Jim Gouk

[Firefighters, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the International Association of Fire Fighters is meeting in Ottawa this week which makes this a good time to reflect on the tremendous contribution our firefighters make to the safety and well-being of our communities. They serve the public with distinction and heroism.

Despite their dangerous jobs, the federal government is not doing all that it can to ensure their safety in action. Firefighters have been pleading with the government to take some basic measures to add safety to a very perilous profession, so far to no avail.

They are asking for items that would not only be of personal benefit but would also help to protect their families, friends and communities, items like mandatory notification protocol to inform them when they come into contact with infectious diseases in the line of duty, items like the hazardous material identification process so they will know what kind of dangerous goods may be present at the scene of an accident. These are things that could benefit everyone, firefighters and the public alike.

I call on Parliament to lend its support to ensuring that the people who are entrusted with saving our lives are given the full protection for their lives as well.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by doing something just a little different. I have to offer the House a correction of what my own colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre said.

He pointed out that the Prime Minister had said: "There is not one single promise I will not keep," and he suggested that he did not live up to that. I have to point out to my hon. colleague that the Prime Minister, in fact, did. The Prime Minister said there was not one promise that he would not keep and he is absolutely right. There is a whole pile of them.

The Prime Minister likes to twist things around and use semantics. By doing that, he is technically correct but it is a bigger shame to say that he did not keep one promise. He did not keep any of his promises, relatively speaking.

I am the Reform Party's transport critic. I might add the national transport critic. I would like to focus my comments on those transport issues that relate to this budget.

One in which I have had a lot of involvement is probably one of the bigger and more scandalous pieces of legislation that this Liberal government has been involved in, and that is the Pearson airport development contract.

I did not see anywhere in this budget proposal money allocated for the cost that this government is going to incur because of its unwarranted interference in the private marketplace and its overturning of the rule of law in the mess that it has started with this Pearson airport legislation.

There are all kinds of costs involved in that legislation and one cost which is huge and growing daily are legal costs. I see nothing under transport that shows the cost of defending this absolutely unconscionable legislation originally called Bill C-22. Now I believe it is Bill C-28. It was hardly worth giving it a new number when it came through the House again. It only took one minute and 35 seconds. Nobody was allowed to speak on it. I do not think it was worth the costs for that second time around.

The government had to involve its legal and justice departments in order to draft this terrible piece of legislation. Then when justice did seem to prevail a bit and it could not get this bill through the House and through the Senate, the consortium, as is its right in normal society, took the matter to the Supreme Court of Ontario.

First the government used the might of the tax dollar, the Canadian taxpayers' money, and mounted first a legal challenge to try to prevent it from going to court.

That cost us a bundle of money right there. There is nothing in the budget about that. When they lost all their stalling tactics and ran out of things they could do, they finally went to court.

The court case was dealing with whether there was a contract and if so was the government in breach of that contract. The government mounted a tremendous defence with a battery of justice department lawyers and lost.

There were big costs involved in that. There is nothing in the budget dealing with that or future legal costs. Having lost it and having the unlimited resources of Canadian taxpayer money, they mounted an appeal.

They did all their preparation, it went to court and through the whole appeal process. They lost again. Millions and millions more of taxpayer dollars were wasted. Now they are in court for a third time, with the court having recognized that there was a contract and that the government was in breach of that contract.

The government, having exhausted its appeal rights, is now in court asking what compensation should be given. When we get the compensation, the consortium that had a contract, which the courts have said was a legal and binding contract breached by the government, is asking for over $600 million in compensation.

Most of this is lost opportunity for profit. This is a normal thing to sue for when one unjustifiably has a contract taken away. Once again, the government has its battery of lawyers trying to defend the terrible piece of legislation the Liberal government brought forward.

Again it is costing untold amounts of taxpayer dollars. This is in this fiscal year, but nothing in the budget. There is nothing in the budget about the compensation package either.

Are we getting our money's worth for all these millions of dollars in legal costs? Here in the House the government said for two years while this bill was going through that this was a terrible contract, that it was far too rich and that the developers would make too much money. That was the justification for the cancellation.

What have these lawyers done with all the money they are spending, money that is not in the budget? What are they using for a defence? They are saying to the court there should not be any costs awarded to the contract holder for lost profit. It was such a bad contract with such a likelihood of the contractors going broke that they probably would not have made any money at all.

It seems like one side of the justice department lawyers should get together with the other side and get their stories straight. If the

government is then to squander millions of dollars on legal defence of this legislation, at least we might get something by way of some value for our money.

Let us look at the financial impact of the contract. Thousands of jobs were involved in this contract at not $1 cost to the Canadian taxpayer. One of the many utopian schemes the Liberal government came out with is jobs, jobs, jobs; it would create jobs.

Before the government started running on this, there were studies done that indicated that it cost the government $75,000 to create a $35,000 job. For this, it gets $10,000 worth of economic benefits, tax revenues versus paying out on social programs, for a net loss of $65,000 a job. That is the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the government's buying jobs.

Now that the government has run through its infamous job creation program dealing with infrastructure, if we take the number of permanent jobs the government claims it created and divide it by the amount of money spent, we find $75,000 a job. Is that not interesting?

Thousands of jobs could be created by the contract the government cancelled with not $1 of cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The contract holders were to spend over $800 million at not one dime cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

I do not see anything anywhere in the budget dealing with replacing those jobs at Pearson airport at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Because this construction is not going on, we have tax loss of all kinds.

The government specifically banned passenger facility tax to the consortium to build this. Now it has to build the facilities itself at a cost now of over $1 billion. There is nothing in the budget for that.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, the national opposition, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the victims of work related accidents and to those suffering from occupational injuries or disease.

Work conditions and occupational health and safety have evolved greatly since Confederation and are now fundamental to managing the workplace. The rights and duties of employees are now embedded in our laws and regulations.

It is one thing however for Parliament and legislative assemblies to pass occupational health and safety laws but it is another to ensure they are followed. The time to become safety conscious is not after an accident occurs. Prevention has to be foremost in our minds.

Laws, regulations and governments play an important role in accident prevention. In the final analysis however, it is the employ-

ers and the employees who are responsible for preventing, eliminating or controlling hazards in the workplace. This is a responsibility no one can shun.

Preliminary statistics for 1994, the last year for which I found them available, show that there were 709 workplace related fatalities, 152 of which occurred in my home province of British Columbia. That is an increase of 124 from the previous year.

Workplace fatalities, whether they claim one life or 26 as was the case in the 1992 Westray mine disaster, are devastating not only for the family and friends of the deceased but for co-workers and employers as well.

Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost to ensure that the workplace is health and safety conscious, that those are necessities, not options.

The world economy is becoming increasingly competitive and technologically advanced. New challenges abound and workers face previously unheard of hazards. Labour and management must work together to provide a healthy, safe and prosperous workplace necessary to secure and maintain a competitive edge.

Let us use this national day of mourning to promote awareness of the vital role that health and safety play in the protection and preservation of our Canadian workers.

[Marine User Fees, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning about Liberal consultation. Unfortunately, Liberal consultation means either stack the meeting and get people who agree with you or else ignore what they say.

Recently at a meeting of the fisheries and oceans committee, 35 of the 42 users who came in said: "We accept the user pay concept, but let coast guard first rationalize their costs and do a socioeconomic impact study so that you do not destroy the surface of the ocean the way you have destroyed what is underneath it".

Can the minister explain to the House why expensive hearings are held if the wishes of the 35 of the 42 of those people who came forward are ignored?

[B.C. Summer Games, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the area of southeastern British Columbia that I represent is a great place to visit at any time. When I moved there in 1976, it was only intended to be a temporary move, but the beauty of the area and the warmth of the people soon convinced me there was no better place to be.

This summer there is a further special reason for Canadians to visit this jewel of the B.C. interior. The cities of Trail and Castlegar are combining to host the 1996 B.C. summer games from July 25 to July 28.

Both of these communities and other local surrounding communities will be pulling out all the stops to ensure that visitors have a very rewarding experience. In addition to the games, visitors will be able to experience restored and preserved wild west history, pristine lake fishing, championship golf courses, hot springs, hiking trails, areas of breathtaking beauty and much more.

I invite all the members of the House and those watching in the various parts of the country to visit the west Kootenays this summer and discover for themselves the reasons we are so proud of our area.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House for permission to ask the minister who just introduced the bill if in the name of democracy he would permit a single question on this subject.

[Pearson Airport, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced it intends to reintroduce Bill C-22, a bill which cancelled the Pearson development contract retroactively so as to say no contract existed.

The Supreme Court of Ontario has already ruled the contract was valid and that the government was in breach of that contract. Subsequent government appeals have been lost by the government.

Can the minister explain how he can justify reintroducing this unconstitutional bill so that history can be rewritten to suit the Liberal Party?

[Canada Health Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will. The last Conservative government was opposed to the passage of this bill for a variety of reasons but the Liberal opposition was staunchly in support at least in principle. I am hopeful that I can secure-

[Canada Health Act, March 28th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-251, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for contributions).

Mr. Speaker, the need for this bill arises out of the lack of a nationally organized and managed protocol for notification of infectious diseases. Although Health Canada did issue a protocol for notification recently, it is purely voluntary in nature and therefore inadequate.

I am extremely concerned about the federal government's lack of action on this important issue. With each passing year the federal politicians fail to move on this vitally needed plan and more and more lives are being put in unnecessary danger.

Canada's emergency response personnel such as firefighters routinely risk their lives to keep our communities safe, and yet government has not yet extended the courtesy of providing further protection for these workers in the course of carrying out their duties.

Emergency response personnel may come into contact with a variety of contagious diseases in the course of carrying out their duties.

As a result, a procedure is needed that allows hospitals to quickly inform these personnel when patients they have handled in a vehicle rescue or any other type of situation carry a communicable disease such as hepatitis or AIDS.

Knowing essential facts like this quickly and efficiently is the first step in preventing contact with a communicable disease from turning into something worse. Notification procedure allows for testing and early treatment of communicable diseases.

My bill advocates a notification system that is similar to corresponding American legislation recently passed in Washington which addresses concerns about formalized disease notification procedures for emergency personnel.

To ease concern about patients' invasion of privacy, my bill incorporates confidentiality safeguards.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask one question dealing with the hon. member's concerns he expressed at length about the CN rail line from Montreal to Halifax.

I do not know if the hon. member heard my speech this morning when I talked about my concerns. The people of Halifax came to the committee first on Bill C-89, the CN privatization and later on Bill C-101, the new Canada Transportation Act. They asked, begged and implored the committee and Parliament to offer some guarantee of continuance for a period of time for the reasons the member stated, so that the line would not disappear before the post-Panamax traffic was in place.

They wanted assurance for investors that they could invest in the newly privatized or commercialized Halifax port which does not get government support for these loans. I have no problem with that and they did not either, but they said to at least give them the tools to develop their financial self-sustaining characteristics. This is something which will not take traffic away from interior ports such as Montreal or the lakehead because post-Panamax freighters cannot and will not go up the St. Lawrence. They either go to Halifax or they go to the United States. Those are the two choices.

I talked to the president of CN Rail. I asked him if it would be a hardship for him if this was put in. His response was that it would not be.

What the hon. member should know is that the Bloc Quebecois has a private member's motion coming up on April 19 or thereabouts, because CN is not living up to its responsibilities to repair and rebuild the bridge which links the north shore to the south shore. If CN does not do that, if it is allowed to let it run down to the point where it is no longer practical to run it, that rail line will be gone.

We proposed in Bill C-89 on behalf of the member's people in Halifax that there be a 10 year continuance. That is what they asked for. The Liberals shot it down.

They asked for it again when Bill C-101 was in committee. They said: "We have cut our plea to the minimum. We can live with five years. We would like to have 10, but we can live with five. Please give us the five years we need". I reiterate, it is at no cost to anyone. It is not a cost to the internal ports of Canada. It will not take business away from them. It is not a cost to CN Rail. The president of CN Rail said it would not be a problem. I introduced this as Motion No. 38 which was voted down by the Liberal government.

The hon. member said that he would rise after the fact and speak on behalf of Halifax. It is too late. He either speaks now or

whatever benefit this may have brought Halifax will be gone. No matter what he says, it will be gone. He should know that one backbencher rising in Parliament after the fact will not make a difference. He should have been there when we were trying to put this through for Atlantic Canada.

Is the hon. member categorically stating that the Liberal government made a mistake in not passing Motion No. 38 which would have allowed that five years of continuance at no cost to anyone? Is he prepared to stand in the House today to say that he supports the motion now, even though it has already been defeated, against the position of the Liberal government which has turned its back on Atlantic Canada?