Jim Gouk

[Air Canada, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Minister of Transport made a backroom deal to grant Air Canada landing rights in Osaka, Japan. At the time he denied that any deal had been made, but two days later the story changed. Now Air Canada is pressing to have further landing rights granted in Japan and in China.

Will the minister advise this House if he is involved in or contemplating any unilateral backroom deal of this nature with Air Canada?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can see after what the hon. member stated that he would not wish to extend the period to rebut the statements he made. He only wishes to extend it to rebut the statements of others.

The hon. member opposite said that the Bloc Quebecois does not check into the reality of how Canada works. I would suggest that the government has not checked into the reality of why the country is not working.

If you have a dog named Rory and the dog makes a mess of your house, you say you do not want this dog and you kick it out. A little while later you bring a dog in, a dog named Brick. Why should you be surprised if the dog makes the same mess of your house if it is the same dog with a different name?

There is a lot of selection going on here today. The hon. member talked about the selective memory of the Bloc. I would suggest that the hon. member is using selective statistics in backing his own arguments. He talks about the 40,000 or 50,000 jobs created in the west through government grants and government funding. How many jobs have we lost in the west because of the government's overspending and the taxation of all the different businesses and individuals which rob us of the ability to do this for ourselves?

The government creates the problem. It gave us a small bit of a solution to that problem. Then it wants to pat itself on the back for it.

There is something wrong with a system in which we give our money to the federal government and then have to beg and plead to get some of it back through whatever program it decides to develop. It is very selective how it is given out.

The hon. minister talked about 150 companies that get the government's benevolent help. What about the companies that are not in that group, further disadvantaged because now we have government interference stepping in and saying: "You are the good companies so we are going to help you; but we are not helping you guys with your taxes because we have to get the money from somewhere to give to these other companies in the first place".

When he said we want to bring together the wealth of Canada, they have sure done that; they have taken all the wealth of Canada and brought it here to Ottawa and then squandered it.

What we have to do is find some solutions to problems. We are getting rhetoric from that side, we are getting rhetoric from every side, and I am probably using a bit of it because I get caught up in the flow.

In terms of regional development, the problem with government today and in the past is that it is selective. It makes these arbitrary choices of who it is going to help and how it is going to help. The Bloc Quebecois is upset about the money it pays out and gets back. The west pays out more than it gets back and we are tired of that as well.

I would suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to use statistics, use accurate ones, use ones that reflect the true picture and not his own stilted sort of version of it.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a kind of a paradox listening to this this morning. Recently a member of the Bloc Quebecois came to my riding in British Columbia. While he was there I had a chance to hear a lot of their policies. I thought it was really interesting because a lot of their ideas are not that different from mine.

In fact in identifying the problem and identifying the cause of the problem federally we were very much in agreement. Where we came to a difference was in the solution. It sounds like we are in much the same situation here this morning.

We believe that regional development grants are not working well, that it is not a good way to redistribute the wealth of the country. The Bloc have talked about the failure of a system. We agree with that too but where we come to a difference again is in the solution.

Because regional development grants do not work the Bloc feels that this is a reason to separate. We suggest this is a reason to come to Ottawa and change the system and that is our purpose in being here.

Interprovincial trade barriers are also something that cost the individual provinces a tremendous amount of money and that is in the provincial hands. The amounts of the grants that go to the Atlantic region were mentioned. Interprovincial trade barriers cost the Atlantic region more than the total value of their regional development grants. So there are solutions in the hands of the Quebec government at this time.

They talked of the VIA Rail system and how there has to be more subsidies or the continuation of subsidies in order to enhance tourism and passenger travel. In British Columbia VIA Rail tried to operate a system that was largely tourist oriented. Even though it was hugely subsidized it lost its shirt. Private enterprise stepped in and without any subsidies whatsoever is now turning a nice profit and causing a tremendous boon for the various regions of British Columbia that it travels in without, as I said, any subsidy whatsoever.

There are any number of things that we can talk about such as the post office. I suggest to the Bloc that a solution to part of the problems in terms of keeping some of the money at home would be to deal with some of the internal problems of Quebec.

With regard to the regional development grants, we support the idea that we need a lot of these things that become in part patronage. Regional development grants do on occasion work. I am not suggesting that every time they are used they are a total failure.

However, the federal government has to stop wasting so much money. The only way it will get its deficit under control is if it spends less, pure and simple. This is an area where it can cut the spending. It could then stop taking that money from the individual provinces and they would be more viable.

I would ask the Bloc if it has a solution that does not involve separation. We certainly do. We think that is the direction it should be going in. Give us a solution not an enhancement.

[Unemployment Insurance, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is also for the Minister of Human Resources Development. It is a repeat of the question I asked the minister's parliamentary secretary on March 25, with no results.

Will the minister extend the term of the previous chairman, Rocco Mastrobuono, until this drawn out process finally comes to an end?

[Unemployment Insurance, May 30th, 1994]

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The lack of a chairman for the board of referees in Kootenay West-Revelstoke has denied residents the right of appeal on UIC problems. I raised the issue in the House with the Minister of Human Resources Development on March 11 and was promised speedy results. The latest word is nothing until at least next fall.

Why is this relatively simple process taking so long? What will the minister do to ensure the rights of the people in my riding are not put off any longer?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motions Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 39

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Madam Speaker, although we do not mention names in the House, I would like to clarify that the name is Gouk. I would not want people to think we have 53 members in the Reform Party just yet.

We have moved this amendment to allow us to address the various parts of the bill. When I first spoke on this I pointed out that it was an omnibus bill. The nature of an omnibus bill is something that presents so many different parts that may not closely or even relatively link to one another that it is impossible to pick and choose what you can support and what you consequently have to reject.

If there are things in it which are totally unpalatable and one cannot support then one has to reject the entire bill. The reason we have moved this amendment is so that we can address the individual parts of the bill in debate.

With regard to the transportation subsidies, as I said before that is one portion which I can agree with at least in principle. I also suggested at the time that the government had not really done its homework on these issues. Had it done so it would have found that there were many areas, both in the western grain transportation subsidies and in the Atlantic regional subsidies where other costs could have been cut that would have achieved the same or a higher level of saving for the government without penalizing the people of the region that these subsidies were initially designed to serve.

It could be done in such a way that the subsidies could be reduced and the local people would still realize a saving in money if we got rid of some of the waste and inefficiencies. I suggested this was a lack of homework on the part of the government. I have seen very little in the ensuing period since I last spoke on this issue to suggest that the government is yet ready to do this work.

Much of this can be resolved in committee. I believe that is what committees are for. It is unfortunate that the government sees fit to take all these different aspects of things generally relating to the budget, lump them into one omnibus bill and then suggest that we have to accept or reject the bill in its entirety.

We have seen the folly of this under such things as the Charlottetown accord. The Charlottetown accord was probably the most omnibus piece of work that has ever come from any government. It was rejected by the majority of Canadians who reviewed it and said: "While there may be some things in there that we support, there are things in there that we cannot plug our nose and vote in favour of as the previous Prime Minister suggested". Consequently the majority of Canadians in their own best interest rejected that.

Forevermore, from the previous Prime Minister to the present Prime Minister and all his cabinet ministers, every time we try and raise an important issue for Canadians we hear that we rejected that. We hear: "We offered that to you and you rejected it under the Charlottetown accord. Never, ever bring it up again".

Using that same rationale, it brings to us Bill C-17. In Bill C-17 there are probably some good things we would like to see through. We are told that the government has to reduce its cost and yet every time it tries we reject what it is saying. We say there are things in here where we can save money and we support that. Transportation subsidies is one area which in general principle we can support.

An example of something I personally cannot support tied into the same bill is allowing borrowing by the CBC. It is not bad enough that the government borrows more than it can ever hope to repay and cannot even pay the interest on, but now it wants to farm out those rights to its various crown corporations so that they can borrow. In that way it is not seen as part of the government's national debt.

With regard to the transportation subsidy I would support the reduction in grain subsidies but I couple that with a request if not a demand that the government at the same time look at the inefficiencies of the transportation system. It has been proven that simply pumping money into the transportation system does not get the grain moving and that is what the farmers require.

By all means we can reduce the costs but at the same time we have to get rid of the inefficiencies. I suggest that if we got rid of all inefficiencies we could get rid of subsidies almost entirely without any penalty to the farmers who are in dire straits because of government inaction.

With regard to the Atlantic regional subsidies, again the same situation. There are many areas where the government could reduce subsidies if it would improve certain other areas which penalize the Atlantic region. One that I mentioned specifically was the icebreaking services provided without cost to the shippers in order to keep a frozen port open while ice free ports remain underutilized. This is penalizing the Atlantic region.

As I mentioned, I have no problem with keeping that service available but shippers should pay the cost of providing that service which costs $20 million a year. This would more than offset the type of subsidy it is looking to reduce and which is actually penalizing the Atlantic region.

I also mentioned the economic development grants. Those could be reduced as well if at the same time the government would do something about interprovincial trade barriers which costs the Atlantic region more than its entire economic development grants.

On the basis of breaking this up, I will support with my added remarks the transportation subsidy portion. But until the bill is broken up and the parts dealt with individually so that the ludicrous parts can be eliminated, it makes it very difficult to support.

[Railway Safety Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize this as an important but non-contentious piece of housekeeping legislation designed to improve rail safety. As such the Reform Party supports the bill.

We support it going through three readings and we offer our co-operation in that regard. We do not wish to take up the House's time in any further debate or comment on it so that we can finish with the bill and get on to the more important and pressing matters coming before the House.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported and concurred in.)

[Railway Safety Act, May 4th, 1994]

We are, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am shocked and dismayed. I listened to two colleagues on my side deliver their speeches. I was awaiting a rebuttal from the other side because my colleague suggested there was no tax relief in sight for Canadian companies. I was awaiting the plan that I know exists on the other side but we never got it.

When the hon. member for Halifax stood I thought we are going to get it. This is not a sharp shooter. This is a Gatling gun. I thought she would mow down that false notion but she did not do so either. I feel compelled now to inform the House what the Liberal plan is.

The Liberal plan is to raise the taxes of Canadian companies. If the Liberals raise those taxes a notch higher, those companies will then qualify for tax exemptions as non-profit organizations. That is the Liberal plan. I am surprised they did not share it with us.

[Warfield Postal Service, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the village of Warfield have a great deal of pride in their community.

Warfield has a village council, a volunteer fire department, a community hall, a swimming pool, local schooling from kindergarten to grade seven and a variety of stores and services to look after the needs of local citizens. Warfield also has an annual parade in honour of family sports, this year held on June 11.

In short, the village of Warfield has everything necessary to justify its civic pride except one thing. The missing ingredient is an address. All mail sent to Warfield is addressed to the neighbouring town of Trail.

The postal codes for Warfield are unique. No change or new costs would be necessary except to have Canada Post recognize the rights of the citizens of Warfield to have their own name on their mail.

In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that people of Warfield are not looking for a post office or any change in service, only their own identity.