Lorne Nystrom

[Electoral System, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I should have made it explicit that he was assisting the Chair and the desk on the motion. Indeed, I do spot him now. I do want to ask a couple of questions of the member. I know he cannot answer because he has already spoken, but he can ponder them.

In the meantime I wanted to say I do agree that there should be more educational material made available to schools and young people's organizations. I think that is very important.

I also believe that Elections Canada should be directed to work with different organizations and groups such as Kids Voting Canada and Scouts Canada, and through the schools, the high schools, with teachers, and in junior colleges and universities. I believe that is very important.

The one thing I would like the member to think about is not just the possibility of having young people between the ages of 16 and 18 voting in so-called mock elections in a parallel voting process, because I can remember participating in those when I was a high school and university student as well: I would like the member to consider the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16.

I think we should take a really good look at lowering the voting age to 16 so that people between the ages of 16 and 18 have an actual vote. They can help determine the members of this Parliament and the Government of Canada.

I remember when I was first elected back in 1968 when I was 22. I was one of several members of Parliament who moved a private member's bill in the House to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. That was considered fairly radical in the years before 1968.

Now I think the time has come that we should look seriously at lowering the voting age to 16. In our country a person can drive a car and get a driver's licence at age 16. There are many other things a person is legally allowed to do at the age of 16.

We want to engage young people. We want to get them interested in our process, interested in being a part of the public policy decision making body. I would say to the member for Peterborough: give some thought to lowering the voting age to 16. This might be a way of getting young people really engaged. I think it is a motion that we should be putting before the House very shortly.

I also want to make another point in terms of the participation rate or the turnout among young people and that is the whole idea of reinstating enumeration. We have had all kinds of complaints from people across the country about being left off the voters list.

If we reinstate enumeration, where enumerators go from house to house, it would be a very good thing for young people in particular because younger people tend to move from place to place. Not only are university students away during the university year or back home depending on when the election is, but young people move out on their own. They are getting an apartment, a job, seeing different parts of the country, and travelling a bit. If we had door to door enumeration and put them on the voters list, it would act as a reminder that there is a general election campaign. This is something I would like the member across the way to think of as well: reinstating enumeration.

The third point I wish to mention to the member for Peterborough, who is an independent free spirit and a progressive member, is the whole idea of a fixed election date. I introduced a motion in the House just last week to bring in a fixed election date in this country, except of course where a government loses confidence and has to go to the polls. I recommend a fixed election date. We would have an election every four years.

This has nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal whatsoever. I have believed for a long time that we should have a fixed election date. It should be in either the spring or the fall, in either June or October, the two best months in this country in which to have a general election campaign.

If we do have a fixed date, it takes away the power of the Prime Minister and the premiers to manipulate the date for their own benefits and for their own party's benefit. There is not a party in this country, including my own in Saskatchewan, or the party in B.C. or Ontario, where we have formed provincial governments, that has not manipulated the election date in order to suit their own political interests. It is a natural thing, because the Prime Minister and premiers can call elections when they see fit.

I remember talking with Tommy Douglas a few years before he passed away. He had been the premier of Saskatchewan and was elected in 1944. He had elections every four years in June: in 1948, in 1952, in 1956, and in 1960, all in June. He said that one regret he had was he did not make it a statutory requirement to have elections held every four years. I think that would also encourage young people to vote because they would not suspect or see the political leadership manipulating the date for its own benefit and for its own opportunistic reasons.

British Columbia is the only province that now has a fixed election day set by the Liberal government of Premier Campbell. When he became premier of that province a couple of years ago, the date was set for four years hence. Therefore, a level playing field and a sense of fairness that young people are so concerned about have been created.

The last point I want to make, which I suppose this is the most important point, is the whole idea of changing our voting system, and I am not sure where the member for Peterborough stands on the idea.

The United States, India and Canada are the only three countries with more than 10 million people that use the pure first past the post system. Even Britain has a partial system of proportional representation in Scotland and Wales, and they elect all their MPs to the European Parliament through PR.

I would like the member for Peterborough to do some thinking about reforming the voting system. I am just talking about the principle of proportional representation. Under PR, every vote counts, no vote is wasted and a party that gets around 20% of the votes gets around 20% of the seats. Therefore, we have equality of people from one coast to the other. Young people then could see their vote count in the make up of Parliament and the government of the day.

We should strike an all-party committee to look at the idea of voting reform. We could have public hearings, come up with a couple of different models, bring them back to Parliament and then put the most attractive new model, along with the first past the post system, on a ballot for a national referendum, like was done in New Zealand and elsewhere, and let the people of this country choose between the status quo and a system of proportional representation.

These are just some ideas I wanted to suggest in terms of debate. I support the motion, but let us look at reinstating the enumeration, lowering the voting age to 16, bringing in a fixed election day and reforming the voting system to bring in a system of proportional representation that would be much more inclusive and empowering to return the governance of this place to the people of Canada.

[Electoral System, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate in the House in support of the motion put forward by the member for Peterborough. I certainly support the motion he has presented to us.

In the last election campaign, the turnout for young people between the ages of 18 and 24 was around 25%. That is very low.

When I was elected here in 1968, I had barely turned 22 years old. In fact, I had turned 22 during the campaign. That was during the Trudeaumania era, the Kennedy era, the time of all the student revolutions in Europe and so on. There was a great deal of interest among young people in those days.

From the 1940s through the 1950s and 1960s to the 1970s, it was typical to have a turnout of about 75% or 80% in a campaign. After that, right across the board, we started to see a gradual drop in the participation rate at the polls.

Throughout the years, though, with the possible exception of the 1960s and the whole youth revolution, young people have turned out in very low numbers. Even then, it was lower than the average numbers for the general population of Canada.

It has always been a challenge to have young people participate in the political process, so I am glad we have this motion before the House today. I wish the member for Peterborough had not temporarily left the Chamber, because I wanted to ask him a couple of questions.

[Electoral System, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about establishing or supporting a parallel voting opportunity. I wonder if he would expand on what he means by a parallel voting opportunity. Is he talking about looking at Internet voting for example, or does he have something else in mind?

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make the record clear. I was referring to Carole Jacques, not to my good friend across the way.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. If I recall correctly, the member switched horses. He was a Progressive Conservative under the Brian Mulroney government and now he is a member of the Liberal Party.

Does he remember former members Richard Grisé, Diane St-Jacques, Gabriel Fontaine, Michel Côté? They were Conservative MPs who had a lot of problems. Brian Mulroney also had a lot of problems.

I want to ask him whether or not he remembers these people and all the sleaze, all the scandals and all the corruption in that Conservative government. I wonder if he can make some comparisons between the two governments and tell us something. With all the sleaze, scandals and theft that happened under the Conservative government, let alone in my own province of Saskatchewan where there were 16 criminal convictions and the Conservative deputy premier went to jail, why would all that happen? Why would the Liberal government across the way not learn from history and not repeat the same kinds of mistakes made by the Mulroney Conservatives?

What we have in the House today is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. The Conservatives are talking about the very thing they used to do year after year across this country and in a province like Saskatchewan. I wonder if he can give us a commentary and compare the two.

[Electoral Reform, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for some 20 years we had Brian Mulroney, the Conservative, and the current Prime Minister make health care, education, the environment and the farm crisis worse. For 20 years we have had Mulroney and the current Prime Minister's corporate policies, their corporate scandals and their corporate buddies and Canadians are now fed up with it.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, let us send the backroom boys and girls back, the corporate cronies back, and put the power back in the hands of the people. Will the government hold a national referendum on proportional representation to put the power of the people--

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Newfoundland is one of the few progressives left because when the Progressive Conservative Party joined the Alliance, they left the progressives aside. They are no longer progressives. The opposite of progressive happens to be regressive, and what we see is the shadow of Brian Mulroney behind the whole thing. He is the master puppeteer.

My mother said to me many years ago that if we did not learn from the past, we were bound to repeat the same things in the future. It is important to remember what happened in the past.

I happen to come from Saskatchewan where 16 Conservatives convicted criminally of fraud, and that is fact. Many are in jail. I do not think there is no other place in the world where a deputy premier, Eric Berntson, chairman of the caucus, a Conservative, went to jail.

We have to learn from the past so we do not repeat the same things in the future, and the government now is repeating.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain, my neighbour in Saskatchewan. People are really angry and fed up. The $200 million could have been used for agriculture, or for health or for education. It could have been used for a number of things in Canada.

Many people do not realize that in the last year farm income in the province of Saskatchewan was a negative $13 million. I cannot remember the exact statistic, but I believe the national level is a negative of over $100 million. That is the lowest farm income since statistics started to be kept back in the 1920s. No wonder people are in trouble. No wonder people are angry.

We have to change the system. We need democratic reform, but not just in this place. It means getting rid of the unelected Senate. It means changing the voting system and bringing in some system of proportional representation. It means giving parliamentary committees more power so we can hold the government properly accountable.

There will be a surplus of $6 billion or $7 billion at the end of the fiscal year. This year, why do we not take half of that surplus and transfer it to the provinces for education, for health and for the farm crisis? That would do something real for the people of Canada.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

The motion before the House today is very important. I have seen many scandals over the years in the House of Commons and across the country, but this scandal is one that involves more money than I have ever seen before. I think the Liberal Party is implicated in this thing lock, stock and barrel.

I noticed in the paper on the weekend that the Prime Minister of Canada referred to other scandals such as this taking place before. He referred to Grant Devine and the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan. This reminds me a lot of that particular scandal. I am from Saskatchewan. A number of years ago when Grant Devine was the premier, and do not forget that it is the Conservative Party that sits here in opposition, the same party, the same people, decided that they wanted to defraud money from the people of Saskatchewan.

In the end, after an RCMP investigation, 16 people were convicted of criminal offences. Many of them went to jail. Many of the Conservatives went to jail, including the deputy premier, Eric Berntson, and the chairman of the caucus, the minister of labour, Lorne McLaren. That was for stealing tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Across the way we are talking of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. It may be hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not want to prejudge ahead of time how much money is involved, but certainly it is a lot more than the Conservatives stole in the province of Saskatchewan.

What we have here is a very serious scandal. We have to clean up government in this country.

We have had these scandals and this corporate corruption from Brian Mulroney's Conservatives right through to the Liberals of today. It is the same old thing, these corporate scandals and corporate sleaze, this lack of accountability. We saw it in spades with Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party and we are seeing it right now with the Prime Minister. That is why we have to change the system in this country.

It is interesting that the man behind the new Conservative Party, the master puppeteer is Brian Mulroney. We are seeing it in spades in that party across the way.

I want to warn people who are watching today that some of this language is not very good language. I am quoting a gentleman here, not Alfonso Gagliano, but I am quoting a gentleman from July 15, 1984, Brian Mulroney, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. This is why the rot is there when there is this kind of an attitude from a prime minister following right on through to today.

The Conservatives are very embarrassed about their master puppeteer. They are very embarrassed about this leader of their party, the guy that they are worshipping and following as they form a new party today. Brian Mulroney said:

Let's face it, there's no whore like an old whore. If I'd been in Bryce's position, I'd have been right in there with my nose in the public trough like the rest of them.

Brian Mulroney, when he was campaigning on July 15, 1984, was talking about Bryce Mackasey's acceptance of a diplomatic post. That is Brian Mulroney, the godfather of the Conservative Party of Canada.

That set the tone for that party's reign in power. We saw scandal after scandal and sleaze and corporate sleaze. Now we are seeing exactly the same thing across the way. Whether it is Brian Mulroney or the present Prime Minister or the former prime minister, their ties to corporate Canada and this corruption and sleaze are all there. It is so hypocritical to see Conservatives getting up here and acting as if they are offended and questioning the very thing that they did for year after year.

Of course in Saskatchewan former premier Grant Devine is running for a Conservative Party nomination. We know exactly what that new party is about. Sixteen members of that government, ministers, received criminal convictions for stealing the public's money. Many of them went to jail. Now there is a similar thing across the way involving not just tens of thousands of dollars, but millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

The time has come to change the system. When I look at who the Prime Minister of Canada has hired to run his office and to run his campaign, I see the tie between corporate Canada and the tie between the lobbyists and the Prime Minister. I could go on and on. I am going to mention a few names and talk about their current role and their campaign background.

I see from the Earnscliffe group, Andre Albinati. I see the principal of the Earnscliffe group who was the campaign manager of strategy for the Prime Minister, Elly Alboim. Also from Earnscliffe, there is Charles Bird, campaign manager logistics to the Prime Minister. I see Eric Bornman whose current role for the Prime Minister is vice-president of communications. He came out of Pilot House Public Affairs group. Dennis Dawson was a member of the House at one time. He came from Hill and Knowlton where he lobbied for many years. There is Jamie Deacey from Association House and John Duffy from the Strategy Group.

They are all people who were members of the campaign team of the Prime Minister when he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party. David Herle is well known. He works for the Earnscliffe Strategy Group and is a key strategist for the Prime Minister of Canada. The list goes on and on of the many people who have worked as lobbyists or in the corporate world and are now working for the Prime Minister of Canada.

Francis Fox, for example, was a minister at one time and was the president of strategic affairs for Rogers AT&T and a lobbyist for the Rogers corporation. Brian Guest was with Association House. There are a number of other people who are working with different lobbyists and different parliamentary associations around the country.

We get this tie of greed and then there are the groups involved in the scandalous sponsorship program that gave all kinds of money to the Liberal Party of Canada. At the very least they should be immediately reimbursing the people of this country from the Liberal Party coffers the money that was given to them from groups that received contracts under the sponsorship program.

If the Prime Minister is serious about cleaning this up, that money should be reimbursed by the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not see him doing that.

I also wonder where the Minister of Finance stands. The Minister of Finance was made Minister of Public Works, I believe it was back in May 2002. He had a long time to get to the bottom of this scandal. What did the deputy minister of public works say to him? What did the ADMs, the senior management in public works, say to him? What information did the minister have? Why did it take so long before all this information became public?

This is a serious, serious scandal. No wonder people are cynical about politics. A former prime minister, who is the founder of the new Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney, talked about how he would put his nose in the trough like the rest of them, that there is no whore like an old whore. That is what he said. It continued on through the Jean Chrétien days and it continues on with the present Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was the minister of finance. The Prime Minister was the CFO and for about nine years a senior cabinet minister. This is not good enough.

I walked around and talked to people in my riding in Regina over the weekend. People are disgusted by this. Liberals are disgusted by this. Everybody is disgusted by this. In my province, and I speak personally, it reminds people of the rot of the Conservative Party with its scandals and its sleaze and its corruption, and Brian Mulroney and Grant Devine and Eric Berntson. This is the legacy of the Conservative Party of Canada and the legacy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Because of that, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move an amendment adding, instead of the word liberal, the following: 20 years of Conservative Mulroney and Liberal corporate sleaze and corruption.

[Agriculture, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.

There has been one case of BSE in Canada, one cow out of some 15 million. As we know, the Americans closed its border to the import of live Canadian cattle. On the other hand, there has been one case of BSE in the United States and for some strange reason we continue to import American cattle into eastern Canada.

I know that not even a Liberal sponsorship program could help our farmers, but what I want to know is whether or not the minister will create a level playing field and tell the Americans that if they do not open their border for Canadians, we will close our border in terms of their beef imports and will start shipping western Canadian beef to eastern Canada. Will he do that?