Vic Toews

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding where we not only have a lot of beef cattle, but we also have a lot of dairy cattle. Probably more than 50% of the dairy cattle in Manitoba comes from my riding. My colleague from the Bloc has mentioned significant issues with dairy.

However. when we look at this issue, it is an issue of relationships. It is a relationship that has had an opportunity to be mended. Yet we have not seen that decisive action by the government.

I know the particular crisis that occurred a few days ago in barring live cattle, which could have started flowing March 7, was as a direct result of a court injunction. However, what we also know is the senate in the United States voted against opening the border. It is not simply enough to say that this was in the hands of the courts and it was an independent organization. What the senate vote reflects is a failure by this government to actively and consistently lobby the U.S. senate and Congress to ensure the votes were there and that they understood Canadian beef was safe.

Does the member have anything to say about what else the Canadian government could be doing in getting those relationships working with the United States? We may be a sovereign nation, but we are not an island, and our trade depends on a good relationship with the United States.

[Marriage, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. In fact, that is the question the Supreme Court of Canada refused to answer. It sent it back to Parliament.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that his bill on same sex marriage would protect religious organizations. Yesterday, the Supreme Court told him that the bill's provisions about religious protection were outside the jurisdiction of Parliament.

How does the Prime Minister now intend to statutorily protect not only religious organizations, but also public officials with moral concerns about same sex marriages now that the Supreme Court of Canada has told him his--

[Marriage, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I hope after the Minister of Justice made his comments in the House yesterday, he went away and actually read the decision of the Supreme Court on same sex marriage. If he did, he would have found that the Supreme Court refused to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. In fact, it sent the matter back for Parliament to decide.

Will the justice minister stop misleading Canadians and acknowledge that the decision to implement same sex marriage is not a constitutional requirement, but a policy choice that the Liberals are making?

[Marriage, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the justice minister, that is a disgrace. He should read the decision. The Supreme Court also ruled that the provisions of the draft bill dealing with the protection of religious officials was outside Parliament's jurisdiction.

How does the government propose to protect not only religious officials, but also public officials, such as marriage commissioners who, for reasons of conscience, cannot support same sex marriage? What about public officials, not only religious officials?

[Marriage, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court of Canada refused to agree with the Prime Minister's position that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The court refused to answer the question and referred the matter back to Parliament.

Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians when he stated that the Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions on the issue of constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage?

Why does the Prime Minister continue to play politics with this important issue?

[Justice, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is that minister who is bringing in that outrageous legislation. He cannot pass the buck off to anybody else.

Despite the fact there are at least 10 qualified applicants for each position, the minister says he must boost the pay of judges to $240,000 in order to attract qualified judges. Supreme Court of Canada judges would receive $285,000. The chief justice would receive $308,000.

This proposal is an outrageous abuse of the public trust. Why will the minister not do the right thing?

[Justice, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Minister of Justice plans to give judges pay increases greater than the annual salary of many Canadians. This 11% pay raise is almost four times the Canadian average, far above any cost of living increase.

Can the Minister of Justice explain to Canadians why he believes judges deserve pay raises so far beyond that of other hard-working Canadians?

[Justice, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Liberal government changed the law to allow violent criminals such as rapists and child molesters to serve their sentences at home. As a result, victims are being re-victimized by these Liberal laws. For example, a judge recently sentenced a 47 year old man to two years of house arrest after a jury found him guilty of sexual assault against a minor.

When will the minister finally commit to eliminating house arrest for violent criminals?

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am very thankful for this opportunity to speak. Many of my constituents are of Ukrainian descent. Some came to this country almost 100 years ago while others are of more recent immigration.

Although I am not an ethnic Ukrainian, both of my parents were born in Ukraine. Indeed, my grandparents and countless members of my family and people were murdered by the Soviets during the last century, so in a small way, many years later, I feel personally connected to the potential tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine.

I received a letter from a person I will not name, but indeed he spent some years studying here in Canada and has now returned home to Ukraine to work. I would like to read portions of his letter to the House. He states:

My Dear Friends,

You have probably heard about the very heated situation in Ukraine. Ukraine is on the verge of Revolution. In the second round of presidential elections the figures were falsified and the nation was deceived. A pro-government candidate and the current government have openly rejected the will of the people, the will to choose.

Today in all the many cities of Ukraine people came out on the streets to protect their choice. [A] Majority of the Ukrainians believe their next president is, now, Viktor Yushenko. He is the man from the opposition. People believe that only he can lead Ukraine to the future. The western world supports him, where Russia supports the current prime minister of Ukraine.

I want to stop there for a moment while I am reading. I am not here to choose sides. I do not think any member of the House is here to choose sides in that election. That is a choice for Ukrainian people to make. I am simply reiterating the concern that this one individual is relating to the people of Canada.

He continues with his letter:

About 4 hours ago I have just returned from the 5-hour meeting that took place at the Kharkiv's Square of Freedom, the second largest square in Europe (some say the largest). The meeting was in support of Viktor Yushenko, whom I support too. We had about 100,000 people who protested against the false results of the elections. We know that this is a huge test of democracy for Ukrainians. In Kyiv the meeting is 24-hour-7 and has about 500,000 people all the time.

I think this corresponds to what my colleague across the way was just saying. The letter continues:

There are numerous meetings that have been taking place all over Ukraine [in] support of Viktor Yushenko.

With this letter I urgently request you to have a special day of prayers in your schools, churches, work places, homes. The situation in Ukraine is on the edge of catastrophe. The nation does not want to be subjected and deceived anymore. Ukraine says NO to thieves, criminals and corruption. Please uphold me and my people in your prayers. This is a very urgent cry to you, my friends. We have a chance to show the world that our democracy is not just on paper, but we need your prayers and your encouragement. I do not want to have another USSR, where we are told what to do and what to believe in.

Please follow the news and keep us in your mind. Tomorrow is another meeting to continue to protect our freedom. Help us God.

He concludes by saying “with sincere love to all of you”, and he writes from Kharkiv, Ukraine.

The western world for the most part stood silently by as the Soviets starved and butchered the inhabitants of Ukraine during the 20th century. Some from the western world, I am ashamed to say, were even apologists for that horrid regime.

The western world has the duty to ensure that a new totalitarian government does not take the place of the Soviet system. Canada must do everything it can to prevent this from happening.

First, we must not be silent the way the western world was silent in the early 20th century when so many people were murdered, when so many people starved to death in the breadbasket of the world, Ukraine.

Second, we must act. We must act diplomatically and Canada must be very clear where it stands on this issue.

I was so very pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary convey what this government's position is. We saw in the House today on this issue a very rare unanimous support of the government's position. I am proud that our government stood up and indicated where it stands.

We must act diplomatically, but secondly, if our concerns and our voice are not heard, we must act economically against an illegitimate government. We must ensure that the Ukrainian people have the right to make the choice to democratically elect their government.

We should not make the mistakes of the 20th century. Some say that time is past, that it will never happen again. Democracy and freedom are values that we take so for granted here in this country. We do not believe that democracy and our values cherishing freedoms will ever be compromised, but they can be, so we must stand with democratic forces across this world, across the globe. We must stand to tell those who want to destroy democracy in Ukraine that it will not happen again.

I am sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton. Those are my comments. I wish all the very best, God's richest blessings, to the people of Ukraine.

[Public Safety, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to provide sufficient resources for the RCMP in the province of Manitoba.

One of the major policing issues in rural Manitoba is that 35 of the 65 designated highway patrol officers have been transferred out of highway patrol, leaving only 30 RCMP highway patrol officers for the entire province. This often leaves accident scenes without police attendance and long stretches of major highways and the border without regular patrols.

At the same time there are also fewer officers to deal with other policing issues such as violent crime.

On behalf of the people of Provencher and across the province of Manitoba, I call upon the federal public safety minister to work with Manitoba's minister of justice to increase the number of police officers in the province to meet the demands of public safety.