Lorne Nystrom

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am not a Liberal so I guess the member should ask that question of Liberals across the way.

I suppose one reason they raised taxes so often was that they wanted to spend $60 million on an unelected Senate. I know my friend is very interested in the Senate issue in terms of trying to abolish the unelected Senate. We may disagree on what it should be replaced with, but certainly spending $60 million on an unelected Senate is a waste of taxpayer money.

There are all kinds of other waste as well. The member enumerated some of them. I am aware of some of the ones he has talked about, but I do not know about sex changes for soldiers. Maybe he could elaborate on that, but I certainly know about the fountains in Shawinigan and all kinds of other money wasted across the country.

The one I referred to specifically was letting the Bronfman family get away with not paying a penny in taxes on the $700 million in capital gains. The member makes a very good point. If we do not tax certain things then other people will be taxed to fill the gap. If the Bronfmans are not taxed on $700 million worth of capital gains, who will pay the bill? It will be ordinary working people in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or anywhere else in the country. They then pay the bill.

That gets back to my original point that we need a fair tax system based on the ability to pay. It should be a progressive tax system, not a flat tax system because the wealthy people get away with a better deal when everybody pays the same tax rate. A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay is the way to go, with tax reductions for middle income people, with a lot higher exemption that would exempt more and more poor people, and with tax credits for children so that we have a children's agenda to invest in the future.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.

I want to say a few words on the bill before us today, the budget implementation act, Bill C-32. In many ways I suppose this is the wind up of the budget debate in the House that started back in February. It actually started before that with the finance committee holding hearings around the country last fall, taking ideas to the Department of Finance and giving Canadians the opportunity to have a platform to express their ideas of what should go into the budget.

The great debate really was what to do with the so called fiscal dividend. The prediction made by the minister in London last fall was that we would have a surplus of around $10 billion this fiscal year and $95 billion to $100 billion over a five year period. Since then we have had revisions: this was even too conservative; the surplus would be even higher; and the flexibility even greater than that in terms of the economy that is going pretty well full blast across the country.

The debate is about what we do with the money. We hear from the Reform Party members of course, who basically want to spend all the money on tax cuts. The Canadian people are saying that a tax cut is about their third, fourth or fifth priority. What Canadians have said to us as we toured around the country and in poll after poll is that the main thing they want is to reinvest the money in the Canadian people, particularly in the health care and education systems for our future and the future of our kids. That is where the Canadian people want to go.

We are seeing great opposition to that, not just from the Alliance Party but from the Liberals across the way. The parliamentary secretary knows that the Liberals have cut back on spending on health care by more money than any Conservative government has done in the history of this country. They have cut back on health care by billions and billions of dollars, to the point where the federal government is now paying, in terms of cash, 13 cents or 14 cents on the dollar compared to 50 cents on the dollar some 20 or 30 years ago when medicare was introduced in the country.

After the pushing and prodding by the CCF and the NDP, the Pearson government introduced medicare back in the 1960s. The deal at that time was that the federal government paid 50% and the provinces paid 50%. Under the current Liberal regime, the Liberal government pays 13 cents or 14 cents on the dollar in terms of cash for health care. That is why there is a crisis in health care from one part of Canada to the other.

It is the reason we are now being threatened with bill 11 in Alberta and the opening of the floodgates to a private health care system that would operate alongside a public health care system. In other words, it would be two tier American style health care as a result of a Liberal government not putting enough money into health care in Canada.

That is the major priority of the Canadian people in poll after poll and in calls to our offices, e-mails and faxes. When we talk to people on the street, they want more money in health care. They want to keep a single payer health system, a public health system. We do not want American style health care in Canada. That is the way we will go if we do not persuade the government to change its ways and put more money into health care. The money is there. It is not as if the money was not there like four or five years ago. The cash is there and it is a matter of what to do with this priority.

We are hearing a lot about education from young people and from people in general. They want more federal funds going into post-secondary education and training to prepare people for the new economy. I suggest that knowledge is power and extremely important in terms of building a strong economy for the future. That is the way we should be going in terms of more federal tax dollars going into educating and training people, building a strong economy, and building skills so we can be competitive with the rest of the world in the future.

These should be the two big priorities of the government across the way, but what does the government do? It put more money into cutting taxes in the last budget than it did into health care because it is afraid of the Reform Party, the so-called alliance party which keeps pushing the tax cut issue.

I think we should mention a word or two about the alliance reform party. It is now advocating a 17% flat tax across the board. Regardless of how wealthy we are, we would pay 17% in taxes. On first blush that might sound pretty attractive to some people. Then we find out that for people making $30,000 a year their tax cut would be $488. For people making $100,000 a year, their tax cut would be $7,988. For very wealthy people making $250,000 a year, their tax cut would be $25,988. People making that kind of money should be paying more.

We have historically had a progressive tax system. Currently the system has three different tax rates: 17%, 26% and 29%. The middle rate will be reduced gradually from 26% to 23%. That is progressivity: 17%, 26% and 29%.

When the very same conservatives that now call themselves the alliance reform party were in power, they made the tax system less progressive. There used to be seven or eight different tax brackets back in the 1970s and early 1980s. Now they want to eliminate progressivity altogether. A millionaire will get a huge tax cut. One should vote for the Reform Party if one is a millionaire.

One of the leadership candidates who is an extremist in more ways than one, Stockwell Day, has been pushing the idea of the flat tax and helping the rich for the last year or so. He is not just an extremist in that regard. He is an extremist in all kinds of social conservative ideas as well in terms of intolerance.

That is not the way Canadian people want to go. Canadian people want a progressive tax system. They want to reduce taxes for low and middle income people. They still want enough tax money from those who can afford to pay taxes to invest in health care, education, farmers, the fisheries and the basic industries that provide a job and livelihood for each and every Canadian. That is the way we should go.

It is also interesting how the government failed to eliminate some the loopholes in the tax system. On the weekend I read with interest an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 3, headlined “Taxman ordered to justify $2B deal”. There was the ruling of a judge in a court case on Friday. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that George Harris, a Winnipeg activist, could take Revenue Canada to court to contest the tax collector's decision to allow $2 billion in family assets, believed to be those of the Bronfman family, to be transferred out of the country and the capital gains to be transferred out of the country tax free. This was a ruling back in 1991 which did not come to light until 1996. The government promised legislation, but the government has not really acted upon the promise to bring in legislation to ensure this kind of thing does not happen.

According to the Ottawa Citizen and the information in the courts, the Bronfman family transferred assets worth $2 billion, I gather stocks in particular, from Canada to the United States in 1991. The capital gains on those stocks were about $700 million. Some officials in the Department of National Revenue, in a secret meeting where no minutes were kept according to the court documents, decided that the Bronfman family did not have to pay tax on that $700 million of capital gains.

Where are the priorities of the government? It will tax the ordinary citizen who is making $10,000 or $20,000 a year. If that person fails to pay taxes he will get a tax notice. He will be penalized and will have interest added to the tax owed. The government will go after him hook, line and sinker until that tax is paid. One could be a widowed granny and the government will go after her, but the Bronfman family with $700 million in capital gains paid not one penny in tax.

Is that fair? Is that just? Is it a true, just and fair democratic society that has a system which is so unfair and so unjust?

I conclude by saying that the Liberals have let this happen. The reform party alliance would make it go even faster. Just this morning its finance critic said he wanted a tax reduction for the wealthy, for the rich. Even my friend from Calgary is hanging his head in shame when he hears those words. The wealthy and the rich, the Pocklingtons and the Bronfmans of the world, would get a tax cut from the reform party alliance.

That is not where the Canadian people stand. The grassroots people say they want tax fairness, tax justice and equality. They want money in health care and money in education to build a strong economy.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Except the Bronfmans.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and then end with a question.

One of the concerns I have about the bill before us today is that the powers of the wheat board stay intact and the wheat board remains the single desk selling agency for the grain of the Canadian farmers. That is extremely important. Having been born and raised in Saskatchewan, having seen the plight of the farmers over the years and having heard the stories of my grandfather many years ago about the fight for the wheat board, it is extremely important that we maintain the wheat board as a single desk selling agency.

One concern I have is that the new forces of the extreme right in the country, the Reform Party, which now calls itself the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party, wants to put an end to the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it. It says it wants to allow competition. I read in the Regina Leader-Post this morning that Tom Long who is running for the leadership of the reform alliance party is saying he wants to “put an end to the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly”. We heard the same thing repeated in the House this morning by members of the Reform Party.

That goes against what Canadian farmers have fought for, believed in and have lived for, for many years, that we have a very strong Canadian Wheat Board that is a single desk selling agency that markets all the wheat for the Canadian farmers across the prairies.

I want to ask my colleague whether or not he shares the same concern I have about this extreme right-wing movement of the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance party, that wants to gut the Canadian Wheat Board in effect by allowing competition to the Canadian Wheat Board, and end the Canadian Wheat Board in the role we have always known which is to protect the farmers of this country.

[Committees Of The House, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make. We are now seeing from the Canadian Alliance something to which western farmers had better pay attention. It wants to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is also saying that it wants it opened up to competition to allow the Cargills of the world to get involved.

It is a matter of time before the wheat board disappears. The wheat board only succeeds if it is single desk marketing agency for Canadian grain. That is the way farmers in western feel. There is very strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk marketing agency.

The Reform Party of Canada wants to destroy that agency for the farmers of western Canada. Western Canadian farmers had better realize that we have a throwback to the age of the dinosaurs and Neanderthals. They are coming out of their cage and they want to end the Canadian Wheat Board.

Canadian farmers fought for that year in and year out. They fought for it in the 1930s and 1940s. They fought to defend it against the forces of the extreme right. Those forces are now coming to the fore again. As a matter a fact there was a plebiscite on barley some time ago and over two-thirds of farmers wanted to market barley through the Canadian Wheat Board. What did the reform party do? It criticized farmers for supporting the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Canada Pension Plan, May 31st, 2000]

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

Canadians are increasingly uneasy and uncomfortable with the fact that big tobacco and corporations blind to human rights, such as Talisman, are profiting from their pensions funds. I am sure the minister might share some of that discomfort himself.

In May of last year the minister said that he would take the whole issue of ethical screening of the CPP investments to the provincial finance ministers.

It is now one year later. What progress can he report? Has he convinced them that ethical screening is an important part of the pension fund of the Canadian people?

[The Economy, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance commented on the bank rate yesterday. The Minister of Finance has the authority under the Bank Act to put pressure on the governor to change the rates if he wants to do so.

On top of this, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Royal Bank of Canada yesterday announced record increases in profits in this country. An increased bank rate will mean more money for big banks and less money for ordinary citizens.

I ask once again, in light of the fact that a bank rate increase could also increase the service charge on the national debt by billions of dollars, will the Deputy Prime Minister change his mind, talk to the governor of the Bank of Canada and ask him to roll back the bank rate because inflation is dropping? All he is doing is slowing down the Canadian economy.

[The Economy, May 19th, 2000]

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

On Wednesday the Bank of Canada increased the bank rate by some 50 bases points. It said that this was a pre-emptive strike against inflation. Virtually all of the experts have agreed that this is overkill by the Bank of Canada. In fact the inflation rate actually fell last month. It did not go up, it fell.

In light of that, will the finance minister put pressure on the Bank of Canada to reverse the hike in interest rates and refrain from penalizing the Canadian people for an inflation crime they did not commit?

[Proportional Representation, May 18th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should work towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation in the federal electoral system, making use of a framework which includes: (a) a report on proportional representation prepared by an all-party committee after extensive public hearings; (b) a referendum to be held on this issue where the question shall be whether electors favour replacing the present system with a system proposed by the committee as concurred in by the House; and (c) the referendum may be held either before or at the same time as the next general election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put a motion before the House as a private member, asking that the House conduct a study in a parliamentary committee of the idea of incorporating a measure of proportional representation into our electoral system; that a committee look at the various models which might be appropriate for the country; and that, if the House adopts one of these models, we put that model to the people of the country in a referendum at or around the time of the next federal election campaign.

I do this realizing that this issue has hardly ever been discussed in the Parliament of Canada. The last time there was a private member's motion on the whole idea of changing our electoral system and bringing in a measure of proportional representation was back in 1979 when then Liberal member Jean-Luc Pepin proposed a non-votable motion that was debated by the House. The last time parliament actually voted on the idea of proportional representation was back in 1923. That was a long time ago so I think the time has come now for a debate on whether or not we should look at changing our electoral system. Parliament was strangely silent on the issue for most of the last century.

I also believe that one of the great issues of the next few years will be the issue of governance or democracy, how we govern ourselves as a people, how we organize our society, how we organize our institutions. We talk about governance. We talk about democracy. We talk about an electoral system. We talk about the empowerment of people to make sure that they have a say over what kind of government, what kind of society and what kind of institutions they want to evolve in Canada.

I believe we have to take a serious look at changing our system. Most Canadians do not realize that we are one of only three countries in the world with more than eight million people that has a democratic system which does not have some measure of proportional representation. The other countries are the United States and India. The world has passed us by in terms of evolving an electoral system that reflects more accurately what the people want.

Even in the mother of parliaments, the British parliament, current Prime Minister Tony Blair in his policy of devolution of powers created a Scottish parliament where some people are elected through a measure of PR. It is the same in the Welsh parliament. As a matter of fact in the British Isles all members of parliament who go to the European parliament from Great Britain are elected strictly by proportional representation and the Jenkins committee has recommended PR in England, which I predict will happen in the election after next.

We are being left behind by modern democracies in the world along with the United States and India by using the old first past the post system designed for a two party system. We have left that behind us about 50 or 60 years ago with a multiparty system that creates tremendous distortions in terms of the representation in the House of Commons.

I remember very well when I was first elected back in 1968. There was excitement in the air. People were engaging in politics. People were involved in campaigns and fully 80% of the people in that election campaign cast a ballot. It was common in those days that 80% or more of the people would participate in federal campaigns and in provincial campaigns.

In the last campaign in June 1997 the turnout was 67% of the polls. The turnout has been plummeting in every province in the last 25 or 30 years. The reason for it is that people feel alienated from the political process. They feel politicians do not listen to them, that politicians do not reflect what they want.

There is truth in that and that is one reason people do not participate in the political system. I submit that we are sleepwalking to a crisis in democracy. If we do not look at changing the system to have it more reflective, we will have a real crisis in a few years time.

I want to take a look now at how distorted the present electoral system is. I will use the last election campaign. In 1997 the Liberal Party received 38% of the vote. It got a solid majority that could constitutionally run the country for five years in a system that concentrates a lot of power in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office.

Let us look at the opposition side. We have two parties that got around 19% of the vote, the Reform Party and the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party got 19 seats and the Reform Party got 60 seats, with the same number of Canadians voting for each of those two political parties. Each of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois got 11% of the vote. The Bloc Quebecois got 44 seats and the NDP got 21 seats, with the same number of Canadians casting a ballot for each of the political parties.

We have a House of Commons that does not reflect or mirror how the people of the country voted three years ago. When people turn on their television sets and see a debate in the House of Commons, parliament does not reflect or mirror the composition of the electorate that voted for us in the first place.

As I said, we are one of only three countries in the world with a population of over eight million people which does not have a measure of proportional representation in the electoral system. That will have to change.

Let us look at the history of our country back in 1921. We have had many majority governments elected over the years but only four of them were elected by a majority of the people. Except for John Diefenbaker in 1958, Mackenzie King in 1945 and Brian Mulroney who had almost 50% of the noes in 1984, all other majorities have been elected by a minority, which means that a minority of the people are governing and ruling a majority of people. That leads to all kinds of alienation.

As a result many issues in the country are now realities that would not have been realities if we had proportional representation. I will name but a couple. I remember the 1988 election campaign. We had two parties, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, campaigning against the free trade agreement with the United States. Between the Liberals and the NDP, the two parties together picked up around 56% or 57% of the vote. That was reflective of the opinion polls which said that the overwhelming majority of the people did not like the free trade deal with the United States.

Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives got 42% of the vote. They won a big majority. Free trade went through and it changed the country forever. It was the same with the GST. There have been many such distortions over the years despite the fact that the majority of people voted against the party that was advocating a particular policy.

We have another distortion. For example, at the provincial level today two provinces have a majority one party government: British Columbia and Quebec. The leading opposition party received more votes than the governing party that by itself forms a majority. We have those kinds of distortions in the electoral system.

I think we need change. The motion today is saying that we should strike a parliamentary committee to look at the ways of incorporating a measure of proportional representation into our system. The motion is very deliberate in saying that we should set up a committee to study the ways of incorporating a measure of PR into the system or, in other words, mix some PR into the system. There are many examples of this in New Zealand, Germany and other countries. We have the Welsh example and the Scottish example. There are many other examples in the world where we have a measure of PR.

There have been studies in this country which have talked about a top-up of 20 members, 30 members, one-third of the members, one-half of the members, or a quarter of the members being elected according to the proportion of votes that a party receives. If at the end of the process a party receives 30% of the votes, say in the province of Quebec, that party should get roughly 30% of the members in the House of Commons from the province of Quebec.

We have great regional distortions today. I look across the way and I see three of my friends from the Liberal Party in Ontario. In Ontario in the last campaign 101 members of the 103 are Liberals. We would say that everyone in Ontario is a Liberal, but if we look at the results in Ontario the Liberals are members of a minority party in Ontario, receiving slightly over 49% of the vote. The majority of Ontarians voted for the NDP, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party and for independents. Almost 51% of Ontario residents voted that way yet only 2 of the 103 members from Ontario represent members who are now sitting in opposition in the House.

I do not think that fosters good nation building or a good vision of what the country should be. It has created great balkanization and great regionalism in the country. If we can bulk up with heavy votes in certain regions we can do well, but if the vote is scattered across the country we do not do anywhere near as well. I think it has created all kinds of regional tensions.

Imagine that we had a system of PR, whatever the appropriate model is for our country. I want to say to members across the way, including my friend from Hamilton who is opposed to the idea of PR, that my motion does not advocate any particular model. That is why I want a parliamentary committee to look at what models may be appropriate to our unique federation. Then take that model back to the House of Commons. If it is approved by the House of Commons, then go to the people in a referendum and let the people decide whether they want the status quo or a new model of proportional representation. What could be more democratic than that in terms of a process?

I appeal to my Liberal friends across the way to give this process a chance. Let us have a discussion for the first time in the history of our country since 1923 as to whether or not we should modernize our electoral system and whether or not we should engage people and empower people in a system that is much more relevant.

Back to regionalism. Imagine an election where we had a measure of proportional representation. Proportional representation would force all the parties in the country to have a national vision about Canada. If they did not have a national vision they would not receive votes.

It would force us in the NDP to look more seriously at Quebec and its uniqueness and distinctiveness. In the same way, Canadian Alliance would look at Quebec and its uniqueness and distinctiveness. It would force the Liberal Party to take the crisis of Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers more seriously. As a matter of fact, part of the frustration was when farmers from our province came here to lobby, when they asked why the government would not take them more seriously the answer was it only has one seat in Saskatchewan anyway, so what does it matter?

If we had PR, a vote in Kamsack, Saskatchewan would be worth as much as a vote in Trinity—Spadina. It would force all parties to take all parts of the country equally seriously in terms of a national vision as to where they want the country to go. A dream people have, is that we have national parties that would knit the country together to unite it. PR would probably be the greatest step toward national unity we could possibly dream of in terms of the future of our country. I recommend that people think about that as we go on with the debate over the next few weeks.

Another thing is the empowerment of people. If we look at federal and provincial campaigns, the majority of people vote for losers. How many times have we heard, “Well, I vote for losers. My person did not win. My woman did not win. My man did not win. My candidate did not win. I wasted my vote. I voted for a loser”.

In fact, the majority of people in the last campaign voted for losers. The majority of people in my riding voted for losers. I got 43% of the vote. Fifty-seven percent of the people voted for other parties. Even in ridings where people had a majority, such as yours, Mr. Speaker, I suspect 40% to 45% of the people in your riding voted for losers. They feel they waste their vote so why should they engage themselves in the process?

Under proportional representation no one votes for a loser. Everyone is a winner. Every single vote counts. Every single vote has weight in the Parliament of Canada. When we turn on our televisions the day after the election, our vote will count no matter where we are in the country, because our vote will be going to a certain political party that will get a certain number of members in the House of Commons in accordance with the vote for that party. That is what almost every country in the world does. It means we could vote Reform in Newfoundland, it means we could vote NDP in Alberta, it means we could vote Liberal in rural Saskatchewan and our vote would still count.

Our point of view would still count. Our point of view would still be important not just on election day but for four years. Our vote would count for four years each and every single day as we empower a member of parliament to speak on our behalf because our vote is reflected in the House of Commons for four years.

It would do something else that is extremely radical, so radical for our system that maybe it is heresy. It would force politicians to work together. We could not harangue each other all the time. We would have to work together. We would have to form coalitions and work together like they do in most countries around the world.

Since the second world war Germany has never had a majority government by one party. There has always been a working coalition, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, the Liberal equivalent in that country, and so on. It is the same in most Scandinavian countries, France and many other countries around the world. It would force politicians to form a consensus in terms of what we want to do and where we want to go.

PR in Canada would radically change voting patterns. How many times have we heard people say, “I would vote for your party but you cannot win”. I have a friend who has voted for a party that he does not like for the last 20 years in every single federal election campaign. He votes for that party because he is trying to keep out another party he likes even less. For the last 20 years he has not voted for the party of which he is a card carrying member. Under PR he could vote for the party of his preference because his vote would count. We might see a radical change in voting patterns because we would not have such a thing as strategic voting. A vote would count no matter who an individual voted for. That is another reason we should look at PR in terms of empowering people.

Those are some of my arguments in favour of proportional representation.

Some people may ask would proportional representation not create all kinds of fringe groups and all kinds of instability and uncertainty? I want to respond to a couple of those questions. I think they are myths.

In almost every country in the world where there is proportional representation there is a threshold above which parties must achieve votes before they are represented in parliament. In some countries that threshold is 3%, some countries 4% and some countries 5%. That is something we could look at as well.

Other people may ask if it would not create a great deal of instability. We have more instability now because we are a first past the post system. With a minor change in the votes we create great U-turns in terms of policy. Free trade is a good example of that. I think with proportional representation where all parties were represented in the governing process there would be more gradualism in terms of policy changes and more stability in terms of the direction of the country because a consensus representing the people at all times would be needed.

There are a number of other criticisms of the PR system that some people have, but my time is coming to a close. I say to my colleagues that in private members' hour we have a chance to debate and vote on something that might be done outside the constraints of the party whips.

I appeal to all members of the Bloc Quebecois. René Lévesque spoke very passionately about proportional representation. Many people in the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc spoke about PR. I say to them that my motion does not define a particular method of PR. My motion deals with a process that will lead us to an appropriate model of PR for Canada which could be good for the Bloc Quebecois.

I say to the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, that many of its people were among the first to advocate proportional representation in this country, including the member from Vancouver who is about to speak. This system could also be helpful to get their ideas in a permanent mix in the country. The same thing is true of our party in terms of being social democrats. It could be a system for the Conservative Party which is really underrepresented now because of our first past the post system.

I appeal in particular to the government. The first past the post system works very well for the government in power just because of the mathematics. I say to the government across the way that the day will come when it will not be in power. I would like the government members to think about that because when they are sitting on the opposition benches, when they get a lot more votes than seats in the House, then maybe the idea of doing what almost every other country in the world has done, having a measure of PR in our electoral system, will look a lot more appealing to them.

I remember sitting on this side of the House and seeing the huge Conservative majority of Brian Mulroney with 211 seats. Suddenly in a few short years that majority disappeared. I was very pleased to have heard many Conservatives talking about PR at their convention recently. I am talking of individuals such as Hugh Segal and others.

I appeal to the House to take my motion seriously and look at changing our electoral system to make it more democratic. Let us make sure it is a system where no vote is wasted, where people are empowered and the Parliament of Canada will truly reflect the way the people vote.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, knowing the member's background and his affinity to the labour movement many years ago, is he not embarrassed about sitting in a caucus that is led by a government that has instigated the largest cutbacks in the history of our country in terms of social programs and health care?

The 1995 budget of the Minister of Finance was the most draconian budget in terms of cutbacks in the history of our country. This government almost makes Brian Mulroney look like a raving socialist in comparison, in terms of funding for social programs.

I wonder if the hon. member can tell the House whether or not he has lobbied the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to reverse their ways, to mend their ways and to open up the public purse and make sure there is more money going into health care.

I think he saw the statement yesterday as well that the surplus is now $11 billion more than the government thought it was going to be. It is $14.9 billion instead of $3.9 billion. The money is there.

What has this member done to lobby the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, or is he part of this great conservative trend in the Liberal Party that makes Brian Mulroney look like a compassionate socialist?