Monte Solberg

[Government Expenditures, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, no matter how much smoke the Treasury Board president blows at it, the facts are very clear. The government has forced the provinces to eat $7 billion in cuts to health and education while keeping billions of dollars extra in its own departmental budgets, money that it promised it would cut.

These are the facts. The government has overspent in agriculture by $126 million; transport, $400 million; regional development, $812 million. The total is $3 billion plus.

How does the government justify cutting $7 billion from health and education transfers to the provinces when it is billions of dollars short in reducing waste in its own departments?

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

We'll send it to every pedophile.

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

Well, that's really good.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-17 and the amendment.

Through its actions over the past couple of years the government has demonstrated where its priorities are with respect to criminal justice. In every instance, with the possible exception of what it is trying to do today on the eve of an election, it has demonstrated its sympathies lie as much or more with criminals than they do with the public.

I will read a letter from a constituent of mine, Mike Duffy who lives in Bow Island, Alberta. It was sent to the solicitor general and reads as follows:

Dear sir,

RE: Section 745 Criminal Code

On June 30th, 1982 a car occupied by four natives, broke down on Highway 11, south of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. After initial efforts to flag down assistance had failed, two of these individuals decided to hide in the tall weeds at the road edge. One of these two told the others that he was going to "Shank the next honky that stops".

Joseph Duffy, my father, was en route from Edmonton to his home in Regina. He was the next person. He stopped and offered assistance.

For his efforts he was attacked and taken at knife point, in his own car, to a farmer's field. He was slashed with the knife and forced from his car. The four then chased him with the car and ran him over; and over.

Joe Duffy was murdered because of the colour of his skin; and his willingness to offer help to a stranger.

On July 7th, 1982, Robert George Ironchild, the leader of this group was arrested. On January 25th, 1983 he was convicted of first degree murder. He received a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

The convicted murderer Ironchild subsequently changed his name to Rob Wapuchakoos, at public expense. Soon he can apply for a review of his parole eligibility at public expense.

I have recently learned that your department sends an information package to prisoners serving life sentences.

My understanding is that this package instructs convicted murderers how to submit an application for a section 745 review; how to behave to obtain a favourable review; and how to apply for Legal Aid and expenses for witnesses. This is very disturbing.

However, since we live in a society where everyone is equal before the law, your office must also have an information package for the survivors, the family of the murder victim.

On behalf of the entire family of Joe Duffy, I request the package so we can prepare for any review; to ensure that the convicted murderer serves his entire sentence; and to acquire Legal Aid and expenses.

We also require copies of all documentation-I ask that you give immediate attention to my requests. Working together we can keep this convicted murderer in prison and prevent another homicide. We owe this to the memory of my father.

Yours truly,

Mike Duffy

The point that Mr. Duffy is making is one that we should all heed in this place. We are legislators and we have a duty to hear what these victims are saying. They are saying: "Don't give rights to the criminals; give rights to the victims".

The amendment seeks to address an old wrong. Apparently for some reason, even though our members pointed it out, the government somehow forgot to put in a victim impact statement at the time of the trial so victims could explain to the judge and to the jury the horrifying impact of having a loved one murdered. Somehow the government got a little mixed up and decided to give the rights to the criminals, which is why we are facing the spectacle today of animals like Clifford Olson winning the right to apply under section 745 to be released from prison early and, as my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley pointed out, ultimately to cross-examine the families of his victims.

God in heaven, that is contrary to what anybody would believe is sensible. I cannot believe we are standing here discussing it today. I cannot believe the justice minister does not fly in here and say they are changing the law today, that they will fix this.

The government has a responsibility to protect our citizens. There is one thing it should be doing with the huge budget granted by the taxpayers every year, the $120 billion. It should take a portion of it and do what it can to protect citizens and victims, not criminals, not people like Ironchild, Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. It is unbelievable that we are having this discussion in the House today.

Like my friend from South Langley and my friend from Crowfoot say, if there is any justice in the world I hope people will look closely at the Liberal record on criminal justice issues. If they do, real justice will be meted out at the time of the next election.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment to Bill C-17. I do not know what I can say that my hon. friend has not already said in a very forceful way. I would argue that if anyone speaks out for Canadians who are concerned about crime in this country it is the hon.

member for Crowfoot and his colleagues on the Reform Party's criminal justice team.

One concern I have when I look at how the justice system is administered is that the government seems to fail to learn from its mistakes. My friend has pointed out two instances that we know of where judges have decided that rapists should walk away from a conviction, spending no time in jail while their innocent victims sit in their homes fearful that this crime will be perpetrated again, that the offenders will rape again.

Who among us in this place has not at one time or another considered what it would be like to have that happen to someone in our families. People do think about it in horror. Thankfully, most of us come to our senses and realize that it did not happen to us. But for a second we understand what those people go through. In a very small way we come to understand.

That is why as legislators we should always be attentive to what these people go through and it should be the basis on which we make some of the laws that the justice minister is ultimately responsible for bringing about.

In this situation, has the justice minister really tried to put himself in the shoes of victims? I do not think so. Somehow he has decided against what he probably feels in his own stomach. Who for one second could side with the criminal in a situation where two men have raped women and walked away without even spending a day in jail?

I would suggest it is implied that when the justice minister brings forward legislation, the legislation is the most important piece of legislation to the minister. Considering all the things he could do, he has decided that this one piece of legislation is the most important to him based on whatever input he receives and what he considers to be important.

However, for some reason the minister has decided that the most important piece of legislation he can bring down right now is a caution to judges to consider all the various things they already do consider when they sentence violent criminals.

The answer is not to caution judges again to pay attention to the details. That already happens in Bill C-41. Rather obviously some judges cannot be trusted to use their God given common sense to not release violent criminals back into society without spending a single day in jail.

My hon. friends from Crowfoot, Wild Rose, Calgary Northeast and Fraser Valley West, members of the Reform Party criminal justice team, have suggested over and over again to the justice minister and to the people who are willing to listen that the answer is to not allow violent offenders to walk out. There should be no latitude for judges on issues such as this.

What is the government supposed to do? The first thing the federal government should do is uphold the law of the country. It should protect the public from violent criminals. The federal government with its budget of $120 billion odd, not including all the interest paid on the debt, does numerous things. Probably the first thing that a government should do is ensure there are proper laws and that the public is protected. That should be the greatest priority of a government.

I would argue that this government has failed. There are so many examples of how the government has absolutely ignored what is common sense that it is simply beyond belief that it can be allowed to enjoy any support from the public.

How is it that convicted mass murderers can come before the public again to torment the families of the victims, such as in the Clifford Olson case? How can they do that? The government can sit idly by doing virtually nothing except, as we get close to an election, respond in a kind of fearful way because it realizes that maybe the public is upset and it is going to pay a price at the polls.

That is not acting from conviction. That is opportunism. That is simply not a good enough motive. I just cannot say enough in opposition to what the government has done.

As my hon. friend pointed out, Reform members will support the government. We will do anything we think in some tiny way may send a message that we will not tolerate the ridiculous problem with crime. I say ridiculous because it is counter intuitive. It is contrary to common sense how we treat criminals considering especially how poorly so often we treat victims.

We will support the government amendment but we do it with the caveat that from here on in the government must pay attention to what is going on out there. It is simply not good enough at the last moment to try to come up with some window dressing to try to fool the public so that they will believe that the Liberal government is actually concerned about crime.

When we look at the role of the federal government with respect to these sorts of issues, one of the things that strikes me is that for the last 30 years there has not been a party that has been dedicated to the idea that criminal justice should be a key issue in an election campaign. Previous to that just about every government took a common sense approach to criminal justice. People understood intuitively, they had common sense, that criminals must be treated in a way they deserve to be treated. They should have consequences for their actions.

However, in the last 30 years that has been thrown out the window. For some reason people got it into their heads that the criminals were the victims. All of a sudden they started to get all of these rights. We saw perhaps the climax of that notion in the form of the government's approach to conditional sentencing where it allows judges the latitude to release people who are violent

offenders, people who have gone out and raped people. That happened under this government.

That speaks more eloquently to the government's priorities with respect to criminal justice than anything I can say in this place. I ask people to examine the record of the government, not just in the last couple of days when it is trying to jam things through, but on the issues that really count. When people needed it I can guarantee that the government did not stand up for them. It was deaf to the cries of the victims and the people who demanded that there be real justice in the justice system.

It is with some reluctance that we support anything that the government does with respect to criminal justice, knowing its sorry record with respect to hearing what victims have to say and with respect to respecting the wishes of the great majority of law-abiding citizens.

[Departmental Spending, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we do not have the finance minister on his feet. This is an issue that goes right to the credibility of the government's numbers.

In the 1995 budget speech the Liberals said departmental spending will fall 19 per cent. They did not say anything about program review. They said departmental spending will fall by19 per cent. Their own numbers show it has only fallen by 8.3 per cent, a $5 billion difference.

My question to the finance minister is why the $5 billion difference. Why are they fudging their numbers just like Michael Wilson?

[Departmental Spending, March 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, while we appreciate that the finance minister pointed out the gaping holes in the Tory platform yesterday and that their numbers do not add up, out of fairness I think he should point out that his own numbers do not add up.

Somehow he missed the fact that in 1995 he said in his budget speech that he was going to cut departmental spending by 19 per cent. He said these are not going to be phoney cuts, they are going to be real cuts. That is in the budget speech. Today departmental spending has fallen only 8.3 per cent. That is a $5 billion difference.

Why is the minister failing to meet his spending reduction targets in departmental spending just like Michael Wilson?

[Copyright Act, March 20th, 1997]

I am sure they will be disappointed when broadcasters simply cannot provide the type of service to them because of the legislation that I know they would love to do.

[Copyright Act, March 20th, 1997]

I say to the minister that we have had all kinds of hearings. The minister knows full well that broadcasters have insisted that what is in the bill is not adequate. Nor is it clear enough. Unfortunately broadcasters will have to jump through major hoops simply because the government has not been listening closely to what they are saying.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary across the way are concerned about the input of broadcasters. After all, they are the vehicle for the promotion of so much Canadian culture. Who could deny that they have done anything but a wonderful job? It escapes me why the government would not be listening a little closer.

I want to make a couple of comments on behalf of my former colleagues in the broadcast industry. Please forgive me for doing this, Mr. Speaker, but I simply must. Yesterday we had some wonderful artists here from around the country, people who represented Canadian culture in various sectors: painters, poets and writers involved in film. It is important to remember that Canadian radio and television broadcasters should be standing beside those people, the vehicles for the promotion of culture.

Over the last several years broadcasters have taken many hits at the hands of the former Conservative government and even at the hands of this government. Taxes continue to climb. All kinds of radio and television stations are in great financial difficulty. They have been struggling to make a go of it. When those various outlets disappear they are not there to promote Canadian culture.

The government is proposing legislation that will make it extremely difficult for marginal stations to make a go of it. It will make it extremely difficult for those in very tight competitive situations to make a go of it. Therefore it is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The government is making it extremely difficult for broadcasters who have done a wonderful job of promoting culture over the years to continue doing that.

Broadcasters have tried to work very closely with the minister and her department. They have made extraordinary efforts to come to the committee to explain their position. They have been at the beck and call of the department. They are more than willing to come and have a dialogue with the minister and her departmental officials at any time. Even Liberal members across the way have worked closely with broadcasters to try to get their point of view.

Unfortunately on these common sense issues the government has not listened. Many bureaucrats in the Department of Heritage who think they know better than broadcasters what their business is. On this particular issue they simply do not. Broadcasters have made it clear over and over again that this will impede their ability to do their job which ultimately, after making a profit and all those sorts of things, is to promote Canadian culture in many different ways.

If I have not said it forcefully enough, I am extremely disappointed. Canadian broadcasters will be extremely disappointed. The people who listen to radio stations and who watch television stations will also be disappointed that the legislation is being forced through.

The government has joined forces with the Bloc Quebecois after a lot of debate has gone on in this place. We have reached a point where we could make some changes and the government has gone ahead and said it will ignore those common sense solutions. It will bull ahead and put forward solutions which simply are not adequate.

I do not know if there is much more I could say on the issue other than that I know I speak for broadcasters across the country when I say they will be extremely disappointed.

[Copyright Act, March 20th, 1997]

Although they are talking about it being in the bill, it is not defined well enough.

For reasons that escape me the broadcasters have asked for some clarification, for some simplification so that everybody will be satisfied. Then there would be no problem.

Again the government has failed to listen. Therefore broadcasters will be put in a position where they may be paying twice simply because they are transferring a song from a CD on to an electronic format like a computer hard disk. They will have to pay twice simply because the government has not used common sense and has not listened closely enough to broadcasters who are therefore put in this awkward position. There is no good reason for it. We have had hearings over and over again.