Gary Lunn

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that.

That is the first point I make. In another one he has suggested that there is money in the system. What he is really suggesting is that we should download this on to the provinces. Again, this government does not want to face up to the responsibility.

The most appalling thing I find in his remarks is the suggestion that these innocent victims who were given poisonous blood because of the negligence of this government go through the courts to find resolution. The government is willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to defend its position, which I find incredible that it is even doing so now, in the courts. Why not compensate them?

It has already been admitted that they were wrong. The Prime Minister has said, yes, they accept that there was wrongdoing. They have admitted that, but they want to go to the courts. He is suggesting that the courts are the proper avenue for these people, that the courts should decide what is fair. They are the ones that should be advocating this.

I cannot believe that a parliamentary secretary would suggest such a solution. It is absolutely unbelievable to suggest that these people should go to court. It is absolutely shameful.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the points brought forth by my friend on the other side.

First of all, he said we are being coerced over here. If you believe that, then go back and speak to your Prime Minister and we will have—

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands to speak on this very important issue brought forward by my colleague the member for Macleod.

I have been following the debate in my office. We have heard a lot of heart wrenching testimonies. It is very important that we listen to them but that we also listen to our moral conscience, listen to our constituents, and do what is right.

I have letters which I am going to bring into the debate, but I am going to start off with what needs to be done as right. I am really frustrated at what this government is doing.

Let me read from an article in the April 23 issue of the Toronto Star . These are the tactics the Prime Minister has brought himself down to in this debate, and I say has brought himself down to: “the Prime Minister declared a vote on a Reform Party motion expected early next week to be a vote of confidence in his government”. What he is really doing here is bringing out a big hammer. He is telling all of his backbenchers that they will do as they are told.

This vote has been declared a whipped vote by the government. I got that from one of the Liberal members. A whipped vote means the government will pull every single stop to make sure that every single member votes with the government. I do not believe we will see any members on that side vote against. There will be a few who will have the courage to stay out of the House.

When members are forced to vote against the wishes of their constituents and against their own moral conscience, when they are ordered, not told but ordered how to vote, that is called a dictatorship. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing in this situation. He is ordering his members what to do.

It is really ironic and this is just a coincidence, but where is the Prime Minister going to be when we vote? Where is the Prime Minister going to be next Tuesday? He is going to be in Cuba. How ironic. The Prime Minister is going to be in Cuba and he is dictating to his members on how to vote.

I know the Prime Minister believes in democracy. He has expressed that to us and I believe that he does. But I think his tunnel vision on this issue is so narrow that he does not even realize he is dictating to the worst extremes.

We have heard from some of the Liberal backbenchers how frustrated they are with the government. For the government now to pull all the stops out and force this issue is absolutely wrong. It goes against all the principles of democracy, people's own moral conscience and the wishes of members' constituents to be ordered for political reasons by the Prime Minister. To do this is absolutely dead wrong. They will have to look at themselves in the mirror, as will the Prime Minister.

Let us get on to the issue of the hepatitis C victims. I want to quote from Justice Krever's recommendations:

Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been unequal—. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified.

I do not know how much clearer we can get than that.

I know an arbitrary date has been drawn in the sand. From everything that I have read, there was a test available. I have heard members on the other side argue that the United States did not start their testing until 1986. My question is since when especially in our health care system, do we have to follow the lead of the United States? We make decisions on our own. That is absolutely the worst kind of argument and it shows the government is grasping at straws.

I will read parts of a letter. I will not read the entire letter because I do not have time. A constituent, Mrs. Betty Back of Victoria, wrote this letter to me. In 1997 the Red Cross told her that she had hepatitis C. She writes: “This came as quite a shock because I did not know I had been given a transfusion”. Because of the complications from a hip operation, Mrs. Back had to undergo numerous operations between 1983 and 1997. She raised the point that she has no idea when she was infected. She has no idea when she was injected with poisonous blood, none whatsoever.

Again I quote: “I don't know what our government proposes to do. There should be no guidelines as to if a person was infected in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. I have hepatitis C and I got infected from a blood transfusion. There is no cure. Transfusions were meant to save lives, not kill them, and kill it does. No one but no one should be discriminated against”. That is exactly what this government is doing. It is cutting her off. There will be no evidence to indicate when she got hepatitis C.

Her point is exactly what we are debating. We cannot just draw a line in the sand. We know these tests were available. The evidence is out there. In my research I have seen different dates. All kinds of dates are thrown in here. My conclusion is that in the early eighties, at least 1980 or 1981, without question there were tests available and other tests were available before that.

I understand that all four opposition parties have left the partisan politics out of the issue. They are doing what is right, members from one corner of this country to the other. I know there are members from the other side who would wish to join in that as well, but of course they have been dictated to by the Prime Minister. They have been ordered. I see the smiles. To me that is more serious in itself than the issue we are dealing with. Today I spoke to one of the members who explained the level of orders they are receiving on this. The Prime Minister is concerned. He is treating this as a confidence vote.

Let us talk about confidence votes. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a confidence vote but not in the same way he means it. I am not suggesting this will bring down the government at all. This is a vote about the confidence of the people of Canada. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to do the right thing. It is never ever too late to right a wrong. He could come into the House today and say “We have made a wrong decision here and we are going to correct it”. I hope he does.

I hope the Prime Minister is following this debate and listening to the arguments. If he is, I am sure he will have to do that. I do not see how anybody could not follow this debate and not come in and correct that wrong. That is the only way he will gain the confidence of the people of Canada. This is about confidence.

This government is losing that confidence. It is related not only to the hepatitis C issue and the government's failure to compensate some victims, which would be the right thing to do, but also to the issue of democracy. If the Prime Minister continues to run a government that dictates instead of allows the people on that side of the House to represent their constituents, they will be receiving calls all weekend on this.

I ask the government to reconsider. I ask the Prime Minister to make the right decision so we can support him on this issue.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Motion No. 85 brought forward by the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst. The motion concerns the labelling of toys that contain phthalates. There is apparently scientific evidence to suggest this substance causes cancer.

I have not followed the research on this topic but I am sure the member has done his research. If there are toy companies that produce toys containing phthalates, I would agree with the member wholeheartedly that there should be legislation that these toys must be labelled.

I am not an expert. I am reading only from a few reports. It is the first I have heard that phthalates cause cancer. Someone even suggested to me that these toy companies actually produce soothers containing this substance which are used by infants. I find that absolutely amazing. History has shown this is not the first time horrifying things have happened.

Providing that the science is correct, I would speak in support of this motion. I have to go further and say that we should ban something like this and not just label it. I give a qualified yes because I obviously have not done the research. I am not challenging the research done by the member. I read that tests conducted in U.K. laboratories reveal widespread presence of phthalates in soft plastic toys and other products, particularly teething rings.

A September 1997 report on the subject concludes that the primary problem is that phthalates leaking from these products are being ingested by children. Phthalates are indeed toxic and Greenpeace has been effective in lobbying European toy manufacturers and distributors to pull some of these products off the shelves.

I have two small children at home, a two-year old and a four-year old. I see some eyebrows raised. I am not that old. I am young enough to have a two-year old and a four-year old. I think there are a few grey hairs but I am trying to fight those. There are problems with toys which I have seen even in the few years we have been dealing with this.

I would support the member in this initiative. It is a qualified yes. Unless somebody can tell me differently I would be very in favour of it. I thank the member for bringing this motion before the House.

[Hepatitis C, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every opposition party in this House is calling for a full compensation of hepatitis C victims. The Liberal backbenchers are calling for compensation. The premier of my province is uncomfortable with the way things are now. They all know what is wrong. Only the Prime Minister insists on doing what is wrong.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he is wrong and compensate all victims? Why not?

[Hepatitis C, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has silenced his own backbench and we have to listen to questions like that.

Every opposition party—

[British Columbia, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 30 the voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam will have an opportunity to send a voice to Ottawa that will represent them. They will say “no” to this Liberal government that refuses to listen and continually ignores British Columbians.

Let us talk about the facts. Let us talk about this Liberal dismal record.

The B.C. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not only failed to move forward in the Pacific salmon dispute, but he has put us in a worse position than we were five years ago. He knows he is about to close the lighthouse on Vancouver Island, the very lighthouse which talked him to safety some 20 years ago. They closed CFB Chilliwack, the only armed forces base in B.C. This Liberal government raised taxes to the highest level since Confederation and cut millions from B.C. health care and education.

B.C. residents are sick and tired of being told by this government what is good for them. They want someone who will stand up and listen, someone who will fight for them. The Reform Party is the only party that will listen and stand up for B.C.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me what goes on in other parliaments. I have been to many countries and have been to their parliaments. I have yet to hear people refer to their flags as vulgar. I have yet to hear their elected officials go off to other countries and say that there are too many of their own country's flags.

The people in this House responded and appropriately so by saying that was not acceptable. The ministers, the government and the Reform Party stood and said that we were not going to allow that. This has elevated from that.

How can we put an end to this? How can we stop it? How can we get on to the governing of the country? We said we would force them to stand and be counted, and that is what we have done.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring this back. It is very simple. We even heard members of the Bloc talking about the flag as being vulgar. Imagine that. People responded to that, including the people in the member's party. The government party stood up and responded like the people did here, appropriately. I stand on those words. I stood proudly and waved that flag and stood proudly and sang O Canada . That is what this is about.

This debate has elevated from that. We can all argue about this but that is the reality. That is what has happened and what has gone on for two weeks and it has to end. People out there have to know where we stand. We are going to make people stand up and be counted, that is what this is all about. We want to bring a closure to this issue once and for all today so we can address the other important issues.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this debate has had an interesting fate in the way it has progressed over the last two weeks.

There are a number of issues I want to deal with. I think one of the most important things is that all of the people who are listening to this understand why we are doing this, putting an end to this. This issue admittedly arose from members of the government side standing to wave a flag, as well as members of this party, and rightfully so. They should have. I stood up proudly and waved the flag in response to comments made by a member of the Bloc. We said enough is enough, we have to get on with the important governing issues.

The members repeatedly have said send it to a committee. Sending that to a committee would be a colossal waste of time. It is important but it is not rocket science. We are talking about a very simple question.

This is the only way we can put this thing to an end once and for all and make every single member in this Chamber stand up and be counted. Will you allow a flag on your desk or will you not?

When we debated this supply day motion as to whether or not to proceed with it, that was the number one issue. Let us get this thing over with, make people stand up and be counted and move forward.

The fisheries and oceans committee I am involved with meets two or three times a week and we do a lot of good work. By sending something like this to committee to be buried in months and months of meetings is insane. It is absolutely ridiculous it has arrived at this point where we have used a supply day motion because there are lots of important issues. We were forced into this. We were pushed and we had to respond. This is one way to put an end to this and that is what this is all about today.

It can be argued that we are sitting here using up valuable time but we are not going to have this issue go on until May or June and then into next fall because that is crazy. That is what you guys keep telling us to do, send it to a committee and let us talk about it.

Yes, we did get a ruling from the Speaker yesterday and he did say it was clearly out of order. I accept that. No question. What happened? There were about 200 members of Parliament responding to comments made outside the House when a member was visiting a foreign country representing Canada with taxpayers' dollars. They were infuriated. They were outraged and they responded.

There were comments by the Speaker yesterday that this should not be repeated. With the highest respect for the Speaker himself and the authority of that chair, I would suggest that if these kinds of comments are made outside the House again exactly the same thing would happen.

We saw members of the government proudly wave a three foot by six foot flag during the budget debate only weeks ago when this issue came up. I supported them. I stood on my feet and sang O Canada , and I was proud to do that.

This debate has been elevated and it has progressed but thank goodness the Reform Party is bringing it to an end. It will not go to a committee. It will not go off to further meetings. They will not be talking about this in June. We will not be hearing grumblings about it. It is over today, once and for all.

Every member will have to stand in this House and be counted. There will be no ducking behind some orders of the government. They have an opportunity to stand and be counted on whether they will allow members to have a flag on their desks.

We are advocating that we should have this place give each person their right. They do not have to if they do not want to. I heard a member opposite just moments before referring to the flag as a weapon. For goodness sakes, that is the craziest thing I have heard. It is the elevation that this debate has come to. They talk about respect for institutions.

I do believe that a majority of these members, with the exception of one party, believe in this country and are patriotic. Some members just want to demonstrate that. However, I do not want to lose sight of why we are here today.

This is a very important question: Can some members put a flag on their desks? I admit that we did not do this in 1993 and we did not do it last September. This whole thing evolved out of the outcome of actions by a member of this House on a taxpayers' junket to another country and the House responded.

It has elevated to this and it is time that it has to stop. It has to be over and done. This is the one way that it can be done. The Reform Party had to use its supply day motion to put an end to this nonsense, to make sure they stand up and are counted.

I am in a state of awe that those members are sitting over there saying “Send it to a committee. Let them talk about it. Let us come back in June. Let us come back next fall. Let us carry this thing on”.

This is such an elementary question. It is so painfully simple that we have to make sure they stand up in this House, that they are heard and that we move forward.

I have heard people suggest that the Reform Party is using this as a lightning rod and as an opportunity. I will tell this House and every single Canadian out there watching in all sincerity that we do believe in this country. We do believe in the flag. I proudly stand here on Wednesdays and sing the national anthem. I do. If I did not, I would not be standing here right now making this speech. I would have a lot better things to be doing.

I will continue to fight for this country and fight for my kids so that they have a good place. I mean that sincerely. I really do.

To carry on with this nonsense is just absolutely crazy. The only way that we could force an end to this matter is to use our supply day. That is exactly what we have done. Every member over there will have to stand and be counted. They will have to say what side they are on. Let us talk about what this is all about.

Those members can say that it is a weapon. I heard one of the top strategists for the Progressive Conservative Party equating this to a Reform member having this tattooed on their body and displaying it in the House and whether that would be acceptable. There is all this craziness.

That is where all the other parties are taking this debate. It is simple. Can we take a little desk top flag and put it on our desk when we want to talk about a very important issue? Maybe we will want to leave it there all the time.

This is the House of Canada. This is the Parliament of Canada. There is only one flag for Canada. There is only one national anthem for Canada. I will stand up in this House and say that the Quebec flag does not belong in here any more than the Newfoundland flag or the British Columbia flag or any other flag from this country.

The only flag that belongs in this House is the maple leaf. I am sure I would have a lot of people who would agree with me. I stand in this House as a proud Canadian. Those flags belong beside the Speaker and no other flag on this desk.

Every member of Parliament sitting in this House should be standing up and fighting for the good of all Canadians. That is what we are doing today.

Now we are hearing comments that we are wasting time. The reality is respect. We are spending three or four hours debating this in this House.

This started out as an appropriate response to comments made and it has now elevated to this. This nonsense has to end and end today. People have to stand up and make sure they are heard, which is what we are here for.

I am happy to ask anyone to ask me any question on this issue. I will be glad to give them a response as long as they do not want to get into some silly debate about a whole bunch of issues that we are not talking about today.