Lorne Nystrom

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue by making some comments on Motion No. 2 which was moved by the Minister of Transport. I do wish he were in the House. He is not here right now. I think what happened in terms of Motion No. 2 is absolutely outrageous in terms of the procedure of the House of Commons.

To summarize again, the finance committee accepted a motion that I proposed to add two representatives of labour to the new board of directors for the new crown corporation that looks after security at the airports. This airport authority would have a board of directors of 11. The airports or the aerodromes would have two members on the board and the airlines would have two members on the board.

We had a representation made by Lawrence McBrearty, the national director of the steelworkers union of Canada asking for trade union representation on the board because there are a number of unions that represent the security workers. There are about 3,000 security workers in this country. The steelworkers union is the largest union representing those workers and represents most of the airports in the province of Quebec, in the city of Ottawa and in many other places around the country. There are also other unions that represent other workers and it only makes sense that the working people who are out there doing the screening have a voice on the board of directors.

The committee in its wisdom passed the motion, which would have two members of the trade unions representing the workers on the board of directors. This is what the committee did on Tuesday. On Tuesday it accepted the idea. Of course the trade union movement was pleased with this openness. It provided some fairness, justice and equity with two members on the board of directors from the airlines, two from the airports, two from the trade union movement and another five, including the chair, chosen by the governor in council, the cabinet.

It makes sense that the workers would be represented at the board of directors table. They are the frontline people. They do the screening. If we want to have a smooth process let us have both workers and management on the board of directors. It is not exactly a revolutionary idea. There are many companies in the country and around the world, public companies, privately owned companies and crown corporations, that do have labour representation on the board of directors.

Now here is what happened, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it will interest you. We got a message from a member of the government saying that the Prime Minister's Office had a problem with two labour representatives but assuring us that there would be one labour representative on the board of directors and that the government would move an amendment at report stage to reduce the two to one.

I did not like that idea because I thought there should be two. There are several unions involved and this would have offered an opportunity not to divide the workers among the various unions but to provide a bit better representation for the people who work at the airports. However, I can understand the Prime Minister's Office being a little nervous. It really does not want to have too many trade union representatives on boards of directors of crown corporations.

That assurance was made to us. As a matter of fact, I think it was around 12 noon yesterday that the assurance was passed on by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to the United Steelworkers public affairs director here in Ottawa at a meeting in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I was in attendance at that meeting where the parliamentary secretary said that there would be one member from the trade union movement on the board of directors, that the government or the powers that be were nervous about having two. The parliamentary secretary was acting in good faith. He is an honourable man. He had been told this.

He had been told this but then, later on yesterday, about 6.30 or 7 o'clock, I got a call from someone in the government informing me that the Minister of Transport would be moving a motion to reduce the two directors to no directors and no labour representation whatsoever. The minister obviously hung the parliamentary secretary out to dry and hung members of his own caucus out to dry and he shows utter contempt for the work of the finance committee of the House of Commons.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? Why do we spend millions of dollars a year in terms of parliamentary committees and committee travel when a committee moves an amendment, accepts an amendment, proposes it to the House and the minister just says “no way, that's not good enough, we're not going to listen to the finance committee, we're not going to take it seriously”?

My friend from the Alliance Party--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the House we operate in good faith. As the minister said, we take people at their word. We took people at their word. The United Steelworkers were told that. There is such a thing as good faith and trusting what people say. This can put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in a bad position.

The minister over there says he determines what goes into legislation. It is the Parliament of Canada that decides the laws of the country, not the Minister of Transport. We have parliamentary committees to examine the bills that go before the House of Commons. If the finance committee amends bills surely the Government of Canada and the minister across the way can show respect for its decisions.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? We have Liberal government members operating in good faith. An amendment was passed. They gave us assurances that they did not want two labour representatives but would accept one. All of a sudden the minister came to the House today and said no, they did not want any at all.

Why is that? It is because there is more than one union representing workers at security checkpoints across the country. My God, there is more than one airline yet the airlines would get two seats on the board of directors. Who would occupy the seats? Would it be someone from Air Canada? Who would occupy the other one? What would happen if the other one went bankrupt? Where is the logic in the minister's argument?

The airport authority or the aerodromes would get two representatives on the board of directors. Who would they be? Would they be from Pearson airport in Toronto? Would they be from a small airport? Would they be from a small airport that might go under because of the new airport tax? We do not know.

What does the minister have against the trade union movement? The United Steelworkers of America gave a reasonable presentation that the committee respected. The union is co-operating with the government with respect to the bill. It is co-operating with the Minister of Finance, the parliamentary security, Liberal members and all committee members.

The union made the argument that workers should have representation. It did not even say two. It would prefer two but it only asked for some representation. The committee said two because there would be two from the airlines and two from the airports. This was overruled by the Minister of Finance, a little tin pot dictator sitting across the way who does not listen to the expression of a parliamentary committee where members of his own party are in the majority.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Motion No. 2 that was moved by the minister. I submit that the minister showed real contempt for the democratic committee process of the House of Commons.

In committee last Tuesday members accepted an amendment that I proposed that there be two representatives of the labour movement on the board of directors of the authority. The authority would have 11 directors, two coming from the airline industry, two coming from the aerodromes and the others to be chosen by the minister or by order in council.

I moved a motion to have two representatives of the labour unions who represent workers at security points throughout the country. That motion passed in the House of Commons finance committee. What we have today is a motion by the minister totally reversing the expression of the House of Commons finance committee. What is the purpose of committees if a minister is able to overrule what a committee recommends?

To make it even worse, over the last couple of days we were told by a member of the government that someone from the Prime Minister's Office, or the powers that be, had indicated that the government did not want two labour representatives but was willing to accept one representative on the new board of directors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is an honourable man and acts in good faith. He was with me yesterday at a meeting with Dennis Deveau, a representative of the united steelworkers. He assured Mr. Deveau that there would be one labour representative on the board of directors. He said that the Prime Minister's Office did not want two representatives and would move an amendment to reduce this to one.

The parliamentary secretary was acting in good faith. I received a call at about 6 o'clock last night stating that the Minister of Finance had pulled the rug out from under us and the expression of the finance committee of the House of Commons. That is absolutely shameful. He owes an explanation to the trade movement and to the individuals who are screening people at airports right across the country. What utter contempt for the democratic process of this House of Commons.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? This committee accepted to amend the legislation and the Minister of Transport pulled the rug out from the democratic process here in the House of Commons.

I know it is getting worse as the years go on with regard to the government running the entire show. The show is being dictated by the minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office. In this case the Prime Minister's Office sent a clear signal that it would accept one labour representative on the board of directors and the Minister of Finance vetoed that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

It was the committee.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my good friend is sounding more and more like the former deputy prime minister, the member for Windsor West, and he has only been a cabinet minister for five weeks.

Could he go back and reread the comments about credit card interest rates he made after he was appointed and what he would do about them? Will he make that undertaking to the House and then come back to answer the question later on?

It sounds as though he has already been in cabinet too long with all his talk similar to what the member for Windsor West used to give us, the great gray fog in those days. However he did make some commitments that he would be doing something about it in a very specific way. We are not talking about websites or shopping around or one bank putting out a new credit card with a prime plus two interest rate. Even Liberal members are smiling at that answer.

Surely to goodness the minister deserves one more chance to put on the record what he will do specifically to make sure we get a better break in terms of interest rates and credits cards. I want to give him that opportunity. He is a good friend of mine and I want to make sure he has the opportunity to show that he is a man of his word. I do not want to see him embarrassed so I am offering him a second opportunity.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question along the same vein about a strong economy in terms of sovereignty and independence of our country.

Drawing on his background as a chief economist for a major Canadian bank I want to ask the minister about statements he made right after his appointment. He talked about high credit card interest rates. What will he do about that?

He has increased the expectations of ordinary people that the government would be doing something about it because he took a very progressive stand when he was sworn in. In the meantime, has he been slapped on the wrist? Is that why he has been silent or should we expect something in terms of an announcement that will be very progressive in the next few days?

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. He of course represents the party that is now fifth in the public opinion polls in terms of public support in the country. In terms of popularity, I wonder why that is happening. It is in fifth place in the polls in this country in terms of popularity, so it must have a program that is not very realistic. Otherwise Canadians would be buying into this.

I want to ask the member about the 12th point in the program, electoral reform, and hear what he thinks about electoral reform and bringing in a measure of proportional representation and making sure that everyone's vote is equal and no vote is wasted.

Almost every country in the world has some measure of proportional representation. The Americans do not. George W. Bush actually became president even though he had 550,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. Al Gore got more votes and George W. Bush became the president of the United States.

I would like to ask him what he thinks about the idea of serious electoral reform so that we would have a parliament that reflects how people vote. Look at parliament today. There is a majority government with 40% of the votes and there was a turnout of 60% in the last campaign. About a quarter of the Canadian people supported the Liberal government across the way and it has a mandate for five years. Even my friend from the Toronto area is pretty embarrassed by those kinds of results.

I wonder if my friend in the Alliance Party is in agreement with our position that we should have serious electoral reform so that a vote is a vote is a vote, so that no vote is wasted and every vote counts. A person could actually vote NDP in rural Alberta and it would count and a person could vote for the Alliance in Newfoundland and it would count. Everybody in the country should be equal in terms of voting power.

[Banking Industry, February 28th, 2002]

Back to the banks, Mr. Speaker. Further evidence that the consumer is being gouged is the CIBC report today that shows its revenue from retail banking, things like mortgages and credit cards, went up by 25% in the last year. Meanwhile non-retail revenue, things like corporate lending to Enron among other companies, actually went down. Consumers and bank workers are now subsidizing the CEOs.

In light of that, will the minister put his foot down and increase the capital gains tax on the excessive CEO stock options that are hurting the ordinary people of the country at the expense of Canadian citizens?

[Banking Industry, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The CEO of the Toronto Dominion Bank had a salary last year of $14.3 million and the CEO of Scotiabank some $20.3 million, all of this at the expense of consumers who are being gouged by high service charges and high credit card rates. Now the banks are considering fees at ATM machines across the country.

On behalf of the people of the country, will the Minister of Finance call his close buddies at the big banks and tell them that enough is enough?

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, productivity is important and to increase productivity we need to put more money into research and development, into education and into training, an area where we have fallen down in the past. There has bee very little in terms of innovation and productivity is extremely important.

We must also build and strengthen our economy. Part of the reason the dollar is down is so much is that our economy is being sold out. Billions and billions of dollars are leaving the country each and every day. All these things come together toward the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. Productivity is certainly one of them but it is not the only factor.