House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 72% of the vote.
Parole System February 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Through research I have to this date come up with the names of 23 first-degree killers who were paroled and then went on to kill 32 more people while on parole. This list is certainly not all the examples but it is a sample of the last five to six years that I know of.
Will the minister agree that our present parole system and parole board is incompetent and that automatic parole should be stopped until this incompetence is addressed?
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to talk about this issue again under Standing Order 37(3) regarding Sunshine Development in Banff National Park.
Calling a FEARO panel to assess development of the Goat's Eye ski run in the government approved leaseholding area of
Sunshine Village Corporation costing a loss of hope for jobless Albertans is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Every step necessary for discovering the environmental impact of Goat's Eye ski run has already been studied and restudied since 1978. This project received environmental assessment review panel approval.
The formal notice of the Goat's Eye screening decision sent to Sunshine stated:
Environmental impacts predicted to result from the proposed development of Goat's Eye for skiing at Sunshine are either insignificant or mitigable with known technology as defined in section 12(c) for environmental assessment and review process guideline order 1984.
The minister should be aware that section 12(c) means the proposal may proceed or proceed with mitigation with no referral for panel review and under section 12(c) there is no need for a FEARO panel.
The hon. minister stated that Goat's Eye was virgin territory. How can that be when this is one of the five areas in our national parks the government has allowed access for public skiing recreation?
The hon. minister stated that Goat's Eye deserves an environmental assessment. May I suggest that she review the history of the project. She will find that an environmental impact assessment was completed by Gail Harrison, Canadian Parks Service, western region. Ms. Harrison found no evidence why this development should not be allowed to proceed. A regional screening committee concluded this development has minimal impact or mitigable impact consistent with EARP requirements in section 12(c).
A three day conference including environmental non-government organizations studied the long range plan and initial agreement on the plan including the parking lot and the study was presented to the Minister of the Environment.
In terms of the parking lot Bruce F. Leeson, chief, Environmental Assessment Sciences Division, Canadian Park Services, western region stated the parking lot could be developed without extraordinary environmental and engineering difficulties. We have successful experience with this kind of project.
In July 1992 Canadian Park Services stated the project was mitigable under EARP guidelines order. A preliminary screening indicated the long range plan was doable within environmental constraints. In August 1992 the Minister of the Environment approved the project.
Sunshine held an open house for the public to scrutinize the development. A majority of those present agreed with the proposal. The Federal Court in Vancouver upheld Sunshine's legal right to proceed with this development against special interest groups' intervention.
Did special interest groups pressure government to change the legal procedure and rules Sunshine followed with success? Will special interests again overrule the legal process and have the government order a FEARO panel for every project special interests do not agree with?
When will this government follow the wishes of the majority of Canadians?
May I remind the minister that two out of three notices received when the government called for the redundant public notice favoured completion of Goat's Eye. May I again remind the minister that a redundant FEARO review wastes taxpayers' dollars and prevents unemployed Albertans from having jobs on construction which could get going immediately. Then there would be ongoing operations that would create long term jobs which fits right down the alley of the red book.
Why would this minister continue to put a stop to this particular item? Calling a FEARO panel on this issue is a contradiction of 12(c) of the guidelines the minister states the government wants to uphold.
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed feelings in respect of Bill C-8. Although at the present moment I am leaning toward supporting the bill, I do so with some reservation.
I am concerned that no police official in my riding has been consulted with regard to this change to the Criminal Code. Further, having contacted the superintendent of K Division in Red Deer, Alberta, to his knowledge neither he nor any other official representing the RCMP in Alberta has been contacted for input into this bill. This strikes me as rather strange when the news release with this document states that it was derived from consultation with police officials all across Canada.
I am also having difficulty deciding in my own mind that this change will strengthen the ability of the police officer in making the necessary apprehension of criminals. In fact I am looking for assurances that the legislation will do exactly that. However, my gut feeling tells me that this could possibly reduce the ability of the officer to do his job, primarily due to the loss of precedents over the past few years.
In a nutshell, is the legislation for the good of the police or for the good of the criminal? I really cannot make up my mind what is the answer to that question. What was the motivation to bring in this legislation? Was it to make Canada a safer place for its citizens or was it brought about by pressure from special interest groups? They seem to have had a major impact on governments of the past and apparently are having an impact on the government of today.
If we were to talk to Canadians across the country, I am quite certain their feelings would be to strengthen the power of law enforcement. I am almost certain in their minds this legislation would not do that.
My colleague from B.C. and fellow Reformers brought the attention of this House to three deaths which have occurred at the hands of killers who had their charges reduced to manslaughter because they were drunk and did not know what they were doing. Research proves these types of offences are quite high. Does this legislation address these types of problems? I am quite sure the answer is no.
I am certain Canadians want to know when legislation is going to be put into place to stop or at the very minimum attempt to stop the killing of Canadians at the hands of first degree murderers out on day pass or early parole from this country's prisons. I have stated in this House I know of 23 killers who fit this category and have murdered 32 additional people and these are only the ones I know of. Over the last five years I wonder how many criminals have been killed during the process of arrest. I would guess the number would be significantly lower than 32. If that is the case, then where are our priorities? Are they truly for the victims and their families, or are they for the criminals?
If this legislation is brought about to protect criminals, then let us wake up and do what the red book says. Let us concentrate on the victims for a change and truly make this country safer for its citizens. Taking away authority from the police is not the way to achieve this goal. If this legislation is going to do that then I would have to oppose the bill.
In conclusion I want answers to the following questions. How many police officers have died in this country in the line of duty as compared to the lives of criminals lost? If more police have died then I would suggest this legislation must be geared toward protecting them. Is that the case? If not, then why are we doing something that may jeopardize our law enforcers even further while at the same time fattening the wallets of lawyers? I certainly hope that is not one of the motives for this kind of legislation.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to voice my concerns regarding Bill C-8. I will listen carefully to the debate to hear the answers from my colleagues to my many questions and concerns.
Justice February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I refer to several polls. If one were to talk to Canadians on any street anywhere in Canada I am sure one would find these are the things they want. One does not have to have the brains of a professor to understand what Canadians want.
The biggest fear that Canadians and I have is that the voice of special interests which does not represent the majority of Canadians will be heard while the majority's wishes will go unheard as they have in the past.
Can the minister state to this House that this will not be the case, yes or no?
Justice February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
As was suggested to me after my speech on justice I did review the hon. justice minister's address to the House on January 27. In that address, as reported on page 514 of Hansard , the hon. minister stated that the justice agenda included modernizing our laws so they reflect current values.
According to all polls, current values include stopping automatic parole, deporting non-citizens committing serious crimes and the return of the death penalty for first degree murder.
Will the minister assure the House that the current values of Canadians will be included in the government's agenda for justice?
supply February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the minister for some fine words. It is very obvious her heart is with Canada. I would like the minister to know that is where my heart is also. I am sure we could agree all day on that.
I heard her mention something about the economic factors and the environmental factors, how they tie together and how they are so important. I could not agree more.
Having lived in the Rocky Mountains all my life I love the Rocky Mountains probably more than most. Looking at a development such as was talked about earlier today in question period and thinking about the financial difficulties the country is in, I realize the Liberal government of the 1970s and early 1980s struck a FEARO panel and arrived at a decision. The Conservative Party came along and struck another FEARO panel. It did a very thorough study and came to the same agreement that the project was good. The provincial government intervened and did its thing. The municipal government intervened and did its thing. All this went on for a very long period of time. I see the importance of working together for this kind of project and really appreciate it.
Having been a member for only 100 days and getting word that there is going to be another FEARO panel struck, my immediate reaction is that we are wasting dollars on something which has already been accomplished. I have heard over and over again how it is so necessary to work together to arrive at these decisions.
For the last two weeks I have sought meetings with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to no avail. I have sought meetings with the Minister of the Environment in her office to no avail. I am wondering how we are going to be able to work together if as a member representing my riding of Wild Rose I cannot get a hearing with the ministers responsible for these things.
The Environment February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for 15 years. It costs nearly a million dollars when one counts the amount of money the entrepreneur and other business people will have to put toward this panel.
In the Globe and Mail it was noticed that the minister was too busy planning Olympic travel arrangements and posh hotel accommodations to discuss issues at a scheduled meeting with amateur athletic representatives.
My question for the minister is: How can unemployed Albertans depending on this environmentally approved development not believe this issue was treated carelessly by the minister?
The Environment February 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Canadian heritage minister or whoever would like to answer in his absence. Possibly the Minister of Human Resources Development would be interested in this because it deals with jobs.
Since 1978, Sunshine Village Corporation, a world class ski facility in Banff had continuous environmental assessment for Goat's Eye Ski Run and other developments, and final approval in 1992. This development means hundreds of long term construction jobs and meets the red book objectives.
Why did the minister order a FEARO panel review costing at least a million dollars to do again what has been done for the last 15 years?
Justice February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer.
As well, could the minister explain to Canadian officials and as a matter of fact to all Canadians why were we not able to kick Mr. Wood, a non-resident, out of Canada after he committed his first serious offence?
Justice February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Convicted killer and murderer Colin Joseph Wood, a non-citizen, recently escaped from a minimum security prison. Mr. Wood has a long history of various crimes such as drug trafficking, arson, fraud, break-ins, weapons charges as well as the brutal murder of Karen Ann Thomson.
Could the Solicitor General explain to Canadians why such a serious offender was in a minimum security prison in the first place?