Rahim Jaffer

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses represent 80% of the jobs created in Canada in spite of this governement's high tax policies.

Why is there nothing in this budget for Canada's largest employer and largest taxpayer, small business?

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister would not have tax relief in his vocabulary if not for the official opposition. It is because of us working that word over the last few years that the minister has adopted it in his own vocabulary. He takes a lot more time to talk about it, as we saw yesterday. We would actually deliver on it.

Small businesses represent 80% of the jobs created in Canada—

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called yesterday's budget a disappointment and a missed opportunity.

Small businesses have never worked harder to keep what little they earn after this finance minister is done with them.

This year he increased CPP taxes 73%, he changed the rules to keep $5 billion in EI funds and has increased user fees to crippling levels.

Why is the finance minister punishing small businesses with a tax hike when it is they, not this government, that create jobs for Canadians?

[Year 2000, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government's own audit reports that there is a one in ten chance that essential services could be compromised by the Y2K problem and we just heard the minister say that the government is working on the problem.

What assurances can the minister give Canadian seniors that it will not affect the essential services which are provided to them?

[Year 2000, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent human resources development audit it was reported that there is a one in ten chance that essential seniors' benefits could be compromised by the millennium bug problem.

Recently the industry minister launched a PR campaign about the Y2K, telling Canadians not to worry about buying powdered milk.

When was the Minister of Industry going to tell us about the devastating potential effects on essential services to seniors which could possibly leave them high and dry?

[Transit Passes, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us calling on the House to consider making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit was recently brought to my attention by one of my constituents. While I was aware that this issue was being debated in the House, I will admit that before the meeting with my constituent, I had not invested much time in understanding the issue completely.

Mary Jane Dawson came into my office with her children over the Christmas break to talk to me about why she felt this was an important initiative and one which deserved my support and the support of the Reform caucus. Her young children, Riley and Kelsy, also had very strong views about this motion. They were concerned about the state of the environment and about the impact of emissions on global warming, air quality and health.

As a member of the Reform caucus, I believe strongly that I should work to best represent my constituents within the framework of Reform Party principles that were established in a democratic grassroots process. However, as any member of my caucus can attest to, it is not always possible to determine the views of our constituents on each and every issue. At best we attempt to gauge public opinion by the number of letters that cross our desks or the number of people who phone or visit our offices. It is not very scientific, but I believe this is a useful guide.

The visit I had with Ms. Dawson and her children forced me to examine the issue more closely and determine whether I could support the motion and still stay committed to the policies that have been painstakingly developed by thousands of average Canadians across the country.

There is no question that this motion would add to the complexity of the tax code. What this country needs is tax cuts and not more tax exemptions.

The Reform Party would work to create a flatter, simpler and fairer tax system. We would also remove 1.2 million Canadians earning less than $30,000 a year from the tax rolls completely. This means that seniors, students and other low income Canadians will have more money in their pockets. This would enable them to purchase transit passes or pay for other transportation needs with their own money.

But we do not live in a perfect world and we do not have a Reform government in power until the next election. What we have is a Liberal government that is taxing hard working Canadians into poverty. Let us look at the Liberal record.

Income taxes under the Liberal government are 56% higher than the average of our G-7 partners. The average Canadian family paid about $21,000 in total taxes in 1996. For 1998 the government will collect $19 billion more in income taxes alone than it collected in 1993, a 37% increase. Bracket creep, the deindexing of the personal income tax system, has sucked an extra $13.4 billion from taxpayers. In 1997 alone, Canadian taxpayers paid $4.3 billion more than they would have had the system been indexed in 1993.

According to Statistics Canada, between 1989 and 1995 real after tax family incomes fell by $3,461 from $41,000 to approximately $37,000.

In the first two quarters of 1997, governments took two of every three dollars of additional personal income earned by Canadians in direct taxes alone.

Low income Canadians who earn more than $6,456 are taxed at 17% of their income.

Finally, Canadians pay indirectly for the cost of Canada's burdensome regulatory environment, which cost Canadians the equivalent to 12% of GDP.

This is a shameful Liberal record. This is why the advocates for the working poor are looking for ways to give low income working Canadians a break with tax exempt transit passes.

If we let the poor keep what little they earn, we give them the means and motive by which to improve their lot in life. If we tax them into poverty to feed an insatiable bureaucracy, we breed dependency and destroy hope. How can the poor be expected to pick themselves up by the bootstraps when this Liberal government has stolen their boots?

This is the dilemma I face. I can work hard to push for tax cuts and to ensure that a Reform government with its sound economic plan forms the next government. But what do I tell the overtaxed working Canadians in my riding who find it difficult to meet their transportation needs today?

To work out this problem, I thought about the infamous Peter and Paul. When the government spends money, it takes that money from Peter and gives it to Paul. Since Peter has worked hard to earn his money, it can be argued that taking the money from him is not a very nice thing to do. Furthermore, Peter might not even like Paul or the things that Paul does with the money he is given. This compounds the offensiveness of the original taking.

For this very simple reason, the members of the Reform caucus look at government spending with a healthy dose of suspicion. Unless tax dollars are being spent on programs with very broad base support, such as health care, it becomes very difficult to justify the expenditure. However, since Peter has the right to keep the rewards of his labour, allowing him a tax exempt benefit does not place an unfair burden on Paul. It does however place a burden on the government which is forced to either look for revenue elsewhere or reduce expenditures.

Given that Canadians endure the highest tax rates in the G-7, finding additional revenue in the form of increased tax levels would probably not find much support with the general public. This leaves us only with one other option: decreasing expenditures.

In a letter to the Canadian Urban Transit Association the finance minister estimated that the cost of implementing the tax exempt transit passes would be $140 million for the federal and provincial governments. I want to make it clear that this is $140 million of forsaken revenue, not $140 million of spending. The difference here is very important. When the government spends $140 million it takes the money from Peter and gives it to Paul. When it forsakes $140 million, it simply leaves that money in Peter's pocket.

The question of course is how does the government compensate for the $140 million shortfall? It should do this by cutting the fat.

I do not believe that any member of the House can claim there does not exist at least $140 million in waste in the federal government. Our party has identified $15 billion in federal government waste that we would like to eliminate when we form government. If we can find $15 billion in waste, surely the Liberals across the way can find a measly $140 million.

My hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast, our chief critic for revenue, has made it clear that he will not be supporting this motion. I respect his position. He believes, as I do, that the tax system should be transparent, fair and simple. However, I believe we must make a clear distinction between those looking for relief from taxes and those looking for government grants and subsidies.

Canadians should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their labour without undue tax penalties. If employers wish to provide transit passes as part of their remuneration packages, why should low income Canadians be taxed on this?

What I am proposing is that in this environment of tax oppression we should look at an interim policy option that gives working Canadians a break until Reform can form the government and give Canadians serious tax relief.

On a different matter, Canadians who choose to use public transportation because they wish to make as benign an impact on the environment as they can should have the freedom to make that choice. Canadians must be allowed to make choices. Tax relief will help them make choices and act on values they hold, whether those values involve environmental preservation or the independence that comes from owning a car. It is that choice that I will defend. It is that choice that is in peril if the Liberal government continues to tax Canadians to death.

On the advice of my constituents and based on the belief that low income Canadians need tax relief, I will be supporting this motion. I would ask the members of my caucus to review the arguments presented by myself and the chief critic for revenue to determine for themselves how they will vote.

The Reform Party does not believe in making Private Members' Business partisan politics. We believe in free votes. Especially when it comes to Private Members' Business we do not believe in making it partisan business. I note the member from the Conservative Party spoke earlier on behalf of his whole party. I encourage all members in the House to give this motion consideration as I have, speaking against one of my own colleagues. I think the motion has merit and deserves support.

[Health Care, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is any guarantee to the 200,000 Canadians currently on waiting lists in this country.

Since 1995 the Prime Minister has gutted social spending by $2,200 per family. Yesterday after fighting tooth and nail with the provinces he agreed to grudgingly give back $267 per family. Let us get this straight. He cuts $2,200 per family and now he is giving back only $267 per family? Where is the rest of the money? Did it all end up in some golf course in Shawinigan?

[Health Care, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the health minister said that the health agreement signed yesterday will put an end to waiting lists.

As the minister well knows, 200,000 Canadians are on waiting lists today. Exactly when will that number be reduced to zero, or was this minister just spouting political rhetoric?

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-20. Before I begin I would like to reacquaint members of the House with the full scope of this important piece of legislation. I think that once my colleagues understand the necessity and urgency of this proposed legislation they will also understand why the motion before us is worthy of support, and why the changes made in the Senate would only work to dilute the effectiveness of this bill.

Bill C-20 is an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. Essentially this bill will create an enforceable and judicial code of conduct for those in the direct marketing industry. But I can assure members of the House that this is not an onerous government imposition on this industry.

It is a welcome framework for ethical practice, welcomed by legitimate direct marketers who understand that a legislative and regulatory environment designed with common sense can create a business environment that will foster growth and profitability.

Direct marketers understand that only in an environment of trust and accountability will Canadian consumers use their services. Direct marketers also understand that this trust and accountability must come not only from their own due diligence and fair conduct but from legislation supported by the full weight of the law.

Bill C-20 gives teeth to the voluntary practices already adhered to by legitimate players in this $4 billion a year industry. Under this new law, telemarketers would have to identify who they are representing, disclose the price of their services or products they are selling, and explain clearly why they are making the call. These three simple provisions, had they existed in the past, could have saved many Canadians from the humiliation of being victims of deceptive telemarketing.

I do not think it is fair to wait any longer to give this protection to Canadian consumers. My hon. colleague from Kelowna, British Columbia pointed out in a speech he gave some time ago that protection against telemarketing deception has been debated in this House since 1996 and that the cost of ignoring this problem is estimated to be approaching $5 million.

I personally do not plan to delay the implementation of this bill any longer and will consequently be keeping my remarks as brief as I can.

This legislation also proposes amendments to the Competition Act. Before I address those amendments, I would like to stress to this House as I have done on other occasions that while competition laws do have the potential to create a fair and level playing field in the market, they can be arbitrary and economically stifling.

Laws that make criminals out of individuals who are guilty only of selling quality products at low prices should not be supported in a democratic society that believes in the power and justice of economic freedom.

I could not support a Competition Act that would allow men like Bill Gates or Canada's own Conrad Black to be treated like common criminals only because they dare to achieve and they dare to be the best at what they do.

I would like members of this House to take note of these remarks as competition laws will surely surface in this House again and again. We can choose to create fairness in the context of economic freedom or we can create a bureaucracy under which both consumers and producers will suffer.

As part of the overall strategy to deal with deceptive telemarketing, amendments were made to the Competition Act to control deceptive marketing, advertising and pricing. These changes were designed to complement the code of conduct created in the same legislation.

These amendments continue to have the support of the Reform caucus but it must be understood that even the most rigorous protection against deceptive direct marketing or misleading advertising will accomplish nothing if individuals do not step forward to ensure that the law is adhered to.

Canadians who are the victims of deceptive marketing in any form are often too ashamed and too embarrassed to bring their concerns before a court. When the victims of a crime are afraid to act to ensure that justice is applied consistently, something else must be done.

To combat this situation, the legislators involved in the creation and fine tuning of Bill C-20, particularly my colleague from Ottawa Centre, sought to create a unique process by which to ensure that the new law was properly adhered to. I am making reference here to the whistleblowing provisions in Bill C-20, the provisions that an unelected and unaccountable Senate decided to remove from this act, the provisions that we must reinstate in this House today.

The whistleblowing provisions have been designed to assist the Competition Bureau in investigating violations of the Competition Act as it applies to deceptive direct marketing. Those individuals who bear witness to violations of the Competition Act can bring their concerns directly to the competition commissioner with the assurance that their privacy will be protected. Furthermore the proposed law would ensure that those who did wish to expose practices that hurt our most vulnerable members of society would be protected from the reprisal of their employers.

If we can create a law, we must not allow that law to exist without the means by which to ensure that it is complied with. To do so would only work to breed a feeling of contempt among the Canadian people toward this House and toward the laws that govern our nation.

The fact that this bill was amended by the Senate to exclude provisions is offensive in and of itself. It is an insult to democracy that the work of elected members of parliament can be undone by individuals who are accountable to nobody.

I will leave the matter of the Senate to be discussed further by my hon. colleague from Calgary West who is our party's very capable Senate watchdog.

I close by saying that our party continues to support Bill C-20. We will also support the Liberal motion before the House that seeks to reinstate the whistleblowing provisions removed by the Senate.

[Social Union, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the comments recently made in private by the Liberal caucus and the Prime Minister clearly indicate that the federal government has no intention of co-operating in good faith with the provinces to create winning conditions for the social union.

The Prime Minister puts his love of power before the needs of the country. Ten premiers and all the opposition members of this House support a strengthening of the social union. We want to improve health care, education and the other social programs in Canada.

Canadians have had enough of the status quo. On Monday, Quebeckers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister.

It is time to show leadership. It is time to set partisan politics aside. It is time to create the winning conditions for a new Canada.