Rahim Jaffer

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I also congratulate my colleague on his new portfolio. I think he will do an excellent job.

When it comes to rebalancing powers, many people often confuse the position of the official opposition. Could he add some clarity, that we are not just talking about independent states far away from the government but a better working relationship?

Often when we talk about rebalancing people look to see if we are trying to advocate independent provinces that have no regard for the federal government. We are looking at the opposite. We want the federal government to show more respect for the provinces and to let them take on more decision making and work in a much better fashion than is happening now.

Would my hon. colleague comment on that particular relationship?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois member has expressed another point of view in the debate on the environment.

I think that the government should really sit up and take note. For example, it should be telling us about the effects on the environment of climate destabilization. I think the government should perhaps examine this point of view more closely, instead of telling us about vague things like global warming.

I thank my colleague for his question. Perhaps we can consider this further at a future date.

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for his very pertinent intervention. From my hon. colleague's intervention, there is no doubt that whatever certain groups tend to say or wherever the politically correct argument of the day lies is where the present government and obviously past governments tend to go.

There is no doubt that when working hard in minus 55 degree weather, as many farmers do, they are asking where this global warming is, if it actually exists. They are hoping for it.

I wanted to make clear in my speech that the government has to step back and take a critical look at what sort of policies it is implementing today. They are going to affect future generations. It must look at what sort of effects they are going to have on industry as well. People who are working hard to make ends meet are being put on the welfare lines simply because of poor management decisions by the government.

I was trying to encourage this government to think about it. As a younger Canadian in the House looking forward, in trying to create sustainable development in this country, let us take a step back. Let us make sure that when we make decisions that are going to be implemented today that they are going to be compatible with the future of the developing economies and of the environment. Let us not make rash decisions that are going to end up backfiring on future generations.

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if members have been paying attention to the news out west they will know that Alberta was troubled over the summer by the antics of an environmental radical bent on destroying the oil industry. For clarification, I am referring to Wiebo Ludwig and not the new environment minister, although I understand the hon. member for Victoria has the sport utility owners quaking in their heated leather seats.

I am anxious to respond to the Speech from the Throne because once again Canadians were forced to endure the platitudes of a political party committed to an unworkable big government agenda. As the newly appointed opposition critic for the environment, I would like to address this important aspect of the Liberal agenda.

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, for his hard work on this portfolio. My colleague has consistently defended the interests of average Canadians against environmental policies that ignore the essential component, people. He is a voice for common sense and we can be sure he will bring the same talent and dedication to his new responsibilities in agriculture.

I would like to address two broad policy concerns which were addressed in the throne speech, first, the concern regarding global warming and second, the concern regarding endangered species legislation.

With respect to global warming, I have three questions for which I seek clear answers. Is the planet really warming? What is the cause of this warming? What is the potential consequence for average Canadians of this warming?

Scientists and environmentalists are not in agreement as to the validity of global warming. While climate models produced by computers predict that there should have been some warming over the past 18 years, satellite data collected monitoring global temperature since 1979 actually indicate a slight global cooling. Therefore these data refute the claim that there is a long term warming trend.

Furthermore, even if we are to assume that the planet is warming, and I must stress that the evidence is inconclusive, we must next consider what the root causes of this warming are. Have 100 years of industrial activity upset the balance of the ecosystem, or are we witnessing a natural warming trend beyond our control? According to ground level temperature records, most of the increase in the world's temperature over the past 100 years occurred before 1940, before the main input of human induced CO2 emissions.

Finally we must also consider the actual impact of global warming and the fact that this phenomenon exists. Environmentalists have long concluded that while there may not be a clear warming trend or a clear cooling trend, we are seeing instability in our global ecosystem that is causing erratic weather patterns. If the planet cools, do deserts turn into tropics? If the planet warms, do growing seasons last longer? What is the likely outcome of global warming?

I would like to stress again that before we pursue a national energy program style of politics, we must have conclusive evidence that global warming trends are real. We must be certain that these trends are the result of industrial CO2 emissions. Finally, we must be certain that the effects of this warming trend will be negative for average people.

When we have conclusive evidence that shows all these three conditions, the Reform Party will be the first to demand action. However we will not embark on a reckless and irresponsible campaign that will cripple our economy and send hardworking people to the unemployment lines.

On the issue of endangered species, in the Globe and Mail this morning I read that the government has failed to achieve adequate habitat preservation in the national parks. Government stewardship has not achieved the objective it intended to achieve. This conclusion comes from an independent task force led by Jacques Gérin.

This record of failure is interesting when we compare it to the very recent results achieved by a private sector company. TransAlta has just completed a massive strip mine reclamation project in Alberta. Because the company owns the land and because it has an incentive to ensure that the property remains valuable, care was taken to restore the property to its original condition. Today where the strip mine once provided vital energy to our nation, a wildlife habitat now exists that is recognized the world over as an example of successful private stewardship.

Those at TransAlta did not do this because the Minister of the Environment threatened to put them in prison if they did not. This company had the reclamation plans in place one full year before any provincial or federal statutes were passed regulating the impact of resource industries. They did it because it made good business sense.

I would like to quote a former chairman of TransAlta who worked on this project. Marshall Williams said “it made business sense that land on a major tourism route into Jasper be reclaimed and perhaps sold at a future date for a reasonable return”.

A wildlife habitat was created because it made good business sense. This is a powerful demonstration of the success of private property rights in ensuring the preservation of the environment in harmony with sustainable development.

When property rights are respected, there is little conflict between sustainable development and both habitat and resource management. Where conflicts do exist, a policy of co-operation and partnership will ensure that wild areas are preserved for all Canadians with the costs borne equally by all Canadians.

The government's idea of an environmental partnership is a prison cell and a pair of handcuffs. In past attempts at creating endangered species legislation, the Liberals were prepared to levy fines up to $250,000 or five years in jail as punishment against otherwise honest, law-abiding people. The government's idea of environmental education is fearmongering and misinformation.

Instead of challenging the critics of global warming or ozone depletion, the Liberal government has disgracefully politicized environmental science. When the leader of the Reform Party challenged the junk science of the Kyoto agreement, the government responded with personal attacks.

The government's idea of a common sense environmental policy is more taxes: tax cars and tax gas and force low income Canadians to give up the pleasure and freedom of mobility; after that, tax industries and emissions and send hardworking people to the unemployment lines. That is the Liberal plan for the environment.

Canadians deserve better than that from their government and they deserve better from the Minister of the Environment. If problems such as climate change and dangerous levels of persistent toxins can be resolved, it will very likely necessitate a ban on all speeches given by the government benches. Their hot air is what is really causing global warming.

[Juvenile Diabetes, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to pay tribute to Dr. Alex Rabinovitch and the University of Alberta.

As part of the partnership between the Medical Research Council of Canada and the Diabetes Research Foundation, Dr. Rabinovitch was chosen, along with Dr. Diane Finegood from Simon Fraser University, to lead a network of health research experts in the area of juvenile diabetes.

Dr. Rabinovitch has been the recipient of numerous honour awards for exceptional medical research, and because of the outstanding work of individuals like him, the University of Alberta will soon be indisputably recognized, both nationally and internationally, as one of Canada's finest universities in amongst a handful of the world's very best.

On behalf of the official opposition, I wish Dr. Rabinovitch and his team the best of luck in their efforts to tackle the crippling disease of juvenile diabetes.

[Astronaut Julie Payette, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to salute Julie Payette, our Canadian member of the Discovery mission.

Julie Payette is an astronaut, engineer, pilot and musician who speaks six languages. Her life of tremendous achievement is testimony to the unlimited possibilities for excellence that can be found in all of us.

We can only hope that her life becomes a model for all young people who aspire to greatness in science and engineering.

Julie's eyes may be on the sky, but we all know that her heart is right here in Canada. On behalf of the Reform caucus, I am pleased that Julie has returned to earth safe and sound after an excellent mission.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to discuss Bill C-54 at report stage.

I worked quite closely with members of the industry committee on this bill. My colleague from Mercier and other Bloc members have put forward a number of amendments, some of which we have tried to take seriously. I have had much discussion with the member for Mercier. I know we differ on this bill in its scope when it comes to the issue of provincial legislation on privacy and the role of the federal government in implementing some sort of privacy protection when it comes to the use of sensitive documents on the Internet and various other forms of transactions in the whole area of electronic commerce.

It will not come as a surprise to my Bloc colleagues that even though there are many issues I share with them when it comes to provincial responsibilities and defending the right of provinces to develop their own legislation in domains that are strictly provincial, there are certain things I believe need to be in the national interest, especially when they go beyond provincial boundaries or national boundaries as in the case of Bill C-54. This bill is almost global in its scope. That is something we have to take into consideration when dealing with Bill C-54.

The bill itself has provisions to deal with provinces that want to develop their own regulations when it comes to privacy legislation. I differ with my colleague from Mercier and the Bloc when it comes to this legislation. Normally I would work toward protecting the interests of provincial legislation and provincial responsibilities.

Specifically with Bill C-54 we are dealing with a bill which creates a legal and regulatory framework that will be applied to the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all areas of business. Reform supports this initiative to protect privacy.

When we look at the evolution of this particular industry, and I brought this up during our discussions in committee, we can see that in Internet commerce or specifically electronic commerce a lot of the growth has taken place with very little interference from the government. Why do we need to create legislation if many companies engaging in electronic commerce are taking the issue of security very seriously? Obviously that is happening because many people who are using these services feel confident in providing personal information on the Internet for various services.

With that comes the issue of sensitive documents aside from commercial activity on the Internet or electronic commerce transactions. The sensitive issue of private information is something the Reform Party takes very seriously. We believe in free markets. We believe in businesses taking the time to develop interests and direction that is positive to their own services and products but which also respects the privacy of consumers. The one area we identify as a potential concern is that of sensitive documents.

In particular, aside from the first set of amendments in Group No. 1 that we are currently discussing, I have introduced amendments on behalf of a number of organizations which we will be discussing in Group No. 2 that specifically pertain to health issues and the issues of privacy in health. That is an area in Bill C-54 that needs to be addressed and needs to be strengthened.

We do not often hear the Reform Party talking about private lives, but many interest groups, especially from medical and dental associations, are very concerned about the impact Bill C-54 will have on the issue of health privacy, health records, and so on.

I will touch on some of the amendments briefly even though I know Group No. 1 is specifically Bloc amendments. If we want to ensure that the legislation covers all the areas of concern of Canadians, there must be clear protection against the use of personal health information collected for a purpose different from the original purpose for which consent was given. In a nutshell that is what the bill comes down.

When we look at what electronic commerce is trying to achieve in this day and age, we see that it is often dealing with sensitive information or commercial information. I will take a moment to distinguish between those two points.

In terms of commercial information on the Internet, when one orders catalogues from department stores or certain services or products from various companies, quite often information is traded, such as a Visa number or financial information.

Often these companies take this information very seriously and it is confidential to their own records. Aside from that obviously issues arise where privacy needs to be protected, specifically the issue of health. The purpose of consent is something the bill addresses. We addressed it in committee and we are addressing it currently, especially when it pertains to the health amendments I have introduced.

The issue of consent needs to be looked at. For instance, in the industry committee I addressed the issue of how consent can sometimes go too far and almost restrict the ability of companies to be able to develop products and services in electronic commerce.

On the flip side, when it comes to sensitive information, the issue of consent can sometimes not go far enough in terms of private records of health and various other forms of information that pertain to a person's privacy. This is something we need to discuss and I will be discussing it even further in the Group No. 2 amendments.

The Reform Party will be supporting this legislation and opposing the Bloc amendments. When it comes to the Bloc's concerns, the difficulty with provincial privacy protection legislation, and the fact that this is obviously more global and national in scope, there is something within the legislation which allows provinces to develop their own privacy protection legislation if they wish. That should be complementary to the national view or the global scope of the bill.

A two year phase-in in the timetable is given to provinces that do not have comparable legislation and would fall under federal legislation. Currently only Quebec has comprehensive privacy protection. Other provinces have determined that they neither have the resources nor the inclination to create their own provincial privacy protection legislation and preferred to be included under the broad federal legislation.

The Bloc would prefer that we have a total exemption for every province that creates its only privacy legislation. What we want to address in the Group No. 1 amendments is that within the legislation for once we see the government realizing the need to take a complementary view when it comes to privacy protection.

It is almost encouraging the provinces to develop their own legislation if they see fit in order to complement what is being done on the federal level. In many cases, such as in the province of Alberta and other provinces, privacy is taken very seriously.

In the case of Bill C-54 many people realize that it would cause unnecessary duplication to have separate privacy legislation applying strictly to provinces because transfer of information in this day and age goes well beyond the boundaries of provinces and territories and is almost on a global basis, as I mentioned earlier.

This is where we differ. Specifically we would like to make sure the government does not get too heavy handed when it comes to the commercial side of the bill. As I touched on earlier, currently much of the commerce on Internet has grown without regulation, with very little government intervention, and has been very positive. I do not have the figures off the top of my head, but I know we are talking about a billion dollars worth of business being done on the Internet.

On the other hand there is definitely room to strengthen the bill when it comes to the protection of health information. My hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca touched on the medical issues. In the Group No. 2 amendments I will address those issues in more detail.

[Government Grants, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the government line, but what the minister appears to be forgetting is that the Prime Minister announced contracts in his riding even before the ink was dry.

It is pure coincidence, I am sure, but how can he explain that a high proportion of the contracts awarded in his riding have links leading directly to him or his office?

[Government Grants, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the government line, but—

[Government Grants, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back for the great things he has done in the riding of Saint-Maurice, unemployment in that region is as high as when he was elected in 1993. Yet he continues to use the money of Canadian taxpayers under the pretext of creating jobs in order to pay back his buddies.

It is obvious that this money is not increasing employment. Only are increasing donations to the Liberal Party slush fund.

How can he justify being the Prime Minister of the people when the only people he is helping are his friends?