Jim Gouk

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of witnesses at committee. In fact, I ended up being one of them. I did not realize at the time I requested it that it is somewhat unprecedented for a member of Parliament to appear as a witness on a bill like this. I did so because it is a very important issue, both in terms of my representation of a region with a lot of wineries that would be impacted by this and as a person who supports the intent behind the motion that we have to deal with things like fetal alcohol syndrome. It is very serious and needs our concern.

However, with all those witnesses who appeared, we heard a tremendous amount of evidence. I used some figures when I made my presentation at committee. As it happened, the departmental officials were there and backed up those figures. What they said is that right now the department spends about $3.3 million a year on education to warn people and make them more aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, the need to abstain from alcohol and a number of other measures that they need to take. They also confirmed that the compliance costs for the department, the enforcement costs if this motion were to pass and the labelling were to come into effect, would be something in the neighbourhood of $27 million over a five year period.

[Rotary International, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 2005 marks 100 years since a lawyer named Paul Harris and a small group of businessmen got together and started an organization that has become known as Rotary International. From that humble beginning, Rotary has grown into a service organization with 1.2 million members.

Rotary is the world's largest privately funded source of international scholarships, exchange programs and humanitarian grants.

Rotary's international project to eradicate polio by funding the immunization of every child in the world has resulted in the reduction of the incidence of polio by 99% and approaches total eradication.

Rotarians are also very active in their local communities and any community fortunate enough to have a Rotary Club has become the beneficiary of that Rotarian commitment of service to its communities. In my riding we are fortunate enough to have 11 active Rotary Clubs that provide their services, both locally and internationally.

I am sure all hon. members will join with me in thanking Rotarians for their great contributions and congratulate them on reaching this major milestone of 100 years of service above self.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech from my Bloc colleague. I have a couple of questions.

First, the hon. member spoke against the Conservative position, which I find curious. The Liberal government has a big block of people who are not allowed a free vote, and of the ones who are, tremendous pressure is being put on them to conform. The NDP is not allowing a free vote. Given that we are the only party, other than his own, which is offering a free and unfettered vote on this, I am curious why he chose to target the Conservative Party so much.

Second, he suggested there were dilatory actions on the part of the Conservative Party to delay this and went on to explain how perhaps all 99 MPs would be speaking to it. Given that we have a free vote and we do have some people on each side of the issue, could he tell us on which side of the issue he wants us to curtail the right of an MP to speak on this issue, those for it or those against it?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, this is why we have a problem. I ask the Liberals a question dealing with pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers and they give me a canned answer that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just asked. However let us look at what he did say.

He said that the government spent $2.2 billion. Are we getting value for the money? There is a way that we could provide faster, less costly clearance in the same manner in which the Americans are doing it and yet for some reason it is not good enough.

They are talking about enhanced checked baggage and yet they let employees go through who are not subject to checks at all, except randomly. They talk about secured cockpit doors, which has nothing to do with having people go through who are pre-cleared so we can speed up these lines and cut down the costs and the overall operation for CATSA.

In terms of secured cockpit doors, seeing as how the parliamentary secretary brought it up, I fly pretty regularly and every single flight that I have been on, at some point in the flight that cockpit door has been open. So much for secured cockpit doors.

He talked about airport employees being vigilant. They are the ones who are getting through with only random clearance. Who is being vigilant about the vigilant answers? That is the thing the government has to deal with.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to raise this issue. I know the parliamentary secretary, who will be responding to me, is very eloquent so I hope he will put his podium and canned notes away because I am going to turn it just slightly. I do not want to talk about the badges and the stolen clothes but if he recalls the question that we are dealing with, I talked about random checking, and that is the issue that I am particularly concerned about.

Random checking is where we have airport employees, everyone from concession operators on air side to the window washers, baggage handlers and everyone, who do not get regular security checks. They get random checks. They come and go, back and forth, and they are subject to random checks, which means a lot of the time they go through without any check at all.

We have talked to CATSA at Transport Canada about operating some kind of system for pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers, suggesting that this is probably a good way to cut down on CATSA's workload, to move the travellers more efficiently, to get more value for the money for Canadian travellers and to cut the cost down, seeing as how the government imposed 100% of the cost of this on the travelling public in an airline industry that is already in trouble. So we have random checking already in place.

Now, either the government believes it is safe, in which case it should introduce this for high frequency travellers who have been pre-screened and who have submitted to a full security clearance, or it should admit that this random checking of airport employees is dangerous and unsafe and that it will start doing absolute full security clearance whatever the ramifications might be.

The United States is already doing this. Several airports have a test program under way whereby they are doing just exactly this, pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers who have submitted all the information and gone through the complete security screening. Is Canada waiting to follow in the footsteps of the United States, to let the Americans do the work and then make the decision that if it is safe for them then I guess we can do it without going through this, or are we doing something on our own?

The final questions I would ask and hopefully get a response on are these. Is Canada consulting with the United States on its program of pre-clearance of high frequency, low risk travellers? Is Canada developing its own system of doing this and, if so, when can we expect to see something like this put into operation?

[Air Transportation Security, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the public at risk over stolen badges, but 110,000 airside pass holders are subject to random checking only. This includes everyone from baggage handlers to window washers.

The minister claims that no pre-clearance security passes can be issued to high frequency business travellers, and yet he wants us to believe that random checking is okay for all levels of workers.

Between stolen badges and workers getting through security with only random checking, how can he claim that his billion dollar security system is working?

[The Environment, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Teck Cominco's motion to dismiss the EPA lawsuit was rejected. On November 19 it filed an application to appeal the decision. Its application would be greatly enhanced if the Canadian government were to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. court within 30 days of that filing. This issue must be settled by bilateral negotiations and its position supported in writing by the U.S. ambassador to Canada. Time is running out.

Will the government file an amicus brief and, if so, when?

[The Environment, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to enforce U.S. environmental standards on Teck Cominco, a Canadian company operating in Canada under Canadian regulations. If it is successful, it will impact on Canada's jobs, revenue and sovereignty.

Cross-border issues must be settled by bilateral negotiations. What is the Government of Canada doing to stop this unilateral action of a U.S. agency, including a lawsuit now underway?

[Petitions, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, your petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our children need protection from sexual exploitation and therefore call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to raise the age of consent from 14 to 18.

[Teck Cominco, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Teck Cominco operates a lead-zinc smelter that has been located at Trail, B.C. since 1896. It now finds itself a target of a U.S. government agency's lawsuit seeking to force it to comply with U.S. environmental law without any of the protections provided to U.S. companies.

If the U.S. action is successful, it will have serious ramifications on any Canadian company or community that discharges into a body of water that flows into the United States. Canadian environmental laws will become meaningless and all those companies and communities will be powerless to defend themselves.

Cominco sought to have the lawsuit dismissed and was denied. However, it has applied to appeal the decision.

To help ensure that the petition for appeal is accepted, it is essential that an amicus brief be filed by the Government of Canada. Canada is on record as supporting a bilaterally negotiated settlement of the problem and this position is supported in writing by the U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

Canada's sovereignty and the security of Canadian companies and communities are at stake. The Government of Canada must act quickly to protect both. Time is running out and it has not acted yet.