Lorne Nystrom

[Foreign Affairs, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has refused to provide any information on the Maher Arar case. The RCMP is not providing any information as well in terms of its participation. Meanwhile, Lloyd Axworthy has said, “Canadians are being treated like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed fertilizer”. The foreign affairs committee now has invited the American ambassador to testify.

Could the government explain why it resorted to inviting the American ambassador to testify about the role of the RCMP, which is our national police force, in its involvement with a Canadian citizen? Why can the government not answer that question?

[Foreign Affairs, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.

Today the Solicitor General reaffirmed that there was no contact between Canadian and American officials prior to the deportation of Mahar Arar to Syria.

However, today in the Toronto Star there is a quote from an American official which says that Canadian security informed them that Arar was under surveillance by Canada because he had travelled to Afghanistan.

How can the minister continue to deny that there was an exchange of information between his government and the Americans that may have led to the deportation of Arar to Syria? If he continues to deny that, why does he not just resign?

[Interest Rates, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.

As he knows, the prime interest rate now is at 4.5%. Yet the interest rates on most credit cards in the country are over 18%, in other words, about four times the prime rate.

What I want to know from the acting Prime Minister is what will the government do to bring down the exceptionally high rates on credit cards and help people who are locked into them?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, our party is not exactly fringe. We have the largest membership of any of the four opposition parties today. We are third place in the polls. The Alliance is in fourth. That may disappoint the member, but that is the fact of the matter today in terms of public opinion.

He is concerned about the power of the prime minister. I want to remind him that the prime minister, and indeed all party leaders today, have the power to sign or not sign nomination papers. It is a pretty awesome power.

Back in 1997, when the current Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, he appointed candidates. In my own province, Georgette Sheridan was appointed as the Liberal candidate in Saskatoon--Humboldt. I remember Marcel Masse being appointed as a candidate for the Liberal Party in Hull--Aylmer. There were two or three others also.

Does the member agree with that practice? That practice exists today, but it should not. Under PR it should not exist. My vision of a proportional representation system is one that is open, transparent and democratic, otherwise I would not support it.

Would the member acknowledge at least that the power of the Prime Minister is too great today and also the power of party leaders sometimes is abused when they appoint candidates and do not allow a proper democratic nomination process to take place? His party is guilty.

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member's provincial leader, Dalton McGuinty, is willing to put to the people of Ontario a question on electoral reform, including PR. I searched his website. I have a copy of his statements here. I wonder whether the member would support his provincial leader in doing that and, if so, why would he not support the same thing at the federal level?

He also knows that his dear friend, the Liberal premier of British Columbia, is looking at electoral reform and possibly also at proportional representation. The Liberal premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, referred to it in the throne speech, referring to PR in the election after the next as being part of the way to elect members to the national assembly.

This is not alien to the thoughts of various Liberals across the country. Does he just object to this at the federal level or does he object to the principle right across the piece?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member gets the idea of party hacks from unless he is looking at the Senate, where prime ministers in the past appointed a lot of party hacks. I do not want that kind of system.

What I want is an open, democratic system where we have the best of both worlds. We have local MPs, such as in Germany. There are 13 countries using the mixed member proportional, where they have local MPs and they have PMPs also elected proportionally. The proportionalists are used to compensate for discrepancies in the first past the post system. Those MPs elected on the proportional lists can represent regions. They can be elected directly. There is no reason why they cannot.

We can use such things as a single transferable ballot. There is no reason why we cannot have rules and regulations that say that people that appear on the lists have to be democratically elected through a convention, through a primary, through one member, one vote, or through a single transferable vote. Then they are responsible to their own constituents in their own province and their own region.

The senators today are supposed to be representing their provinces. We have six in our province of Saskatchewan who are supposed to represent Saskatchewan. There is no reason why we could not have some proportionally elected MPs from Saskatchewan to represent Saskatchewan as a whole.

There is nothing there that contradicts anything he is saying. They would still be accountable. They would still be elected. They would still be accountable to constituents every four years when they would go back for election. They would still have riding offices. They would be no different from us. They would be elected riding by riding. We are elected riding by riding. They would still have constituents. Their constituencies would be bigger, but they would still be accountable. It is still the same principle.

This is the kind of thing that operates in 13 countries in the world and there has been no conflict in terms of class one and class two MPs. I wonder what problems the member sees with that kind of system.

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question in view of the fact that only three democracies in the world with more than 8 million people use the pure first past the post system: India, the United States and us. Let us not forget that George W. Bush got 550,000 fewer votes than Al Gore, yet George W. Bush is president. In view of the fact that only three countries in the world use this system of pure first past the post, I just wonder why the member across the way can defend not taking a look at bringing in a measure of PR and letting the people decide through a national referendum.

Every emerging democracy in the world has looked at our system. The Soviet Union collapsed and they all looked at our system and at other systems. Not one new country decided to adopt the first past the post system.

If no one is adopting it, people are moving away from it and we only have three countries with more than 8 million people using it, why is this member stuck in the past? Why is he so conservative, so archaic and such a dinosaur in terms of his thoughts on electoral reform?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

--George Bush.

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Germany, New Zealand--

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. If someone were to move an amendment to strike out the reference to the first referendum, would the member then support the motion? The important thing is to have a parliamentary committee or commission to study the idea of proportional representation and then put that proposition to Canadians where they can choose between the new system and the status quo. That is all we are asking for and that is what we should be doing. That is what happened in New Zealand.

I also want the member to answer a second question. If one were to look around the world at the OECD, it is only the Americans and ourselves who have the first past the post system. Even the British are moving away from first past the post as evidenced by what happened in terms of the election of the Welsh parliament and the Scottish parliament.

All the MPs in the European Community were elected by proportional representation. After the fall of the Soviet Union all the emerging democracies have a form of proportional representation.

Why have any of these new democracies and new emerging countries not adopted our voting system? Why have none of them adopted the first past the post system? If it is so good, why does everyone turn away from it?