Jim Gouk

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I found myself strangely agreeing with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon, which did surprise me.

However, there are a couple of points I would like to make. First of all, it was mentioned by the hon. member that it cost $17,500 to have someone unemployed. I would hasten to point out we know by statistics that it costs $60,000 for the government to create a job that will employ that same person.

With regard to national child care, I would like to ask the hon. member if she is suggesting a multi-tiered system which she abhors so much in the medical system in child care or, conversely, is she suggesting that we should have a national system which will allow the people she is concerned about not paying their fair share, the rich, and allow them to drop their children off so that those who really need help can have theirs free instead of helping only those who need it.

[Air Canada, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the end of litigation is a positive thing both for the aviation industry and the Canadian travelling public. It might also be mentioned that it will not break the hearts of government that it will not have to get further involved in this dispute. That having been said, it is my opinion that the government has been involved in Air Canada's withdrawal from the litigation process.

I believe that the announcement by the Minister of Transport is as a result of a unilateral deal between his department and Air Canada. I have many concerns if these types of arrangements are being made without proper input from all the major parties concerned. The deal appears to be done. I am not convinced it is in the best interests for Canadian aviation, however it is done.

With the dispute between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines ended, both airlines should now be proceeding to build their respective companies. This is done by competing with foreign carriers, not with each other. Air Canada has a major portion of the market in Europe and the U.S., and Canadian has always had a major portion of the Orient. That balance has now been shifted.

I call on the minister to confirm that it will go no further, to pledge that there are no further deals to hand over Hong Kong or the People's Republic of China to Air Canada. The deal has been made. It is now time for the government to get out of the manipulation process and let free enterprise operate as it should.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his clear comments on this. It seems that many of the speakers tend to get confused on the issues or some of the rationale they are using.

The previous speaker whom we heard from that side of the House seemed to want to make this into a nuclear issue. I hasten to point out to the hon. member that we have many delivery systems in our own military capable of delivering nuclear weapons, if it was the choice to do so. It does not have to be just the cruise missile.

The cruise missile is not a nuclear weapon. It is simply a deliverance system. We saw it being used in the gulf war for conventional weapons in such a way as to be deadly accurate so that innocent people did not get injured.

Earlier we heard the hon. member for Mississauga West speak emotionally. I understand and I accept that she spoke from the heart and not necessarily to the facts of the matter.

What particularly interests me and is kind of curious is that yesterday we heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway speak with regard to the Bosnian issue where it was suggested that we should have air strikes in defence of our humanitarian aid in order to ensure that it gets through. Yet today the same member spoke against cruise missile testing and it is the very system that can make accurate delivery of the kind of strikes he was calling for.

I would like to thank the hon. member who just spoke for being clear and concise and for not trying to cloud the issue.

[Petitions, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition from the undersigned residents of Kootenay West-Revelstoke in British Columbia who would like their grievance known to this House.

This grievance has to do with a new game to be introduced in Canada called the serial killer board game. They humbly request that the House ban the sale of the serial killer board game and prevent other such material being made available in Canada in order to protect children.

[Firearms, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my riding and indeed the whole country have many residents who choose to own and use for competitive or recreational purposes legally owned firearms. Competitive shooting is in fact an Olympic competition that has won many medals for Canada.

The previous government passed legislation that severely restricted the legitimate use of firearms without addressing the criminal use of them. The Liberal government has indicated its intention to introduce new firearms legislation.

If it is the government's intention to deal seriously with prevention of illegal activities I would hope its legislation is straightforward and realistic. Legitimate owners stand ready to assist the government in any way possible.

If on the other hand it is the government's plan to pass regulations intent on forcing these legitimate owners to give up their legal property in frustration, I hope the government will at least be honest enough to state that its real intention is to take firearms away from all citizens of this country.

Legitimate owners would like compassionate legislation, but above all else they demand honesty from their government.