Lorne Nystrom

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 26th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-2, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 4 the following:

“(3) The Governor in Council may appoint a panel of experts to review the conflict of interest procedures established by the board of directors under paragraph (2)(b) and to recommend changes to those procedures.

(4) The Governor in Council may direct the board of directors to adopt any of the recommendations of the panel of experts and to ensure that any procedures adopted are made available to the public.”

[Banks, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today it was the turn of the Bank of Nova Scotia to reveal record profits, $1.5 billion, or an increase of 42% over last year, which is beyond even its wildest expectations.

Profits are fine if they are reasonable, but gouging the consumer is not fine.

I want to ask the minister whether he is willing to agree to a Parliamentary inquiry into bank services charges. I want him to throw away his script and answer the question. Yesterday he had the wrong script in his hand. He did not answer the question. Can he answer the question today?

[Banks, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Today it was the turn of the Bank of Montreal to reveal record profits of $1.3 billion. Meanwhile bank services charges have skyrocketed by 25% or more in the last three years and inflation sits at 1.5%.

Enough is enough. Healthy profits are fine but gouging the consumer is not fine.

In light of that, will the minister now screw up his courage and call for a parliamentary inquiry into bank service charges so the banks have to come before parliament and fully disclose and justify their charges to consumers?

[Proportional Representation Review Act, November 25th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-287, an act to provide for the study of proportional representation in federal elections and a national referendum on the recommendations that result from the study.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply establish an all party committee that would have the power to travel to all provinces and territories of this country to consult the Canadian people on various forms of proportional representation that could be mixed into our current system and to study the various forms of proportional representation.

The committee would report back to the House and with the concurrence of the House cause a national referendum to be held where the people themselves could choose between the current single member constituency electoral system that we have and the method of proportional representation to be mixed into that system as recommended by the House of Commons through that committee.

I believe this would allow the people's votes to be reflected accurately in the House of Commons which is not the case today. It is really a new democracy for a new millennium.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

That is true. Now let them squirm and let them listen because they are being taken to task.

Who else supports the inclusion clause? The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the prairie pools. Reformers laugh. The biggest company in Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The wheat pools speak for thousands and thousands of farmers. It is the majority farm organization, it markets grain and it supports the inclusion clause. And the Reform Party says that nobody does. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does.

The Reform Party should not be misleading the House, and that is why we in our party are very proud to support the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. My family has been involved as members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool since its foundation. It supports the inclusion clause.

Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc. of Manitoba also supports the inclusion clause as well as the Concerned Farmers for Saving the Wheat Board. Finally, the wheat board advisory committee, whose members are elected by prairie farmers, supports the inclusion clause. The overwhelming majority of people across the prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan are in support of the Canadian Wheat Board and they want an inclusion clause so that if farmers want more grains in the wheat board, they will have that right.

It is about time the Reform Party was taken to task. The Reform Party is not telling the truth in the House of Commons and not reflecting its constituents' views. That is the party that said it would reflect the voices of its constituents when it was in the House of Commons. It is not doing that. The Saskatchewan government is supportive. The wheat pools are supportive. The wheat pool is a big, credible organization. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supportive. The wheat board advisory committee which is elected by farmers supports the inclusion clause, but here is the Reform Party, which is not used to being challenged in the House, trying to mislead the Canadian people that prairie farmers oppose the inclusion clause.

There is the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who used to be a member of the provincial Conservative Party in Saskatchewan as an MLA. We know what happened to that party. It has now been put to sleep for 10 years.

The Reform Party believes in referenda and in consulting people. A while back a very clear question was put to the prairie producers. It concerned whether or not they wanted barley marketed by the wheat board or outside the wheat board. The prairie producers responded with 63% who voted that yes, they wanted to keep barley in the Canadian Wheat Board, while 37% voted no. They responded to a very clear question.

The Reform Party is supposed to be reflecting those views in the House of Commons. Reformers are supposed to reflect the views of their constituents in the House of Commons or resign or be recalled. Why do they not reflect that point of view in the House of Commons? It was a clear question.

The National Farmers Union is also in support of the inclusion clause. The farmers union itself, which has been very involved in these issues, thought the question was clear. I wonder where the Reform Party comes from. When it comes to really representing the point of view of its constituents in the House of Commons it just does not do it.

I assure the House that the people of Saskatchewan support the Canadian Wheat Board. They have always supported the Canadian Wheat Board. They want some collective clout in the marketplace and we will reflect that point of view here in the House of Commons.

I have another concern that was raised by the Reform Party, that there is no reference to provinces. It has been said in the House with some of these rather right wing points of view that they would like the provinces to opt out.

Now, of course, Reform Party members applaud these extreme right wing points of view, these friends of Conrad Black, friends of the Canadian grain exchange and of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They listen to them instead of listening to the wheat pool of Saskatchewan, the farmers union or the federation of agriculture or the people's organizations. They just listen to the people who have the money. They want to destroy the wheat board. They want a province to have the option of opting out of the Canadian Wheat Board like the province of Alberta. Of course, if that power is put into the act it will be the destruction of the wheat board. So I certainly oppose that as well. I am sure that Canadian farmers will also oppose that point of view.

Here are some so-called farmers from British Columbia and Alberta who are campaigning against the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I can assure members of the House that there is very strong support for orderly marketing and for the Canadian Wheat Board. All the major credible farm organizations that support the board want the inclusion clause. They want farmers to have the right to vote if they so wish to include other grains under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also support the exclusion clause so that farmers if they so wish can vote to have a grain taken out of the authority of the wheat board. Why is the Reform Party against that democratic right? It is a right that the farmers want.

I know the truth hurts. If we listen to the Reform Party we would think there was never a vote on barley or that the question was fudged on barley. The question was very clear and there was a very clear answer. I am very surprised that the Saskatchewan Reform members, in particular, are talking this way. In Saskatchewan the yes vote for the inclusion of barley was higher than in Alberta and Manitoba. Why are Reform members not reflecting the wishes of their constituents in the House? Why are they not listening to their constituents? Why should they not be recalled?

Why will this very shy member from Souris—Moose Mountain not get up and say “the farmers in my riding voted to have barley in the wheat board”? Instead he stands in the House and says people in the province do not want the inclusion clause. They are against it and they are fearful of the inclusion clause. That is a bunch of bloody rubbish and he would know it if he used his two ears to listen to his people. People are very supportive of that clause. It is important that be put on the record.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Run against us. If you want to get into provincial politics, run against us. Here is the Reform Party that does not have the guts to run in provincial politics in Saskatchewan, a government that has MLAs from all parts of the province, urban and rural. It supports the inclusion clause and they said nobody does. Misleading of the House.

Second, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the inclusion clause. Is that an irrelevant organization? Does it not speak for a few farmers across the prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan? I am sure it does. The people should be aware that the Reform Party is misleading the House and the Canadian people.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

They may laugh. Here is a government that has the support of about 60% of the Saskatchewan people. It is one of the most popular governments anywhere in this country that represents—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

I am glad that they rose to that bait and again showed that they clearly oppose the inclusion clause.

That is why the election results are very important. We have some balance back in this Parliament, so this kind of misleading information will be challenged in the House of Commons.

I want to put on record, and let them yelp if they want, that here are some of the players that support the inclusion clause. The Government of Saskatchewan—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate this afternoon to put on the record what I think are the feelings of the people of the prairies, particularly Saskatchewan, in terms of some of these amendments.

I know some people watch the parliamentary debate on CPAC. MPs follow it closely. We have a member now from Saskatchewan, from Souris—Moose Mountain, who has said that people on the prairies clearly oppose the inclusion clause. He said they fear for the inclusion clause. There is overwhelming opposition for the inclusion clause.

[The Late Robert Thompson, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to add the voice of the New Democratic Party to those of others in expressing our sadness at the loss of Mr. Bob Thompson.

When I was first elected to Parliament in 1968 he was a member of the Conservative Party, actually sitting in the House roughly where the Conservative Party sits today. I remember speaking to him. I was only 22 years old and he was one of the more seasoned veterans, what I considered to be a very older person in those days, although he was probably only in his fifties at the time. He certainly was a very wise and honourable member of the House and I really appreciated him very much.

He was very unique in many ways. First, he was a teacher, but he was also a chiropractor, a combination we do not see very often. He was a flight lieutenant in World War II with the Royal Canadian Air Force and then, as members have heard, he became involved in Ethiopia where he spent many, many years involved in education and in government.

He was also very unique because he was the Minister of Education for Ethiopia and later on, of course, a Canadian member of Parliament. Those are a couple of unique combinations and very rare indeed. He was a very interesting man.

He returned to his country in 1960, I believe, and became President of the National Social Credit Party. That was an interesting time because the Social Credit Party had been wiped out in 1958, the CCF was down to eight seats at that time and both parties were in the process of rebuilding. The Social Credit Party did rebuild, came back with a stunning 30 seats in the House, with 26 from Quebec led by the deputy leader Réal Caouette, who later split away and formed the Ralliement des créditistes.

Mr. Thompson persevered and stayed on and ran again in 1963 and in 1965 and was re-elected as a member of the Social Credit Party. If my understanding is correct, he did not like the direction that his party was taking or the configuration of the party after the split with the créditistes. He switched parties in 1968 and ran as a member of the Conservative Party in the same riding of Red Deer and, of course, was re-elected.

Our party differed on many of the ideas and philosophies that Mr. Thompson held, but we respected him as a very honourable man who made a great contribution to the House and to this country. I think we can learn a lot from his legacy.

With all sincerity, I wish to convey my condolences and the condolences of the New Democratic Party to his wife Evelyn, his eight children, to his many grandchildren and great grandchildren and his friends. This country will surely miss him.