Vic Toews

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2007-08, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the supplementary estimates (A) and a copy of the vote allocations by the standing committees.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would note specifically the comments by the member for Mount Royal regarding the troubling developments in Iran. I share his concern on the impact of the statements being made by the leadership in Iran, the impact that it specifically has on the people in the state of Israel, as well as peace in the Middle East and beyond generally.

I am specifically concerned about the reports of the possible development of nuclear weapons by Iran and I respect the member's point of view in that regard. I would like to hear from him what Canada's role should be to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of a country like Iran, can be addressed. I think he would share my concern in that respect as well.

[Access to Information, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what the statistics show is that the number of requests have grown significantly over the past year and it is because we have now included more institutions available to access to information, such as the Wheat Board. The members opposite do not want the Wheat Board to disclose its expenses. Our government wants openness in that respect.

In respect of other government funded foundations, the opposition did not want them. We are including them. That means that there is more work but we are getting the job done as the Information Commissioner has indicated.

[Access to Information, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner, an independent officer of this Parliament, has said that the response to access to information requests has improved under our government. Nine institutions got better grades from the Information Commissioner over the previous year, three moving from an F under the previous Liberal government to an A under our government.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the business of supply be considered at the next sitting of the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member said that money was set aside for this and that. In fact, when the Conservatives came to government there was no money set aside for any of those things.

I want to bring the issue back to my home province of Manitoba. The Liberal government had promised money for the floodway. Manitoba is deluged from time to time by the flood waters of the Red River, the Assiniboine and other bodies of water. The Liberals were good at promising money. Indeed, they made the promise publicly over and over again.

When the Conservatives came to government, the promise the Liberals had made of cost sharing the floodway, which was a $650 million project, the outstanding money was simply not there despite public assurances by former Treasury Board president, Reg Alcock, that the government was onside.

It took the Conservative government nine months of trying to ensure it had money and not take it out of local infrastructure money. In trying to find the amount of money that I was looking for in terms of the $171 million that was outstanding from the federal government, we could not take it out of local infrastructure money. We had to go to a national infrastructure program. Despite the assurances that the money had been set aside, that money had not been set aside. It simply was not there. We had to identify it.

With regard to the numbers that the member has pointed out, where were the moneys set aside specifically in terms of money that had been appropriated by any budget, a budget that had in fact been passed?

[Main Estimates 2007-08, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, the form of this bill is essentially the same as that passed in previous supply periods.

[June 7th, 2007]

moved:

That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, the form of this bill is essentially the same as that passed in previous supply periods.

[Points of Order, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to the minister give an answer and all I heard was absolute screaming and yelling from the member. The member has a practice and a habit of absolutely screaming and yelling. This is what she consistently does throughout question period. I am sure members sitting around her can attest to the fact that that member specifically screams and yells on all occasions. What I indicated to her is perhaps she might want to take some medication.

I do not know what the issue is over there, but I have never in my time in this House heard a member act in such an irrational way. Perhaps that member might seriously consider something.

If she feels that type of conduct is appropriate, I can only say that I think most other members would disagree. This is not an isolated issue. This is a consistent pattern of conduct by that member.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill which I had the pleasure of developing and working on when I was minister of justice. There are a few comments that I would like to make in the course of addressing the bill.

I noted that the NDP member for Burnaby—Douglas talked about the fact that the laws in this country were already quite tough in that respect. That, of course, is not borne out by the facts at all.

I would point out, for example, the provision relating to the trust relationship dealing with children between the ages of 14 and 18. I know that was an argument that the previous Liberal government had advanced, saying that we could always rely on this. If there is an exploitation in the context of a trust relationship, the Crown can bring a charge.

What that particular section does not do is actually protect the child on the stand. The whole weight of the prosecution rests on the child to demonstrate that there was a trust relationship and that trust had been breached. Crown attorneys, police officers, and others who work with children in this context have indicated time and time again that the law was not effective. It simply does not hold those predators to account because, quite simply put, the children are the ones who are then put on trial.

The age of protection law that we are bringing in here removes that kind of onus on the child and puts it squarely on the shoulders of where it should belong and that is on the shoulders of the predator. Quite clearly, a child between the age of 14 and 16 does not have to justify that this was a trust relationship that was somehow exploited. The comments by the member were quite inaccurate.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas and the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre talked about section--