Mark Muise

[Fisheries, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for months now I have been sending a steady stream of letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans outlining the seriousness of the illegal lobster fishery particularly in St. Mary's Bay. Thousands of pounds of illegal lobster are caught daily, threatening the livelihood of registered commercial fisherman.

Can the minister explain why his department has not committed greater resources toward putting an end to this illegal practice? Are his hands tied by the lack of existing legislation to address the native food fishery? If so, when can we expect such legislation to be introduced?

[Lobster Fishery, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for months now native and non-native fishers have been illegally poaching lobster from the lucrative lobster fishing grounds off southwestern Nova Scotia, threatening the livelihoods of thousands of registered commercial lobster fishers. Each day thousands of pounds of illegal lobsters are landed and sold on the black market.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done very little to curb this illegal activity. Law-abiding fishers are now threatening to take the law into their own hands if something is not done immediately to protect their industry.

Fishers in my riding are living in fear. They recognize that the government is doing very little to protect their industry. Some fishers have risked their own personal safety to notify DFO of illegal activity, only to have their pleas for help ignored.

The issue will not go away simply by ignoring it. I call on the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Solicitor General of Canada to join with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to devise a strategy that will effectively put an end to this illegal fishery before the situation turns to violence.

[Labrador Helicopter Accident, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the Progressive Conservative caucus I would like to express my most sincere sympathy to the families of the six brave military search and rescue officers who were killed on the weekend while on their way back to their home base at CFB Greenwood.

Captains Darren Vandencilche and Peter Musselman, Master Corporals Glen Sinclair, David Gaetz, Darrell Cronin and Sergeant Jean Roy were members of our elite Nova Scotia based search and rescue squadron.

These brave individuals often ignored their own personal safety by rushing to the scene of an emergency, often in very adverse weather conditions, in the hope of being able to save a life. Their selfless devotion for the safety of others deserves the respect and appreciation of all Canadians.

The tragic loss of these six individuals is obviously devastating for their families and friends, as well as for the people of Greenwood and surrounding areas.

I join with all members of the House in remembering these six brave men.

[Veterans Affairs, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected to represent West Nova I have worked diligently with World War II veterans and residents of Cornwallis for the return of their stained glass windows.

These memorial windows were donated to CFB Cornwallis by naval recruits who wanted to commemorate all those lost on our navy ships during the battle of the Atlantic.

Since the closure of the base the residents have demanded the return of the stained glass windows for display in their new naval museum. Sadly the Minister of National Defence has steadfastly refused to return these windows to their rightful place.

I ask all members of the House to look up at the beautiful windows and imagine what this place would look like if they were removed and replaced by a sheet of plexiglas. Perhaps now they understand why the residents of Cornwallis want so desperately to display the windows in their chapel.

Mr. Minister, perhaps you believe the battle over the stained glass windows is over, but let me tell you, for the residents of Cornwallis the battle has just begun.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This is an extremely important piece of legislation and I salute the hon. member for Mississauga East for bringing forward the bill despite the opposition from her own government. We need more initiative and free thinking from both Liberals and Reform instead of their respective leadership constantly cracking the whip.

Let us hope the hon. member for Mississauga East will not face the same wrath from the Liberal leadership as the hon. members for North Vancouver and Nanaimo—Alberni had to face in September at Banff.

With respect to Bill C-251 this is very timely when one looks at how the Liberal government has responded to the various justice issues this week in the House. Yesterday we witnessed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice defend the faint hope clause by proclaiming I am proud to be a bleeding heart Liberal.

On Tuesday we witnessed Liberal after Liberal stand up to defend Bill C-68, the false hope law, by criticizing law abiding gun owners as being part of some vast right wing conspiracy. I am nonetheless encouraged to see a member from the Liberal benches stand up for what she believes in with this bill. I know she has been working very hard over the past number of years to bring this matter forward in the form of a votable motion. She has stated in the past that Bill C-251 is based on three simple principles: inhumanity and how to avoid it, improving humanity toward victims, and certainly to protect us against those who offend.

My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus and I share the deep concern of the hon. member for how difficult it is for victims of crime to face the justice system and how far too easy it is for them to lose faith. Our party's justice and solicitor general critic, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, has proposed a number of solid initiatives to ensure that our laws better reflect the needs of victims and their families.

Parliamentarians now have an opportunity to support this important piece of legislation to help improve our justice system, to help restore the confidence of Canadians in the system and more important, to improve the protection of society from violent offenders. These are very positive suggestions the hon. member has made.

Bill C-251 provides for truth in sentencing, something we must see. It is a very brief, straightforward and easy to understand amendment to the Criminal Code. This is something which all members of this House should encourage.

When it comes to the issue of sexual assault and section 271 of the Criminal Code, there is a strong need for this amendment. There is a need that sentences which are imposed by judges be served consecutively so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the offence.

At the present time there is the ability for these types of sentences to be served concurrently. That is, if there is more than one offence or the offence of a sexual assault occurs at the same time as other offences such as break and enter, theft or simple assault, the sentences are served at the same time. In simple terms this would be similar to having loans from three different institutions and only having to pay back one.

The principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 718 of the code sets out what legislators in the past have tried to do and tried to reflect in the sentencing principles.

Section 718.1 states “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. It goes further in setting out what these principles are and it speaks of the need for reformation and rehabilitation to be balanced against the more important principle, the protection of society.

The Criminal Code further states “Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. Try explaining that to a victim of a violent crime. Try explaining that to those who have lost their loved ones or had their loved ones attacked, beaten or killed.

We must revisit the principles of sentencing. The suggestion by the hon. member does just that in a positive way.

Bill C-251 would expand the ability of judges to impose a fair sentence. No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. Sadly this is precisely what happens far too often. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders who commit two, three or more crimes to serve one sentence at one time. It is absolutely absurd.

The name Clifford Olson is heard much too often in this House and the mere mention of this name makes me shiver. This individual killed 11 children and received only one life sentence. He should be serving 11 life sentences.

The manipulative and self-serving testimony he gave at his section 745 hearing was simply outrageous and an embarrassment to all of Canada, and particularly to our justice system.

No sentence could be harsh enough considering the horrible crimes committed by that scum. The details of some of them would be enough to turn anybody into an alarmist and a reactionary. However, we must look at sentencing carefully. Common sense must always prevail.

In the case of individuals like Olson and Bernardo, it is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a sentence ranging from 15 years to life is an acceptable punishment.

That is why my colleague the justice critic for the PC party continues to fight for the repeal of section 745, the faint hope clause. That is why we support the efforts of other members of this House, such as the member from British Columbia yesterday, to repeal the faint hope clause.

I call on all members from the member for Mississauga East to the members from the Bloc and the NDP to join with us in our fight to get rid of this ill-advised section of the Criminal Code.

The principles that underscore this bill are completely useless as long as we continue to have section 745 in the Criminal Code. It is my belief that each of the innocent lives that were taken at least deserve the validation of having a consecutive sentence to represent their lives. A person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence to reflect each and every one of those offences, if committed at a different time with different circumstances. This principle reflects the views of most of my constituents and most Canadians.

Bill C-251 addresses this principle in a common sense manner. Therefore I support the member for Mississauga East and I support her bill.

I am extremely proud to support it. I recognize the importance of consistent sentencing. I personally think that the justice system should not weaken the ability of our society to protect itself and to show its abhorrence of violent crime.

The second clause of Bill C-251 amends section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires offenders sentenced for first and second degree murder to serve their full parole ineligibility period on the sentence plus one-third of a maximum of seven years, whichever is less.

As with the first clause of Bill C-251, it is an innovative way to ensure that there is some truth in sentencing. There are times and factual circumstances when the judge should impose a sentence that would really reflect what the crime represents. If a judge says 25 years, it should be 25 years. That should be the end of it. That would give the offender and society faith in their justice system. Cumulative sentences play a very important role when it comes to parole eligibility.

Bill C-251 would be the best way to address cases of double murders. The victim's family of the second murder are forced to face the fact that their victim is not being addressed by the justice system when the sentence has to be served concurrently.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I support this bill and hope that all members support the efforts of the member for Mississauga East.

[President Of South Africa, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we have welcomed a true statesman among us. President Mandela is the very incarnation of the word statesman. with his great vision, integrity, and sense of what a state is all about.

The Progressive Conservative members are particularly delighted with the visit of President Mandela.

While they were in office, Prime Minister Mulroney and Minister of External Affairs Joe Clark fought hard within the G-7 countries and the Commonwealth to put an end to apartheid in South Africa.

They were strongly determined to put an end to human rights violations on the international level, and under their direction the Progressive Conservative government remained faithful to the reputation Canada has gained for standing up to oppressive regimes.

The visit by President Mandela bears witness to the strength of that tradition.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many of the people from West Nova in the riding I represent are hunters. They are law-abiding citizens. They are honest, hard working people who see hunting as many of us would see golfing or any recreational sport of that nature. There is absolutely no criminal intent on their part. There is no malice in what they use their guns for.

My question to the hon. member across the way is very simple. How would registration of long guns reduce the incidence of violent crime? I ask him to explain to me how that would happen. I am known as someone who thinks very rationally, who does not rant and rave about issues, but I would really like to understand how he sees it preventing violent crime.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party, as my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has so eloquently said, believes that recording of DNA is good but it does not go far enough as it is in its present state. Basically it curtails the ability of police to do their job effectively. It can lead to the flight of criminals who have not gone to trial.

Unlike the registration of long guns imposed by the ill-conceived Bill C-68, the registry of criminals through DNA databanking is something we applaud.

I would like to ask my colleague for his comments about the bill not permitting retroactive testing of DNA for convicted criminals such as Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo.

[National Parks Act, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act by adding Tuktut Nogait national park to the list of national parks in schedule I of the National Parks Act.

Tuktut Nogait is located in region 15, tundra hills, as designated by Parks Canada in its national park systems plan. This region is highlighted by a number of spectacular features. More than 95% of the region is tundra, rock barrens where only the hardiest plants can survive. Wildlife in this region is mainly comprised of summer migrants. Musk ox, wolves and caribou can be found in this region. It is also the home of one of the rarest birds in Canada, the Eskimo curlew.

All this is to say that this park will play a critical role in helping to conserve Canada's biological diversity through the protection of the bluenose caribou herd, concentrations of tundra peregrine falcons and rich niches of vegetation.

Tuktut Nogait is Canada's newest and fifth largest national park. The passage of Bill C-38 brings Canada's park system one step closer to completion. It is this government's objective to have a national park in all 39 natural regions of this country by the year 2000. It is also a very unique national park in that it was a community that initiated the idea of the national park. Most candidate sites are identified by Parks Canada.

The Inuvialuit are to be praised for their conservation efforts. In fact, 29% of their lands are protected areas whereas the government has not even achieved its goal of setting aside 12% of our lands as protected areas.

Six parties entered into agreement to establish Tuktut Nogait national park in June 1996, the Canadian government, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Paulatuk Community Corporation and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee.

While they were negotiating the agreement and at the time they signed that agreement the Inuvialuit groups understood that it would be possible for them to make changes to this agreement in the future.

Last winter the IRC approached the federal government to ask whether it could modify the boundaries of the park to allow for mineral development. The government's response was to wipe the dust off the Tuktut Nogait park agreement and attempt to slip it through parliament.

All parties agreed to the passage of Bill C-38 in principle but were preoccupied by the request made by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to remove 415 square kilometres of the established 16,340 square kilometres to permit mineral development. The government and conservation groups have argued that this land which represents only 2.5% of the park falls within the core calving ground of the bluenose caribou herd.

During first reading of this bill I told members of the House that I was in favour of this bill in principle. I thought then and I still do that we cannot start carving up parts of our national parks for any reason. Immediately following my remarks I was contacted by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to advise me of the Inuvialuit point of view.

It quickly became apparent that this issue was not as cut and dry as members of the House were first led to believe. It was very important for me to hear both sides of the story so I urged the committee to hear witnesses affected by the park. It was an honour for me to meet with the representatives of the IRC and from the community of Paulatuk when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The committee was told that they had been lobbying the government for the past six months because they see the development of a mine as the way to end the dependence of their people on social assistance. The community of Paulatuk has a population of approximately 300 people. The majority of those residents are under age 25. The people of Paulatuk have traditionally lived off the land. They understand the danger that might be posed by a mine but they argue that the development of the mine could help their people.

Being from a region where many people have had to diversify due to the downturn in fisheries I can certainly appreciate the Inuvialiuts' difficult situation. However, my initial decision has not changed for a number of reasons.

First, the agreement was signed by all parties. Second, since only 10% of the anomaly lies within the boundaries of the park, I really do not understand why it is imperative for them to develop that portion. They would be much better to develop and exploit the remaining 90%.

The Inuvialuit also argue that the Tuktut Nogait is not a park but a proposed park.

I told witnesses and I have said in this House my party is not against mineral development. On the contrary, we support mining and other development in the north. However, I feel that changing the boundaries for Tuktut Nogait to allow for mineral exploration after the agreement has been signed would set a dangerous precedent for this and the other seven national parks that are not protected under the National Parks Act.

In my humble opinion if we start decreasing or reducing the boundaries of our proposed parks for immediate benefits, we will be short changing future generations. Our children's children deserve the right to enjoy our national parks and national treasures, be it the right whale in the Bay of Fundy or the bluenose caribou herd in Canada's north.

Although I am in favour of this bill, I am not in favour of the way this government has treated the people of Paulatuk. The IRC and the people of Paulatuk ask this government for time to explore the prospects of mineral development pursuant to their understanding of section 22.1 of the Tuktut Nogait agreement which states: “Any party may request a review by the parties of part or all of this agreement. If all the parties agree, they shall initiate the review within 90 days of the request”.

This government's cavalier response was to ignore the IRC's request and to try to whisk this through the House. Will this government ever learn to treat people with respect and dignity? Furthermore, this government has recently shown yet another double standard.

While arguing that mineral development in Tuktut Nogait would have a negative ecological impact on the environment, it is allowing Canadian Pacific Hotels to build a 156,000 square foot conference centre and hotel expansion on the shores of Lake Louise.

This is the latest but not the last announcement in the new development boom in Banff National Park. How can this government expect Canadians to take it seriously on environmental issues when it flip-flops from one park to another?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on point of order. First I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for answering Question No. 21. I am also wondering if we could possibly know when we could expect an answer to Question No. 94.