Rahim Jaffer

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to say how disappointed I am with the motion before us.

Even though I agree with the underlying principle of the motion, its wording prevents me from supporting it.

I agree with the principle of the motion since I recognize that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I agree with the Bloc that the millennium scholarship foundation is in violation of this principle.

However, I believe the Bloc erred by wanting to censure any action by the federal government in the area of education. If I could have amended the motion, I would have clarified the issue of transfer payments because the Reform Party believes it is a federal responsibility, which is not clear in the motion.

Besides, I believe the issue of national testing is a separate issue. The relationship between federal and provincial governments in the area of education must be clarified in order to maintain national standards without encroaching on provincial powers.

However, the Reform Party agrees with the Bloc to condemn the millennium scholarship foundation. We believe it has nothing to do with education but everything to do with the political image of the Prime Minister of Canada, who made this announcement two years ahead of time just to look good.

The Liberal government is trying to hide the fact it cut $7 billion out of health care and post-secondary education, and is making up for these cuts by promising $325 million a year starting in the year 2000. This money will only help 6% of Canadian students while the other 94% will get no help whatsoever.

Moreover this fund will do nothing to lower the present debt load of students. The average student debt is around $20,000. A $3,000 scholarship for 6% of students will not improve the situation very much.

Eligibility criteria are fuzzy. Will the scholarships be granted on the basis of merit or need? If it is on the basis of need, they will overlap the Canada students loan program as well as provincial programs. If it is on the basis of merit, a whole new bureaucracy will be created to decide who will get help.

By making the foundation a private and independent body, the Liberal government is creating a new opportunity for patronage. This fund will only benefit a minority of students, whereas an increase in the CHST would have benefited every student.

As I mentioned in my speech, and I would like to go over that one more time to make it clear, the Reform Party is committed to education. We campaigned on that during the last election campaign. We wanted to reinvest $4 billion back into health care and education. It is not a question of Reform not being committed to education.

We have seen that on the part of the Bloc too. Its amendment and the direction that it is heading with this motion is quite clear. It cares about education. I would agree with the Bloc. As I mentioned, education is a provincial responsibility. We have said in past debates that the Reform Party would like to get back to the constitutional sections that show exactly what are the provincial responsibilities and the federal responsibilities. We do agree with the Bloc on that level.

I was reluctant. I really wanted to support this motion but it was so vague in its explication of how the relationship of the federal government to the provinces in education would actually develop. There still has to be some sort of a relationship in the area of transfer payments and in the area of potentially national standards. As I said, that is up for debate.

This motion does not at all address that issue and that concerns me. I know that one of the things that educational institutions, especially at the post-secondary level across this country, have had to do is catch up with the heartless cuts that we have seen on the other side of this House. That is something that we can share in our feelings of dismay with the government and this attempt with this millennium scholarship fund. We have no idea who it is going to help and how and what sort of bureaucracy it will create in the process.

In that frustration that we in the Reform Party feel with the Bloc, I can understand and share that same sense of frustration. We want to see more of the responsibilities that are provincial responsibilities returned to the provinces.

It is very, very important that we have this definition clear as to what it will mean when we start changing the relationship between the federal and the provincial governments. We are open on this side to that debate. In future maybe the Bloc could have some correspondence with some of the other parties in developing motions. Maybe we can work together to create something better in this country.

I appreciate the Bloc's motion, but I am sorry I cannot support it.

[Taxation, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my family and I own a small coffee shop near the University of Alberta, so I know firsthand the problems of youth unemployment. Most of our employees are students but when payroll taxes go up I have to look for ways to reduce expenses. That usually means another hard working young person is out of a job.

When will the minister realize that job killing payroll taxes are robbing young people of a future? When will the government wake up and smell the coffee?

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that point somewhat in my speech when I said that even though there may be some sense of consensus in Quebec, the fact of the matter is that there is not a clear consensus as to whether first of all Quebec has actual support for separation from the rest of Canada.

As the Conservative member pointed out, in the Constitution currently there is no legal provision for any province to separate from the federation.

Clearly we need to have some legal parameters as to what this means. That is why we have supported the reference to the court.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker I indicated at the beginning of my speech that I was splitting my time with my colleague.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Point of order, Madam Speaker. It should be my colleague on debate.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I think I made myself quite clear when I answered the other question from a member of the hon. member's party. The fact remains that the message was quite clear in those commercials.

Whether the presentation is going to be used again is up for debate. Personally, I was not happy with the presentation, but we learn from our mistakes, as we have seen from many members of other parties.

The key is that the message was clear. It is something that the west wants. We have to try to represent other regions of this country equally in the federal Parliament. That is exactly what we are going to stand by.

To answer his other question, it is interesting that the Conservatives have brought this out of their sack of goodies. The fact of the matter is Ezra Levant was not a part of the party when he was writing for the Sun , like many other journalists in this country when they report on politics. They are allowed to voice their opinions and they are allowed to do so freely.

I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should have any censorship on the media or gag laws. That is something which most members of this House would fight against.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of what he said as a journalist, it does not reflect his current work for our party. I am really upset that the member did not paint the proper picture. The fact is that he was a journalist when he made those comments.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, specifically what I have identified in my speech today is that there have been groups that have not only wanted recognition as the hon. member refers to but want to remain a part of Canada regardless of what happens in the politics of Quebec. I think that is something the hon. member and the Bloc has failed to recognize. There are Indian groups and municipalities that have said that regardless of Quebec's secession, they want to remain a part of Canada.

The fact is that the Bloc has not addressed or talked about that issue at all. Unfortunately, we do not get any details from the Bloc when it even comes to secession.

To answer his second question, the fact remains as I said earlier to a colleague who asked a question, we in the Reform Party are looking at different ways. We know there are problems in Quebec. There are problems in Alberta and right across this country. That is why we are looking at a third option, something that status quo federalists and separatists have not brought to the table. We are looking at rebalancing the powers in this country. We are looking at trying to work with the regions in this country to make the federation stronger.

What I urge my hon. colleague from the Bloc to do is to start looking at realistic options to try to build a stronger nation for the future.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we all learn from our mistakes. The message of what was said in those commercials is simply what we have said from the beginning of Reform's inception, that the west wants in.

We may not use the same way of getting that message across in future and perhaps that could be up for debate. However most people saw that message from Reform's point of view, We need to have all Canadians involved in the constitutional process and in any process that involves changing the constitution. Also the leadership of the country has to come from across the country, not just from one province and not from just one region.

That is the message we tried to get across. We continually fight for the fact that the west wants in. In this case let us try to represent regions effectively. That is what Reform stands for.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

For all the people out there who just joined us, I would like to read the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.

This motion seems to deal with the concept of self-determination, which is not without controversy, but is usually considered as being fair and democratic. However, we will not be able to support the principle of self-determination as long as we do not clearly understand what it implies.

It is a well-known fact that, for the Bloc members, self-determination includes the right to a unilateral declaration of independence. Separatists have clearly indicated that they refuse to consult with the rest of Canada, even if the decisions made in their province will have a profound and lasting impact on the rest of the country.

It is also clear that this motion tends to discredit the reference to the supreme court, which will start next Monday. Some people are opposed to any discussion about the possible legal restrictions to secession. This reference to the supreme court to seek the opinion of the highest court in the land on this issue is considered a denial of the right to self-determination. This shows clearly that, when the Bloc Quebecois and others speak about Quebec's right to decide its own future, they are suggesting that the rest of Canada is not entitled to participate in any way.

No change as profound and irreversible as Quebec's secession can be made unilaterally. It can certainly be argued that, after a vote on sovereignty, in which a clear question is put to the public, and as long as 50% plus one of the population is in favour, Quebec will be able to enter into negotiations with the federal government. The people of Quebec have the right to self-determination as long as these conditions are met.

There is no denying that separatist and federalist leaders in Quebec have questioned the government's decision to ask the supreme court to rule on a primarily political problem. However, general agreement within Quebec's political elite does not mean there is broad grassroots support among Quebeckers.

However recent comments made by Quebec's political elite have suggested that self-determination and the right to declare a unilateral declaration of independence are mutually dependent self-supporting rights.

If self-determination includes the right unilaterally to deny the northern Cree their expressed desire to remain Canadian, their expressed desire to continue to be protected under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, we cannot in good conscience support this motion.

It should be clear that self-determination as it is explicitly understood by Bloc members of the House is not supported by the natives in Quebec. They cannot be counted among those who are said to be in general agreement with the principle of sovereign rule. Self-determination defined in such broad terms with the inclusion of such sweeping political powers is clearly in violation of aboriginal rights and is not supported by this group of Quebeckers.

If self-determination includes the power to unilaterally deny 50 municipalities in Quebec the right to remain Canadian, we cannot in good conscience support this motion.

My colleagues from the Bloc are acutely and painfully aware that there are municipalities across Quebec, each with its own democratic mandate, which have voted to remain a part of Canada should a yes vote unfortunately occur. I hope that these municipalities and the hundreds of thousands of people they represent are not wrongly included in the so-called consensus to which this motion makes reference.

If self-determination is thought to include the right to unilaterally secede from the rest of Canada, it is likely that very few Quebeckers would support this principle. There are censuses on the right to seek separation from Canada through democratic and legal means. Legitimate democratic means would involve seeking a clear indication of support from the people of Quebec in a referendum presenting a clear question.

The legal avenue would necessitate that the province of Quebec be obliged to enter into negotiations with the rest of Canada to determine the terms of separation. Partition, passports, currency and debt allocation are the issues that would require open discussion before sovereignty could be achieved.

It is a tiny minority of Quebeckers who would wish to ignore the legal and moral responsibility to settle on the terms of separation before a unilateral declaration of independence. It is in response to the position of this tiny minority that the supreme court is offering its opinion.

The legal reference does not affect self-determination unless this concept has come to include the right to ignore any legal obligations to the vast majority of Canadians who wish to see Quebec remain a part of Canada. To my amazement it would appear that there are in fact some members of the House who would adhere to this understanding of self-determination.

There is a better solution to our unity problems than to concede defeat and argue over the process of secession. We can all work together in the House to rebalance the federation. This is what we call the third way. Members of the House know it well.

Let us join to make Canada work for Quebec, for Alberta and for the rest of Canada. Members of the Bloc do the country a disservice with their singular focus on secession. Canada can work. I pray that we all can work together for this mutual beneficial end.

[Senate Of Canada, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the upper chamber will be honoured by the return of the infamous Senator Thompson. We should all go out of our way to welcome him back to make sure he settles in okay. We should start by getting the senator reaquainted with some of the local customs.

The upper chamber is not like the beaches of Mexico. Shirts must be worn at all times. Midday siestas are discouraged although not uncommon. The pages almost always refuse to serve banana daiquiris. There is no happy hour and you must check in your mariachi at the door.

We could also get our senator a few welcome back gifts: aspirin for the lingering margarita headache, a winter coat for the cold Ottawa evenings and a Canadian flag to remind him of the hardworking, overtaxed Canadian public.

Maybe the senator will be so moved by the generosity that he will join in the chorus of Canadian voices demanding that the Senate must be reformed.