Rahim Jaffer

[Generic Drugs, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, seniors and low income Canadians rely on low cost generic pharmaceuticals for their health. Yet the Minister of Industry has created a regulatory environment for generic drug manufacturers that is so cumbersome and unfair that the supreme court called it a draconian regime.

When will the minister take his regulatory thumb off these drug manufacturers and scratch these unfair rules?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House as the industry critic to address Bill C-54.

For the benefit of those who have just joined the debate, Bill C-54 is an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act. The bill is referred to as the personal information protection and electronic documents act.

The bill is part of Industry Canada's broad and ambitious plan to create a legal, regulatory and tax regime in which electronic commerce will flourish. It is fair to say that under the direction of the Minister of Industry, Canada has become a world leader in electronic commerce, at least as far as public policy is concerned.

This is not the case of big brother in Industry Canada going high tech. The specific purpose of Bill C-54 is to create a legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce by introducing measures to protect personal information in the private sector by creating an electronic alternative for doing business with the federal government and by clarifying how the courts assess the reliability of electronic records used as evidence.

The Reform Party supports in principle the government's efforts to create a legal and regulatory framework to allow legitimate electronic commerce to flourish which is why we are supporting the bill.

However, it should be understood by all members of this House and by the public that Bill C-54 goes beyond the scope of electronic commerce in that it creates a legal and regulatory framework that will be applied broadly to the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all areas of business. When this bill is examined more closely in committee, it must be examined with this in mind.

Bill C-54 will also work to replace electronic documents on the same legal footing as paper documents. As part of this endeavour to bring legal legitimacy to the electronic business world, the government has empowered itself to regulate the concept of secure electronic signatures through the use of encryption. This is a necessary part of the bill but I would caution the government to work with the private sector as it deals with the issue of encryption every day when providing security of data to its clients.

We must whenever possible borrow from the work being done in the private sector and whenever possible allow these industries to regulate themselves. Private sector co-operation and self-regulation should guide us as we examine the issue of electronic commerce.

The bill was created in co-operation with the private sector which speaks to the quality of the legislation and which is why my concerns are limited. However, when this bill is discussed in committee, there are issues we must be aware of.

The Canadian Direct Marketing Association supports Bill C-54, while warning that any amendments that would change the rules governing positive consent should be examined carefully as they have the potential of creating a business environment that is unduly restrictive for direct marketers. In essence, the CDMA argues that there is often implied consent for the use of personal information.

The provision in the bill allowing for implied consent ensures that once private information is lawfully acquired it can be used repeatedly by the same company unless the consumers instruct otherwise.

If direct positive consent were required before information lawfully collected is used, it would be cumbersome and would hurt the direct marketing industry. Furthermore, the direct marketing industry would prefer that a greater reliance be placed on negative consent. That is, customers would be given an opportunity to remove sensitive personal information from lists before those lists were used or sold. However, if they chose not to take this action, the direct marketer with impunity could then use the information.

There is also some debate regarding the use of information collected by the government but then made part of the public record. If only the government can use this information in a commercial manner, namely by selling it to private sector businesses, it amounts to unfair government competition for information trading, which is a large part of what many direct marketers do.

The government has very recently created legislation that brought positive changes to the direct marketing operations, changes that were supported by the CDMA. We should be cautious to ensure that this work is not undermined by a subsequent piece of legislation that may hurt this industry if we do not act judiciously.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical Association. Physicians are very concerned about their ability to protect the confidential information of patients who confide in them. In response to this, the CMA has created the Health Information Privacy Code which it hopes will become a standard for the medical profession. This is an example of industry self-regulation.

It also brings forward a very serious concern regarding the patient-doctor relationship. We do not want to create legislation that will create blanket policies for electronic privacy protection when there are clearly different needs in different sectors of the economy calling for different policy solutions.

The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic climate in Canada with fair and transparent rules that protect both consumers and business.

It is well within the proper function of government to create a legal and regulatory framework to allow electronic commerce to flourish in Canada. For this reason Bill C-54 should be supported. However, care must be taken at the committee stage to ensure that concerns put forward by the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Direct Marketing Association and others are addressed.

I will close by encouraging the government to continue to make electronic commerce a priority and to work to create a regulatory environment that stabilizes trade but that does not become a barrier to it.

I would also encourage the government to pursue taxation policy that encourages businesses to take their operations into the electronic business world. If this happens, I am confident Canada will become a leader in electronic commerce.

[National Railways, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the good work of the Alberta provincial government and Canada's rail industry.

Premier Ralph Klein and transportation minister Walter Paszkowski have helped to make Alberta the railroad nerve centre of North America. Balanced budgets, low taxes and skilled labour, that is the Alberta advantage and it is working for the rail industry.

Canadian National announced today the opening of its new network operation centre in Edmonton, building on its long and proud history in the city I call home. Canadian Pacific continues to provide quality national railroad services from its headquarters in Calgary. RaiLink is Canada's third largest and fastest growing short railroad with its operations based in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona.

With the Alberta advantage and competitive and innovative rail industry, it is time for the federal government to do its part so Canada can be on track for the future.

[The Constitution, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians throughout the country have expressed a desire to see the federation run differently.

We had the Calgary declaration and the premiers' social union proposal, which even met with Lucien Bouchard's approval.

On the eve of the Quebec election, why is the Prime Minister refusing to recognize Canadians' desire for change?

[Apec Summit, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said one day “When confidence is lost, the system no longer works”. How things change after five years in office.

Canadians no longer have confidence in the Solicitor General, who is still with us. Why is the government not keeping its word?

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat for his well stated question. I agree with him totally. It has been unfortunate that the Liberals and governments of the past have managed in such a poor fashion to cut over $7 billion in transfers to the provinces. Shame. That is what I say. I agree with the hon. member that it is a terrible thing.

What we propose and what we have always said, as the hon. member questioned, is there needs to be a stronger commitment from the federal government to deal with the provinces.

We heard from a number of members that the tax points are an element that the provinces can use in order to spend money within their provinces. There still remains a problem of flexibility that comes with this argument of tax points. If the provincial governments do have increased tax points, as many members opposite argued, what good are those tax points if they do not have the flexibility to actually implement the programs that would work best within their provinces?

I think the core of the debate is also addressing the fact that the federal government needs to move outside of this domain of central, heavy handed politics and start working to create a real sense of unity, start working to entrench the transfers that were initially taken out of the system by this government and build stronger unity in this country.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member needs some clarification because he is probably reading those statistics upside down, as Liberals normally do.

If I can take a moment to clarify our position. The Reform Party has always campaigned that there should be more money made available especially for health care and education. That is in all our campaign material from the last election and we continue to say it is possible.

The reason we say that is we all know, as I mentioned in my speech, this government fails to see what exactly it needs to priorize when it comes to spending. If we would sit down and put partisan politics aside, as we continue to hear from that corner of the House, and say what is best for Canadians perhaps we could find the solutions that the Reform Party has put forward when it comes to putting more money in areas of health care and education.

I will not get into the specifics, but we have outlined areas where we see enormous amounts of waste in the way the federal government spends its money. I would take the time with the hon. member any time to show him that waste and hopefully we can come to the conclusion that the Reform Party has the answer.

We want to work with the provinces, unlike the heavy handed way of central government we have seen from the Liberals. We want to work with the provinces to actually achieve their goals in the best possible way.

I encourage the member to take a close look at those figures and look at himself and see that the Liberals have done more to hurt the social union in Canada than the Reform has ever done in its history.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on the social union.

I have had the opportunity to work with the hon. member for Témiscamingue and I admire his passion for politics, his political smarts and his dedication to his constituents. I think this motion clearly shows the failure of the status quo and how this failure hinders the delivery of social programs in Canada.

At a discussion forum in Quebec City and a similar meeting in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, everyone realized that the hon. member for Témiscamingue and I were proposing a slightly different approach to resolving the national unity problem. But we both understand that this problem is mainly the result of federal mismanagement of constitutional affairs and social policy.

The federal government has overstepped its jurisdiction and has entered into areas that rightfully belong in the domain of the provinces. This federal intervention is seen as a kind of insulting paternalism in Quebec, Alberta and the rest of Canada.

As is being discussed today, the federal intervention has also led to the deterioration of Canada's social programs. The federal government promised a centrally planned and administered solution to our social needs. It has not been able to live up to that promise.

With all due respect, I would like to remind my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, whom we should congratulate on their motion, that we can build a new partnership within Confederation if we keep trying to break the federal government's monopoly. We must bring about changes that will ensure every province has the level of autonomy it demands.

This motion addresses among other things the very serious problem of underfunding of our national health care. When the federal government established the Canada Health Act there was an understanding that it would pay 50% of the costs. In exchange the federal government was able to implement the nationwide health care program that legally bound the provinces to implement health care according to dictates of Ottawa. Many Canadians viewed this as a fair exchange. The provinces lost some autonomy but Canadians saw the benefits of a nationwide comprehensive health care system.

This system is no longer working the way it was supposed to. Since 1994 cuts to health care and social transfers have reached 23%. The federal government does not even meet half the commitment to the provinces it said it would commit under the Canada Health Act. The same federal Liberal politicians who claim to care about health care are starving the provinces of health care dollars.

The irony in this is that premiers Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and others have received criticism for trying to work creatively within a cash strapped health care environment. This has meant some tough choices but the Canadian people should remember that it is the federal government that has broken its health care promise to the people and not our premiers. The Prime Minister has let us down and the premiers are working to fix the problem.

The Prime Minister has not only broken his promise to the people of Canada, he has ignored the legal opinion of the supreme court which over the summer stated that the federal government has a duty to enter into good faith negotiations with any provinces dissatisfied with the status quo. When the first ministers get together defers to old style political bullying. The Prime Minister wants to call the shots without making a fair contribution.

There is a new reality in Canadian politics that the Liberals are going to have to understand. There is now widespread support for the rebalancing of powers and widespread dissatisfaction with overcentralized, out of touch Liberal style federalism.

My colleague from the Bloc has brought attention to an issue Reformers have campaigned on for some time, the need to reinvest in health care. Reformer has proposed a $4 billion reinvestment that would come from cuts to programs we believe are not core government services. Any politician who does not believe there is at least $4 billion of waste in the federal government is either dishonest or asleep.

The problem is not finding the waste. The problem is convincing Liberal politicians to stop playing politics with the paycheques of average Canadians and to start spending taxpayer money on programs taxpayers actually support. Why is the Liberal government spending money on the millennium fund when health care remains underfunded? Why has it once again interfered with provincial jurisdiction?

Another important aspect of the social union is the suggestion that the federal government should actually have to work to gain the support of 50% of the provinces before pursuing a new program. Imagine a system where the federal government has to find support for federal programs before moving ahead with them. This would be truly revolutionary in Canadian politics.

The Reform Party has outlined in the new Canada act a provision that seven provinces must give their support before a federal initiative can be implemented. But the provision in front of us today calling for six provinces to commit to a program is definitely a good place to begin. If the federal government goes ahead with the program after six provinces have signed on, those provinces that are not supportive of the federal initiative can pursue their own programs with full compensation. This is very important. For too long the federal government has used its powers of taxation to ignore constitutionally protected jurisdiction.

If the federal government is interested in seeing quality programs implemented it should not be concerned if they are being implemented at the provincial level or the federal level. It should be argued that programs administered locally better meet the needs of the people.

The motion also suggests some form of conflict resolution strategy should be created in cases where the federal government and the province or provinces disagree as to what qualifies as an equivalent provincial program. I have looked into a prospect of a national standards tribunal, a proposal that goes beyond what is mentioned in the new Canada act and what is being offered today by my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue. It is a project I will continue to work on, as I believe there is clearly a dilemma between the rebalancing of powers and the establishment of national standards.

Canadians are not prepared to accept extreme regional disparity. Nor are they prepared to accept poor federal mismanagement of social programs. Therefore some dispute mechanism must be created that addresses the question of jurisdiction in the context of national standards.

I say this not to qualify my commitment to the realignment of powers and the return of many powers to the provinces but to reaffirm my commitment and to find a way to remove the obstacles currently standing in the way of the success of the new Canada act and the proposal put together by the premiers in Saskatchewan.

The Liberal failure to understand that Canadians want to see fundamental changes to the administration of Canadian social programs will very likely become the single most united force in the united alternative effort. Status quo federalism is a failure that Liberals continue to hang on to, despite the damage it is doing to national unity and despite the damage it is doing to the Canadian social fabric. It is a shame that Canadians have to suffer, but I am optimistic that this issue will unify Canadians in opposition against an arrogant, out of control Liberal government that refuses to listen to the people, the provinces, the courts or anyone else who disagrees with it.

[The Late Gilles Rocheleau, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to pay tribute to Gilles Rocheleau, who died on June 27, 1998.

A native of Rigaud, Quebec, Gilles Rocheleau devoted his life to serving the people of the Outaouais region. He was mayor of Hull from 1974 to 1981, and was elected to the House of Commons for the Outaouais region in 1988, where he sat until 1993.

He represented the riding of Hull—Aylmer in the Quebec National Assembly, and was also appointed minister. He was a Liberal member in Ottawa from 1988 to 1990. Then, until 1993, Mr. Rocheleau sat with the Bloc Quebecois and contributed to that party's advancement.

The efforts of Mr. Rocheleau were invaluable, and they did not go unnoticed.

On behalf of the Reform Party, my most sincere sympathies to the Rocheleau family.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by putting to rest the hon. member's concerns. Being a member of a small business association within the area that I did business prior to being elected, one of the biggest concerns people within that organization raised was not so much that they did not think access to capital was an important issue, I do not think anyone is arguing that, but what they did raise was that there was limited choice, as the hon. member mentioned, with traditional lenders. That is the whole problem of our system and the problem I tried to raise.

We cannot fix the problem with band-aid solutions as we have seen in the Small Business Loans Act and the revised version. We need to address the issue of choice within the financial sector. That is the issue we are talking about.

The Reform Party and all its members in opposing this bill are telling the government that it is time to address the issue of access to capital with the issue of choice. Do not continue down this road of government regulation which unfortunately continues to put obstacles and additional costs in the way of small business.

If the hon. member really felt that he was putting business first, I think he would come to see the same light the Reform Party has seen.