Vic Toews

[Terrorism, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Algerian armed Islamic group had a 20 member terrorist cell operating in Montreal for years. It included Ahmed Ressam, who was finally arrested by American authorities when he attempted to cross the border with his bomb making material. We have now learned that although French authorities continually advised Canada of this group's terrorist activities the government did nothing to assist in their arrests. Why?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice committee heard from the privacy commissioner that the minister's legislation contains a back door that will gut Canadian privacy legislation. Other jurisdictions, including Great Britain, have not resorted to this draconian measure that the Minister of Justice feels is necessary to control Canadians.

Will the minister commit today to amending the legislation to permit an independent review of her unfettered power to hide information from Canadians?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee heard today that, unlike the British legislation, the Canadian anti-terrorism legislation has no mechanism to provide for review of the minister's absolute power to deny Canadians the right to access information in the hands of the government.

Why has the minister decided to deny the privacy commissioner the right to review her unfettered right to hide information from Canadians?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.

The heightened anxiety and concern that Canadians have been feeling at the threat of terrorism is natural at this time, especially since we know what has been happening in the United States can virtually happen anywhere.

Our citizens need to know their government is taking the necessary legislative steps to combat international terrorism. With the introduction of the comprehensive anti-terrorism bill last week some of these concerns have been addressed. However much work remains to be done, particularly in the area of immigration and border control.

So far the government has attempted to brush off suggestions that we have a terrorist problem by pointing to the fact that none of the September 11 hijackers appear to have significant Canadian connections. However this argument ignores the fact that we have known for years that Canada has a major problem with terrorists using our country as a base for their activities abroad. This is a fact stated in the June 2000 CSIS report, in reports from national defence and by officials representing American intelligence agencies, the FBI and the CIA.

One can only ask why these terrorists would want to attack Canadian locations when they can safely use Canada as a staging point for their international criminal operations.

As friends and allies, we also owe our American neighbours some measure of protection from security risks beginning in Canada. There is no question that the Americans are very concerned about who is entering from their northern border, and justifiably so. They have already tripled the number of agents patrolling the Canadian-American border, a move that indicates they are extremely concerned about what measures we have or rather do not have in place on our side of the border.

The B.C. premier, Gordon Campbell, in a move supported by all other premiers but two, has called for a serious discussion with the United States about a continental perimeter that would protect the security interests of both countries and allow for the free movement of people and trade between them. The idea of harmonizing our laws and anti-terrorism operations is necessary if we are to continue a positive relationship with our most important trading partner.

The Liberal government's response so far on this issue has been to hide behind arguments that harmonizing immigration and refugee laws would be an infringement on our sovereignty and the core values of Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is trying to define Canadian by what is not American. However we have to think beyond this narrow scope and define our nation on our own terms. We must work together with all western leaders, linking our arms with a common strategy and with a common goal of defeating terrorism, not by simplistically defining our terrain with a line drawn in the sand.

For years it has been obvious to Canadians, it certainly has been obvious to members of the Canadian Alliance caucus, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had no serious thoughts of addressing the issue of terrorists entering and remaining in Canada via the refugee determination system.

A January 1999 report of a special senate committee on security and intelligence stated what most Canadian already know, that there are several indications that serious problems with our refugee determination system exist. Among the serious problems reported were the number of claimants who disappear, the perception that our system is leaky and our enforcement system is overwhelmed and the perception that it is in the claimant's interest not to comply with our immigration rules, terms and conditions. Indeed, what the report states is that it is in the interests of claimant's to use criminal procedures to get into our country.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has done nothing to enhance training for customs officers. She has done nothing to give the appropriate resources to law enforcement officials. She has done nothing to detain refugee claimants who cannot prove their identities. She has failed to promptly deport refugee claimants who break the law in Canada.

The one thing the minister has done is she has attempted to deflect criticism from Canada's ridiculously open system by calling those who have constructive suggestions on how the system can be improved, anti-immigrant. It is statements like these that desperately demonstrate the minister's failure to carry out her responsibilities.

After years of inaction, last week she finally announced new, allegedly fraud proof identity cards for landed immigrants to be implemented next year. Unfortunately, terrorism and immigration experts already consider these new cards obsolete as they are not likely to pose any problem for terrorists intending to forge or reproduce them. The cards issued will not contain the security features, such as imbedded fingerprints already found on the U.S. green card, or iris identification.

Publicly available polling indicates Canadians recognize that these tracking features are necessary even if the minister and her department do not.

Beyond tracking capabilities, we must also have the means to detain those who wish to criminally abuse our refugee and immigration systems, those who arrive at our shores without proper documentation every year. Most, if not all, of the terrorists who have entered the country have done so by criminally using our generous refugee system. This was confirmed officially when the RCMP told a conference on October 17 that the modus operandi of all international terrorists entering Canada was, first, to claim refugee status and then, to move on to obtain welfare and medical benefits before turning to crime to boost their income.

How the minister can continue to deny this fact in light of such evidence remains a great mystery to me. Certainly she has the evidence of her own security agencies, including the RCMP, to tell her very clearly that she has a problem and that the steps she is taking are not adequate?

In conclusion, I would call on all members of the House today to recognize that significant improvements must immediately be made in terms of our border laws by voting in favour of the motion.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the APEC inquiry pointed out the secret abuse by the Prime Minister's Office in interfering with police operations. The privacy commissioner today expressed his concern over the absolute power granted to the minister.

In view of the abuses by the Prime Minister's Office at APEC, I am thankful that the minister will look at the issue of the certificate. Will she also look at correcting the abuses in respect of APEC and ensure that the Prime Minister's Office no longer interferes with police operations?

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism legislation provides for the unrestricted right of the Minister of Justice to hide information held by the government about a Canadian citizen, simply by a stroke of a pen, by issuing a certificate.

Why will the minister not amend the legislation to permit the privacy commissioner to review her decisions in confidence so that Canadians can be assured that the minister is acting in the interests of national security and not partisan Liberal politics?

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief today as I think we all want to see the bill move forward without unnecessary delay. I would once again like to thank the minister for consenting to split the bill, a move which has enabled the House to adopt quickly the relatively noncontentious provisions of the bill while allowing the more contentious provisions now found in Bill C-15B to be debated at greater length. Most important, now that the bill has been split we can get down to the business of protecting children from sexual predators on the Internet, something that members of the Canadian Alliance have been supporting strongly from the beginning.

Although all opposition parties have agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible, I would like to mention again a few of the concerns I have regarding the bill so that perhaps at some time in the future we can revisit these provisions and make further amendments.

One of the matters that causes the greatest concern for me is related to the creation of the offences relative to the sexual exploitation of children. With the current age of sexual consent at 14, this long needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators will be provided only to children under 14 years of age. I believe that is too low and that the age should be raised to 16, not just for these offences but for all offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children by adults. I need not recount to the House the devastating effects that sexual predators can have on 14 year old and 15 year old children. I have commended this suggestion that the age be raised to the minister's staff for consideration.

In respect of increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment, I have concerns about the lack of minimum penalties. It seems it is often futile to increase maximum penalties, in this case from 5 years to 10 years, when the courts do not reflect that increase in their sentencing. In light of the reluctance of the courts to reflect these kinds of changes and our lenient parole laws, these changes the minister is introducing may not prove to be effective.

In respect of home invasions, the provisions in the bill are a step in the right direction, however, my position is that it should be a separate offence, not simply an aggravating factor in sentencing. Parliament needs to send a clear message to the court of the seriousness of these types of offences.

In respect to the new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer, the Canadian Alliance and I myself have been very supportive of this and believe it is long overdue. We need to provide our law enforcement officials with the support that the new offence would provide to them.

The last comment I want to make is with respect to the preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries, particularly in light of charter guarantees and the court cases arising out of these charter guarantees, could be eliminated entirely. In fact, many judges I hear from consider them to be very ineffective. Even years ago when I was a prosecutor doing preliminary hearings it was suggested by many provincial court judges that the time could have been spent doing substantive work rather than preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries simply slow down procedure and create backlog without a substantive contribution to the administration of justice in Canada.

Understandably defence lawyers are very concerned about the entire loss of the preliminary hearing, however, I think we need to revisit the issue and ensure that while we have safeguarded the rights of the accused, preliminary inquiries have done nothing to protect the rights of the accused and certainly have contributed to problems in the efficient and fair administration of justice. There has been abuse of preliminary inquiries in the past and I think the legislation is a recognition of that. All the attorneys general of the provinces support this step and indeed I believe they would like to see it go further.

I want to put on the record in the House the comments from the justice minister at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with respect to a question I asked her on October 3. I think it is important that this is on the record in the House.

She stated and I quote:

Regarding preliminary inquiries, this is an instalment. I think the provinces and territories would like us to look at more radical reform as it relates to preliminary inquiries. You rightly identified that there is grave concern from the criminal defence bar, and that is something we will continue to work on. What we're doing here is streamlining the use of the preliminary inquiry.

She continued on with respect to the age of consent, the other issue I spoke to. She said:

With regard to age of consent--from 14 to 16--we have our child as victim consultation paper. We discussed that at our federal-provincial justice ministers' meeting in September in Nova Scotia. Those consultations will be concluded and reported on by December 31 of this year, and I think we will see that a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16. But as with some of these things, they look simple on the surface, but they're not quite so simple. It requires a fair number of changes to the code; we're going to have to review all those sections where age is found. But it's certainly an issue very much on our agenda.

Although I want to see the bill passed into law quickly and without further delay, I hope the minister will take my concerns into account and honour the commitments she made in committee, and that we will review the legislation at some time in the future for possible improvements.

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a minister who has done nothing for years. This is a minister who continues to stand and try to get Canadians to believe that she has done something, and she has done nothing. She has failed to put legal principles in place.

How can this minister offer Canadians any assurance that terrorists will be deported from Canada quickly and efficiently and not according to the standards that she refuses to apply?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that the Liberal government has allowed Canada to become a safe haven for terrorists. American anti-terrorist legislation specifically deals with issues relating to the deportation of dangerous terrorists.

How does the justice minister intend to deal with this serious problem when she has failed to include the necessary provisions in the legislation she has tabled?

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should read the bill. The government's own backbenchers, specifically the member for Mississauga East, warned the government of this glaring problem in the criminal code when it comes to dealing with mass murderers and serial killers. The same is true with respect to the anti-terrorism legislation.

Will the minister address this frightening concern and amend the legislation to ensure that convicted terrorists never have a second chance to commit mass murder?