratic deficit.

Why does the Prime Minister think that it is only his opinion that matters when it comes to appointing Supreme Court judges for all of Canada?

[Judicial Reform, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the last election, the government promised that MPs would have a substantive say in the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

The election has come and gone and from all reports so has the Liberal promise of judicial appointment reform.

Why does the Prime Minister think that curing the democratic deficit is only for leadership or election campaigns?

[Sponsorship Program, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Lafleur Communications received millions of tax dollars in a money for nothing contract scheme under the sponsorship program. Lafleur then kicked back $97,000 of that money to the Liberal Party of Canada.

This is not a difficult issue. The money trail is clear. A lawsuit could be helpful, but why would the Prime Minister not simply pick up the phone and ask his friends in the Liberal Party to give the money back to Canadian taxpayers?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the matter off Bill C-38. I have made it clear in the course of debate that I personally support the traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Heterosexual marriage has a unique social purpose that other relationships simply do not share. This statement is based on information that the justice committee heard last year, describing the functions of marriage as a heterosexual institution in various contexts, legal, economic, social anthropological and historical. To fundamentally alter the nature and the function of heterosexual marriage is something that is simply not supported by the evidence.

We can all agree that the societal shifts that will results from the statutory recognition of marriage between two people of the same sex are potentially enormous. Even the most strident proponents of same sex marriage have acknowledged as much. As McGill scholar, Dr. Daniel Cere said in his committee testimony:

The proposal to delete heterosexuality from the definition of marriage will change the internal meaning of this institution...will inevitably affect the identity of those who are shaped and sustained by this institution.

Dr. Cere cautioned the committee in proceeding with the legislation for several reasons, but as an academic, Dr. Cere made the following point:

It seems odd for jurists to be forging ahead with legal reconfigurations of marriage at such an early stage of debate. In the academy there has been little in the way of substantive response to this new body of argumentation and advocacy. Critical evaluation will eventually come, but perhaps too late as courts and legislatures are pushed to move.

Recent polling numbers from multiple national polling firms suggest that two-thirds of Canadians do not support redefining traditional marriage. The same Canadians however do, for the most part, support the legal recognition of same sex unions. This is precisely the reasonable compromise position that the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party have taken. Yet the Prime Minister continues to attack our leader and our party, suggesting that somehow our refusal to endorse the government position is un-Canadian.

The current Liberal argument that this is purely a matter of human rights is, at best, one side of a legal opinion and, at worst, a cynical attempt to intimidate Canadians into supporting the government's legislation. For some to imply that those who believe otherwise are somehow not worthy of participating in the debate is an insult to Canadians and to Canadian values.

By refusing to appeal the lower court decisions on same sex marriage, the Liberal government irresponsibly set up the stage for the domino effect of the subsequent lower court rulings and the patchwork of laws currently in place across the country.

The strategy of the Prime Minister was clear. His strategy was simply to get the marriage question off the agenda during last year's election. However, his secondary strategy of asking the appointed judiciary to determine the future of marriage in Canada and therefore allow the Liberal Party to escape political responsibility for their policy choice in this respect was a decided failure.

Last December, the issue of marriage was unceremoniously dumped back into the lap of the government. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to be played for a political fool on this issue and refused to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. While Liberal MPs continue to perpetuate the myth that the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of traditional marriage, it quite clearly has done no such thing.

Because the Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause to override any such decision. Therefore, the Conservative Party intends to legislate, for the first time, the traditional definition of marriage and, at the same time, move to provide legal recognition for those in same sex unions. This will be done on the basis of a free vote, unlike the broken promise of the Prime Minister.

However, what if there is a majority of members in the House who mistakenly vote to change the definition of marriage? We in the Conservative Party are committed to bringing forward amendments to protect religious freedom insofar as it is possible from the perspective of federal legislation.

One issue that must be addressed is the fact that the Minister of Justice has simply recycled an unconstitutional provision to protect religious freedom. Let me be perfectly clear. There are absolutely no legal protections in the bill for freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. Whether this provision was intended to be simply declaratory or not, the one thing that the Supreme Court of Canada has been absolutely clear about in the reference is that the provision that the Liberals are putting into the bill is unconstitutional beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to enact.

The Prime Minister continues to promise that he will invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect religious freedom for clergy. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to give the federal government authority to legislate in provincial matters where it has no such authority. Again, another empty promise by the Prime Minister.

On three counts, the government has sought to mislead Canadian citizens. First, that the Supreme Court of Canada has in fact determined the definition of marriage when it has done no such thing. Second, it has also misled Canadians on the fact that the provision on religious freedom protects religious freedoms. Third, the Prime Minister has misled Canadians in saying that he will use the notwithstanding clause to protect religious freedoms when he in fact knows that it is beyond his jurisdiction to do that.

This is all in the context of the Deputy Prime Minister along with the Prime Minister, the former prime minister, the former minister of justice who initiated this legislation and the majority of the Liberal caucus all voted in 1999 in favour of taking all necessary steps to retain the traditional definition of marriage. Yet they did not even take the minimum steps necessary to appeal the decision. They have broken their word to Canadians in the past and there is no reason to believe on their past record that they will take any steps to protect religious freedom in this country.

As I have stated before on previous occasions, while there are individual exceptions, there has been a consistent pattern of equality rights prevailing over the rights of religious freedom and conscience, both in charter cases and cases brought before human rights tribunals. Furthermore, this proposed change is continuing to have a chilling effect on the exercise of religious freedom in the country.

Last month I received an e-mail from a person who conducts a marriage class as part of a church organization. This person was frightened to put the course on because if she advertised the course in the community as a course on marriage, given that the church's position was in support of the traditional definition of marriage, she feared the church would be brought in front of the Human Rights Commission if the course did not admit a homosexual couple. Given the current human rights decisions in this country, she is absolutely right in her concern.

Provided that the exercise of religious freedom remains within the four corners of the church and its immediate membership, then we could have religious freedom in the country, that is if we remain in a religious ghetto. However, if there is a broader appeal to the community, then we are in danger of running afoul of our human rights laws.

For the government to suggest that somehow, as its ministers have done, that those with religious beliefs or that religious organizations have no place in social policy debates, reflects a disturbing trend that is not dissimilar from the totalitarian regimes that many Canadians and their families fled in coming to this country.

I recall specifically the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who basically said that there was no place for the church and religious organizations in the public debate on same sex marriage. This is simply unacceptable. The concept of the separation of church and state is to protect religion, not to allow the state to coerce religious organizations.

I ask members to think very clearly and carefully about this bill that poses so many dangers and risks to the real practice of freedom and real human rights in this country.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

It is because they are socialists in Saskatchewan.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

They have all left for Alberta.