Mark Muise

[Publishing Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance said that there was funding available in the budget to help the Canadian magazine industry.

Could the minister tell us where this money is coming from? Was it already earmarked for that purpose because the government knew well in advance that it would cave in to U.S. demands? Was this whole piece of legislation simply a bargaining tool?

[Publishing Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 9 I specifically asked both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade whether Bill C-55 was an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible U.S. challenge at the WTO and NAFTA. Based on their assurances we agreed to support this piece of legislation.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why she would succumb to U.S. threats when she knows Canada could defend itself against U.S. retaliation?

[Publishing Industry, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has failed. She has failed to convince her cabinet colleagues, she has failed to support the Canadian magazine industry and she has failed to support Canadian culture against the U.S.

In light of these failures, is the Prime Minister prepared to demand her resignation?

[Publishing Industry, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said “If we back down on the magazine issue, tomorrow it will be softwood lumber, the day after it will be steel. We must not back down to threats by the Americans”. The minister has backed down. She has failed. She has lost the respect of the Canadian people and the very industry she was supposed to protect.

Can the minister explain why she agreed to sell out Canadian culture so easily?

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yukon concerning the legal defence of provocation.

It is true that as we move into the 21st century and we progress as a race we need to constantly question and be willing to change the rules that we use to govern and create order within our society.

As times change, we too need to change to reflect upon the current needs in our society. Refusal to change outdated ideas and practices will only result in societal stagnation that will be of benefit to no one.

The Criminal Code is a document that is not immune to such push for change. Certain sections of the Criminal Code are quite old. Thus, it could be argued that they are in need of change. However, the PC party's position concerning Motion No. 265 is that there is no justification for throwing out the entire law simply because of a few unpopular sections.

The Criminal Code, in all of its sections, however old they may be, is written in such a way as to allow for judicial interpretation. At first glance sections of the Criminal Code may seem to be outdated, yet when subjected to judicial interpretation they are brought up to speed in any number of ways that will allow the judge to ensure that justice prevails.

Detractors may argue that problems arise in judicial interpretation that allow for decisions such as the B.C. court ruling which allowed the possession of child pornography. This of course was an issue which our party opposed. However, I am a firm believer in the system and, thus, I am confident that the judges of the supreme court will correct this ruling and protect the rights of children.

The Criminal Code is the written reference by which we as Canadians conduct ourselves. It is the guideline for our society, for a safe and orderly environment. It is true that the Criminal Code is not perfect, as it was made by man, yet to allow the dissolution of an entire law simply to appease the demands of special interest groups would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to constant band-aid solutions to very specific problems. The overspecification of this law would limit judicial interpretation of the code when dealing with future cases. Constant change could lead to the eventual dismantling of the Criminal Code, placing public protection in jeopardy.

The Department of Justice has asked for commentary on the issue of the defence of provocation, self-defence and defence of property. Concern over this issue of the defence of provocation stems from societal progress. In the 1990s critics feel that this section of the Criminal Code promotes outdated values and is used to defeat modern egalitarian principles.

Currently, the Criminal Code allows for the defence of provocation, but in recent years the nature and even the existence of the law has been the object of more and more criticism. Moreover, the successful use of the defence in a number of well publicized cases has raised public concern, especially about whether the law is in fact condoning violence. I am referring to the Department of Justice report.

I do not believe for a moment that the law is condoning violence. In fact the law is protecting those who find themselves in a condition of mental anguish. This horrible condition would stem from such unspeakable situations as mental, physical and emotional abuse. These people will sometimes reach a point of distress where they cannot be held responsible for their actions when defending themselves from an abusive attack. The Criminal Code can protect these people if it remains in its current form, where non-partisan judges can interpret the code and hand down a decision that will address the needs and concerns of modern day society.

Issues of self-defence and defence of property have also been singled out for change. Even critics believe that judicial interpretations of the law of self-defence have evolved considerably to reflect the modern values in our society, yet they feel the Criminal Code provisions remain complex and confusing.

With respect to this law the hon. member would like to make individual rights paramount because anyone who mentions the charter of rights and freedoms is seen as a champion of the people.

The Department of Justice has expressed that when dealing with proposed changes to the Criminal Code section on the legal defence of provocation it must be remembered that any proposals for law reform must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, if one gets bogged down with the issue of individual rights it is easy to forget the rights of the community.

As I mentioned, if Canadian society allows itself to make sweeping changes to the Criminal Code to appease the concerns arising from individual cases then the Criminal Code will constantly be at the mercy of popular will of the day.

The popular will of the day does not take into account the rights of minorities. The popular will of the day does not allow for unpopular individual judicial decisions, even if these decisions will have a positive effect on the greater good of society as a whole.

Perhaps such foresight requires the years of training and non-partisan conduct that we see in the judicial system. Judges have the wisdom from years of service. They have the knowledge of legal precedence. They have non-partisan opinions to allow for the proper interpretation of the Criminal Code.

In dealing with the defence of provocation the Department of Justice report states:

—defence of provocation is made available to excuse outbursts of violence in response to non-violent as well as violent acts is considered by many to be a fundamental shortcoming in the law of provocation. Many critics claim that this assumption is based on a model of male aggression that is no longer appropriate...provocation provides an example of the law's failure to grapple with the problem of male anger and violence against women in the domestic sphere...The law of provocation focuses on the behaviour of the victim, whose behaviour does not have to be unlawful or even deliberately insulting so long as it is characterized as wrongful in the prevailing cultural climate.

Issues dealing with the legality involved in the interaction between men and women is in a constant state of flux as society works toward the creation of a level playing field. Thus we can either change the law as frequently as society changes or we can rely on our capable male and female judges to interpret the current law.

The report of the justice department states that the purpose of our criminal justice system is to protect and ensure the safety and security of all members of Canadian society. The Criminal Code sets out legal limits on behaviour by describing criminal offences such as assault and murder. No less important, the code also sets out certain defence that may be used by accused persons to excuse or justify their behaviour.

This is the law of the land. It is an effective law because it allows for our honourable judicial system to interpret the code and make decisions which effectively apply in varying and multifaceted cases that the courts would see in a such diverse multicultural country. Allowing for changes in the Criminal Code is a simplistic and potentially dangerous solution to a very complex problem.

We need to have faith in the judicial system and not throw out the law simply because of individual cases that may gain popular support at a given time. In the case of unpopular judicial decisions which the public may feel are unjust the principals always have the opportunity for appeal. Therefore the PC Party does not support the abolition of the Criminal Code section allowing for the legal defence of provocation.

[Canadian Coast Guard, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on March 13 a Canadian Coast Guard employee was seriously injured while attempting to rescue an ill stricken fisherman from the Bay of Fundy.

A constituent of mine, Mr. Ian McBride, is an engineer aboard the Digby based coast guard cutter. Attempting to transfer the ill stricken fisherman from his vessel to the coast guard vessel, Mr. McBride fell overboard and was pinned between the two vessels that were being smashed together by high winds.

It is precisely these types of rescue missions that members of our fishing communities have come to depend upon. Instead of drastically cutting their existing budget, resources should be reinvested in the protection of our fishers.

Despite the recent downturn in the fishery, our West Nova economy continues to depend on the support of industry for its social and economic well-being. Our fishers deserve to be protected by a well equipped coast guard. I call upon the government to reinvest resources in this program.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

And it should be.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to debate the government's new youth justice strategy.

For months, even years, Canadians from across the country have been calling on government to get tougher with youth crime. The recent highly publicized events that took place in Colorado and Alberta and the murder of young Reena Virk in B.C. have pushed this issue one step further. They are vicious acts which really need to be addressed.

I believe all provinces were united in their belief that immediate steps had to be taken to protect society against individual youths who for whatever reason have chosen to follow the path of hate and destruction. Calls from throughout Canada could be heard in support of amending the Young Offenders Act to more aptly respond to the more serious acts of violence that all too often are threatening our friends and family.

There is no doubt that our justice system needs a major overhaul as it concerns young offenders. Canadians have become tired of hearing that young criminals do not pay enough for the error they commit against our society.

There is no question that the time has long since passed whereby those youth who commit violent crimes finally pay their debt to society. It is with this realization that the provincial justice ministers met with the federal justice minister to discuss appropriate ways of implementing changes to the Young Offenders Act, changes that would reflect society's revulsion toward the leniency the present system has been according to our young offenders.

It was only natural that Canadians awaited the change to the Young Offenders Act with great anticipation. Finally they thought that this government was committed to cracking down on young offenders. Finally they thought that the government was going to take youth crime seriously.

Canadians from coast to coast were bitterly disappointed to discover that the government was not serious in its commitment to try to put an end to youth crime. They found out instead that the government was only interested in providing cosmetic changes that fell far short of what the provinces wanted and what the Canadian electorate expected in terms of protection against youth crime.

One of our key recommendations put forth to the minister was the lowering of the age of application for the Young Offenders Act from the age of 12 to 10 years. It was a private member's bill before the House. Although this request received wide ranging support across the country, the minister chose to ignore this recommendation. This was in spite of the fact that offenders have progressively become younger. This begs the question why the federal minister would ignore the advice of not only her provincial counterparts but also of her experts who recommended that this particular change be accepted.

The federal minister wants us to believe that young offenders under 12 years of age will be better served in facilities for youth than in prison.

How can that be possible, when the federal government first refused to honour the agreements in the first bill on young offenders? And now, in this new bill, it is not even offering 50% of the money needed to provide these programs to our young offenders.

The government did not live up to the funding agreements contained in the previous Young Offenders Act. This act does nothing to restore the federal share of funding for youth justice. The lack of financial resources contained within the new youth criminal justice act can only result in more youth falling through the cracks.

This piece of legislation specifically ignores provincial demands for mandatory minimum sentences for weapons offences. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that Canada's legal system operate in uniformity when it comes to passing judgments against our young offenders. The Liberal government could well have provided some direction to our provincial justice ministers. Instead it chose to once again ignore their requests.

The size and complexity of the clauses and subclauses contained within this bill will invariably lead to confusion and further backlog in our courts. Our judicial system is already struggling with huge caseloads and serious lack of resources. This act will serve only to further complicate crown prosecutors and judges about their respective roles in the youth justice system and will not adequately serve Canadian interests.

There have been many reasons associated with committing crime among Canada's youth. It has often been suggested by some that one of the reasons behind youth crime is that they find themselves living in extreme poverty. Although I do not believe that poverty in itself is a cause for youth crime, it certainly can be a mitigating factor.

Like the Young Offenders Act, the government has also failed to address poverty. Millions of Canadians continue to struggle to survive while living in poverty. Over 1.5 million Canadian children live in poverty. Our party has been working with poverty for the last while. The government showed Canadians its true commitment to Canada's poor when it voted against Bill S-11, a bill that would help improve their lives by adding social condition as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

The government had an opportunity to make a profound and lasting impact on Canada's justice system that would serve all Canadians for years to come. Instead the government chose to employ smoke and mirrors in hopes of giving the appearance of strengthening legislation when in fact its changes fall far short of what the provinces expected and what Canadians demanded.

Like most Canadians, I am disappointed with the contents of the bill. It will not have the desired effect of helping our judicial system combat youth crime in Canada. Therefore, I must oppose this proposed legislation.

[Publishing Industry, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks Canadians have been reading reports about Canada and the U.S. nearing a compromise agreement on Bill C-55.

Not only are Canadians kept in the dark as to what is being sacrificed to appease the Americans, we are not even sure whether negotiations are ongoing, as stated by the Minister for International Trade, or whether they are stalled, as was suggested by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell the House what we are supposed to believe? Will she tell us exactly what has been put on the negotiating table?

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

That is not what I was thinking. I was thinking more along the lines of after all these great debates on the horse that I am still very pleased to address this bill.

I congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for recognizing the importance of the Canadian horse and the role it has played throughout our history. I must admit, like my colleague from the Reform Party, I found myself somewhat beleaguered with my limited knowledge of the Canadian horse, but after a bit of research I felt more comfortable to talk on the topic.

I also thank my caucus colleague from South Shore for putting me in touch with Mr. Hiltz who helps run the Ross Farm Museum. Not only was Mr. Hiltz extremely helpful in providing me with a historical background of the Canadian horse, but he also described the nature of this kind and gentle animal.

The Ross Farm Museum has 11 registered Canadian horses in its stables. Although most Canadian horse breeders reside in the province of Quebec as was discussed by a few of my colleagues this evening, the Canadian horse is nevertheless making its way across Canada and into the northern United States. There are approximately 3,000 registered Canadian horses in the country.

This is the oldest horse breed in Canada. The first specimen arrived in Canada from France in 1647 as a present for the governor, Chevalier de Montmagny.

King Louis XIV understood how hard life was for the colonists who had no horses and had to cope with a very harsh environment. He therefore decided to send over some horses.

Eighteen years after the first Canadian horse arrived in Canada, the King of France sent over 20 mares, 8 of which died during the voyage, as well as 2 stallions. Over the next century, the Canadian horse population increased to about 12,000.

The Canadian horse played a key role in the development of the country. As I read through some of the material that was provided to me, it became apparent that this breed was no ordinary horse. Its legend is still talked about in certain circles within the horse breeding industry.

Stories of doctors galloping through Canada's primitive roads on the backs of their trusted Canadian horses to tend to the sick and dying are well known in the 18th and 19th centuries. Legend has it that one Quebec City butcher and his Canadian horse outraced an overnight steamer to Montreal to collect on a bad debt.

The Canadian horse is somewhat smaller in stature compared to some of the other heavier horses. However, what distinguished the Canadian horse from others is its big heart. The legend of the Canadian horse grew immensely during the 1760s when the British brought over their own workhorses, the Percherons, the Clydesdales and the Belgians, to Quebec following its capture. Initially mocking the Canadian horse, the British quickly realized that this breed was far better than those presently in their stables.

The Canadian horse is generally a very quiet animal, excellent for a carriage horse. The Canadian horse was capable of accomplishing dual responsibilities without difficulty, either for transportation or for heavy labour.

It is very hard for someone of my generation to understand how important a role the horse played in the lives of our ancestors. For most of us, a horse is nothing more than a very beautiful animal we sometimes see on a farm. But a horse is far more than that. It is a symbol of what helped us develop this great country called Canada.

The Canadian horse is a symbol of what was accomplished through much hard work as our ancestors struggled to survive under very difficult conditions in the new world.

Canada could certainly use more identifiable symbols of things that have helped make this country the greatest country in the world. Unlike our southern neighbours who take great pride in promoting their unique history, Canadians unfortunately do not seem to have that same enthusiasm.

It is important that we take stock of our own history. Canada has a number of highly identifiable symbols including the Canadian flag, our provincial coats of arms and the maple leaf, just to name a few. The Canadian beaver is an instant reminder of the fur trade. The loon has been adopted as a symbol of serenity.

I quote a passage in the “Symbols of Canada” booklet published by the Department of Canadian Heritage:

Symbols of Canada can be used to heighten not only our awareness of our country but also our sense of celebration in being Canadian.

The Canadian horse is a symbol of what we have accomplished together through hard work and great hearts. This horse epitomizes the drive and perseverance it will take from each and every one of us to continue to make our country grow and prosper.

I once again congratulate the member from across the floor for focusing our attention on the fine exploits of the great Canadian horse. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill and recognize the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada.