Rahim Jaffer

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a second—

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from members opposite that people had disrespect for the flag in the House. I would like to put that issue to rest. The hon. member for Medicine Hat had lunch with the snack pack prior to that event. His hands were greasy because he had a greasy meal and I believe he dropped the flag.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to whether or not it is good to debate this type of motion in the House, given the fact that his mandate is to create two sovereign nations.

We are talking today about whether a member of Parliament, who is proud to be a Canadian member of Parliament and wants to display a flag on his desk in the House, should have the right to do so. That is the fundamental basis of the motion. That is what we are debating.

The hon. member said that most electors in his riding elected him and his party to create a vision of two sovereign nations. They are free to work to that end. However, as it stands right now, we are still a united country. While we are in the House we should have respect for the symbols that represent the country. It is not negative to have the flag displayed on anyone's desk in the House.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

I am ashamed right now to listen to these heckles. Here we are talking about pride in Canada and the flag, and here we have people yelling at us from the other side. As a relatively new Canadian who has adopted this country and takes pride in its flag and what it stands for, I do not know why in a democracy I cannot rise in an institution like this one to address those things and say how proud I am to be a Canadian.

We have heard from the other parties today that Reform does not respect rules. I beg to differ. We were waiting for the Speaker to rule on the issue. He took some time to rule. If we look around today we see that members on the Reform side have respected his decision. We took the next step, which was to hear from other Canadians in the House on how they feel about the flag, if they feel it is a positive initiative to display it on their desks.

If many members opposite feel it is not a positive initiative then they can say so. That is what the debate is all about. We on the Reform side continuously argue that if members of the House representing people from across they country who are proud to be Canadians want to display that flag on their desks on behalf of the people who elected them, why not allow them to do so. It is a positive initiative. I have yet to hear some constructive debate from the other side as to why it is negative, instead of attacking this side for being proud about our symbols.

We have heard from members of different parties that this is a negative initiative. This is what the House of Commons is all about. It is a place in which to freely debate ideas that may be of contention, that may mean something to some and not to others. Bringing this issue to the floor and letting the members decide is not negative. Members opposite and members from all parties have the right to vote yes or no in the end to the motion, whether they like it or not.

I resent the fact that people have been so negative overall in the debate when the initiative in the official opposition motion is very positive. I wish we would hear less rhetoric and more about why a flag on a desk is so negative.

To some extent I was happy for a little while to hear members from all sides talking about what Canada means to them and what the flag means to them. It was somewhat enlightening to hear some of the stories of various members of Parliament and their families and what exactly the flag means to them. To have this kind of debate once in a while is healthy for parliament.

I briefly touched on what that means to me. I am a recent Canadian. I have been here for 26 years. I came here as a little child. I adopted the flag and the country. It is mine and it is my home. For me it means freedom. It means opportunity. It means democracy. Those are things that did not exist in the country my family had to flee from as refugees.

To be able to take a moment to reflect on those things in the House is the perfect place to do it. I am very proud that we have the opportunity to do so. I resent the fact that we are hearing such negative comments from all other sides of the House on this issue.

I heard members of the New Democratic Party yelling out that no other parliament or legislature in the world may necessarily have flags on their desks. This is an opportunity for us as Canadians, as we have been in the past, to be leaders and maybe start something positive, start something to be proud of. It is not negative.

It is a chance for us to stand and actually start something new. If we took the time to reflect on that for a moment and reflect on how it could bring us together, maybe we would have more support in the House than what we see today.

Those are some of the issues I would have liked to address. Many of us have misinterpreted what the motion is supposed to be about and how positive it is.

I would now like to address the people of Quebec, people who love Canada and the Canadian flag. Do not be mistaken: while Quebeckers love their province, they also love their country. If the members opposite refuse to give them a way of expressing their patriotism in this House, I will be proud to take on that responsibility.

The flag is an emblem, a deeply important symbol. Displaying the Canadian flag shows commitment to Canada, but this commitment to Canada is not one to the geographical boundaries of our country. To display a flag shows commitment to the values honoured within those boundaries.

My family and I came to Canada looking for a place to rebuild our lives. We were not looking for handouts, but opportunities, which we found. Canada gave us the opportunity to go to school and to build prosperous businesses. So, when we see Canadian flags, we are reminded that Canada gave us a second chance.

I am now a part of a country which gave me the opportunity to represent the electoral district of Edmonton—Strathcona in the House of Commons. I came from a country where there was no respect for democracy to a country where, at age 26, I was allowed to speak as an equal in this House.

The community of Edmonton—Strathcona judged me on the basis of my abilities and allowed me to come and represent it here because it liked what I had to say. So, when I look at the Canadian flag, I also see freedom. When I look at the Canadian flag, I am reminded that, in Canada, democracy is the principle of equality which is part of our laws and our government institutions.

I am sure that the people of Quebec see what I see when they look at the Canadian flag: freedom, opportunity, democracy and equality. I am convinced that, given the chance to speak with one voice in this House today, the people of Quebec would ask their representatives to make the best decision and support our motion.

On the last note, I would like to focus specifically on the fact that we have gone through a really strange week in the House. We have had funny behaviour on both sides. It is an emotional issue and it goes without saying that people react the way they do when issues of symbolism and patriotism are discussed in the House.

I encourage all members to take a moment to see the principle behind the motion and to support it because they are proud of their country. If all hon. members take a second to take a step back, they will see that the motion in its principle is something positive for all of us. It allows freedom of expression for individual members in the House who are proud to be here.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to take part in a debate such as this one.

Many members of the House have turned what I believe to be a positive initiative on behalf of the official opposition into an us against them debate that would divide us rather than bring us together as Canadians.

[Hockey, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need another parliamentary committee to study the problem. We do not need more talk. Canadian taxpayers do not want to subsidize their teams either. We just want to trade fairly with the U.S.

Every day Canada's best athletes hit the ice and give their blood, sweat and tears for the game of hockey. The least this government could do is put a little effort into fighting the U.S. unfair subsidies.

Why will the minister not stick up for Canadian hockey and fight unfair U.S. subsidies?

[Hockey, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Today is the day Canadians will find out whether or not the Oilers will remain in Edmonton. If a local group is successful in purchasing them, their long term success will still be in doubt unless we stop the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies which U.S. hockey teams receive. We have to scrap those unfair U.S. subsidies.

Will the minister ensure that the U.S. lives up to the spirit of free trade agreements?

[Maurice Richard, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a passion for hockey like no other sport. In my riding of Edmonton, everyone is talking about the glorious years of the Oilers with stars like Gretzky, Messier and Fuhr. But long before these men carried the Stanley Cup on their shoulders, Maurice Richard, of the Montreal Canadians, was the king of hockey.

In the days when there were only six teams in the National Hockey League, everyone in the country gathered around their radio or television sets to cheer the “Rocket”, hoping he would work his magic and bring the Stanley Cup home to Canada.

Today, as the “Rocket” faces his greatest battle, a battle against cancer, I want him to know that the Reform Party and all Canadians are once again behind him, hoping he will work his magic and win this battle.

Get well soon, Maurice.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the reason lots of provincial governments have had to struggle in order to make up for the lost funding over the last number of years is that the member's government has cut close to $7 billion in transfers in education and health care. Unfortunately that is what some of the provinces had to do.

I am of the slate of people who believe in the provinces and believe in the administrations of the provinces to start putting money toward areas where it is needed. The Liberal government should consider giving more trust to the provinces. It should start reinvesting back into them in the form of transfers. Those governments can take care of the problems more effectively than we have seen with anything the Liberal government has created.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify my point once again for the hon. member who asked me the question.

I do not think I contradicted myself at all. The Reform Party has always said that we have been committed to reinvesting in health care and education. We made that clear during the course of the last campaign. I do not think that has anything to do with the jurisdiction as it relates to the provinces.

We are not saying how the provinces should spend that money on education or health care. We realize that disparities exist throughout the country in how some provincial governments deal with certain problems. They are most effective in dealing with those problems.

All we have said is that we believe transfers should be continuous and increased to those provinces to allow the provincial governments to supply funds to health care, education or whatever the matter may be. I am not contradicting myself. Actually I am saying that the federal government should remove itself from creating policy on how the provincial governments spend the money once it is transferred to them. I am actually in favour with the Bloc on that point.

When the member referred to the Bloc's motion he himself made it clear that the motion says the federal government should remove itself from all attempts at creating any relationship with the provinces in education. That is what is not clear. As I have outlined, the federal government still has a responsibility for transfer payments to the provinces. That is not clear in the motion. I wish there had been more thought put into the motion because as I said there is something that we could have agreed on in the principle behind the motion.