Rahim Jaffer

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, is not the real reason he is protecting the human resources minister that he knows the footprints lead right to the Prime Minister's doorstep?

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what a waste. The little guy from Shawinigan has turned into the little guy that shagged the taxpayer. It reminds me of a modern day story I saw in a film where a modern day Dr. Evil sent out his evil henchmen to take and then bungle $1 billion—

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that only $251.50 was misspent. What a joke. Let us see here: a $100,000 overpayment to McGill University; $200,000 to a bankrupt water bottling company; and $1 million to a bankrupt Panda Aircraft. Let us not forget the $600,000 to Shawinigan crony Pierre Thibault who was a confessed embezzler.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Is not the real reason he is trying to dodge this boondoggle that his fingerprints are all over it?

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will go through some more points, especially when they refer to the question. This brings me to the important point of the clear question. The official opposition believes that if we get the process right we will also arrive at the right questions.

What is the process to a clear question? I believe there is a common sense approach to getting the process right. I believe that true clarity in a question can only be achieved through a consensus drive approach, which would see the federal government co-operate with the province to write a question. A question cannot and should not in fairness be unilaterally written by either the federal government or a province. Only through a consensus approach will there be a clear question to the satisfaction of both the federal government and the province.

It is important that the government take note of the importance of getting the process right. The government must make the connection between the process and the question. It is in the best interest of both parties to have some consensus on a clear question.

Why do I believe this? Suppose for a moment that the yes side were to win a referendum. In order for this result to be respected, I believe it would be critically important for the rest of the country to have seen the process in both asking and answering the question being carried out in good faith.

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-20, which has become known thus far as the clarity act.

While I believe that many aspects of this bill are important and even sound, I intend to show that referring to any clarity in this bill, as the government has tried to do in recent months, is a profound misnomer.

The central purpose for Bill C-20 is to give effect to the requirement for clarity, as set out in the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. As well, this enactment provides for the House of Commons to determine the clarity of a referendum question on the secession of a province and sets out some of the factors to be considered in making this determination. This has become an important part of this debate, which I will address later in my remarks.

Further on that point, this bill prohibits the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be a part of Canada if the House of Commons determines that the referendum question is not clear. As well, Bill C-20 allows parliament to determine, following the referendum on secession in a province, if a clear majority of the population of the province has clearly expressed a will to cease to be a part of Canada, and sets out the factors to be considered in making its determination.

This bill would enable the Government of Canada to enter into any negotiations with the province in the event that a clear majority of the province's citizens clearly expressed a province's will to secede.

In the event that all the above conditions were satisfied in a yes referendum vote on secession, the bill recognizes that the secession of a province from Canada requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving all provincial governments and the Government of Canada.

The bill recognizes that there is no current provision in the constitution to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that an amendment to the constitution would be required, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least all the governments of all provinces and the Government of Canada.

To summarize, the goal of the so-called clarity act so far is supposedly to provide a clear question in a referendum on a province's secession from Canada and to identify a clear majority in such a referendum. Yet neither of these issues have been clarified by the government in the bill.

Beyond these questions the official opposition, along with Canadians, is wondering why the government has not focused more constructively on plan A, that is to say why the Liberals are stubbornly refusing to make effective changes to the federal system. Canadians really have no idea where the government is coming from nor where it is going within the so-called clarity act.

What is clear to anyone who has witnessed the history of the last five to ten years of this debate is that the Reform Party is the only party that has offered a constructive and a consistent position on how Canada's federation could be renewed. It is unfortunate that this cannot be said about the federal Liberals.

Before I go any further to address the bill in particular, I think it would be instructive for the House to revisit the recent history of this debate. I am sure the House remembers the advice of the Prime Minister leading up to the 1995 referendum on sovereignty. “Don't worry, be happy”, was his favourite slogan. At the same time the official opposition stepped up to the plate trying to advance serious debate about what Canadians should be aware of in the event of a yes side majority.

However, back in 1995 the Reform Party was criticized by many for showing leadership and courage on the issue, and mostly by the members of the current government. Lo and behold it was this government which, in the Prime Minister's own words, has decided to get tough with the separatists. Instead of getting tough the Prime Minister should get smart and start offering real solutions to real problems facing the provinces. Does he not see that his get tough approach in Quebec is only fanning the flames of a dying fire?

Getting back to the 1995 referendum it was the Reform Party that led the debate. While we were trying to enlighten the government on the growing malaise in Quebec, the Prime Minister was repeating his don't worry, be happy mantra. As we all know, his inexplicable inaction almost produced a devastating result in that referendum.

Following the referendum it was again the official opposition which led the debate, turning the focus of the debate away from the negative results from secession into positive nation building efforts by trying to reconstruct the federation.

We introduced the new Canada act which I had the pleasure of debating in Quebec last year with my dear friend from Témiscamingue. The new Canada act offers many solutions that would end the problems of regional alienation within this great nation. I am sure that it will be a matter of time, or at least another five years, until the Liberals decide to adopt our position once again.

Thank goodness Canadians will not have to wait five years. With the creation of the Canadian alliance a few weekends ago it will not be long until the government will be brought to its knees by a government with integrity, a government committed to lower taxes, democratic reform and reforming the federation. The official opposition through the Leader of the Opposition and our critic on intergovernmental affairs, the member for Macleod, has made our position crystal clear on the two parts of the proposed legislation.

First off, what is a clear majority? The official opposition recognizes the rule of 50% plus one and has done so since the process started. It would be shameful and certainly questionable if the government were to change a universally recognized rule at this point. The rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game.

This government's poor administration has dissatisfied Quebecers to the point that they felt they had no choice but to separate from Canada. Since the start of this upheaval the government has caused, the rule of 50% plus one has never been questioned.

It would be a huge mistake and irresponsible if the government were to change its position now. I have also heard the argument that 50% plus one would not be enough to break up the country.

A number of members opposite have also said repeatedly that, within the Reform Party, it takes a two-thirds majority of all members to make significant changes. So they wonder how the Reformers can support the concept of 50% plus one.

If this government wants to follow the Reformers—and I know it does because it is constantly doing it—then it should submit the issue of a clear majority to all Canadians through a national referendum. Why? In the case of our party, it is the grassroots that decided that a two-thirds majority would be required. Unless this government is prepared to ask Canadians whether they want to change the foundation of democracy, a 50% plus one majority must be the rule.

I want to go back to what constitutes a clear question. There are two important issues here. The first one concerns the procedure for drafting the question. The second one has to do with the very substance of that question.

Before discussing these two points, I want to refer to an aspect of the supreme court opinion on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, the supreme court ruled that Canada would have an obligation to negotiate if there were a clear majority on a clear question. Should the yes side win, this bill provides the House of Commons with the necessary basis to debate the question and determine if that question and the outcome of any future referendum on the secession of a province reflects the legitimate and democratic will of the population.

The problem is that I wonder if the government can debate openly and in good faith in this House. Such an exercise would probably prove to be yet another masquerade, another scheme of the sort that the Liberals have become experts at over the past seven years.

This then begs another question. If the Liberals are—

[Doug Henning, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Doug Henning who passed away yesterday.

Doug was born in Winnipeg in 1947 A city that he might say could be a little closer to heaven.

As a child Doug had become fascinated with tricks And as a student was well known for his psychedelic hippie shticks.

Doug flew with friends and heroes in high places of sorts Houdini, Ivan Reitman, and fellow Canadian Martin Short.

Doug's middle name became known as “Levitation” An act that earned him world fame and many standing ovations.

But who would have thought that the creator of spellbound alone Had an idea to make the House of Commons his home.

For in the end it was this entertaining magician Who dreamed of turning himself into a natural law politician.

I wish that Doug could have worked his magic in this place To elevate government to a new space.

Doug, you blessed us with your lighthearted, free-spirited rise If only we could have seen the world through your eyes.

It is with sadness that we say goodbye And with new wings may you always fly high.

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canadians have lost confidence in the minister and a department that has bungled billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. That we know about. Now the minister is trying to wiggle out of her share of the responsibility. Her department bungled a billion. She was told about it months ago. The minister has to go. If she has so much confidence in her department, why will the human resources minister not resign and let them find her something new to do?

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister should take the advice from the Prime Minister. Back in his righteous days he said, “When you are a minister and your bureaucrats do well, you take the credit. I always took the credit. On the other side of the ledger, when I made a mistake, I took the blame. I never ran away from it. It is the only way”.

Why will the human resources minister not stop running, do the right thing and resign from cabinet immediately?

[Petitions, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today which calls upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporations Act.

[The Environment, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again we see an unco-ordinated Liberal government that fails to integrate a science based approach with the environment.

Last week the fisheries minister said that we are going to manage oceans in a way that will stop people who pollute the oceans. That means going after municipalities which put raw sewage into the oceans.

Since the environment minister does not classify raw sewage as pollution, why does the fisheries minister?