James William (Jim) GOUK

GOUK, James William (Jim)

Personal Data

Party
Conservative
Constituency
Southern Interior (British Columbia)
Birth Date
April 15, 1946
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gouk
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=2776efff-9dde-480e-952c-f73e3ae47719&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
air traffic controller, businessman, realtor

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
REF
  Kootenay West--Revelstoke (British Columbia)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
REF
  West Kootenay--Okanagan (British Columbia)
March 27, 2000 - October 22, 2000
CA
  West Kootenay--Okanagan (British Columbia)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
CA
  Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan (British Columbia)
December 23, 2003 - May 23, 2004
CPC
  Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan (British Columbia)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
CPC
  Southern Interior (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 147)


June 7, 2005

Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic the minister would keep emphasizing the term “lead us down the path”. It seems very apropos.

The war on cancer should not have to depend on the efforts of a heroic young man who lost his leg and eventually his life to cancer. It should depend on the government and on Parliament. The strategy of the Liberals reminds me of a brush fire where the responsible agency, in trying to save money, instead of sending the equipment and manpower necessary to put out that fire, sends one person with a small extinguisher. Eventually they lose control and lose a lot of forest land, jobs and taxes and create problems for the environment instead of doing the job right upfront.

I would be interested to know if the government has ever done a cost benefit analysis. For example, if it put in large sums of money, what benefit would it get in terms of savings to the health care system, lost wages, taxation and all the other things that come up?

In terms of what money is available, recently the government came out with a budget and said, “This is all we have”, yet a few short weeks later, the Liberals managed to find another $4.6 billion. I will not even go into whether or not the things they targeted with the additional money were really wonderful, but they had $4.6 billion, presumably, to make this commitment. If they took a large part of that and instead of talking about putting hundreds of millions of dollars or even a few million, and I think the minister said an additional $60 million, the figures I have seen lead me to believe that if we would invest hundreds of millions, we would save in the long run hundreds of billions.

Has a cost strategy analysis every been done? If so, why does the government not take a serious look at making a genuine commitment to a real war on the health problems of the citizens of this country and deal with it once and for all for net saving and also for quality of life?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Supply
Full View Permalink

June 3, 2005

Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I previously asked a question in the House regarding the laundering of ad scam money through VIA Rail, where Lafleur Communications Marketing was paid $112,000 to carry a cheque from public works to VIA Rail. It then turned around and donated half the money back to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The question was answered by the then public works minister, now in charge of Canada's finances, who stated that he too was troubled by this file and had referred it to the RCMP. That was three years ago. What results do we have from this three year investigation that so troubled the present finance minister?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Sponsorship Program
Full View Permalink

June 3, 2005

Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, if after three years there are no results of such blatant money laundering it seems that it was only the bad publicity that troubled the minister. The Minister of Finance was at the time in charge of public works and is now in charge of the nation's finances. He should have been more concerned about the operation of public works then and about the theft of taxpayers' money now.

Given this incredible example of the ad scam at its worst, will the government commit to returning its proceeds from this theft of taxpayer money now, today?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Sponsorship Program
Full View Permalink

June 2, 2005

Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, the question on redefining marriage is extremely divisive, but Canadians are fair minded and reasonable. Most do not oppose a recognized union between same sex couples. They simply object to those couples using the same name for their union that traditional families around the world have used throughout history.

Recognition of the union of same sex couples is a new consideration and as such should have a new name to better describe this newly recognized relationship.

If the Prime Minister is not sure whether Canadians support his proposal to expand the traditional definition of marriage, I suggest he put his trust in the good judgment of the Canadian people and hold a referendum on the issue of definition of marriage. I have done this on a number of issues in my riding and, on occasion, I have voted contrary to the position of my party and even my own personally held beliefs when directed by those I represent.

Collectively, we are sent here to represent all Canadians and they should all have a say when considering such a major change to a defining aspect of Canadian life.

Topic:   Statements by Members
Subtopic:   Marriage
Full View Permalink

May 31, 2005

Mr. Jim Gouk (British Columbia Southern Interior, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear on this. I want to give due consideration to the hon. member if he has a legitimate complaint. In his last presentation he said that the people who were faxing him were doing it deliberately to block his ability to communicate.

I heard my colleague talk about something totally different. He talked about the right of people to communicate with elected representatives across the country. If I were trying to jam the hon. member's fax machine, I would do it with one continuous feed of nonsense stuff anonymously sent so that it would not stop because if it did, then someone else could send something.

Maybe he could clarify this. Is this a single continuous stream of nonsense or are they legitimate letters signed by individuals asking for something that is the appropriate business of the House?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Privilege
Full View Permalink