Lorne Nystrom

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-8, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 11 with the following:

“committed by a natural person, and $500,000”

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, that is why I was speaking in generalities about improving the powers of that financial agency. Motion No. 8, which is part of the first grouping, would speak directly to parliament through a democracy.

If there is a bank merger, under the current legislation the Minister of Finance would have the final say. That is the way it is today. The Minister of Finance has the final say. My amendment would, except in the case of insolvency, give the Parliament of Canada the final say. There would be a vote in parliament on whether or not a bank merger would go ahead. That is not very radical, but bank mergers could potentially be extremely important items on the public agenda or in terms of public policy.

We remember how in January 1998 four of the large banks wanted to merge: the Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank, TD and Scotiabank. We had a great debate on the matter. I am proud to say that our party at the beginning was very much opposed to these mergers, arguing that they would not help consumers and that they would concentrate more power into fewer hands in terms of financial institutions. I remember people saying that there was no use in fighting the large banks as they were powerful and would win. However, we led that opposition and within a year or so there was a lot of opposition across the country and in December 1998 the Minister of Finance said no to the merger of those four large banks.

As a result we now have a new mechanism in Bill C-8 before us today. Instead of democratizing the process and making parliament more meaningful in terms of the power MPs have to speak on behalf of their constituents, the Minister of Finance will have the final say as to whether or not a merger goes ahead.

We are saying in our amendment that a resolution of parliament should be the final say. We should vote yes or no. It would expand and empower the role of members of parliament so that someone from Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, or anywhere in the country would have the final say in terms of the debate and the argument as to whether or not a merger is in the public good. We would decide if it is good for the country, if it will help consumers, or if it is good for rural Canada or different parts of Canada where mergers are to take place. The power should not reside in the hands of one minister, the Minister of Finance.

Madam Speaker, please try to divorce yourself from the idea that we will have the Minister of Finance for all time. This minister and the next minister may or may not make the proper decision. We should not leave that power in the hands of the Minister of Finance.

This is part of parliamentary democracy. It is part of democratic and parliamentary reform. It is part of empowering this place to be more meaningful and relevant to Canadians. When we see the alienation from this parliament and we see fewer people casting their ballots, it makes us wonder why we do not empower ourselves and make this institution more meaningful.

The House of Commons has to be a check and a balance on the powers of the executive and cabinet. Why do we not do that as members of parliament?

If members across the way voted for the motion, it would not be a vote of non-confidence in the government. In the case of a merger, unless there is an insolvency, parliament would have the final say. In the case of an insolvency the Minister of Finance would have the power to make that decision and make it very quickly. If the process is established under the bill, and this item is on the public agenda, then why would the Parliament of Canada not have the final say instead of the Minister of Finance?

My motion is a timid little step in the direction of parliamentary reform and parliamentary democracy and would make this place more relevant and meaningful. I hope members across the way will see this as an opportunity to bring in parliamentary reform and bring back more democracy to make this place more meaningful and more important in the lives of the average citizen.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 1 deals with Motion Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13. Two of them are in my name and I wish to say a couple of words about them.

Motion No. 2 deals with the powers of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The bill is a very complicated piece of legislation dealing with financial institutions. It is 900 pages thick and affects about 1,400 pages of statutes. It is perhaps the most complicated bill ever debated in the House of Commons as one particular bill.

In addition to the bill and the statutes that will be changed, much of what will happen will be through regulation by the federal government. The regulations are extremely important in terms of the purport and the effect of the legislation on the ordinary person living in Halifax or in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

We should do a number of things to improve the legislation before the House today. I would suggest one very small thing that can be found in one of my motions. The powers of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada should be enhanced in terms of penalizing corporations that actually violate the new law. Under the present regulation it is suggested that an individual would be charged up to $50,000 if there is a violation and a financial institution would be charged $100,000.

My amendment would change the maximum penalty ceiling for corporations from $100,000 to $500,000. Some may ask why $500,000. It is because $500,000 was originally suggested by the Liberal Party in one of its white papers a year or so ago. This is not a very dangerous amendment. It is something that could be supported by the House and is perfectly reasonable in terms of a penalty.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, March 27th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-8, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 39 with the following:

“made.

(4) Except in the case where an amalgamation is the result of one or more of the applicants not being financially sound, an amalgamation must be approved by a resolution of the House of Commons supported by a majority of the members of that House and a resolution of the Senate supported by a majority of the members of that House.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-8, in Clause 183, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 367 the following:

“978.1 On the expiration of one year after the coming into force of this Act, and on the expiration of every year thereafter, all regulations made in the previous year by the Governor in Council under this Act shall stand referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose and the committee shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, undertake a comprehensive review of such regulations and shall, within one month after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report thereon to Parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the object, impact or necessity of such regulations or any other aspects thereof that the committee deems appropriate.”

[Taxation, March 22nd, 2001]

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

Tomorrow will be the second anniversary of the House passing my motion on the Tobin tax, the tax on international financial transactions. Canada was the first parliament in the world to endorse the idea. This has sparked a global movement of parliamentarians in support of the idea.

The time has come to put Canada's leadership once again in the forefront. Since the minister voted for the motion in the House, would he be willing to put this idea on the agenda at the United Nations conference on financing development? The deadline for such a move is April 15 and the conference takes place next year.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is worse now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I well remember in 1968, when I was first elected, that there was greater respect for the Parliament of Canada. In the days of Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Al MacEachen, and Mr. Ged Baldwin, there were many great parliamentarians.

As I said, any ministerial statement was made here in the House of Commons. This was the place that was the most important back then, but in the last 15 or 25 years, a lack of respect for the Parliament of Canada has gradually set in.

I think that this system has very quickly changed with the present government, which was elected in 1993. Under the Mulroney government, there was greater respect for parliamentary committees. I clearly remember the Standing Committee on Finance, which was chaired by Mr. Blenkarn. I also have very clear memories of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which was chaired by another Progressive Conservative member.

The finance and foreign affairs committees had a certain independence, as did many parliamentary committees. That was 8, 9, 10 or 15 years ago.

Now, however, committees are often playpens for government backbenchers. This is not right. This is not a good parliamentary system. We need democracy in the House of Commons. We need an important role for members from all regions of Canada.

It is very important to have parliamentary reform, to have real democracy here. Even in England, there have been a number of occasions where the government was defeated by its own backbenchers. This was a reality for Mr. Blair. It was a reality for Margaret Thatcher and for John Major. This was a reality in England.

In our country, everyone must vote with the party. This is not right, this in no way resembles a real parliamentary system. This is not a system that is good for the collective health of Canadians.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words in the debate as someone who has been in the House for quite a while. I was first elected in 1968. This is my ninth mandate in the House of Commons, having missed the period from 1993 to 1997. I have seen a lot of differences, and I think many of the differences are negative in terms of the lack of seriousness and respect the present government shows toward parliament.

A friend said to me a few minutes ago in the lobby that the government does not really have respect for the House of Commons. I think there is a lot of truth in that. In 1968, for example, there were a lot of great parliamentarians. I remember John Diefenbaker, Allan MacEachen, Ged Baldwin, Stanley Knowles, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Réal Caouette, and people of that sort.

In those days there seemed to be more respect for the House by the government and a lot more real debates would take place. I do not think a serious announcement was made by the government in the late 1960s and early 1970s that was not made on the floor of the House of Commons. The minister would come to the House, he or she would make a statement, and the response would come from the opposition parties.

Gradually over time that practice changed. I think it changed more radically after the election in 1993 of the government that now sits across the way. Even in the days of Brian Mulroney and the Tories there seemed to be more give and take in this place. In those days I sat on the finance committee which was chaired by Mr. Blenkarn. It was one of many committees that had a semblance of independence about it, a certain arm's length relationship with the government.

There should be a certain amount of creative tension between the executive and parliament. Parliament should hold the executive to account. We do not have that today. That is one reason our politics have descended into a vortex of great negativity which is getting more and more negative all the time.

It does not mean that in the former days it was not positive. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona was here in 1979, I believe, and on. It was not any less partisan in those days. It was still very partisan. If we ever want to see somebody partisan, watch a John Diefenbaker or a Tommy Douglas or an Allan MacEachen. They were really partisan individuals and great parliamentarians. However there was great debate in those days and parliament really meant something. It was the centre of activity in terms of public policy in the country. Much of that is gone now.

We are heading toward a crisis in terms of this institution and the respect that it does not have across the country. Today we are having a debate in the House. As I speak I hear about 10 to 12 members speaking in the House, and that is normal. Even the members do not take this place very seriously. During the day, of course, committees are meeting at the same time. This place is getting more and more irrelevant in terms of decision-making and in terms of having a real impact. We need to take a serious look at real parliamentary reform.

In addition, we need electoral reform. We must look at the idea of bringing in a measure of proportional representation. We must do something about the Senate. I believe we should abolish it. A lot of people believe we should reform it. In the polls only 5% of the Canadian people support the existing undemocratic, unelected Senate, yet parliamentarians have continued decade after decade to support that institution across the way. We must do some of these things and do them soon.

In the House we start with the idea of confidence votes. We have far too many confidence votes in the House of Commons. We are the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world. We model ourselves after the British parliament. It is common to have a bill defeated in the British House of Commons.

The Blair government was exceedingly popular in its first three or four years and is still popular. It has had many bills defeated by its own backbenchers. It was the same in the days of the Thatcher Conservatives. Margaret Thatcher was extremely popular, had great control over the country in terms of her agenda and her vision, and changed that country dramatically. Despite that, there were several occasions when she lost votes in the House of Commons on certain bills. I say so what? All the better. All the more democratic.

I meet government backbenchers every day who are horrendously frustrated. At least in opposition one can get up and make a speech and criticize a policy or advocate a new vision or direction. Government members cannot do that to the extent they should because of the power of the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO and the PCO have the power to appoint cabinet ministers, committee chairs and parliamentary secretaries. They decide different trips, appointments and positions of influence.

That system must end. It must change if parliament is to be more relevant in the future. We need fewer confidence votes. The only confidence votes should be on budget bills, money bills, and things of importance like the throne speech which lays out the vision of the government for the next parliamentary session. Those things must change.

Committees must have more independence. We elect the Speaker of the House of Commons by secret ballot and the whips are not on. We have now had at least two Speakers who were probably not the favourite of the Prime Minister of the day. I am not talking just about this Prime Minister, but former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Members voted freely for the person they thought could best fill the duties of the Chair.

We cannot even take that principle to committees of the House of Commons and freely and secretly elect the person we think should chair the committee. My God, how timid we are in the House of Commons.

I will give another example. Just yesterday in the finance committee we were studying Bill C-8. It is the most voluminous bill in the history of the country. It the financial institutions bill. It has 900 pages and affects about 1,400 pages of statues. It is a very big bill and a very complicated bill. One of its recommendations is to set up a new consumer agency. There is supposed to be a commissioner of that consumer agency appointed by the Minister of Finance.

I moved a tiny amendment that said before the appointment of that commissioner of the agency, the name should be referred to the finance committee to have a look at that, not to ratify it, but to have a look at it and express an opinion. Every single government member voted no. Every single opposition member voted yes. We could not even empower ourselves to have a look at the minister's suggestion before the minister appointed that person. What a minuscule almost irrelevant piece of parliamentary reform, and yet we have the stupidity in this place to be so polarized.

Where the Prime Minister's office cannot control each and every thing that happens, then it is no good. I saw intelligent and highly educated men and women who went to that committee yesterday and voted nine to zip in opposition of that minuscule step. I know that probably seven of those nine would have liked to have taken that little step to reform this parliamentary institution, but they could not because of the kind of system we are locked into.

The only way it will change is if government backbenchers empower themselves and if we opposition parliamentarians empower ourselves and say no to the government from time to time, like they do in Great Britain and like they do in almost every other democratic country around the world.

There is no reason why parliamentary committees should not have more independence to initiate legislation and the independence in timetable of legislation. There is no reason why a parliamentary secretary has to come to a standing committee as a member of that particular committee and dictate how to vote on each and every single amendment.

The bill we talked about yesterday, Bill C-8, is a big bill. Hon. members should ask the member for Elk Island how long it took the finance committee to consider it yesterday. It took maybe an hour and a half. It was a futile exercise, because every single amendment that the opposition proposed, the parliamentary secretary, who was the first person recognized, would say no. All the government members voted no. All the opposition voted yes. The only amendments that were accepted were government amendments. Again, only the parliamentary secretary spoke to them. What kind of parliamentary system is this?

We have to change the system to make it more relevant. No wonder people are growing frustrated. No wonder they are not voting or participating. They rank politicians close to the bottom of the totem pole in terms of respect in this country. These are the kinds of things we should look at.

We should look at more permanent membership on parliamentary committees. We see this revolving door on these committees, mostly on the government side but not exclusively on that side. We need more permanent membership so people develop some expertise, some independence, some backbone and some gall.

I look at my friend across the way who was a respected member of the national assembly. I know he has a strong feeling about reforming this place. I know that from all the articles which were written about him two or three weeks ago in the press about making this place more meaningful. If people would think like he does and then put into action the feelings that he has, we could make some meaningful reforms in this institution.

In my last minute I want to talk about the whole question of appointments. I do not think there is any democratic country in the world where the prime minister has so much power. The Prime Minister appoints the head of the national police, the RCMP. He appoints all the justices of the supreme court. He appoints the head of the military. He appoints all the cabinet ministers. He appoints all the senators. He appoints all the heads of the crown corporations. He appoints all the heads of the important boards and agencies. He appoints all the lieutenant governors. In addition to that, he appoints thousands and thousands of people to boards and agencies.

As a result, we often get a lot of people who should not be sitting on those particular boards and agencies. There is no vetting or venting of the process by a parliamentary committee. In many cases a parliamentary committee should have the authority to either ratify or reject the nomination of the Government of Canada. What is so radical about that? At the very least, the Parliament of Canada, through a relevant committee, should review many more of these appointments.

Parliament itself should have more timetables. We should have a timetable to set throne speeches, set budgets and a fixed election date to take that power away from the executive and the Prime Minister of Canada, and put more power back into the hands of the people through their elected representatives, the people elected in all parties in this House.

[Taxation, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada says exactly the opposite. It says that the gap is widening between the rich and the poor and that the government's tax package will widen that gap even further.

Some corporate executives in this country have saved millions of dollars because of the cut in taxes and capital gains. My neighbour in Saskatchewan, John Keen, told me this morning that he saved $25 on his $500 capital gains on a small mutual fund.

In light of this kind of evidence from Statistics Canada, will the minister now consider a wealth tax in this country at a similar level to the United States? The American government is, of course, admired by both this government and the official opposition.

[Taxation, March 16th, 2001]

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

A recent Statistics Canada study suggested that the wealthiest half of Canadian families have 94% of the wealth and the poorest half of Canadian families have some 6% of the wealth. In other words, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and moving further away from the Trudeau vision of a just society.

In light of that, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why the government chose to cut capital gains tax a few months ago when it clearly favoured the rich over the poor, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor in this country?

[The Economy, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Dow fell below 10,000 points. The Canadian dollar is now one cent away from an historic low in the country. There are now 63,000 fewer jobs in agriculture than one year ago. The U.S. and Japanese economies are both in serious trouble. Yet there has been no federal budget in the country for the last 13 months.

Will the government finally bring in a budget this spring to deal with all these serious problems, or does the government intend to continue fiddling until February 2002, a full two years since the last budget?