Stan Keyes

[Occupational Health And Safety Week, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, next week is Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week sponsored by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering.

The purpose of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week is to focus public attention on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.

Every 12.3 hours an employee is killed on the job. In 1992, 714 workers were killed on the job and another 864,000 workers were injured. It is estimated that the cost of occupational injuries and illnesses in Canada is close to $11 billion.

Clearly we have a fiscal and social responsibility to ensure that the general public is empowered with information designed to prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace and save lives.

In this regard I would like to express my sincere appreciation for all the individuals and organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in my riding of Hamilton West that produce general information and research on injury and illness prevention in the workplace.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood does bring up the fact that the Auditor General is an independent third party, not three different parties sitting down and looking at receipts. It is an independent third party. That being said, I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that answer.

Getting back to the Bloc member, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans, he is the critic of course for transport for the Bloc. He is doing a solid job. He put forward the list of witnesses we needed at that committee. I am proud to say the committee said sure, bring them all on.

There were a few exceptions like Mr. Nixon, for example.Mr. Nixon submitted his report. He is more than above board. He has given us a full documentation of all the facts that he could present to us. We dragged him to a committee and asked him the same questions that were answered in a report that he filed with our committee. Again, let us not waste the time of the House or of hon. members. Let us get to the job. Let us get to the bottom line. Let us look at the bottom line, which is that Canadians asked us to kill the deal. Canadians said it was a lousy deal, so just get to it.

Pearson International Airport is an economic hub, a revenue generator, a very important link and element to transportation not only just in southern Ontario but in Canada. It is also an economic engine for Canada, aside from the fact that it happens to be an aviation hub.

We have to ensure that everything that is going on at Pearson airport is being completed on time in a very time sensitive industry, the airline industry. We have to plan today for what that airline policy and industry is going to look like tomorrow. If we do not, we get caught with our pants down. We will. It has happened in the past under Tory administrations. But that will not happen with this government, with this party. That is not going to be allowed to happen. We are going to keep on top of it and we congratulate the Minister of Transport for keeping on top of it.

There is no wishy-washy decision making here. What do Canadians want? They said it was a lousy deal. Fine. It is a lousy deal. "Do you want us to kill it?"-yes. We killed the deal. Sensitivities are made because we do not want to pay lobbyists and we do not want to pay for potential profits of the future. Come on, potential future profits, give us a break.

After all it was a legal document and the previous administration did sign and we have obligations to the international community. Therefore, we are sensitive enough to say: "Look we are not going to go fully this way and say the deal is cut, finished, done, dry. You are all hung out to dry". No, some legitimate third party claims been made and we are going to respond to them. We are not so insensitive as to not respond to those claims. We are going to do that and they are going to be cross checked by the Auditor General an independent third party.

The bottom line I suppose is that we invited all the witnesses to come forward, except for Mr. Nixon, for example. Let us go to the beginning.

Seventeen names were requested by the Bloc. Except for two or three of those names they were all invited. Those individuals responded. Either they were out of the country or they were going through their third party legal counsel. I do not even want to remind the House of his name. I am seeing a smile and hearing laughter from the Reform. Some of this stuff that was brought forward by this legal counsel for some of these individuals was just ridiculous.

However, they were all invited and either they were out of the country or were unable to attend and we said fine. Then there was a request for the chairman to invite them. The chairman invited a shortened list. Again those individuals said: "Sorry, I am out of the country". Can you imagine Jelinek or Corbeil, who were on the list, coming back? Ghosts from Tory administrations past. Who cares? I frankly do not give a damn what Jelinek or Corbeil have to say about this issue because it was a lousy deal. We cut the deal, we ended the deal and I really do not care about what they have to say.

I was hoping as the non-partisan chairman that the committee would not allow individuals to what, come and clear their name? "Hey, I am really a good guy and it really was a good deal but the Liberals killed it". I do not care. The committee did not care. In the end they were asked and then a subpoena was requested. The subpoena process is there. However, as we know and what Canadians might find of interest, in the rules of the House people can still turn down a subpoena request. Then the whole committee decides to take the subpoena request to the House and the House has to make the request. If the individual does not come then we send the Sergeant-at-Arms and off will go Gus to drag this individual in. The last time that full process was done was in 1913. The person still did not come and went to jail. That is the story behind that. It is a great story.

Canadians asked us and we, the Bloc and the Reform did our jobs. We asked the people to come. However, at some point you have to say enough is enough. We have asked three times and they have said: "Sorry, I can't make it, I'm out of the country, et cetera". The committee, in its wisdom, said: "We know what the bottom line is and we have to get to it. We are not going to stretch this thing out until the fall and dig up some dirty laundry from some sleazy Tory deals of the past. We are doing the job that has to be done". I congratulate the committee members for having done that job. I just hope that we get speedy passage of this bill.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks being made by the opposition parties to Bill C-22, and in particular the amendments that have been put forward, especially by the Bloc member.

Let me begin by saying I am privileged to be the chairman of the transport committee of the House. I congratulate members of the Reform and in particular the Bloc, especially the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who worked very hard and diligently in ensuring that the public interest was always held high and that work was being accomplished at committee with the valid, helpful suggestions being put forward by the Bloc member in requesting particular witnesses to appear before the committee.

I will address the last question put to government by the Reform first. The hon. member referred to extending transparency, saying that he simply wants the government to determine that if any claims are made by third party interveners that a government committee examine the payments.

We argued this in committee. It was made pretty clear by government members on the transport committee to the hon. member of the Reform Party, the Reform Party that by the way is against duplication of process, a Reform Party I believe that is against a waste of government members' time or the cost of doing government and the expense involved in having committee meetings. He wants to have the committee examine all these third party expenses being allocated by the government to the third parties.

There is a process available now that will ensure that these payments are above board and that will be done by the Auditor General of this country. Why are we duplicating a process by a Reform request to take what are literally these mounds of third party receipts and requests for payments? Somebody laid down some gravel at the site or somebody made a contract for the outhouses to be placed on site. We have to consider all these things. They are legitimate third party payouts. That process is going on right now.

Why do we want to take all that and look at it all over again when there will be an opportunity for the Auditor General to complete that work? Let us save the taxpayers of Canada some money, I say to the Reform. Let us save ourselves some time I say to the Reform.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Tory sleaze.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Sleaze, all of it sleaze.

[Education, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in honour of the students in my riding of Hamilton West and across Canada who will graduate from elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions this month.

This year over 260,000 students will graduate from high school, over 83,000 will graduate from college and approximately 170,000 will graduate from university.

It is my hope that as these students progress through our system of education and training they will continue to achieve new levels of accomplishment in the lifelong learning process.

I have said in the House before that education will be the salvation of our society. In the present information age this statement is proving to be more and more important as we approach the 21st century.

I am sure that all members of the House will join me in congratulating the class of 1994.

[National Transportation Week, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is National Transportation Week. Privileged to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, it is my pleasure to acknowledge the excellence of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who see the transportation industry in our country moving ever forward.

The challenges of change on a global scale are continuing to influence our transportation industry. To deal with these challenges, government and industry must look to the future and harmonize efforts to contribute to competitiveness and economic renewal.

It may please the House to know that last Friday in Thunder Bay the industry recognized excellence in transportation.

If time would permit, I would recognize all those who were honoured with awards of excellence and achievement, but among them I want particularly to mention those who received the awards of valour: Mr. Mervyn Peever of Prince George, B.C., a rail brakeman who risked his life to rescue a three-year old girl from the path of an oncoming freight train, and Mr. André Fréchette, a truck driver from Tracy, Quebec who rescued two people from a burning bus.

In keeping with National Transportation Week, I congratulate all those who keep Canada's transportation system running as it should be, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.

[Basketball Game, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today in my capacity as captain of the MPs basketball team to issue this statement prepared by the diligent pages of the House of Commons. They write:

"A basketball game between members of Parliament and House of Commons pages took place last night. This was a hard fought and enthusiastically played match featuring high-flying MPs from the government, the Bloc and the Reform Party as well as pages from all regions of Canada.

The MPs relied on their team work, experience, and polished moves while the pages used their talent, depth and youthfulness to their advantage.

The outcome of this hotly-contested match was in doubt from the beginning, but in the end the MPs were able to edge out the pages by a slender margin.

The victory was sweet but as members of this House should note this is no time to rest on your laurels as you will all be a year older next season and will have to contend with a new group of younger pages.

This game proved to be an excellent opportunity for members and pages to work off some energy and to get to know each other outside the House of Commons.

For those members who were unable to attend there is always next year as this has now become an annual event.

Again thank you to all those who participated. It was a game enjoyed by all.

Sincerely,

the Pages"

[Amateur Sport, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary responsible for fitness and amateur sport.

The recent report of the core sport commissioner recommended among other things the elimination of federal funding for 19 amateur sport programs. Six of the targeted programs are Olympic sports, two of which saw gold medal performances for Canada from Myriam Bédard and Jean-Luc Brassard at Lillehammer. The report also recommended cutting funding to lacrosse which we in this House just declared Canada's national summer sport.

Will my hon. colleague give this House her assurance that these recommendations will never see the light of day?

[The Constitution, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to relay my constituents' message that we stay focused on the mandate we were given by them last October. We must not be

sidetracked by all the counterproductive constitutional fearmongering from members opposite.

Let us not forget that there are millions of people who are unemployed in this country. Let us not forget that we have a $460 billion national debt to reduce. Let us not forget that we have a criminal justice system that is in need of serious reform. Most important, let us not forget the strong message voters sent to the previous administration.

We were elected to foster a sense of hope for the people of Canada by providing them with good government. We were not elected to sleepwalk into the abyss of the constitutional unity debate.