Lorne Nystrom

[James Tobin, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to James Tobin, one of the most influential economists of our time who passed away yesterday at the age of 84.

James Tobin won the Nobel prize in economics and belongs to a rare breed of economists who believed that economic policy must serve the common good. Tobin will be remembered for his vision of a tax on international currency transactions, the Tobin tax, which would have helped alleviate the devastating effects of financial speculation.

In Canada, James Tobin inspired the passage of Motion No. 239 in support of the Tobin tax which I had the honour to present to the House. The passage on March 23, 1999 of the Canadian motion, was a world premiere and sparked a global movement from parliamentarians, NGOs and civil society. The French parliament has recently taken the Canadian motion to a new level by amending the 2002 finance law to institute the Tobin tax once other countries in the European Union follow in step.

Thanks to James Tobin the world will eventually be a better place for all of us to live in.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I remember my hon. friend making a speech in the House against the idea of a flat or single rate tax that was advocated by the Alliance, previously the Reform Party, prior to the last election campaign. Is this tax of $24 a trip not like a single rate or flat tax? Is he not now supporting something he actually spoke against prior to the last election campaign?

[Banking Industry, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the banks have been overcharging consumers with record interest rate spreads on a $50 billion credit card debt. Banks have also been gouging consumers by charging them interest on money that has not yet been advanced to the vendor.

The government certainly uses its power to keep its junior ministers and backbenchers in line. Will it use its power to intervene on the side of consumers in their struggle against these huge banks that are gouging the public with these interest rate spreads?

[Supply, March 12th, 2002]

Jean Chrétien.

[2002 Winter Paralympic Games, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all Canadian paralympians participating in the 2002 Salt Lake City Paralympic Games currently underway.

I congratulate Brian McKeever of Canmore, Alberta, who teamed up with his brother and guide Robin and won the gold in the five kilometre cross country classic ski race; Daniel Wesley of New Westminster, British Columbia, who became Canada's first multiple medallist by winning a silver medal in the sit-ski Super G to add to the bronze medal he won on Saturday; and Karolina Wisniewska of Calgary who captured bronze in the standing downhill. Once again the CBC has provided superb coverage of our athletes and all the excitement that is unfolding as these games go into full gear.

The country is behind team Canada and it makes us all proud today.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question in his capacity as an economist. He is saying to the House on the $24 tax that whether it is a long haul flight or a short haul flight, the cost of security is still the same.

If we buy the argument that the cost of security is still the same because it is going through the same security people, as an economist what is his prediction as to how this will affect people flying a short haul distance as opposed to long haul distance? The cost of the ticket will be increased by a much larger percentage on a Regina to Winnipeg flight than on a Vancouver to Toronto flight for example. As an economist, when there is that kind of increase, which would be a considerable percentage increase, what kind of a slowdown does he predict we will see in traffic on short haul flights?

I think of the small airports such as Grande Prairie, Alberta and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan where many flights are extremely short haul, where a $24 tax on a return ticket can be well over 10% or 12% of the ticket. However if there is a $24 tax on a ticket from Vancouver to Toronto return, it is only 1% of the cost of the ticket.

What is his projection as to the impact on travel for short haul flights if this tax remains in effect for a year at the $24 rate? I know he will say that it will be reviewed in the fall but let us assume it will stay in place for a year. What will be the impact on short haul travel as opposed to long haul travel in this country and the impact on some of the small airports?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the secretary of state for financial institutions about the amendment carried by the finance committee that would allow trade unions representing security workers to sit on boards of directors of new crown corporations. He said it was democratic because parliament would decide.

I remind the secretary of state that a committee of the House is also parliament. It is part of parliament. It is not a committee of the whole where the Prime Minister's Office can override what parliamentary committees have decided. Parliamentary committees have more expertise on issues than parliament as a whole because people from all five parties who sit on the committees are responsible to know and study the issues, hear and question witnesses, and consider seriously all the amendments put forward.

The finance committee in its wisdom decided to support the amendment. Members from all political parties voted yes. Is the secretary of state comfortable with the role the Prime Minister's Office has played by overriding, through the Minister of Transport, the wisdom of the finance committee?

Surely to goodness we could have some independence from the secretary of state across the way. Surely he or some other minister could say he was uncomfortable with the interference of the Prime Minister's Office in overriding the wishes of the committee. If not, why do we have committees? Why do we waste our time going to committees? Why do we put all the time into the issue if the Prime Minister's Office can come in here and say it does not matter anyway? Why do we put in the time if the PMO can override the witnesses, disregard the wisdom of all the Liberal and opposition members of parliament and ignore what the committee is saying?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is a relatively new member of the House and the cabinet so I want to ask him two questions. One concerns reforming this place. The other one is on the substantive issue itself.

The all party committee agreed to one of my amendments, which was to put labour representation on the new board of directors of the security authority, the new crown corporation that is created. We had an amendment saying that the labour unions, representing the security workers themselves, would be sitting at the boardroom table. That was an amendment accepted by the all party committee with support from some members of every party in the House.

In terms of the independence of the finance committee, as the member was a member of the finance committee at one time I would like him to comment on whether he is happy with the government's decision, which I assume is directly from the PMO, to override what the committee recommended in terms of having labour trade union representation on the board of directors.

This was a committee decision and it came to the House as a bill that was amended to include representatives from the trade union movement, two representatives, in fact. The idea was put forward by the national director of the United Steelworkers of America, Lawrence McBrearty, and it was very well received by the committee. The amendment was accepted, voted on, carried and became part of the legislation. Why do we have a committee system in the House and spend all kinds of money on that committee system if the government can override what the committee decides? That is fundamental parliamentary democracy. I am concerned about that and I hope that the minister across the way, as a very new member of the cabinet, would get up and express the same kind of concern.

Then substantively I would ask him, what has he against putting in legislation a guarantee that the people who are the frontline workers, the security workers in the airports in this country, have some representation at the boardroom table?

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. I wonder if there is unanimous consent in the House to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder about the whole process of parliament. This committee was dominated by government members who supported an amendment to the bill. Members of all five parties supported the amendment to the bill. It comes to this place as an amendment to the bill from the finance committee of the House of Commons and the minister says no, it is not any good and he will wipe it out entirely.

Now one of the members of parliament has moved a motion to dispose of this amendment by the Minister of Transport and a bunch of Liberals rush in from eating their dinners with food crumbs on their suits not even knowing what they are voting on and voting against what the finance committee recommended in a democratically constructed House of Commons.

What shame. What contempt for the parliamentary process.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you as a former referee in the national hockey league must be feeling exactly the same way as I am feeling about the way this place operates and the lack of respect--