Vic Toews

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have suggested certain approaches. I have indicated specifically from my portfolio's responsibility as a critic for justice that there are consistent failures by the government to deal firmly and effectively by putting a legislative framework in place. The government has failed to do that. Indeed the government, its members and its ministers continue to support the fundraising activities of terrorists.

If we had an appropriate legislative framework in place ministers could not go to fundraising activities for terrorists in search of delegates for a leadership. When I talk about firm and effective responses, the member has made certain assumptions. He has made certain statements that are simplistic. He obviously did not listen to what I was saying about a legislative response.

We can sit around and psychoanalyze all we want but our allies need us today. We have to be there for them.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I for one will not stand here, ring my hands and say that if we pass legislation and provide the resources something might slip through. I understand that we do not live in a perfect world. I understand that as long as we are human there will always be problems like that.

I find it amazing that we are talking about people who have the moral values of an Adolf Hitler. We could talk about trying to understand the root causes of why Nazi aggression occurred then deal with it. Mr. Chamberlain tried to do exactly that and failed. We are dealing with exactly the same kind of people.

The form of war and the enemy may change, but evil does not change and the response of democratic nations to that evil can never change. It must be firm, it must be resolute, and we need to stand with our allies.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the record speak for itself.

On behalf of the people of Provencher, I want to offer our condolences and prayers to the victims and their families and to the thousands of ordinary people who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, including the many thousands upon thousands of frontline workers and volunteers.

I am very encouraged that the Prime Minister has affirmed that Canada will stand together with the United States, our neighbour, our friend and our ally at this time of crisis, and that we will support and assist the American people in every possible way.

Let us be firm in our resolve to deal effectively with these outlaws and criminals. Let not the suggestion come from this House that the Americans are somehow to blame for the terrible tragedy of September 11.

There will in the days, weeks and months to come be heightened security and talk of war. There will also be questions asking what can be done to prevent it from happening again, as we are starting to ask today.

I want to state at the onset that the concerns I raise are in fact raised in a spirit of co-operation and with a view to resolving this grave crisis so that we too can say at some date in the future that our efforts here were not in vain.

CSIS has been clear in respect of the threat of terrorism. In June 2000 its report said that terrorism in the years ahead was expected to become more violent, indiscriminant and unpredictable than in recent years.

In 1998 CSIS reports indicated that there may have been as many as 50 international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. Although the United States and the United Kingdom now have strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity, Canada has failed to respond with appropriate legislation.

Through that lack of action, Canada has encouraged conditions that facilitate international terrorism. If we want to find root causes of terrorism, inaction on the part of democratic nations to respond to terrorism breeds more terrorism. The federal government must be firm and take steps to introduce specific and effective legislation as our British and American allies have done, legislation that would suppress Canadian terrorist networks that raise money to finance political violence around the world.

It is a thin excuse to say that the Americans had the legislation but it did not stop the attack. There may well be issues of resources or implementation, but at least the Americans have the framework to defend their nation. Canadians to date do not have the benefit of that legislation and even if we had the benefit of the legislation we do not have the resources and manpower committed to enforcing such a framework.

Many today have talked about the United Kingdom terrorism act of 2000 that came into force about half a year ago. The comprehensive measures included in the act, includes an extensive definition of terrorism. It includes new powers to seize suspected terrorist cash at borders, a new offence of inciting terrorist acts abroad from within the United Kingdom, specific offences related to training for terrorist activities and a number of other provisions.

As well, the Americans have taken firm legislative steps to deal with terrorism. They have the framework in place. We need to do exactly the same thing. The Americans and the British have recognized the serious problem the international community is facing and they are initiating their own solutions while unfortunately Canada sits on the sidelines.

Although Canada participated in the development of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel signed in 1994, the International convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings signed in 1997 and the International convention on the suppression of terrorist financing signed in 1999, Canada has yet to develop new legislation to permit it to give effect to these conventions and to ratify them. It is a failure that offers hope to international terrorism. The reason they have not been ratified is that Canada simply lacks the necessary legislation to implement these conventions.

Canada is obliged, pursuant to the suppression of terrorist financing convention, to make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. Bill C-16, the charities registration act, introduced last spring was the government's attempt to address this issue. However, does anyone believe that this response will do anything to stop terrorist groups from fundraising? Does the revocation of one's charitable status deter terrorists who are prepared to fly a modern jet into the side of a skyscraper? Is the revocation of their charitable number going to stop them? That is the legislative response of the government to date.

Extradition laws have also become a major security concern for Canadians since the decision of the supreme court on February 15, 2001. We all know the facts of that case involving a brutal triple murder by two Canadians of three Americans in Washington State. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the these murderers could not be returned to the United States unless the justice minister sought assurances that the death penalty could not apply to them.

The justice minister's own lawyers two days after arguing a refugee case, referred to the Burns and Rafay supreme court decision and said “strike down that law and you will create a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals”. Yet the Minister of Justice stood up on two occasions and indicated that I had misrepresented a judgment. Her own lawyers said one thing to the supreme court, the Minister of Justice said another to the House.

The Department of Justice has not said what it will do to stop potential murderers and of course international terrorists from coming to Canada.

If the criminals involved in the New York City and Washington attack on the U.S. made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution, the supreme court decision would prohibit the Canadian government from extraditing them on the grounds that according to the charter of the supreme court it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. What effect does this have on the legal system? What effect does this have on military concerns and what does it have on diplomatic issues?

These are the issues that we need to grapple with and resolve.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre-East.

I am a little surprised at the comment I heard coming from the member that somehow the Americans are to blame for the horrible attack on the World Trade Center because their security was not secure enough.

It concerns me that we are shifting the blame onto our ally at a time when we should be standing strong with them and saying that their country and people have been the strongest defenders of democracy and freedom in the world. To suggest that our allies are responsible for the attack is disgusting.

On behalf of the people of Provencher--

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, they sign documents but they never implement.

It is clear that on February 15 this year the Supreme Court created a safe haven for violent criminals who come here to escape the full consequences of the laws of the United States. Now these criminals, including terrorists, can escape to Canada to avoid the full consequences of the law, of prosecution in our country's ally, the United States.

How can the minister reassure Canadians that we will take those legislative steps to ensure that will be taken care of?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, although Britain and the United States have passed strict anti-terrorist laws, it is an international disgrace that Canada has none.

Our allies and security agencies are concerned that Canada continues to be a safe haven for terrorists.

Why has the minister failed to take these essential steps to protect the security of Canadians?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that. I do not have any dispute with the criteria, but if the member is saying that these criteria will determine that these items are in fact votable, he is wrong. My understanding is that even if every criterion is met an item is still not votable. There is still that hidden amount of discretion. As hon. members, as private members on both sides of the House, we need to maybe narrow down the number of bills but make them all votable so that the exercise is a realistic one.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, why would I want to get up and do anything but praise the one member who had an idea and who was lucky enough to get it through this maze?

What this member did not tell the people of Canada in his question is that even if the bill meets all the criteria, it still does not mean it is votable. There is still a huge element of discretion, the discretion that is influenced by political thought and political correctness, by questions like “Is this divisive? Will this be embarrassing?”

I am not disagreeing with the member. These are my observations after being here for six months. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I will grow to be just as cynical as he is.

What I am saying is that the government presently has a very effective means of presenting its agenda and getting it through the House. Every government bill is votable unless the government itself hoists it. However, that is called government business. Why can private members' business not simply be the business of private members? If a private member is lucky enough to get the bill into the House, it should be votable unless that private member deems it not to be votable.

Congratulations to whoever the member was on Bill C-204. I commend that member. That is a shining example of what can be done with many more bills. I would encourage the member to support this bill.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

They say even a member of my own party is on that committee. Yes, and we are not allowed to say in the House why certain things are not made votable. Can I stand up today and say in the House why a certain thing was not made votable? We cannot say it in the House. Those are the rules and the Liberal members know that. I cannot say it was a New Democrat who shut down a matter that was non-votable. I am not allowed to say it to the members. I am not allowed to say it here in the House. We all know that, so let us not pretend.

I believe the best way to reflect the democratic nature of our parliament is to make all private members' bills and motions votable. I think we could reduce the number of bills, but I say we should let them all be votable.

I have to stand in support of this motion and I would ask all of you to support it.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the supply motion because I believe private members' business is a vital tradition in parliament and I believe that we need to revive the spirit of the tradition in order to maintain the confidence we have in our democracy and in our parliamentary system. Despite some of the cynicism we hear, people are still convinced that it is through parliament that true democratic reforms come, and we need to ensure that we revitalize our democracy.

I would like to begin my remarks by citing a 1985 report of the McGrath committee, which was established to make recommendations in the House in respect of House reform. I will quote from page 2 of the report:

If the private member is to count for anything, there must be a relationship between what the private member and the institution of Parliament can do and what the electorate thinks or expects can be done.

There is a connection among the member, the institution and the electorate. This is a fundamental point of what we are trying to do here, I think. The people of Canada elect us their representatives to the House of Commons and they have the expectation that each of us will be permitted to be productive and useful members with ideas and initiatives of our own.

When members are authorized to be little more than voting machines or seat warmers, it not only feeds into our own cynicism about what we are doing here but more significantly it fosters public cynicism, pessimism and mistrust in parliament and in politicians in general.

I have been a member of parliament for about six months and, if one does not guard against it, I think cynicism can overwhelm one. Except for minor variations with government bills, we know exactly what will happen time and again. The government introduces a bill, we debate it, we sit through committee testimony and we propose amendments, which are usually shot down. We debate it some more and then we vote and the government bill passes. This is a fact of life when we have a majority government.

I served in a provincial legislature. I understand the need for majority governments to control the agenda, to move certain issues through. I understand and respect it, but the realities of a majority government to me present all the more reason to revisit the procedural aspects of private members' business.

I do not think the two are inconsistent. The agenda of a government is a legitimate thing, but there is also the agenda of private members. Private members are the backbone of the House. The executive is here to serve the private members, but in our modern age parliament has been stood on its head. In order to at least regain some balance, this initiative by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance is crucial. I think Canadians expect it of us.

Private members' bills and motions now are not effective. Yet they are really the only way that a member outside of cabinet, whether on the government side of the House or on the opposition side, can advance his or her own proposals and initiatives. Government business is government business and that is fine, but private members' business should not be dictated by government, directly or indirectly.

Right now the process is that we have a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes just six members in the House who determine what private members' bills will be heard. All initiatives of members outside of cabinet are governed by only six individuals, and the consent of those six individuals must be unanimous to make it votable. Six individuals control the entire private members' agenda.

Since the beginning of the 37th parliament, Alliance MPs have had 24 items drawn to be placed on the order of precedence, but only 2 items have been deemed votable. In the second session of the 36th parliament, there was a total of 772 bills and motions introduced. Only 70 of those were drawn and of those only 21 were made votable, only 21 private members' bills out of 772.

Yet we continue to go back to our constituents and tell them “I want to represent you and I want to represent the concerns in my constituency”. Yet six members in the House, unless we acquire unanimous consent, will shut down the voice of my constituents each and every time, only six members.

Why does this happen? Let us say I get an idea in my head. The member from Mississauga might not think it is a good idea but it is an idea nonetheless. I get an idea in my head, I call legislative counsel to draft the bill, the bill goes on the order paper, it is drawn to be placed in the order of precedence, it is debated, it is dropped from the order paper, and we never hear about it again if this six person subcommittee has not already decided that we ought to vote on it.

What are the criteria for the votable items? I do not know. I am just a private member. I am only here to represent my constituents. I do not know what criteria this secret committee applies. Who influences these criteria? Who tells these six members how this is done? I do not know and I also do not know if the House will ever find out. We can draw up all kinds of lists and say this is what we will do, but who influences the agenda? Because if that agenda does not come before the House, we know that the government influences that agenda. As long as the government does not think it too controversial or too divisive or too embarrassing, it might allow it.

Even if I am wrong on the six members, as some members from the Liberal Party are saying, the subcommittee gives the perception of a star chamber where decisions are made in secret, away from the public, away from the eyes of the electorate who have a right to know.