Vic Toews

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before commencing I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Surrey Central.

[International Child Abduction, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

In introducing the motion, my colleague has raised an important issue that few will disagree should remain a priority for the House, that is, the protection and best interest of the children.

For many years the international community has recognized the need for countries to co-operate in order to remedy child custody and abduction problems. In 1976 the Hague convention on private international law accepted a Canadian proposal to alleviate some of these problems. This proposal led to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.

The objectives of the convention are: first, to secure the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state; and, second, to ensure that the rights of custody and access of one contracting state are effectively respected in the other contracting states.

As a leader in these negotiations, Canada was the second country to ratify the convention which came into force in December 1983. To date, 53 countries, including Canada, have adopted the convention.

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, over 300 Canadian children have been returned under the convention.

Although the convention is supported in principle by a number of countries and has been relatively successful in achieving its aims, some recent reports say that we are not doing enough.

Let us look at the 1999 report by the international forum on parental child abduction.

The report stated that although it:

—was a giant step forward in dealing with cases of international child abduction in a more uniform, consistent way...in too many cases, the Hague Convention appears not to be working as originally intended, and too many cases remain unresolved.

Some problems cited were: a lack of systematic data; wide variations in outcome and interpretation; undue delay in reaching resolutions; lack of public awareness; and lack of enforceability of return orders.

The Canadian government has not been entirely oblivious to these problems. The government's 1998 response to a committee report reviews 14 recommendations that address similar issues relating to the Hague convention, as well as domestic issues pertaining to child custody issues and abduction.

Many of the committee's recommendations are similar, if not identical, to the provision of today's motion, although it remains to be seen what action the government has taken to implement the recommendations.

The issue must not be left unresolved. Now that it has come up again in the House, we must find real solutions and initiate concrete action on behalf of children.

Let us consider the first provision of the motion that calls on the House to take action designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the Hague convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. There is no question how absolutely crucial this is. The convention can only be effective insofar as other nations are willing both to participate and to enforce once they have signed on.

Most of Europe and North America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have signed on. However only five African nations are signatories. In Asia and the Middle East there are six, and in South America there are seven.

The difficulties in increasing the number of signatory countries are many. In particular, the laws of some Middle Eastern and African nations may make international co-operation on the matter more complex, especially in terms of parental abductions.

In many middle eastern and African countries, as my colleague from the Bloc pointed out, the father's permission is often required for his children to leave that country. The father will often have ultimate custody, despite the fact that the child may have dual citizenship in Canada or another country.

Bearing that in mind, it may be difficult to persuade countries with such laws to subscribe to or subject themselves to these principles. In taking any steps one must obviously bear that in mind. As my colleague from the Bloc has stated, Canada needs to show leadership.

Despite the difficulties, we must step up our efforts to persuade other nations that it is in their interest to co-operate to protect children both at home and abroad. It has often been said that it takes a village to raise a child. In this case, it will take all nations of the world working together to ensure that children's rights are secured and protected and that parents do not need to live in fear for their children.

The second provision, to sign bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally handed down by the courts, is extremely vital. If we cannot persuade non-signatory countries to sign on to the convention, we must continue to negotiate bilateral treaties with those countries.

The third and last provision of the motion is to take the necessary steps within our own borders to combat international child abduction. Of course, any international initiative must and should begin at home. Authorities, such as the solicitor general, the RCMP, the police associations and provincial and territorial ministers, should work closely together to develop a policy instructing police officers to report suspected child abductors to the missing children's registry.

All missing children reports should automatically be entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. Although this already occurs to some extent, our missing children's registry is nowhere near as extensive as it should be in order to be truly effective.

Within our own borders, child custody and abduction problems are extremely serious. Outside our borders, however, we have almost no control over what happens once a child is abducted. This must change if we are to give Canadian children the level of security and protection they are entitled to.

Accordingly, I would ask that all members vote in favour of the motion.

[Points Of Order, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a new point of order arising out of the comments the hon. member made.

The hon. member may well have withdrawn, and I am not clear whether she did in fact withdraw, the comment that crosses are now burning in Prince George. However the issue is not simply a matter of withdrawing the words. It is a matter of apologizing to the community because she slammed the entire community and that needs to be withdrawn.

[Organized Crime, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime, according to the RCMP continues to expand while this minister chases sportsmen and hunters. Organized crime has unlimited cash available for the best technology. Our police are handcuffed by ineffective laws and ineffective programs.

Why does the minister not support our police and Canadians by putting resources back into front line policing?

[Organized Crime, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, projections now indicate that the Minister of Justice will spend another $1 billion over the next 10 years on a long gun registry that everyone, including the minister, knows will not work.

Why does the minister not give these resources to front line police officers who daily demonstrate their work in this country's fight against organized crime?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments made by the member across the way and would like to ask him a question.

The member expressed certain concerns with respect to the lack of resources the chiefs have to do background research. I was also very interested in his comments about the use of the parliamentary library. These were very interesting proposals and the types of things we should be discussing.

I also noted in his comments that the Liberal government has not fulfilled a number of outstanding treating obligations. I wonder if the member could elaborate on what treaty obligations this government has not yet fulfilled. As we know, the treaties are based on the honour of the crown. What obligations by the crown does the member feel that the Liberal government has not yet met?

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.

This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in the past the government has got away with some of these issues.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this slide. Therefore I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14, 2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few comments before concluding this matter in the House.

Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the House and the process here is continued.

I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of its members.

What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and difficult issue.

I would like to put a few other situations on the record which I think may form part of the discussions that we will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.

I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news release announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet been adopted by the House.

Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House was still in the process of debating how many directors should be elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the bill were already law.

We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it is essential that members of the opposition, who were also elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be given that opportunity.

While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the government has shown to the institution of parliament, your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind of situation in the future.

This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic, have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.

With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your ruling will also benefit.

If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the individual elected members. It will remind the members of the executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of Canada.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member may well castigate groups or political parties as a whole but when he attacks me personally, as he just did in terms of where we stand with respect to natives and helping first nations people, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bring the member to order.

[Supreme Court Act, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for bringing this matter before the House today. I will be asking for unanimous consent that this matter be deemed votable and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The member has articulated his comments very succinctly. As he indicated, this is an issue that has not received much discussion in the House or in committees. The member, in bringing this forward, does a great public service not only for the House but for the courts and for the people of Canada.

There are a number of issues that I would like to raise. I do not necessarily agree with everything in the bill but I think that is why we need to have discussions.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act by adding a number of paragraphs, the first being that when the question heard by the court is of a constitutional nature that the court consider parliamentary and other extrinsic materials, such as the Debates of the House of Commons, the Senate, legislatures, and law commission reports.

The second is when the question heard by the court is of a constitutional nature and the decision of the court is not unanimous, the decision should not be considered a precedent in other circumstances in which the same constitutional issue arises.

I do have some concerns with respect to the first matter. The courts in many circumstances routinely consider this type of information when it is presented to the court by one or more of the parties. The courts hold that this type of information is admissible and then consider the weight of this evidence.

I am familiar with this evidentiary issue. In my former life I was a constitutional lawyer. I was the director of constitutional law for the province of Manitoba. The legislative evidence to which my colleague referred provides an important context in assisting with interpreting the legislation. As a director, I often referred to this type of evidence, which is important in order to give the court a clearer understanding of this legislative background. This type of evidence was called a Brandeis brief. That is an American term but is utilized quite extensively in Canada.

The bill would not only allow the introduction of Brandeis briefs by counsel but, in addition, puts a positive onus on the court to consider the intent of the legislators and not simply go off on a frolic of its own, as has often been the case with some judicial activists on the court. It is a very important and positive onus on the courts which I think should be there.

With respect to the second paragraph in my colleague's bill, there is some concern that it may cause some confusion to the principles of precedent that have been established in Great Britain, in Canada and, to a lesser extent, other Commonwealth countries, and indeed the United States.

However, I am sympathetic to this provision because the intent is clearly to get the judiciary to focus on the issues before them and to attempt to arrive at greater uniformity and clarity in the judgment. This is so important given the fact that the rights and freedoms of Canadians hang on the interpretation of these words. Multiple judgments only serve to cause confusion among those who are required to carry out, enforce and obey the laws. Again, the examples my colleague brought forward to the House are very germane to the discussion.

It is ironic that when the courts criticize legislation for being vague and over broad, the courts often do so in language that is itself vague and over broad. My colleague has brought a few examples to the attention of the House. There are many more.

We read judgments of the court where they criticize legislators' language and yet the language that they use and their conclusions are so hopelessly over broad and vague that they have done nothing to assist in the administration of justice or the enforcement of laws.

The only beneficiary of these multiple types of judgments are the legal profession. I, too, am a lawyer so I include myself in this as well. However, the only beneficiaries of these multiple judgments are the legal profession who are then free to embark on a new, fresh round of litigation involving the same issues.

This type of discussion, whether the bill is accepted as such or otherwise, is very important for us to try to have the courts focus on what is important, on the issues that are in fact before them.

Generally speaking, I would express my overall support for the bill. Despite my concerns, I think the intent of the bill is to grant elected members of parliament a greater voice in the constitutional decisions that influence the laws of Canada. I would also say that the bill is in part a reaction to the phenomena of the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those made by the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

Decisions made by the supreme court have a tremendous impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. We want to preserve our democracy. We want to live in harmony with the courts. We recognize the very valuable function of the courts but our respective roles as parliamentarians, as those who pass laws that implement social and legal policy are interpreted by the courts in their proper legal context. We do not want that straying of the courts into the area of social and legal policy.

There are the dangers of legal and constitutional anarchy that are reflected in some of the former judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, and I cannot think of a better example than the Singh decision. This decision certainly created difficulties for our bureaucrats and others who want to see fair laws.

The member opposite made the point about this depriving legitimate visitors to Canada who would like to see their families but are denied access because there is now an overabundance of caution that parliamentarians have to exercise because of some very misguided and confusing decisions. Perhaps confusing is a better word than misguided. I am sure the courts, in going through these judgments, are also trying to do their best. We need to focus more clearly on the real issues.

I indicated earlier that I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that Bill C-234 be deemed votable and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Failing that, I would move that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I commend my colleague opposite for bringing the matter forward. It deserves the support of all opposition members and certainly all members from the party that the member opposite represents.

[Privilege, March 14th, 2001]

I appreciate the direction, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it was important not to quote the clauses of the bill but to give a brief summary of the bill. I was not quoting clause by clause. I was trying to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a small bill, that this is not a housekeeping bill, that this is a substantive bill to which we, as members of parliament, were denied access. We did not even have two hours. We were not shown the courtesy that was given to the media.

However, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your direction and I will move on.

In the last parliament, Speaker Parent issued a warning to this very same government for a similar offence. The Minister of Justice was a member of the government and, despite the clear admonition from the Speaker, the same trick is being played again on members of the House. On November 6, 1997, the Speaker said:

The Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department are of some concern. The dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the department and agencies will be guided by it.

Despite the warning, the government went on to announce to the people of China that a Canada-China interparliamentary group had been created. There was no such group created at the time. The government briefed a foreign country before it briefed its own members.

The naming of the head of the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation before there was legislation setting up the foundation is another example. There were many other cases in the last parliament.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by the executive. Every elected member is not the servant of the executive. The executive is the servant of each and every elected member. When a member of the executive thwarts the parliamentary process they deny the rights and privileges of each member and destroy the authority of the House. If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by the executive. They are responsible to parliament, not to the media.

On page 63 of Erskine May it states that ministers have a duty to parliament to account, that ministers should be as open as possible with parliament. Refusing to provide information and refusing to allow us to participate in the briefing when members of the media are present is not in the public interest. The government has been warned enough. It is time the House took action and protected itself from this happening again.

Mr. Speaker, when you were elected these were the issues that were being discussed. Members from both sides of the House voted for you. There was a real recognition that the executive needed to understand that each and every backbencher and opposition member deserved respect. Mr. Speaker, you were entrusted with our belief that you would carry out that obligation and restore the dignity that the House deserves.

The executive has not only slapped us in the face, but it has slapped you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada in the face. I know that other members wish to speak on the matter.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, at which time I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.