Rahim Jaffer

[Petitions, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House calling for the elimination of Bill C-8 and any other offending legislation that unduly regulates the use of herbal supplements.

Conservative estimates show that over six million Canadians rely on herbal supplements. These people do not want their health care choices limited and they do not want to see the cost of these products increase as the result of unnecessary costly government regulations.

I applaud the Minister of Health on his recent decision to seek advice from a committee for amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that would affect these products.

[Committees Of The House, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that the caucus of the Reform Party strongly believes that education is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction and that it is essential that this be fully respected.

However, we might add that the proposed amendment does not address minority language educational rights or the establishment of linguistic school boards. What is at stake here is the denominational rights protected by section 93 of the Constitution.

Amendments to the Constitution should never be passed without due consideration or in haste. We believe that before any constitutional amendment is passed, Parliament must make sure there is democratic consent, that the amendment respects the rule of law and that it is in the national interest.

If it adversely affects enshrined minority rights, Parliament must be especially careful that the democratic consent includes indisputable agreement on the part of the minority. We have come to the conclusion that the motion does not meet these requirements.

First, the Reform Party would rather see a provincial referendum before Parliament considers any amendment under section 93. This referendum should be on a clear question and the rules of the process should be fair. Such a referendun would have shown us how extensive public support is.

Second, we believe it is essential that the people of Canada, ordinary citizens, be consulted when major changes are contemplated, but the Quebec government has chosen not to hold any referendum on this issue. There have been neither public hearings on this proposed amendment to section 93 nor a free vote in the National Assembly.

Third, this committee should ensure that what it proposes meets the second requirement: respecting the rule of law. Is the appropriate amending formula being used? Some have questioned the appropriateness of the bilateral process. The proposal was sanctioned by the Government of Canada and by legal experts. Most witnesses we have heard therefore took it for granted.

In fact, we should not expect this committee to settle the issue in haste—

[Senate, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in making our political institutions more democratic. Albertans have led the way by electing their first senator in 1989.

With all provincial parties in favour of electing a senator from Alberta, will the Prime Minister listen to the people of Alberta and their request for Senate elections?

[Ekrem Kolay, November 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as I speak, Ekrem Kolay is wasting away outside Canada Place in Edmonton. He has been on a hunger strike for 15 days to bring this government's attention to the imprisonment of Leyla Zana, a mother of two and a celebrated former member of the Turkish parliament.

Leyla Zana was imprisoned for standing up for the wishes of her constituents, for speaking out against human rights violations in Turkey when very few others had the courage to do so.

Amnesty International, British parliamentarians, members of the U.S. Congress, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Alberta Federation of Labour, members of the provincial and federal NDP, and local Edmonton churches and businesses have all joined Ekrem Kolay in his campaign to free Leyla Zana.

Ekrem Kolay is waiting for just one more person to join his struggle before he promises to eat his first meal. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is now the only man who can decide whether my constituent eats or continues to slowly starve.

[National Unity, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a commitment before this Parliament to look at the possibility of submitting the Calgary declaration to the people of Quebec.

He made that commitment more than a month ago. Does the Prime Minister now have any concrete plans for consultations in Quebec?

[National Unity, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when this House opened the prime minister made a commitment to Canadians that he would not rule out the possibility of consulting with the people of Quebec on the Calgary declaration.

Will the prime minister let Canadians know how the consultation process is going in Quebec?

[Small Business, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as this House is aware, October 19 to 25 is small business week. I take this opportunity to make a tribute to the businesses that enrich the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona.

There is a merchant in my constituency who trades in rare artefacts from around the world. He came to me frustrated because despite his constant and meticulous attempts to obey thousands of rules governing trade, he was still in violation of customs laws. As a consequence, his merchandise was held in a sterile city warehouse while his business suffered.

I am also familiar with a small, family owned restaurant whose owners find themselves unable to hire the staff they need because payroll taxes are too high.

In the spirit of the upcoming small business week, I urge this government to pursue policies that would lower taxes and deregulate the economy. Let us eliminate this monkey business and give Canadian small businesses the fighting chance they deserve.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a point that I would like to clarify. Despite the fact that there are differences in Canada—I mentioned that—we are all equal. That is fundamentally what we in the Reform Party are fighting for. The size of the province does not matter, whether it is Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Alberta. We are all equal, and that is what we are trying to accomplish.

With this amendment we are saying that it is still important to respect the views of the people who have elected us, even in the province of Quebec. That is why we propose holding a referendum. I think the hon. member would agree that there is no harm in doing so. There is no harm going to the people in his province and asking them what they think about this amendment. I firmly believe that we stand for that view of equality.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the motion to amend the motion to refer to a joint committee the proposed amendments to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is also a pleasure to know that I am done with this long and complicated sentence.

The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest draws attention to three important principles on which constitutional amendments should always be based: democratic consent, the rule of law and the national interest.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of my colleagues from Calgary Southwest and South Surrey—White Rock—Langley concerning the joint committee to which the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 will be referred.

First of all, I would like to commend the Bloc for its comments on the illegitimacy of an unelected Senate. This shows that its democratic instinct is similar to that of the Reform Party. This shows once again that the Reform Party and the Bloc both want our federal system to be changed in order to give more autonomy to the provinces in areas that directly affect their cultural and economic characteristics.

Of course, I do not have to remind the House how much the objectives of our parties differ. It is obviously possible to obtain provincial autonomy by becoming sovereign, at a very high cost to all parties concerned. We would, however, better serve the national interest by changing the way our federal system works.

I would like to point out to the House that the national interest is precisely the third criterion on which we should judge constitutional amendments. I hope that by pointing out this fact to the House we will be able to instil these principles into the collective political conscience of the House.

It is our attachment to the objective of national unity that worries us so much when a constitutional amendment is contemplated in a more or less judicious manner.

As the hon. leader of the official opposition said, using the amending formula of section 43 may not be not totally legal. It is clear that this amending formula applies to subsection 93(2) of the Constitution, but not to subsections 1, 3 and 4. The legality of this approach should be determined by the Superior Court of Quebec. If not, the federal government should ask the Supreme Court's opinion on this issue.

This having been said, our caucus continues to believe that, before amending the Constitution, the three tests referred to must be done. The test of democratic consent is the first principle we feel should be applied, under the circumstances. Do the majority of Quebeckers support the constitutional amendments proposed? The best way to answer that question is to hold a referendum, which is why my hon. colleague has recommended that the Government of Quebec hold one. If Quebeckers support the amendment, the provincial government has nothing to lose. If they reject it, this government has everything to lose. One need not be a populist to realize that it is never wise to go against the voters' wishes.

The second test is the rule of law. As my colleague from Calgary Southwest has clearly stated, section 43 may not apply here. I will go no further with this, but I would like to address the question of minority rights.

Since the political discussions on unity have essentially focussed on the decentralization of powers and the subsequently greater provincial autonomy, the question of minority rights becomes all the more important.

By giving increased powers to the province of Quebec in areas such as language, culture and education, are we not abandoning the anglophone minority of Quebec?

This is not an easy issue, but I believe it draws our attention to the very important role of the Constitution in regard to the protection of minority rights. If Quebec is not bound by section 93(1), the Superior Court of Quebec should rule that this proposal will have no adverse effect on minorities in Quebec. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this.

The third test relates to the national interest. Does the proposed amendment meet the national interest? From a certain point of view, the answer is no. The use of section 43 in this instance will allow all provincial governments to question the limits of their jurisdiction.

The Reform Party strongly believes that provinces need more autonomy. They need powers which will allow them to create institutions that are truly representative of the economic and cultural realities of the regions. However, all provinces must have the same powers. The way they will exercise those powers will depend on the will of their respective population. It is not appropriate, however, to create a precedent which would allow Quebec to be exempt from the law of the land.

Constitutional change is a necessity in this country. We must create a new balance of powers if we want the Confederation to be adapted to the needs of its provincial partners. These are the goals that our caucus hopes to reach. However, democracy is more a matter of process than result and I believe it is important to review carefully the process to amend section 93.

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the people of Edmonton—Strathcona sent me here to try to accomplish is to recognize the view that, regardless of where people come from, regardless of their background, whether they are Quebecois or an Ismaili Muslim like myself, we are all equal. The way to build a strong country is not to recognize that each individual group makes a people, but to recognize that through our diversity we are equal. That will give us the base on which to build a strong country.

It does not matter what the people of Edmonton—Strathcona think in the sense of their recognizing any specific group as a people. They put equality first and that is what they have sent me here to do on their behalf. That is what they believe will build this country and lead us into the 21st century.