Gary Lunn

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is challenging the rule of the Chair when it has already ruled. That is inappropriate and he is not permitted to do that when the Chair has already ruled on the point of order.

[Privilege, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised last Friday I would like to state that it was my intention to speak in an honourable way and only to reflect my personal opinion. In no way did I wish to jeopardize the work of the committee.

Upon reflection on what was reported in the media, I accept responsibility for communicating in a way which could be construed as that of the report of the committee. For that I would like to apologize to the House and to the members of the committee.

[Privilege, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries committee with which I have been involved for the past year and a half has been plagued with this problem. In fact, some of the reports that we have done in the past have gone out of there by the truckload, by various people in various departments. We are never given a chance to respond and I agree it is a very serious problem.

In this specific case, the day before this report was in the public domain. It was in the media. It had been released.

Members never seem to get an opportunity to respond. In fairness, once this was in the public domain and I started to receive calls from reporters, I first of all notified the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Malpeque. I also notified the member for Burin—St. George's in Newfoundland. I told them that my phone lines were burning up with media interviews and it was just to let them know that I was speaking to the media.

Out of courtesy I advised them that the report was out there. Of course we knew that. We talked about the committee. It was in the Globe and Mail . The report was already in the public domain.

When I did these interviews, what I talked to the media about was the comments that I had brought forward to the committee, not what other members of the committee had said. I talked about my comments, what I was pushing for in the committee. I made it very clear. I said “This report is not completed. We will be meeting next week. These are the areas that I will be pushing for and I hope to get a recommendation”.

I was speaking only on behalf of myself; but out of respect for the member, and he will verify it, I notified him prior to that, that I was making these comments.

With respect to the CBC interview, that person also informed me when she called that she had received calls from other members of the committee whom I will not name and said “This is what they are telling me. Would you like to comment?”

It was in the public domain the day before. As a courtesy I notified the members. I only did interviews with respect to my comments. I made it very clear that the report is still not final at this time, that it can still be changed.

[Fisheries, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government's spin doctors are working overtime selling the Pacific salmon treaty and we now see that the parliamentary secretary is becoming part of that spin machine.

Let us look at the facts. We know the minister is afraid to bring this treaty before the House of Commons. We know the minister has and will spend millions of dollars buying prime time media to sell this deal to the Canadian people. We know the minister announced this deal in a room full of Americans and hired armed police to keep Canadian fishermen out of the room.

If this is such a good deal for Canada, why the armed police? Why does he have to spend taxpayers' money to sell this deal? Whose side is he on? The Americans, obviously not ours.

[Division No. 537, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was standing to be recorded for yes but somehow I got missed. I am not sure how they could have missed me.

[Request For Emergency Debate, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, to summarize it, as we heard in Oral Question Period the federal government has commenced expropriation proceedings in British Columbia. It claims it has been in negotiations for two years. This is unprecedented. I submit it would set an extremely dangerous precedent in Canada to allow this without even having some discussion here.

To my knowledge none of the opposition parties received any information from the government. We have no idea what negotiations have gone on. This would allow us an opportunity to question the government and find out what has been going on. This would be an extremely dangerous precedent that would open the doors for expropriations in other parts of Canada in an area where we do not want to go.

The government sought ownership of this land through the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984. It was rejected then. The court ruled that it was under the ownership of British Columbia in the Constitution.

I would submit, given all that, that an emergency debate would be appropriate so we can have an opportunity to find out what in fact the government has been doing to avoid this expropriation and what discussions have gone on with the province of British Columbia. To date we have had zero information from the government with respect to that.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the politics are obviously coming from the Government of Canada on this issue. Expropriation is the issue here. It is absolutely unacceptable. It violates the Constitution.

How does the government justify expropriation in this instance or any instance? Is it prepared to start expropriating all of Canada in the interest of national security?

I want to know what has changed since 1984. Is the government prepared to confiscate land which rightfully belongs to the people of British Columbia?

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister had better add the Reform Party to that list because the issue is strictly expropriation.

The federal government is in the process of confiscating B.C. lands which belong to the people of British Columbia. In 1984 the federal government went to the Supreme Court of Canada to seek ownership. The Supreme Court of Canada said no.

Under the Constitution it belongs to the people of British Columbia. What has changed since 1984? What allows you to violate the high—

[National Defence, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence confirmed yesterday that the government was planning to expropriate British Columbia property in Nanoose Bay. This has never been done before in the history of Canada.

The government is resorting to threats rather than negotiation. It would not dare consider it in any other province. It would not even mention the word expropriate. This is an absolute insult to every British Columbian.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs why the the double standard for British Columbia.

[British Columbia, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history we learned the Government of Canada is prepared to violate the Constitution and expropriate British Columbia property at Nanoose Bay. The premier's office has advised me that the federal government has rejected all offers to settle this dispute.

I have to question the Prime Minister's judgment if he thinks this is the answer to his western alienation committee.

Instead of threatening B.C., will the minister sit down face to face with the premier of British Columbia and move to resolve this dispute through negotiation, not expropriation?