Vic Toews

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the broom obviously swept the wrong way because they are all here. The Prime Minister has repeatedly embarrassed Canadians and members of our armed forces by failing to provide them with the necessary tools to do their—

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorist legislation demonstrates the failure of the Liberal government to take appropriate steps to keep terrorists out of Canada and to extradite them as quickly as possible once they are here. The years come and go, but the terrorists always remain.

Why has the government failed to bring forward the legislation needed to ensure that terrorists are extradited promptly?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in respect of this particular motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Lanark--Carleton.

I want to take two general approaches to the motion. First, I think the motion illustrates why there should be continued debate in the House on the bill.

I listened with care to the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. He did indeed work hard, as did all members on the justice committee. I am a member of the justice committee and we did listen very carefully to the evidence. We suggested amendments and amendments were made. A Canadian Alliance member brought forward an important amendment and I thank the Liberal members opposite for supporting it. We had extensive debate. One night the members sat until three o`clock in the morning.

However what goes on in committee is not what goes on in the House. Some members in the House did not have the opportunity to be at committee and to hear the minister's explanation, to hear the minister question witnesses or propose amendments. This is the time that members in the House can generally bring forward amendments, and that is what my colleague, the member for Lanark--Carleton, has done.

The amendment process illustrates the need for continued debate and assures members of the House that this is the best bill that can be brought forward to deal with this very troublesome and, yes, pressing issue.

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

This amendment is an important one in that line of amendments. Specifically, the provision for which amendment is sought creates a permanent embargo and secrecy in respect of a specific individual. I recognize there are valid national security concerns that require people with certain types of information to be embargoed from disclosing it.

I think we all accept that in the House. However, when we think about it, this is an embargo against that individual for the rest of his or her life. This is a significant limitation on the freedom of expression that all of us often take for granted.

The member is not proposing this specific amendment to jeopardize national security. Indeed, it is to respect it. The amendment would ensure that for 15 years a person's right to freedom of expression is limited in the greater interest of national security. Again, all of us would agree with and recognize that.

The amendment then goes on to say that should there be a valid national security reason after 15 years, the deputy head can then designate that it continue. That is only fair.

We are dealing with national security and broader interests. Sometimes we as individuals do not understand the full implications of the information we carry around with us. Sometimes we cannot understand why we would be prevented from disclosing that information.

The government has that information at its disposal and can make those determinations. However let it do so when it is satisfied that after the passage of 15 years it is still necessary to impinge on an individual's freedom of expression. This would not leave national security vulnerable. There would be an option to extend. It would remain in the hands of those charged with the provision of national security.

I urge members opposite and all opposition members to look at the amendment as something that would reasonably allow freedom of expression and at the same time ensure the interests of national security were not compromised. I urge each and every member to vote in support of the amendment.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are deeply concerned about the arrogance and the heavy handedness of the minister and the government. Members of the Canadian Alliance on the justice committee worked in a co-operative fashion with the minister and the Liberal members to expedite the amendment of the bill and its passage through committee.

Members of the House are now entitled to review the bill and debate its provisions after working so hard on the bill. To use my comments that urged the government to bring forward legislation and to say now that we should close debate is perverse.

My colleagues who were not on the committee are entitled to be heard now that the bill has come to the House since they were not present in committee. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said the decision to close debate was made because the opposition indicated it wanted to discuss the bill in detail, which would have delayed passage of the bill.

We have one day of debate in the House on one of the most significant bills the House has seen. What excuse can there be for the minister acting in this high-handed fashion?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the groupings as outlined by the Speaker, Motions Nos. 1 through 4.

In respect of the amendment brought by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, this amendment eliminates prosecutions based on political, religious or ideological motives. I indicated earlier that I was very concerned about retaining that definition of terrorist activity or that phrase in the definition.

I do not think it is a productive exercise by the courts. In fact, it is very destructive. There is the requirement then for prosecutors to bring witnesses to talk about religious, political or ideological groups. Certainly terrorist activity has nothing to do with religious, political or ideological motives in terms of a criminal context. There may be some underlying religious motivation. There may be political motivation. There may be ideological motivation. However, when it comes to the prosecution of a criminal offence, it is the actions that we are concerned about and the criminal intent. Whether that intent involves religious, political or ideological motivation is irrelevant.

I would urge members of the House to delete that. It is very destructive in a multicultural society for us to be examining the precepts of another religion in a court and then drawing conclusions in the same hearing about terrorist activities. It cannot help the multicultural fabric of Canada.

In respect of the second amendment, I support it. Essentially, it makes the process for determining the list of terrorist activities more open and less arbitrary. I do not think it is a great imposition upon the government to set out the criteria so that everyone can see the basis upon which these determinations are being made.

We are making intrusions upon civil liberties. These intrusions are justified in the security sense, political sense and, indeed, constitutional sense. There is no harm in setting out those criteria to reassure Canadians that decisions are being made for bona fide security and criminal reasons, not for other reasons of which we will know nothing.

Third, I have concerns about the motion brought in respect of Motion No. 3. If the solicitor general has not made a decision on a terrorist entity within 60 days, then the terrorist entity would no longer be on the list. Because I am not inside government or the bureaucracy, I do not know the resources available and the intricacies of making these determinations. Setting that kind of an arbitrary date may do immense harm to a police or security investigation. I have concerns about that limitation. Therefore, I cannot support that particular amendment.

In respect of Motion No. 4, the aim and the goal are laudable. By allowing the judge to appoint legal counsel in a particular case, we are usurping the function of the provincial legal aid societies. These legal aid societies are on very tight budgets. The government has not helped in that respect. The cutbacks in legal aid by the federal government are nothing short of atrocious. It is the provincial government that carries the responsibility.

Members could simply stand up and say “let us authorize the judge to appoint these lawyers in every case”. The point of fact is this cost comes out of provincial coffers and not federal coffers. That is my concern. We need to speak with provincial governments in a co-operative fashion so that we do not impact adversely on their legal aid programs.

While the recommendation is a good one, it is premature without having spoken to legal aid societies and provincial governments. Speaking as a former provincial official, I would have grave concerns about another downloading of costs upon the province. It is not that I do not believe that individuals are entitled to legal aid. I am simply concerned that this will allow the federal government to continue to off-load its responsibilities in respect of the financial support for legal aid.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

The minister opposite indicates it was extended three times. It was extended to Saturday afternoon. The minister well knows that most MPs are gone for the weekend to attend to riding and constituency business.

The first time I had an opportunity to review the amendments was this morning. When I received the amendments I spent time with my assistant working through a copy of the old bill. I did not yet have the bill as amended so it was difficult to understand the significance of the amendments. I had some hint given the involvement I have had in the bill, but it was difficult for me as a member who has been intimately involved in the development of the bill.

I have been supportive of the government's initiative generally and I understand the need for haste. However we must understand that we need to do the job properly. Having been given the amendments this morning and the bill an hour or so after that, I and many members in the House have not had the opportunity to carefully review the amendments. I would like to do the job properly. In view of the circumstances it would not be untoward to allow an extension for consideration of the amendments before we debate them.

I can support some of the amendments by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance and others from the PC/DRC. There are others I cannot support. I would like the opportunity to consider all the amendments carefully before I recommend to my caucus how to proceed on them.

We are hearing from all members. I do not know what is reasonable but a short delay of at least another day would not harm the national interest. It would go a long way toward protecting the national interest in terms of getting an appropriate security bill and protecting the civil liberties of Canadians.

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on the issue but I too am concerned about what has happened. As I understand it, the time for submitting amendments was extended until Saturday afternoon.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the question is why that is true. Bill C-36 also fails to criminalize membership in proven terrorist organizations. Even though a court has in fact found that an organization's goal is to promote terrorism, there is no prohibition against joining that organization.

Could the minister explain why Canadians should tolerate membership in organizations whose only purpose is to destroy freedom and democracy in our country?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are surprised to learn that those convicted of acts of mass murder under the anti-terrorist legislation are eligible for parole in 25 years. Why does the government have so little regard for human life that mass murderers are free to kill as often as they choose without being denied parole eligibility? Why are mass murderers eligible for a discount on justice?

[Privilege, November 19th, 2001]

Say you are sorry. Admit you made a mistake.