Gary Lunn

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated just a few moments ago that he was seeking the advice of the committee as he wants its input and involvement in the parliamentary process. The committee made specific recommendations to the minister, number four, a full impact analysis and number five, that this has to be public disclosure, a transparent process with consultation with the public.

These recommendations came from the committee. They were endorsed and supported by a majority of Liberals. His own chairman has responded in the House today by saying that it is not practical to do a full impact study so early on. It is not practical, and those were his own words, for an open consultation process.

Will the minister tell this House that he is willing to go to Canadians, to go out to British Columbia and talk about this multilateral agreement on investment so that they know what the heck is going on? That is what this debate is all about.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Council of Canadians is a front for the NDP. We know the NDP's position on the agreement. What we do not know is the government's position. That is what we are here for.

I have to save a few comments for the NDP. We can talk about investment. We have an NDP government in British Columbia. We have no investment. The NDP premier of British Columbia is placing ads in the Financial Post asking for investors to invest in British Columbia.

I support free trade agreements. We need to protect investors. This debate is about what is in there. We want to make sure that our social programs are not trampled on. We want to make sure health care is protected and that the right exclusion clauses are in place.

That is what we are asking the government to do. It has to become open, go to the people and talk about it. Right now there is no question the government has not talked about it with Canadians. It has talked about it behind closed doors. It will send it off to committee. It will have luncheons with some of the big players. However it is not talking with Canadians and that is what it needs to do.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the member is going on about. She raised a hidden agenda. Here is the agenda. It is about open and transparent government.

Members of the New Democratic Party had supply days. If they felt this issue was important they could have talked about it. We are on the eve of this year's budget. The Reform Party has committed an entire day of debate, a supply day, the day before the budget, to talk about the issue. That will show the commitment and the dedication of this party.

We have grave concerns about the government's unwillingness to talk about it, why it is hiding it. It is not in the throne speech. It is not in the Liberal red book. The Liberals did not talk about it in the campaign. What are the Liberals hiding? That is what we are pushing them on. That is the only way.

The NDP claims to be wonderful; it will save everybody in this multilateral agreement. Where are NDPers? They could have talked about it. The reality is that the Reform Party made it a priority and did something.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the committee has been given only three weeks. The Liberals are proud and talk about consultation. All I have heard the minister say in the House is that it has been sent off to committee.

That is the consultation process; it is sent off to committee. Even worse, the idea of the parliamentary secretary on how to communicate with the people of Canada was “We sent a memo to all members of Parliament. Can't you send out a message in your householder?”

Is that how the government will rely on getting a message out, by suggesting to members of Parliament that they use their householders to sell its message? I could not believe those words when they came out of his mouth. It was incredible.

I wonder what the government is doing. This is about transparency. This is not the first time I have prepared speech after speech for the House and the government shut down debate. We could go back to Bill C-2. Time and time again it brought in closure and shut down debate.

The Liberals have to allow for democracy. I will conclude right now by saying that this is about transparency. It is about informing the public and openness. Right now the public is not informed. The government is hiding behind a missing in action agreement we know nothing about. It is time the government came out of the closet and told Canadians what is in the agreement.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was on a roll and all excited. I did not mean to use the minister's name. I apologize.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend from North Vancouver.

It is a pleasure to speak on the Reform Party opposition day supply motion which concerns the famous multilateral agreement on investment. I also refer to it as the MIA, which is what we are really talking about, missing in action. We are talking about transparency and I want to bring the debate back to this. We are focusing on transparency, on public disclosure and on making sure the government knows what is going on. I will focus on those issues in my remarks.

This government has failed to talk to the Canadian people. Some people on the government side have said that they consulted with the provinces in 35 meetings over two years. Is that not amazing? I will read a recommendation from the committee which had a very short time to debate this issue: “The government should continue to increase its effort to inform Canadians of the merits of the MAI while addressing the concerns brought forward to the committee at public hearings”. The next recommendation is: “The government should pursue a process that fully involves the provinces”.

This is a recommendation made by the committee and signed off by the majority of the committee members, Liberals. Yet those members stand up so proudly saying they have been informing Canadians.

The problem with this issue is that nobody knows what is going on. Why are those members so secretive about it? They have been negotiating this agreement for over two years. Yet during the election campaign last April nobody had heard of it. They are absolutely silent. I suggest they are ashamed of it. Why will they not talk about it?

Then there is the red book. Do we see this in the red book? No, by golly there is not even a word about it. There is not one word after negotiating an agreement with 29 countries. Imagine that. I wonder why. And then there was the throne speech. Did we hear about this wonderful, exciting multilateral agreement on investment? No, not a word, zero.

My friend from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant went through the committee's recommendations. I emphasize that these recommendations were made by a majority of Liberals and this member was the chair of the committee. These are his words in defending the government's position against our motion: “The government should pursue a process that fully involves the provinces and that will allow sufficient time for the text time available at that time to receive the benefit of further parliamentary examination by this committee prior to the signature of any negotiated agreement”.

That is their recommendation and the only thing he can say is that we have had 35 meetings with the provinces. I point out that The provinces are now bailing.

His next recommendation is that the government should consider undertaking a full impact analysis that will note the reason Canada should take part in the MAI. What the member said about this is shocking and unbelievable. He said it is not practical to have a full impact so early on in negotiations. Imagine saying that it is not practical early on. We have been negotiating this for two years. The government is supposed to sign this in April 1998.

I must remind the government that we are now almost in March 1998. What is he thinking when he says that we cannot have an impact analysis early on? It is absolutely unimaginable. What are they ashamed of and what are they trying to hide?

The next recommendation, and this is the chair of the committee defending these recommendations, is: “In future negotiations regarding matters of as widespread importance”, they acknowledge that as the MAI, “the government should undertake an open and transparent process so that public disclosure and consultations can be carried out in a timely manner”. Imagine that, public disclosure and consultations.

I must look at my notes because I cannot believe what he said about that. He said it is not practical. Can you believe that, coming from this government, that it is not practical to consult with the public? “In a timely manner”, that is what we are talking about.

I have a copy of this wonderful agreement. This is the official copy given to me by the government which it is so proud of it. What is the very first word on it? Confidential. Imagine that. The first word on the top left corner of the agreement is confidential. What is it worth? Why will Liberals not talk to the public about it? They are screaming about this. What are they hiding? I have concerns about it. I can say right now I will not support the MAI because I do not know what members opposite are hiding.

I support free trade agreements. We need free trade agreements. They are good. We need more investment in Canada. Our investors need to be protected. What is the government doing? Why is it so secretive? It is an absolute disgrace. It is shameful.

I do not know what government members are up to, but there is no question they are embarrassed about it and not proud of it. They are so secretive it is incredible.

If the Liberals really care about or really believe in the agreement, why are they not talking about it? They are not proud of it. There is no question they do not believe in it, or they would be telling us about it.

I ask government members to look at what the motion says. It is asking them to be transparent with the people of Canada, to tell them what is in it.

What is the minister's idea of transparency? It is a luncheon at the Chateau Laurier about two blocks away, having a group meeting at lunch and talking to some investors. Those are his consultations with Canada five minutes from parliament. That was his B.C. meeting. It is amazing.

They accuse me of not speaking. I have meetings planned in the greater Victoria area. I have had three or four of them and I have another one next week, a very large one.

Will we see anybody from British Columbia? Will we see their senior member? Will I see Mr. Anderson there? No.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

I hear a member from the other side of the House telling me that this is not true. I can tell the member that I have spoken to a number of organizations, antiques collectors' clubs and veterans who have already been forced to have some of these weapons and antique firearms, of which there are very few around, changed and altered. The bolts were permanently welded shut. They are very distraught about it.

In speaking to every one of these groups it brought me back to the whole firearms issue. They are as concerned about crime and justice as anybody else in the country. They want to make sure our streets are safer. We have the government saying that this will solve our justice problems and look after crime. It brings me back to why we need these rights enshrined in our constitution. It is absolutely fundamental.

This is the way the government is going to solve crime which is not going to make one iota of difference to crime. It is not going to make a difference. There are many other ways to solve the crime problem. These are taxpayers, the best citizens in our communities, role models in our communities, who are being faced with this legislation. They are saying “we need constitutional protection, what is happening to us is absolutely dead wrong”. This is one example and there are many others.

We have just seen the debate on the wheat board. The farmers are coming forward. They feel their rights are being trampled on. The government is suggesting there will be some elected officials on the new wheat board, but still it is a government anointed and appointed board, the president, the CEO and the people running this organization. Farmers really do not have any true input. They want to make sure that their rights are protected.

The way this can be done most effectively is to ensure that their rights are enshrined in the Constitution, that they are guaranteed and they are protected. That would go a long way to making sure that Canadians feel secure without the government being able to trample on them.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the issue we are speaking about today in the private member's motion my friend has introduced is entrenching property rights in the constitution.

It is something I also agree is extremely important. A number of issues are an example of why all Canadians need to have it protected and to ensure it is enshrined in our constitution.

Let me give the example of gun control. This may have been talked about before but it is worth repeating. I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of people. One example of where their firearms are to be taken away is collectors' items which they have saved for a long time and which are very valuable.

In my riding a number of seniors have been collecting firearms. In order for them to keep the firearms because of whatever type of weapon they are—I am talking about veterans and all types of people who collect firearms—the bolts have to be welded shut and have to be disabled. These are antiques they are being forced to destroy.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members present in the House.

It is a privilege to participate in this debate on Motion No. 261 which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I note the concern expressed in the comments of members from all parties with the exception of the Bloc. This is an issue of great interest to me as a father, as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian.

My colleague is asking the government to develop a comprehensive national head start program for children in their first eight years. He is talking about a co-ordinated effort between the federal and provincial governments and ministries. There are programs out there and he would like them to work together. That is what this is all about.

I agree with him that it is important to ensure our children have the best opportunity to develop to their full potential. While parents have the greatest responsibility in the nurturing and development of our children, we as legislators must ensure parents have the support they need. We must develop partnerships with our provincial and municipal counterparts to support initiatives aimed at reducing youth crimes. This is all about co-ordination and working together for the good of all our children in this country.

We must go beyond crime management. We must shift to crime prevention. I will discuss some examples I am familiar with through my practice in criminal law as a lawyer in youth court. Verbal, physical and sexual abuses are all obvious threats to normal psychological development. They have a devastating effect on children.

I saw the consequences of child neglect firsthand in the courts. They were easy to identify. They say it costs about $95,000 a year to keep a youth in a detention centre. That is arguable. I know we could debate that.

Stories of some of my personal experiences in the courtroom will emphasize the importance of prevention. A child of 12 or 13 could be before a judge for the first time. If a good, understanding judge had the tools and programs available, although quite often they were not, and there was family support, there were success stories.

We could follow up on these youths and the schools that played an integral role in the management of these youths who were not back before the courts. Yet we could see the chronic youth, those at the age of 14 with criminal records two and three pages long who were going through a revolving door. Yes, we have to hold these children accountable.

What the member is talking about is that we have to get to these children at an early age. There will be some who will slip through and end up in our justice system. However, from what I have seen in the courts, I honestly believe that we could stop a large part of this if we started at day zero. That is the key.

The Reena Virk case is an example. I probably saw some of these youths in the courtroom when I was practising law. It is the very courtroom I practised in. A 14 year old girl was savagely beaten by a gang of eight or nine children. Other children watched and did nothing. They beat her again and then broke her arms and her back and threw her in a river to die. It brings tears to our eyes. The worst part is that this is not an isolated event. In my own community of Sydney in the last few years we had another youth killed again by a group of youths. These are within 20 miles of each other. These are not isolated incidents.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these things are not going on. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to co-ordinate. My comment on the remarks by the member who spoke earlier is that I support all the programs and things that are being done.

I do not believe the member is asking for a big wheelbarrow full of money. He is asking that we co-ordinate this together with the ministers from the provinces and the federal government and the people who are involved. We should get together to try to really and truly help these children to ensure they are getting the love, the nurturing and assistance they need in order that they do not end up in our justice system, like a revolving door.

These examples prove to us that the earlier years in life are so crucial. If we address them we will drastically reduce the social and economic costs to our society. This is a very small investment with a huge return. It is like an RRSP, the benefits are just enormous at the back end.

Many programs already exist in centres in Canada and the U.S. There is the program in Hawaii pioneering early intervention programs for children focusing on high risk families. They go right back to when the woman is still pregnant. If assistance is needed at that time it is provided. There is also a program in Michigan which my colleague has spoken about. The evaluations of these programs have shown a decrease in juvenile and adult crime by 50%. These programs are working and that is the most important part.

I am really encouraged to participate in a debate where all the parties, with the exception of the Bloc, seem to have children in their hearts. The long term savings to the taxpayers will be absolutely enormous. It works out to roughly $6 in dividends for every $1 invested. This is going on the statistics from these other programs. That in itself is something we cannot ignore.

The Reform Party stands for tougher laws. In no way is this motion suggesting that we cannot hold people accountable for their actions. The ones who slip through, yes, we have to hold them accountable and ensure they are dealt with toughly. However, what this is all about is stopping half of them before they get to that door. It is a travesty to see them coming through.

I practised in the criminal courts myself and of my own choosing. In our occupations we always want to feel we are making a difference and are quite proud of our work. Some would argue how anyone could be proud of their work while practising as a criminal lawyer.

However if we get the youth early and get them into the programs, we can make a difference, even for offences such as shoplifting which are deemed by the courts as very minor offences.

Sometimes we would get the family in there. We would send them off to counselling, probation, all kinds of programs. We could tell that that person was not coming back, that they were not going to be back and they were not. This is just enforcing that we should take that one step before and give these programs.

I listened to my friend's comments about the baby in the hospital and having to do an examination before sending the baby back into that terrible environment. It almost brings tears to one's eyes.

When sentencing these children in the courts they go through the child's history before giving the sentence. Every single time they describe the circumstances, the sexual abuse, the prostitution in the families, the physical abuse between the parents, just horrible conditions. Almost every time with those who are involved in serious crimes that is what is described without exception. That is what they went through.

Again, I commend my friend and colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his dedication to these very sensitive issues, something he believes in dearly in his heart and wants to make a difference. I thank again the hon. member for Mount Royal for her gracious offer to allow me to speak today.

I have a two and a four year old at home. I believe very much that we have to look after the most valuable resource in our country, our children.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from the other side. This is a very serious issue. Since their are seven or eight minutes left, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House that I be given the opportunity to finish my speech which will carry us two or three minutes over.