Monte Solberg

[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.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every day CBC's ratings drop. It spends more money. The CBC president is pleading with the minister to bring in a mandate now so that he has the latitude to make the cuts he needs to make.

When will the minister show some leadership and bring in that new mandate?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric from the government about the need to cut spending at CBC, the auditor general's report in July revealed it is very fat and that there is all kinds of waste going on.

On Monday when a document was circulated around, the CBC annual report indicated discretionary spending had gone up $50 million last year, we can imagine how taxpayers must feel ripped off.

What is the minister doing about this matter?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking a little while ago about the acquisitions government has made and just how credible it is when it comes to making these acquisitions.

I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the current display at the National Gallery by the artist Paul Wong entitled: "On Becoming a Man". It depicts a man and a woman laying buck naked in a bed with a couple of blow up dolls. I am certain there are all kinds of wonderful reasons to acquire this kind of art and probably no price is too high to pay for this wonderful art, but I am wondering if the hon. member from Simcoe has seen this. If so, can he tell us whether or not this is a worthy acquisition and an appropriate role for our federal government to be playing?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing the hon. member's intervention. He talked about the Beaverbrook museum in Fredericton. I have not been there but I have been to the National Gallery. I have seen what has purchased, either through tax credits or directly with cash, which is the way I would prefer to see it done because it is a lot more transparent and you can hold people accountable that way.

One of the things my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin pointed out was a display that hangs from the ceiling there. It is a toilet hanging from the ceiling of the National Gallery. Is that not a wonderful purchase by the people of Canada? I wonder how many tax credits we handed out for that? Perfect. Does that not speak volumes about state funded art? It speaks volumes, Mr. Speaker.

I walked into a room at the National Gallery where in one corner are Brillo pads stacked to the ceiling. That is art. That is unbelievable.

I walked into another room where I thought they were undergoing renovations because there was a bunch of underlay lying on the floor. Do you know what, that was the display. Two hundred and fifty-six pieces of felt is what it is called.

I have a picture sitting on my desk of a display at the National Gallery. It is a large woman reading a newspaper and she has got a wig on and all of that sort of thing. According to the people at the National Gallery who were telling people about these displays, someone was paid $750,000 for what in my judgment is an absolutely ridiculous piece of junk.

When we talk about the government's prescient ability to choose art with other people's money let us go and take a wander through the National Gallery and find out just how good it is at this.

The hon. member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed to Reform's policy on culture. Let me address that. Our party feels very strongly that the federal government does have a role, but we also feel that these institutions have to be accountable. I also remind the hon. member that these things have to be put in context. Reformers also believe in a flat tax system. We believe that we cannot be going around giving wealthy people a special privilege. That is ridiculous. It is even more pronounced, more ridiculous in this day and age when middle income Canadians are being squeezed so dramatically.

I would ask the hon. member to put these things in context. I would much rather see private individuals, private groups, lower levels of government like municipalities and provinces run the museums and galleries to the greatest degree possible because they are a lot more accountable. When it is all funded through the federal government and people who are appointed by the federal government make the selections, they are absolutely unaccountable.

Has the hon. member gone through the National Gallery at any time in the recent past and seen some of these ridiculous, what can only be described as abuses, this mocking of taxpayers which is exactly what it is. Somehow we feel we have to support this counter culture, the people who mock a lot of the ideals that really enabled them to have freedom of expression. They mock us and we still give them money.

Has the hon. member seen this lately and how he can justify the government being involved in purchasing that kind of garbage?

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. parliamentary secretary knows, there is a warehouse full of alleged art which used to belong to the art bank. This art is going to sit there in storage probably for years upon years upon years. The fact is that every year the amount of tax credits that are requested and granted goes up, not down as both the minister and the parliamentary secretary have suggested.

Given this, does it not make sense that there should be some kind of a limit placed upon the amount of available tax credits? We would then not ding people so strongly in the middle class because we are having to pay for the wealthiest Canadians. Also, where are we going to store all this stuff? We already have one warehouse full. I am wondering what the parliamentary secretary is proposing to do with the rest of it.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate the fine edge of wit spewing forth from the other side.

The third party, as the hon. member has put it, has raised some serious issues, not the least of which is the fact that it is the wealthiest of the wealthy Canadians who are taking advantage of this. This is not something that is available to everybody. She has continually skated around that issue.

I would ask her to address this very specifically and tell us how she can reconcile this piece of legislation with all the rhetoric of the last budget about the need to have tax fairness.