Vic Toews

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, these are the comments of distinguished witnesses and the privacy commissioner. Canadians are concerned about the failure of the minister to include an effective ongoing review process in the anti-terrorism legislation.

This failure, along with the minister's power to suppress all government information, results in the loss of accountability of ministers to parliament and to Canadians. Why does the minister insist that ministerial accountability to parliament must also be a victim of September 11?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, numerous witnesses have advised the justice committee that the anti-terrorism legislation unfortunately targets minority groups in this country. The privacy commissioner has also noted that the draconian powers in the legislation prevent the disclosure of any government information.

Why will the minister not admit that despite her best intentions she has overstepped the bounds of what is needed for Canadian security?

[Immigration, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this minister when she has no answers simply name calls or hides information. She continues to ignore the need for an effective refugee determination system. Her neglect has resulted in unprecedented abuse of our system by bogus refugees and criminals. Even today she has rejected effective proposals. Why has she placed--

[Immigration, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the opposition calls upon the minister of immigration to protect our refugee system by taking firm measures against those who abuse the generosity of Canadians, she denies the system has failed or, like today, simply hides information.

Now the department's own figures demonstrate that the number of claimants is out of control, with at least double the anticipated numbers. Why will the minister not put the necessary legislation and resources in place to protect legitimate refugees and weed out those who would criminally abuse our system?

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today in the House I had occasion to ask a number of questions and to receive some answers. My concern is not with the direct answers that I received although the answers themselves were less than satisfactory. I am also concerned about some extraneous comments that were placed on the record afterward. I am very concerned and I think I am in order to stand to ensure that those remarks are withdrawn from the record.

In further response to the question that I had posed of the minister, asking her why the House should agree to jeopardize the civil liberties of religious and political groups in Canada when she could not explain why those provisions were in the legislation, she provided an answer and then later she stated words to the effect: since when did you guys care about civil liberties.

These words will appear in Hansard and they are unparliamentary. The record will demonstrate that I care very much about civil liberties and I know that the Canadian Alliance cares very much about civil liberties. It is not inconsistent to be concerned about security while all--

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to read her own legislation and read the definition.

Although our American allies have taken strong measures against the fight against terrorism, they did not consider it necessary to target minorities in their anti-terrorist legislation.

Why should the House agree to jeopardize the civil liberties of Canadians when the minister cannot explain why she wishes to do that?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite the attempt of the Prime Minister to stop the Liberals from speaking out, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism now have expressed their concerns over the targeting of minorities by the anti-terrorist legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice.

Will the minister advise the House why her legislation targets religious, political and ideological groups?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the political or religious motivation behind the explosion of a terrorist bomb is irrelevant. However, the minister chooses to target religious or political groups in the definition of terrorist act.

Will the minister show respect for the religious and political beliefs of Canadians by removing this offensive phrase from the legislation?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism legislation defines a terrorist act as an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose. Yesterday the fisheries minister voiced his concern that the anti-terrorism bill could unfairly target minorities. Canadians share his concern.

Will the Minister of Justice advise why these groups are being singled out?

[Terrorism, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I remember is the astonishment of the judge who remarked on the procedures of the RCMP and the member's department in that case.

While other countries assisted the French in carrying out arrests when some of these terrorists finally left Canada, Canada only frustrated French efforts to put an end to the activities of this terrorist group.

Were French sources correct when they advised the media that Canada closed its eyes to this terrorist activity in order to buy peace with these terrorists?