Rahim Jaffer

[Wayne Gretzky, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians, it is with mixed feeling that I pay tribute to Wayne Gretzky today.

Now that he has retired from our national game, it is time to celebrate an amazing talent, an incredible ambassador of hockey and a great Canadian.

Wayne Gretzky rewrote the hockey record book and literally changed the way the game is played. His Canada Cup achievements produced some thrilling moments. His 894 regular season goals and his 1,963 assists will never be touched.

A statue of Wayne Gretzky with the Stanley Cup hoisted proudly above his head adorns the city of Edmonton, which I proudly represent. It serves as a monument of Wayne's contribution to our city, our history and our eternal bragging rights of hockey supremacy in Alberta.

Wayne is retiring the same way he played: with class, humility and appreciation. Today, Canadians across the country are proud to see one of their own get world recognition.

Good luck Wayne, and thank you for the memories.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, April 15th, 1999]

For each of the following, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Cape Breton Development Corporation and Entreprise Cape Breton, please provide the following for each fiscal year from 1993-94 to 1996- 97: ( a ) number of people on the Board of Directors; ( b ) how each Director was remunerated; ( c ) the total remuneration for each Director; ( d ) number of employees; and ( e ) average and median salary for all employees?

Return tabled.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed for the hon. member's question and how he has twisted the whole direction of those ads.

I spend a lot of time travelling in the province of Quebec and talking with people. The actual message I hear from many Quebecers is that it would be nice to have representation in the highest office from somewhere else in the country, maybe from the west, to get a different balance of ideas.

When people in Quebec are agreeing with the message of those ads and wanting representation from across the country, I think the hon. member is completely out to lunch.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the hon. member's question briefly. As he knows, I was discussing alienation in Quebec, not in Alberta or Ontario.

However, with regard to the cuts in transfers from the federal government, the hon. member has to realize that there were targets and plans which the provinces had put into place for the money that was to come from the federal government. The fact is that in Alberta, if we look at the way it managed health care, it made the sacrifices it had to make. However, alongside the cuts made by this government, it actually has more money to put into health care, plus, something which is totally foreign to this government, it actually paid down debt, giving more tax relief to Albertans, which overall is a much more positive move than this government will ever commit to.

In the province of Ontario the same thing happened. Harris actually put more money into health care over the time it was cut by the government but still balanced his priorities of debt reduction and tax relief; again something which is foreign to this government.

With regard to Quebec, the question of alienation was even more significant when it came to the cuts. Then, to come back, especially with the case of the millennium scholarship fund, and force Quebec to implement a program that it was not in favour of after the cuts were made by this government was outrageous.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in a discussion of the important issue of national alienation, in particulary that of Quebec.

I am not a Quebecer myself, but I wish to point out that I respect and admire Quebecers. I have learned French, and continue to do so, because I wish to acquire a better understanding of Quebecers and of the francophone culture.

I asked for the national unity portfolio in our caucus in order to be able to help ensure that Quebec remains within Canada, by giving Quebec and the other provinces true equal powers and not mere symbols.

I want Quebec to stay within Canada, and I am prepared to fight the Liberal style federalism of the status quo, which continues to alienate Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

Consequently, although not, of course, a Quebecer, I hope I am in a position to understand the feelings of alienation felt by the citizens of Canada living in that province.

The Liberal government understands that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction protected by the Constitution. It also understands that when it encroaches on areas of provincial jurisdiction protected by the Constitution, Quebeckers become increasingly frustrated, and the feelings of alienation intensify.

Yet, the Liberals' instinct to meddle in everything is so strong and their condescending, paternalistic, interventionist, big brother attitude is so pronounced that they continue to get involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in spite of the resulting damage to Canadian unity. The millennium fund is a prime example.

This fund is nothing but another inefficient and costly Liberal policy. For our friends from Quebec, it is a constant reminder that the current government refuses to recognize the division of powers provided under the Constitution.

Bloc Quebecois members, like Reformers, are just as interested in education as the Prime Minister is. They simply want the federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction, and they also know that provincial governments are in a better position to administer the programs than the federal government, which is far away.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not care about national unity or constitutional issues. He is only interested in leaving his mark.

Instead, he will join the long list of federalist politicians who are advocates of the status quo and who turn a deaf ear when Quebeckers are urging the current government not to get involved in provincial jurisdictions.

Before concluding, I want to ask the House to remember the debates on Bill C-36, dealing with the millennium fund.

All Quebecers should remember that the Reform Party put forward a recommendation that the provinces and territories be allowed to opt out and to conclude agreements with the millennium foundation, to use their share of the funds based on their own priorities for post-secondary education.

Our party has always recognized Quebec's right to determine how its education needs should be met.

I would like to shift to the topic of health care and the social union. The social union is about health, education and support for people in need.

When federal transfers to the provinces were cut by $7 billion, when hospitals were closing and when 1,400 doctors left Canada in the last two years, we needed to address health care in the social union. But this government's solution was to play a money game and pit provincial premiers all across the country against Quebec. It was a shame because that in itself created even more alienation in the province of Quebec.

There was a real effort, for once, from the point when the Calgary declaration began, all the way through the talks on the social union, when we saw that provincial premiers were making progress in trying to come together and work together to put pressure on the federal government to address problems in the balance of powers in the country.

However, the government and the Prime Minister did not take that seriously. Instead they played the money game. They cut money out of transfers, especially to health care and education, and they left the provinces with really no choice. When it came to the crunch, they had to put that money back into health care and education. In the end they had to buy into a deal that was just not fair to the provinces, creating even more alienation in the province of Quebec when all of the other premiers had to take the cash. They had no choice because they had people to take care of in their provinces.

Unfortunately Quebec once again felt that it was left out of the process because there just was not a solution to take care of the balance, which we in the Reform Party have been trying to meet right across the country.

That is the success of this government. That is why it has been relegated to a majority in central Canada. It continues to succeed by pitting one part of this country against another. Then it asks the question: Why is there alienation in this country? It really is no surprise.

Another issue I would like to touch on very quickly is that of taxation. My hon. colleague from Edmonton North talked about the issue of taxation in the east.

In Quebec people are concerned about the high level of taxes they pay. I discussed with people from the Economic Institute of Montreal, a new think tank, the issues of high taxes and what they do to the economy of Quebec. They are a lone voice trying to talk to the federal government.

When we take into consideration the tax factor of the federal government and the provincial government, Quebecers unfortunately pay some of the highest taxes in the country, if not in North America.

That is another factor which the government has failed to address. At the end of the day, regardless of where we live, we want to make sure we can put food on the table. We want to make sure we can provide for our families. The tax rates are so high that even Quebecers feel alienated that no one is listening to them at all when it comes to that particular problem.

Canada has a national unity problem because Quebecers and other Canadians feel profoundly alienated, and this problem will not go away until honest discussion and real reforms replace the present empty rhetoric and divisive symbolism.

The Reform Party and most Canadians seem to understand that. In our opinion, the debate on national unity must be open to scrutiny and to public support, and the dialogue must be real.

This is why, as Reform critic for intergovernmental affairs, I am proud to defend the Reform Party's new law on Canada, a positive and creative measure to rebuild a Canada based on equality among people and provinces.

The distribution of powers must be reviewed to put an end to Canadians' feeling of alienation.

In our opinion Quebec and the other provinces must have the same real powers. This will bring out regional diversity. What is needed is a new distribution of powers giving all provinces greater autonomy in areas constitutionally under their jurisdiction.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention during his speech that if and when his government gets around to it, he would like to see some democratic reform, especially with regard to the Senate having better representation of what is existent in B.C. population in the Senate. His government has been in power now for over six years and we have not seen any movement on democratic reform. There have been provinces, for instance Alberta, which have made an effort to try to change the Senate.

I would like to ask the hon. member a simple question. Will the government get around to democratic reform maybe before the end of the next millennium or some time sooner? When may that happen?

[Impaired Driving, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is the main cause of deaths and injuries due to criminal acts in the country. Early in the morning of March 14, three people died in another tragic and senseless accident near Trois-Rivières.

The impaired driver, Sylvain Boies, killed two young men and injured another. It was not the first time this man had been drinking and driving. The irresponsible and criminal acts of Sylvain Boies and other drivers just like him have ruined the lives of innocent victims.

My hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley has suggested changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of offences. His suggestions are being considered by the Standing Committee on Justice.

I urge all political parties to support this initiative—

[Trade, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw a desperate display in the House by the international trade minister. No wonder he wants to talk about anything except the fact that the World Trade Organization just declared the Liberal technology partnerships program illegal.

When will the minister get it? The best way to help Canadian entrepreneurs is with tax cuts and not illegal subsidies and corporate welfare.

[Competition Act, 1998, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act with respect to prohibition of negative option billing. I recognize the work of my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on this issue.

I know he has worked tirelessly in the interest of consumers and I respect any member who is prepared to champion an issue despite pressures from within their own caucus to be dutiful backbenchers.

This bill is designed to prohibit the practice by federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies of implied consent billing. It would restore the traditional buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit consent before they can be billed for a product or service and would prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end to what is being called negative option billing.

Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I had spoken to many Canadians about this billing practice. It is clear that this bill has broad support among consumers frustrated by negative option billing. In particular, there is frustration with cable providers that bill for new programs automatically unless the consumer expressly rejects the service.

Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as an example of a group often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of a new service and are consequently billed for programs they do not want or sometimes cannot afford.

While this is just one example let us take a minute to examine our own lives. How many of us are aware of our own dinner plans this evening, never mind the intricate details of our cable bills? The only time we are typically aware of these details is when we expressly order the products or services. We are often just to busy to be careful consumers. This is a source of frustration not simply because of financial costs but because it is deemed to be a violation of an age old relationship between buyers and sellers.

It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from negative option billing. The question is simply how do we provide this protection. Should it come in the form of Bill C-393 or can it be achieved through market based reforms? I think a balance must be struck.

Bill C-393 has its origins as Bill C-288 which would have amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing by cable companies. These companies can currently act with relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional monopolies that are free from the normal constraints of a competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally regulated industries.

The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option billing instead of making changes to the legislation that deals directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling for me. Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency, and the general move toward strengthening these laws should be approached with caution.

This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict attempts made by companies wishing to expand their market share. We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian consumer.

The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much more directly with the source of the problem and would be the preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative option billing.

Negative option billing is a practice common to federally regulated industries that enjoy market protection such that they restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out alternative providers of a product or a service. Therefore the deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the first step to eliminating negative option billing and other practices that do not properly serve consumers.

I would much rather have been more supportive of an initiative that worked to limit government in increased consumer choice rather than an initiative that extends the scope of government further into the private sector.

The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic environment, with fair and transparent rules, that protects both consumers and businesses. However, we differ from the governing party in that we believe that markets serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted.

Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberal resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable, telecommunications and banking, despite the fact that these policies hurt consumers. However, sometimes a band-aid solution is needed until the disinfectant can be found.

Before I conclude, I want to provide an example that illustrates the power of competition to end negative option billing, in case my colleagues in the House have their doubts.

I am sure we are all familiar with Columbia House Records. This is a company that made its money through negative option billing. After signing up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are sent cassettes and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send the selections back to the company, they are billed for the merchandise.

This is not a pure example of negative option billing because the customer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the company. However, the point that is relevant is that consumers were so hostile to this form of billing that the Columbia House sales began to decline.

Soon a competitor entered the market and advertised that it would not engage in negative option billing at all. When faced with this competition, Columbia House very quickly revised its negative option billing practices.

In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at work.

To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of federally regulated industries has created an economic environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited competition.

While this bill regrettably increases the power and scope of the Competition Act and restricts private sector decision making, it should receive the qualified support of the Reform caucus until such time as these industries can be deregulated.

After this deregulation, competition will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent with consumer interests.

[Human Rights, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day. And yet, Leyla Zana, a mother of two and member of parliament in Turkey, will not be celebrating, because she is imprisoned in Turkey for upholding the rights of the Kurds.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs defend human rights on the security council so Turkey will free this woman?