Lorne Nystrom

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. The negotiations currently under way with the other countries are very important for our country's future.

Why not hold public hearings and allow a parliamentary committee to travel across the country? This matter is so important for Canadians as a whole. It is democratic to hold public hearings, to discover the opinions of Canadians across the country. Why not do that? It is a democratic thing to do.

I have a second question. There is a provision in the agreement that concerns me a great deal; it says that, should Canada sign the agreement, there would be no review for 20 years. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with that?

[The Senate, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister if we can get him back to his seat for half a second.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was personally in favour of changing the Senate. He said a requirement that was needed was that the provinces approve this because of the constitution. We all know that. Why will the Prime Minister not take the first step, go where no other prime minister has ever gone before him, and begin the process by tabling in this House a motion to abolish the existing unelected, unaccountable Senate?

[Canada Shipping Act, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill before us.

We are discussing a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, a maritime liability bill, which my party supports. Bill S-4 is part of the Canada Shipping Act reform. Parts of the Canada Shipping Act are old and out of date with today's realities. The NDP believes it is time to modernize the Canada Shipping Act. The revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime claims is a very important step toward the modernization of this legislation.

With respect to limits for general maritime claims, the existing regime under the Canada Shipping Act is largely based on a 1997 international convention relating to the limitation of liability of owners of seagoing ships or vessels. The limits on liability set out have naturally lost value as a result of inflation over the years. Most maritime nations consider the limits of liability set out in 1957 inadequate. That is understandable since 1957 was more than 40 years ago. Inflation was very high periodically during those years. In the late seventies inflation hit more than 15%.

The 1957 convention was replaced by the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol as a global standard for the limitation of liability for maritime claims.

As members from the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the government have pointed out, these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act implement the provisions of the 1992 protocol to the 1969 convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 convention of the international fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage. We support many aspects of this bill.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain made a point I agree with. I want to say a few words about the point I agree with for members of the Reform Party. That may seem kind of odd. He is already wondering what this point is.

He made the point that it is very unfortunate that this bill originates not in the House of Commons but in the Senate. The government is introducing more and more legislation from the Senate. I think that is a real affront to democracy. Why should we be debating this piece of legislation which does not originate here?

We are the elected members of Parliament coming from five different parties in the House of Commons. The Senate is not elected, not accountable and not democratic. Its members are there from when they are appointed to the age 75. I think that is a real affront to democracy.

I am shocked by the government across the way introducing more and more legislation from the Senate. Why does the Prime Minister not screw up his courage and put on the order paper a bill to abolish the existing Senate? That is exactly what the Canadian people are asking for.

Senator Thompson is only a catalyst, the tip of the iceberg. He is not the only senator who hardly ever shows up in the Senate. He is not the only Senator who is not elected. None of the senators is elected or accountable. It is a real affront to democracy to have a legislative body in the 20th century, almost the 21st, that is not accountable. It is a hangover from the feudal days of the past and it is about time we abolish that particular Senate.

No wonder some people think this place is a farce. The people are telling us to abolish that unelected place. The people of Canada want their say and they want to speak out. It is about time we, the members of Parliament, said no, enough is enough. We, as members of Parliament, should say we are not going to take it any more, enough is enough. We are going to originate bills in this House through a democratic and transparent process, which is exactly what it should be.

We should just stop right now in protest. Therefore I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 19th, 1998]

A contradiction in terms of being a thoughtful member of the Reform Party.

Back in October one of his esteemed leaders from Calgary, the Revenue Canada critic, said in this House that he thought millionaires are overtaxed and specifically agreed that Conrad Black was overtaxed. Does the member agree that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black is overtaxed? I certainly do not think they are. I think they are undertaxed.

Does the member support his esteemed leader, the revenue critic of his party, or does he not?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member of the Reform Party that successive NDP governments in Saskatchewan going back to Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow have always been very friendly and very positive toward small business.

I think the success of those governments over the years electorally from that community is proof that has actually been done. I just wanted to unplug that left ear of his so that he could hear a little from that side of his ideological head.

I want to ask him a very specific question, because I know he is a very thoughtful member of the Reform Party.

[The Senate, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, of which I gave him notice a couple of hours ago.

Senator Thompson is only the last straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the public's intolerance with our Senate. Our Senate is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable. It is a house of hacks, flacks and bagmen. Enough is enough.

Is the Prime Minister ready now to take the initiative to break the log-jam and introduce into the House a motion to abolish the existing unelected Senate? If he does that I assure him of our support.

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on the 22nd of October last I asked the Minister of Finance about bank service charges and whether or not he would work toward bringing down bank service charges on behalf of ordinary Canadians.

Since then, of course, a lot has happened. We have had reports of bank service charges being excessive. We all know they are very regressive. They hit all Canadians in the same way. Whether wealthy or poor, people pay the same for a particular transaction. That is why these service charges should be investigated, not just by the Minister of Finance, but by a parliamentary committee of this House representing all five Canadian parties which have been elected by the people of Canada.

These service charges are regressive. We should have a certain number of service charges which are free of cost to every single Canadian, like they have in some American states. After eight, nine or ten charges there could be a fee. I think that a basic life-line account such as that would be a very progressive step.

Since that time, of course, we have seen a number of other things occur. We have seen the profit reports of the banks. Their profits in the last year were the highest ever in the history of this country. The profits amount to $7.5 billion. Those are very high profits. Surely to goodness the banks can afford to reduce their service fees for the ordinary and poor people of this country. There is no excuse whatsoever for them not to do that.

It is interesting to see the government across the way defending the big banks, rather than saying to the big banks “Reduce your service charges”.

Since then we have had the proposed mega-merger between the largest bank in the country, the Royal Bank, and the third largest bank, the Bank of Montreal. It is the largest proposed merger in the history of the country in terms of corporate Canada. The two banks are worth about $40 billion in terms of their stock market value. They have assets under their control totalling over $450 billion. Yet the Minister of Finance will not give the Canadian people or the Parliament of Canada a parliamentary committee to look into the proposed mega merger until next fall. That is a real shame. The people of this country deserve to make a decision on whether or not this merger goes ahead.

If this merger goes ahead it will set off a chain reaction. There will be more mergers not only in banking but in other financial institutions including the insurance industry. The doors will also be open for more foreign banking into this country. If our banks are going to be in other countries around the world, then our doors will also be open to foreign banks coming into Canada. Eventually we will have the foreign takeover of the Canadian banking system and the establishment of financial supermarkets across this country.

That is why we need a parliamentary committee with full hearings into this merger, a parliamentary committee that would travel around the country and allow the Canadian people to speak their minds. I hope after we get that process going we can convince the Minister of Finance to say no to this merger. This merger should not go ahead. It is not good for Canada. It is not good for the future of this country. We need a public forum to help convince the Minister of Finance that is the way Canadians feel.

In my comments I wanted to wrap the merger issue and the bank service charges issue into one. We need that parliamentary committee with the power to travel the country, to hear witnesses, to subpoena the banks, to provide a forum for ordinary Canadians, to televise those hearings. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about. It should be the representatives who are elected to come here by the people of the country who make very important decisions. It should not be the Minister of Finance by himself.

The government must approve the mega merger. The competition bureau has to approve the mega merger. A new bank licence has to be issued, but that should be done only if it is approved by the Parliament of Canada in a very transparent, open and democratic way. That is what I am calling for in the House this evening.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member from Newfoundland on his very progressive speech. I want to ask him a question about tax reform and trying to decrease the inequalities.

Back in October the revenue critic for the Reform Party said in the House that he thought millionaires were overtaxed, specifically that Conrad Black was overtaxed.

Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black pays too much in taxes? Does he agree with his cousins in the Reform Party that they are overtaxed?

[Revenue Canada, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wake up the Minister of National Revenue if I can and ask him a question.

Internal reports from his department say that about $2 billion in tax revenue will be lost in this fiscal year because of a shortage of auditors, a problem that was pointed out by the auditor general just recently. This money could be spent on health and education.

What action does the minister plan to collect this $2 billion, or is he just going to throw up his hands and say hey, what's $2 billion?

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Fair taxes.