Vic Toews

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2003]

If the Chair chooses to cut me off, Mr. Speaker, I cannot stop that, but I do think that my constituents are entitled to be heard in the House. There was a ruling by the clerk's office, there has not been a Speaker's ruling, and I will speak until you cut me off and I will stay to the point.

Once the amendment to paragraph 319(3)(b) is in order then it follows that the remainder of those amendments that I also brought forward are in order from a procedural and scope point of view. Why can one amendment to paragraph 319(3)(b) be considered proper within the scope when the remaining paragraphs cannot? There is no justifiable reason. I direct the Chair's attention to those particular sections.

Why can that distinction be made in respect of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River so as to include them and to exclude all four amendments that deal with a significant issue? Even if some of the other paragraphs were not in order, my proposed paragraph (b) is in order and the Chair has the power to include that paragraph on its own. There is no appropriate distinction to exclude paragraphs (a), (c), or (d) of my proposed amendment.

As recognized by the Clerk's office in accepting amendments 319 and 320, all of sections 318, 319 and 320 would be affected substantively by Bill C-250. The definition of “identifiable group” impacts on the interpretation of all three sections. My proposed amendments that have been accepted seek to amend 319 and 320, and they have been ruled in order. The proposed--

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, these are matters of significant importance to my constituents and to many people in Canada. I have been very clear in where I am going. I have written out my speech and know exactly where I am going. These are all essential elements of my argument and to take a part away would be to destroy that argument, and destroy your ability to make an appropriate decision in this particular case.

I state that with all due respect and I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you made the ruling beforehand that this would not take away from private members'. That was not the same right that was afforded to me in committee when the member who sponsored the bill filibustered and allowed no one else to speak. To now put allegations on the record, as he has done, saying I did not bring forward a motion or amendment is simply wrong. I brought forward an amendment and a motion to consider this particular issue. But that is typical of the member's conduct in committee and in the House.

On the amendments that I brought forward, the clerk's office ruled that those amendments that would seek to amend subsections 319(6) and 320(8) respectively were in order. We are not just talking about section 318, we are also talking about sections 319 and 320. A discussion and the scope of sections 318, 319 and 320 is in order.

I am speaking from the clerk's point of view, not a substantive discussion of the issues raised. What is the difference between the amendments put forth by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and mine regarding subsection 319(3)? There is no substantive way of distinguishing the amendment of paragraph 319(3)(b) brought by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and the amendment that I proposed to paragraph 319(3)(b). The rules have been applied inconsistently in favour of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and against mine.

There is no substantive difference or reason why that distinction can be made and I brought forward that amendment. I already read the substantive code section and I read the section put by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River. My amendment to paragraph 319(3)(b) stated:

(b) if the person expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion or a belief on a religious subject or text;

That is more condensed than that which was put by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River and yet his amendment was deemed to be in order. There is no substantive difference or reason why that distinction was made in favour of his amendment and against my amendment.

Once the amendment to paragraph 319(3)(b) is in order, then it follows that the remainder of the amendments that I also brought forward are also in order from a procedural and scope point of view.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you admonishing the member. He certainly was out of turn in committee. I sat patiently listening to him. I will sit and listen patiently to him when he puts his speech forward.

The clerk's office recognized the inter-relationship between sections 318, 319 and 320 when it allowed the member for Scarborough—Rouge River an amendment regarding paragraph 319(3)(b). That amendment seeks to amend one paragraph in a list of four in section 319.

I refer the Speaker to the amendment. The amendment states:

Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) if, in good faith the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

That is a very significant amendment. There is also the phrase, which in the context of religion has a very significant connotation, “in good faith”. That is a significant phrase. We then have a judge who will look at this particular section and ask whether the individual had good faith.

I now want to talk about my particular amendment. My amendment sought to amend one paragraph in a list of four in section 319. Indeed, in the amendments--

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-250.

Over the course of the past several months my office, and I think every member of Parliament's office, has been flooded with mail from Canadians who are quite concerned about Bill C-250, which will have negative consequences on their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I brought forward a number of amendments to the bill in order to address those concerns. Unfortunately, because the member who sponsored this bill chose to filibuster in committee rather than consider the substantive issues, we were unable to address those issues at committee.

Unfortunately some of the amendments that I have brought forward, indeed some of the more significant ones, have been ruled out of order by the clerk's office and I simply cannot understand the rationale for the clerk's decision.

Bill C-250 deals with an amendment to section 318(4) of the Criminal Code, the definition of “identifiable group”. It reads:

In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

Because of the application of that definition to not only section 318, but sections 319 and 320, all of these three sections are impacted. This is not simply a consideration of section 318.

If we go to section 319, for example, subsection (7) states “'identifiable group' has the same meaning as in section 318”.

The terms and the ideas used throughout those three clause are very closely interrelated. They could have simply put all of them in one clause and had separate categories. This in itself is a code. It is one code, sections 318, 319 and 320, because of the way it has been drafted.

As I understand it, these amendments came out of consideration and concern by the United Nations after the second world war and the genocide that was--

[Privilege, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect to the answer of the Solicitor General to the question of the member for Crowfoot. The Solicitor General specifically referenced a current trial and made certain comments in respect to that trial. As a former provincial attorney general and a member of the House, I am very concerned that the comments of the Solicitor General may have prejudiced the fair trial of an accused.

I refer the House to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , by Marleau and Montpetit, at page 534, which states:

The sub judice convention is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person, or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry, from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.

I refer members also to page 535 where that is discussed further.

Because I do not want to repeat the comments, I would ask the Speaker to review the videotape and Hansard , review those comments and consider whether there is a prima facie matter of privilege vital to the public interest.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Air India bombing left over 300 people dead, most of them Canadians. The families of these victims deserve to know if there was a cover up within our government. As opposition leader the Prime Minister promised a public inquiry into this bombing. He and the Solicitor General must deliver on that promise.

Will he commit today to uncover the cover up and ensure that the truth comes out about the worst mass murder in Canada's history?

[Justice, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond dispute that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service destroyed tape recordings of intercepted telephone conversations of prime suspects in the 1985 Air India bombing case.

Why would CSIS, a government agency, destroy the very tapes crucial to the investigation? The question is compelling and it demands an answer. Will the Solicitor General order the public inquiry that the Prime Minister demanded when he was the opposition leader?

[Justice, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the question is the message that is being sent to our youth. That minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

While justice department lawyers are telling the Supreme Court of Canada that this drug is harmful, the minister's bill is telling the youth that drugs are okay. It is the government's responsibility to protect young people from harm, not to encourage it.

How can we expect the youth of this country to understand the dangers of drug use when the Minister of Justice is unwilling to send a clear message in a national drug strategy of the problems with drugs?

[Justice, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to Canada's frontline police officers, the new marijuana law will encourage drug trafficking among young people by implementing lower penalties and fewer consequences for drug use and possession.

How can young people believe the minister's claims that drugs are harmful when he is making it easier for them to use them? Why is the minister implementing a national drug strategy that tells Canadian youth it is okay to use drugs?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, it is no surprise, then, that two-thirds of Canadians think our judicial system is influenced by politics and they have lost faith in it. It was two-thirds in a recent poll.

On the maximum sentences the minister has pointed out in this context, presently we have maximum sentences for manslaughter as well. We have life imprisonment as a maximum. Yet we see courts consistently giving conditional sentences, house arrest, for manslaughter. People who kill children get house arrest. If we want to send out a message, let us make sure that the criminals hear the message and that judges realize this Parliament takes that crime seriously.

I agree that the bill is going in the right direction in recognizing this particular offence, but we can do better. If the minister asked the firefighters and the emergency personnel if they had a choice between raising the maximums to 14 years without a minimum and raising the maximums as well as putting in appropriate minimum prison sentences, is he suggesting that the volunteer sector, the emergency personnel sector and the firefighters would reject that? Is that what he is saying? That is simply not correct from what I know of what the firefighters and emergency personnel and police officers have been telling me.