Lorne Nystrom

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

The member for Prince Albert is talking about his favourite constituent David Orchard . I understand the member for Prince Albert received a lot of political lessons years ago from Mr. David Orchard, but those are stories I will tell at another time. I know he is very close to Mr. Orchard and part of the movement to unite the so-called right in the country.

I am getting a bit distracted on this because the member for Prince Albert was not part of this great fight against bank mergers, even though the Alliance is supposed to be a great populace party that speaks for the ordinary people, but it was not there.

We had a national campaign and we fought against the mergers of these big banks. The member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Churchill were part of that campaign. After eight or nine months, the minister of finance, who is now the private member for LaSalle—Émard, finally said, no, that these bank mergers were not in the public interest.

Since then, we have had some committee studies and committee reports. We had a study by the Senate banking committee and then of course the House of Commons committee report, which I am moving concurrence in today.

The interesting thing is one of the recommendations of the Senate banking committee was that there should not be a role for the Senate or the House of Commons when it came to looking at bank mergers. It wanted to take the House of Commons right out of making a comment on whether bank mergers should occur.

That is the audacity of people who are not elected. Maybe the Solicitor General across the way is hanging his head in shame about this. The audacity of people who are not elected, or accountable or democratic, to say that when there is a proposed bank merger, the House of Commons finance committee should not comment on that proposed merger.

I can see the Solicitor General across the way is shaking his head in shame about what the Senate said about this proposal. I hope the Solicitor General will get up and give us a few comments on why the House of Commons should have a major role to play when it comes to proposal for bank merger in Canada.

When I look at big banks, they do have special rights and special privileges. They operate under a charter of the House of Commons. They are held in a great deal of trust by the Canadian people. Therefore, when we look at a bank merger, it is very important that we look at a number of factors. One is access for all Canadians, regardless of where one lives.

In the previous bank merger campaign, I remember hopping on a small airplane with the member for Churchill and flying up to Lynn Lake, a community that had lost its last remaining bank. I remember sitting down with her and meeting the town council, members of the chamber of commerce and ordinary citizens. This was a community that had lost its last bank.

Access to the Canadian people is extremely important, yet we have a government majority across the way which is now going to facilitate the merger of banks in Canada. Of course the Alliance, on the other hand, would just do anything the banks want. I am very surprised the member for Prince Albert would agree, particularly since one of his best friends is David Orchard. That is one important point.

Another important point, and this is a factor that social democrats raise all the time, is the access of banking and equity capital for business. A social democratic party is a party that is very concerned about access to capital by small and medium sized business. We have heard many stories over the years of big banks pulling out of the market in terms of--

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented on Thursday, March 27, 2003 be concurred in.

I would like to take the opportunity to debate this motion. I will not comment on the proceedings that have taken place in the last few minutes, but I have been in the House even longer than the member for Calgary Centre, and I find this to be a very interesting debate.

I will not take very long in the House today but I invite other members to respond to the motion for concurrence in the report of the finance committee regarding bank mergers, which was tabled in the House on March 27.

I also did a minority report on that, Mr. Speaker, and I would recommend it to you in terms of the wise counsel that I think I am providing to the House. On March 31 I put on the agenda before the House a motion to concur in the finance committee report.

I know today we are talking a lot about the first nations' issues and problems. This is not exactly something that is not relevant to first nations in how we organize financial institutions in our country. As I look around the country, the time has come to have a serious debate in the House on the whole question of the future of banks and bank mergers and whether they should be allowed. They are very important institutions for the future of our country.

The finance committee did a study on the public interest impact of bank mergers in Canada.

I want to go back for a minute. I remember that announcement in January 1998 that four big banks wanted to merge: the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank, the CIBC and the Scotiabank. I remember the chairman of the Royal Bank, Mr. Cleghorn at the time, Mr. Barrett, the chairman of the Bank of Montreal, and others thought they had a fait accompli when they announced this great merger.

There were a number of us in our party, in the trade union movement, the Council of Canadians and some other progressive people who decided we wanted to fight the merger because it was not in the interest of the Canadian public. Notably absent of course were members of the Alliance.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition this afternoon signed by 117 people who want to keep the Hubbard post office open in my riding.

What the petitioners say is that the government across the way imposed a moratorium on rural post office closures several years ago. Now there are rumours that there are some postal outlets, such as the one in Hubbard, Saskatchewan, that are slated for closure.

The closure of rural post offices will do harm to the continued viability of many of our rural communities. Therefore, the petitioners are asking us to, one, keep the Hubbard post office open, and two, retain the moratorium on rural post office closures across the country.

[Air India, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I my question is for the Solicitor General.

The RCMP alleges that CSIS may have had a mole that may have had prior knowledge of the Air India attack. We do not know this because CSIS destroyed some of the key tapes.

As the minister responsible for both the RCMP and CSIS he has been stonewalling in terms of providing the answers.

I want to ask the minister whether he would agree now to order a public inquiry into the Air India attack at the conclusion of the current trial? The families of the victims that died have a right to know what happened. The public has a right to know what happened. Will he order an inquiry at the conclusion of the current trial?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I want to switch to another area but I want the minister to make a short comment when he answers about the contributions and grants to legal aid research that will be eliminated at the end of 2003, which is only about seven months away. Perhaps he could tell me why that has happened. It may be interesting to hear the answer.

I want to switch now to the sex offender registry. As the minister knows, the RCMP now has CPIC, which is a database for sex offenders that is used around the country by the police. Ontario now has a sex offender registry that came into force retroactively.

Since we are debating Bill C-23, which is a proposal to have a national sex offender registry, I want to ask him what the advantages of the new registry will be over the existing ones, which are the Ontario one and CPIC.

If he would also make a comment about the legal aid question, I would appreciate it.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I want to switch to a different topic for the Minister of Justice. A number of years ago when we repatriated the Constitution I was the NDP spokesperson. I was very involved in the whole process for about a year.

One of the very important parts of the Constitution was the charter of rights. Section 15 of the charter of rights states “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection, equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.

This right is not really universally enforced in a courtroom because our legal system is blind to the costs of litigation. Sometimes the impact on citizens who do not have much money is greater in terms of the fight for equality than someone who has deeper pockets. What is the minister doing to make sure that all citizens in this country have equal access to the law, in particular a clause like clause 15 of the charter?

More specifically, I also notice in the estimates that the contributions and grants to legal aid research will be eliminated after 2003, in other words eliminated altogether. I want to ask him why that is being done in terms of equality for all citizens before the law.

I also want to ask him whether or not he is open to the idea of greater funding for legal aid programs across the country. Of course these are cost shared with the provinces. I am thinking particularly on the civil side of the legal aid question which in many people's opinion is now underfunded. I would like to ask him what his future plans are for expanding services of this type to make sure that all citizens regardless of whether their pocketbook is thick or thin have equal access to the law in our country.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I will ask another question of the Minister of Justice.

Going back to the aboriginal people again, I want the Minister of Justice to comment for a moment or two on what he thinks the federal government can do in terms of some of the alternatives for aboriginal people. Sentencing circles are gaining popularity as an alternative form of justice. Does he have any other comments on the kinds of restorative justice that the aboriginal people may want? This is a question I have been asked a number of times by aboriginal people.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I certainly have a lot of praise for the RCMP but my understanding is that the ratio of RCMP officers to population is in decline. I wonder if the minister can verify that, if not tonight at a later date. If it is in decline, does he know why that is happening and does he have any plans to turn that around?

My other question for the Solicitor General has to do with whole issue of gun safety. The registration has been a controversial issue but I do not want to get into that tonight. What I want to ask him about is the whole issue of the safety of firearms.

The majority of homicides or deaths from firearms in Canada are either suicides or accidents. I think that is something that puts the whole gun control issue into a bit of perspective. Yet we have some of the safety programs, such as one in Saskatchewan called SAFE which has now expired. There was a contract and it has now expired.

I am wondering why the minister's government would not be spending more money on the safe use of firearms for children and for adults since the majority of deaths by firearms actually occur due to accidents or suicides.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased there is progress being made and I hope it is substantive once we get back to the answer.

In terms of what is being spent on RCMP officers, I noticed in the estimates that the RCMP officers in terms of the population have been declining in recent years. I wonder if the government has any plans to increase the number of RCMP officers in our communities right across the country. I am not speaking only of the aboriginal communities but of the RCMP officers in general because there has been a decline in the number of officers in proportion to our population.

Why has this happened and is there a plan to turn this around? One way to prevent crime is to have more officers involved in the community.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, in the same area, could the Solicitor General tell us what percentage of the RCMP officers are of aboriginal background in comparison to the population of aboriginal people in Canada? Could he tell us what progress is being made in this area?

I have 12 first nations Indian reserves in my riding and several thousand first nations and Métis people in the city of Regina, in the part of the city that I represent. I am often asked why there are not more RCMP officers who come from first nation and Métis background. What is the percentage and what progress have we made or are we indeed slipping backwards in proportion to the population?