Monte Solberg

[Pornography, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the government is trying to justify this. I knew it would try to wrap this in the cloak of an artistic film. However, the great majority of Canadians would never let that kind of trash in their houses under any circumstances. It has been permitted in under the CBC.

At a time when the government regulator, the CRTC, is looking at the issue of violence in television, how can the minister explain his own broadcaster airing a film that has many scenes that most Canadians could only describe as disgusting and tasteless?

[Pornography, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the National Film Board funded movie "Léolo" features a scene in which a child engages in an act of bestiality. As reprehensible as that is, it is made even more so by the fact that Canadian taxpayers have helped to fund this movie and that it was shown on Canada's public broadcaster across the country, the CBC.

I wonder if the Minister of Canadian Heritage can explain why he thinks this reflects Canadian culture and Canadian values and why in the world are Canadian taxpayers paying for that kind of garbage?

[Sports Illustrated, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, for the first time ever, Canadian MBA teams took to the courts to the great delight of their fans across the country. How ironic that at the same time as we are welcoming the MBA to Canada we are closing the door on North America's largest sports magazine, Sports Illustrated .

Essentially the government has said that Sports Illustrated cannot be allowed split runs in Canada because SI is too efficient in its production and too effective in attracting readers and therefore advertisers. By all means let us not encourage that; we do not want people to go around thinking it is all right to be efficient and successful.

By shutting Sports Illustrated out of Canada the government is taking a 200-year leap back in time. While other Canadian communications technologies compete head to head with companies from around the world, the magazine publishing industry in Canada has adopted the views of communist Bulgaria.

Sadly Canadian magazines will be the big losers in this policy. If advertisers cannot reach their market in magazines they will do so in other media that do not respect laws issued by sentimental Canadian regulators who pine for the good old days before the telegraph.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a pleasure to stand and address this bill. I know it is customary for people to stand and tell the Speaker and the House that it is a real pleasure to be here. However, I can say quite honestly that this is a horrible piece of legislation. I cannot believe that members across the way would stand in support of legislation that started under the Conservative government. I guess we can see that they truly are soul mates.

I listened with interest to the hon. member from Manitoba describe with religious fervour how much he supports the legislation. He listed statute after statute, suggesting that somehow this was great legislation that would bring about equity and we would all be drinking free beer and there would be food and happiness across the land. Unfortunately, that is not the way it works.

The hon. member talked about the need to have all kinds of legislation and the wonderful things the government has done with respect to employment equity. Long before the government got involved in the game, people from different countries came to Canada and somehow over a period of time they got along and worked together and eventually they all worked together in government.

I am certain my hon. friend from Manitoba could tell us stories about the experiences of his family and growing up on the prairies. My family came from the prairies. When the prairies were settled 75 to 100 years ago there were people who came from all around the world. They all spoke different languages and had completely different heritages. After a while, as they got to know each other, which took some time, they started to work together and they became not only co-workers but friends. Eventually, of course, it finds its way up the system and it is now seen in government.

I would like to point out to my friends across the way that society is almost always ahead of the government on these issues. I believe it is truly the case, even in the situation we had where a few years ago the government started legislating through employment equity in those industries that fell under federal jurisdiction. I point to a study that was done a few years ago of the broadcast industry, where it was found that the CBC was actually far behind some of the private sector broadcasters. I refer to CITY-TV in Toronto, where it has always reflected that community in the make-up of the people who went on the air. The CBC was way behind. Of course everyone panicked, because the government was not following the legislation. CITY-TV was well ahead on that issue.

I worked for the same company that CITY-TV actually belonged to. We ran into all kinds of problems with the legislation because, among other things, people had to self-identify. Other members have spoken on that issue.

In the little radio station I ran there was someone who was aboriginal but who refused to identify as an aboriginal. And hair on him. I think that is great. People do not want to be seen as victims. They say "I can make it on my own". In fact, they were already in our employ, so obviously we did not discriminate.

People have the capability of doing these things on their own. They do not need the government standing there at every step, saying: "You are a victim, so we are going to step in; we are going to stand on everybody else's fingers just so we can make sure you get into the workforce".

I would argue that society is always way out ahead of government on these issues. If people want to see rough equalities, give it a few years. People will eventually realize it is in their best interest to hire people on the basis of merit alone. In fact we see that in many successful companies today.

I would argue that it is very hard for the government to micro-manage people's businesses to the point where they can say that it is in the best interests of a company to hire these people from such and such a group. The reason I would make that argument is because people who are coming from a visible minority of some kind perhaps are coming from another country where they have not yet had training in a particular area, and until they have been in the country for a while they perhaps do not have all the necessary skills. But that is a function of education; it is not a function of legislation by the government. Let those people find the education they need and eventually they will find their way into those industries.

We do not need the government to stand there and crack the whip and say that because 40 per cent of the population in your area is made up of blue people you have to have blue people, even if those blue people are not necessarily qualified. That is crazy. I think you will find that most people would regard that as degrading. It is absolutely degrading. I think people will rise on their own merits. We do not need to have some kind of a quota system, such as is being proposed here.

My friends across the way shake their heads and say no, it is not a quota system. If you were told that you have to hire from these particular groups to fulfil this legislation, then of course ultimately it is a quota. The numbers may not be on there, but as my friend from Lisgar-Marquette has pointed out, in 1992 the RCMP in Alberta were hiring all of their people out of employment equity legislation, which means that nobody else had a chance to apply. The numbers may not be written down specifically in the legislation, but if the scope of the legislation is such that it suggests that these are all you have to choose from, then ultimately people do not have a choice. They do not have the ability to hire the people they want to hire based on merit. That is ridiculous. That is absolutely crazy.

I would argue that public debate is always the answer in these things. Not very long ago, and I could not believe it, we had people suggesting we should have a speech code in the House of Com-

mons, that we should have some little kangaroo court passing judgment on whether or not what people say in here is appropriate.

Public discourse and public debate will always be the ultimate arbiter when it comes to these things. For all the improvements we have seen in the country in terms of being tolerant to other groups and that kind of thing over the last 125 years, the credit does not belong to this place. The credit belongs to intelligent men and women over the course of history who have realized that the person next door may not be the same as me, but they are my equal and therefore I accept them. That is an education process. It is part of the public discourse. It is part of the public debate. And in every case I can think of where we have brought legislation in here, including in 1929, when we finally decided that women would be recognized as persons, I would guarantee you that the politicians were behind the public.

Certainly in 1929 men and women who worked side by side on the farm on the prairies respected each other. They recognized each other as people. In this place it took us until 1929 to figure that out. That is ridiculous. Again, I say we are way behind the times in this place on this particular piece of legislation.

Let us talk about sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. Let us talk about the fact that the House of Commons, while it suggests this is good legislation for federally regulated industries and contractors who do business with the government, would never bind itself by this legislation. I do not see my hon. friends across the way advocating that they should be bound by the legislation and should have to hire people from particular groups. I see them shaking their heads and looking nervously about.

Here we go again. This is just like the MP pension debate. The Canada pension plan for seniors has to be cut but MPs are different. Somehow the legislation should apply to everybody else but us. Now they are shaking their heads. However, they cannot for a moment justify why this legislation does not apply to them. Look at those guys over here. They are reduced to heckling because they cannot justify their position. They cannot justify why this legislation would not apply to themselves. That speaks volumes about where they stand on this issue when it comes right down to their offices. They think it is good in theory. They think it is good for the general public in abstract but when it comes to their offices there is just no way.

Actions speak louder than words. The government by not applying this to the House of Commons has shown that it really is not as committed as it claims to be. It believes it is good in theory for others but not for itself.

I believe Canadians have shown that they will reject this. Seventy-four per cent of the people across Canada, according to Gallup, do not want this type of legislation. We saw it hammered down in Ontario. It is time the government woke up and smelled the coffee and decided that it is going to get in touch with the Canadian agenda, not its own agenda and not the agenda of some special interest group or some bureaucrat who is completely out of touch with what people think. We would not have this crazy kind of legislation in this place any more if it did.

[The Environment, October 4th, 1995]

So what?

[Foreign Investment, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard those speeches for two years in this place. If they keep up with this kind of attitude, the information highway will become an information goat path in Canada.

Thousands of jobs are waiting to be created in the country. Why is the government stifling the creation of all those jobs, those 21st century jobs, by maintaining 19th century protectionist policies?

[Foreign Investment, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars are required to finish construction of Canada's information highway. Right now those billions of dollars are stuck at the U.S. border. The reason they are stuck there is because of archaic foreign ownership restrictions that have been upheld by the government. Even its own advisory council is asking for change.

When is the government going to do something for consumers instead of catering to special interests and bring that much needed investment into the country?

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has addressed several issues. He mentioned this was more of a provincial matter when he referred to the letter I read from. I am sorry the member missed the point I was making. If that young man had been convicted, and since federal laws say his name cannot be released, then he could go on to do this again and again and we would not be protected from him because we would not know his identity. To me that is a federal matter. Anybody who knows anything about the law should know that it is this way. I am surprised that as a lawyer the hon. member did not realize that.

With respect to the stronger sentences, I remind the hon. member that it was his government that felt stronger sentences were necessary in Bill C-41. I remind the hon. member that in this very legislation there are stronger sentences being proposed. Now he is arguing against them. That is a little ironic. I encourage the hon. member to read the legislation.

With respect to the fall in the crime rate among young offenders, there is a demographic issue that needs to be addressed here. It is not at all clear. If we go back a generation and look at the rise in violent crime between the sixties and today, it has gone up fourfold,

I believe. Let us not spew out statistics without all of the background that goes with them.

The hon. member should take the time to sit down and read this legislation. If he does he will not be so quick to jump up and start criticizing the Reform Party.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member from across the way that he does not speak for all his backbenchers. I have talked to many of them and I know where they stand on the issues.

With respect to the whole issue of victims' rights, many members of our caucus have been in regular contact with victims groups, have been supporting them, have been proposing legislation through private members' bills that would help them. We moved a motion in the House the other day which the government did not support. That motion would have provided some kind of compensation to victims. I want to make it very clear that we come down four square on the side of victims.

On the issue of gun control, I think it is an improper characterization to say that all victims groups to a person believe that gun control will somehow staunch crime in the country. That is obviously wrong. I also point out, as my friend from Yorkton-Melville has claimed in the House, that many police, I would argue the great majority of rank and file policemen, do not support gun control as it has been proposed in the House.

If there is anything simplistic in the House it is the comments of the hon. member across the way. I argue there is not a person in the country who has watched this channel for any amount of time who would ever doubt for a moment the sincerity of members on this side of the House when it comes to standing up for victims and hounding the government to bring about some changes which, to the government's credit, it is starting to bring about in some of this legislation.

We will continue to nip at the heels of the government until we start to see some real substantial changes in all areas of criminal justice.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love to stand here today and say I will support Bill C-45 but if I did I know exactly what would happen. If our party did that I know exactly what would happen. People across the way would turn around and say: "If the Reform Party supports it, I guess we have gone far enough. We have done our job".

Therefore we will not support this. We will continue to hound government members over issues of criminal justice to let them know they have not gone far enough and that the public right to protection is much greater than the rights of criminals. We will continue to pound that message home. The member for Wild Rose, the member for Crowfoot, the member for Calgary Northeast, the member for Yorkton-Melville will be on the government like a pack of hounds until we get some real tough justice in this country.

One of the concerns I have about Bill C-45 is that it is extremely narrow. It does not go nearly far enough in addressing the concerns of other people. We had a big to do in the House not very long ago when an hon. member was accused of mimicking another hon. member. There were screams and yells of sexism in the House. People were running around saying: "You people are bad. You are sexist". That was a bunch of baloney.

The real measure of how prepared people are to stand up for women is in their actions, not in their words. We are not seeing the action in this legislation that really defends women to the degree they should be defended. Why in this legislation do we not have measures to hand down the same types of penalties that are being proposed here and even tougher penalties when women are sexually assaulted?

Why can women not enjoy the same protection in the law? To me that makes sense and that is why we cannot support this legislation. I know if we supported this people over there would say: "Good, we have them on side. We do not have to do any more". My goodness, all it takes is a stroke of the pen. All they have to do is spend a couple of more minutes writing that type of amendment. Then we would have protection for women as well. Why not go the full way? Why not do it all?

Another concern I have with this legislation is that it does not address the huge problem of young offenders who are sexual predators. I will read a letter in a moment from a constituent of mine who talks about this problem. Before I do I remind hon. members across the way about an incident that happened not too many years ago on the west coast.

A sexual predator, a young offender, and his family moved into a new community. Because he was a young offender no one knew about his past. Not even the police knew about his past. The people next door definitely did not know about his past when they invited him to come over and babysit. I think everyone can imagine what happened. That young man subsequently raped and murdered the little girl next door and nobody was the wiser to his past because the Young Offenders Act protected him. That is insane and ridiculous. There is no reason in the world why this government cannot address those types of problems.

Yesterday in the House our leader asked the justice minister what he will do to ensure that when there was a conflict between the rights of criminals and the rights of victims the scales of justice were tilted to the side of the victims. He gave us a lot of rhetoric.

We would like to see some action. It is too late for that little girl in British Columbia but it does not have to be too late for the rest of the country. All it requires is a stroke of the pen, a little initiative. Why is the government holding back? What is the possible motive for not addressing this issue?

To me it can only be a misguided sense of responsibility or charity to the criminals. Yes, these people sometimes come from bad backgrounds and bad environments. I feel bad about that. I am sorry they turn out to be criminals in many cases and sexual predators in some cases.

At the end of the day, as sorry as I am for that, the responsibility of government, the justice system and the House is to ensure that the rights of the public are raised above the rights of the criminals. There is no excuse for not dealing with that in this legislation. It should be in there.

We have to keep plugging away until we get some changes not only to bills like Bill C-45 but also to the Young Offenders Act. It has to happen.

I will read a letter from a constituent of mine whom I talked to on the phone a few days ago:

I am writing to you because of something that happened to my family this past summer. In late July of this year I had my nephew come and stay with us. He is 13 years old and I had no reason to believe my worst nightmares would come true. During the four days of his stay he sexually abused my oldest sons, ages four and five. My two year old son does not talk yet, so if there was any abuse perpetrated against him I will never know.

I reported the crime to the local RCMP and to social services in the community where he comes from. It was during a talk with another family member that I was informed of the sexual abuse committed against her children, one girl and one boy, by my nephew some seven months prior.

It has been a long summer for my family, not only in dealing with the devastation of having our young children become victims of a sexual crime at such a young age, not that any age is acceptable, but in waiting for justice to be served. By justice I specifically mean waiting for the police and the courts to hold the 13-year old criminal accountable.

This past Monday, September 19, I found out that according to the Criminal Code, Michael, my nephew, is immune from prosecution, not because he did not commit a crime but because he is 13. The first sexual crime was not reported to police. The family of the children and the family of the abuser and social services decided it was an act of an immature boy experimenting with his developing sexuality. It was because of this cover-up that I was unable to protect my children. Therefore my children became the young, innocent victims of his second attack that we are aware of.

I am disgusted and helplessly frustrated with the whole situation. The RCMP officer was quick to assure me that they would get him the next time. Am I supposed to feel proud to be part of a society that surrounds young criminals in a blanket of protection while ignoring the pleas of the whole families that are victimized? By not holding these young criminals accountable based on their age, are we not inviting them to victimize again and again, stealing innocence, forever changing lives?

There is so much more I want to say but more importantly now I know I must take action. I believe if I do not take some action to see the laws changed to protect the young potential victims, then I have not done my job as a parent. If the police and courts cannot help my children get justice, then I must go above them.

Monte, I cry at night because of what this 13-year old did to my children and it torments me to know he will never be punished for this crime. It is just unacceptable at any age to abuse our young future in any way. If we do accept it we have failed them and ourselves. I write this letter in faith that you will be my voice, Monte. Somehow it does not seem enough, words on paper, but it is a start.

This letter says more eloquently than anybody in the House could ever say just how devastating and unnecessary these crimes are. That is what is so frustrating.

I do not really understand why the police did not intervene. They say the boy was 13. My understanding is he should be culpable when he is that age. I certainly put a phone call in to the police to talk to them about that.

However, the whole point is that if this young man were accused, brought to justice and convicted, it would not necessarily mean he could not do it again, because the public would never know what he had done. That is crazy. What are we doing here? Why are we allowing this to happen? It is ridiculous.

I look around here and I see people who are of high intelligence and mature individuals who must understand exactly what this does to people. Why are we not doing something about it? Why is the government not moving legislation today to fix this? I do not understand it. The people at home do not understand it. If it were just a case of not understanding that would be one thing, but it is the terrible damage it does that is so frustrating.

My friends over here have pounded away at the government, asking it to bring in some changes that address these types of things, and it has not. It has not addressed them. It would be so easy. We frittered around with tiny little pieces of legislation over the last few days when we could have been dealing with things of real consequence, things that would really help people.

Maybe I was idealistic when I took on this job, but I thought we could bring some of these obvious problems to light and perhaps something would happen, perhaps there would be changes. It has not happened. It does not happen, and that drives me and everyone here crazy. I know it drives members across the way crazy. There are people who sit on the back benches who ask why we cannot change this. I do not know the answer to that. I guess the only people who know the answer to that are the people who reside in cabinet, where all the decisions are made.

I encourage them to open up their ears and realize that by not acting to bring down some fundamental changes in the justice system they are allowing people to get hurt. If they are not consciously and not maliciously doing it, they are unconsciously doing it. However, the effect is the same.

I encourage government members to start thinking about some of these victims out there, to start supporting some of the amendments like my friend from Wild Rose brought forward the other day, which would compensate victims, and to start opening their eyes to what is happening out there in the real world. When that day comes there will be 52 Reformers standing up and giving the government 100 per cent support.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I would love to support this bill but I know what would happen if we did. This government would take that as an excuse to quit. Therefore, it is with reluctance that I say it is a step in the right direction but it does not go nearly far enough. We will not give the government an excuse to quit. Over the next several months my friends will be on the heels of the government every day.