Lorne Nystrom

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my hon. colleague from Quebec.

From time to time, things do get too complicated at the federal level and in many provinces. I also agree with my colleague when he says that the Reform Party stands at the extreme right of the ideological spectrum in this country. It is an old-style ideology, a Margaret Thatcher ideology. We saw how the Reform Party reacted when I mentioned Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The Reform Party is also good friends with the likes of Frank Stronach and Conrad Black, the very rich in this country. Those are differences. But the extreme right is not at all the position held by the people of Canada.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy to receive a comment and a question from the Reform Party. People watching the debate should know that Reformers are against this motion. They want to create more inequalities, more disparities, more money for the rich and less money for the poor. That is exactly what he is saying in criticizing our approach.

We are not talking about printing money. That is where he came from: Social Credit and funny money back in B.C. and Alberta many years ago. That is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about a Canada in which disparities will be decreased as they were in the 1960s and 1970s when the disparities between the rich and the poor were gradually decreasing because of programs and tax policies that were of more benefit to lower income people than they were to wealthy people.

That is the direction we want to go in. We can do it through the tax system. We can do it through emphasizing growth and the creation of jobs. We can do it through the federal government spending money on health and education. That is what Canadians want according to all the polls we have seen and all the people we have spoken to. They want more money put back into health and education.

The Minister of Finance has cut back on health and education. Reformers would want even more cutbacks on health and education. They worship at the altar of Mike Harris. They worship at the altar of Ralph Klein. They worship at the altar of the far right in the world like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan, but that is not the way the Canadian people want to go.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

moved:

That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the superrich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a topic in the House for debate today which is a very important and growing issue right across the country, the issue of increasing inequality.

For many years in the sixties and seventies the gap between the rich and the poor was narrowing in this country and we were proud of some of the progress we had made. New social programs like the Canada pension plan and universal health care had narrowed the gap between the wealthy people and the poor people of this country. It was a legacy that we were all proud of as Canadians.

I remember very well back in 1968 when the then leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister of the country, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, campaigned across this country about a just society and decreasing these disparities. That went on for a while, but in the last 10 years or so, and in particular since this Liberal government came to power, we have seen the creation of what I call the unjust society where the gap is widening once again between the wealthier people and the poorer people in Canada.

As we are only two weeks away from the budget, it is important that we start putting some of these issues into the public record and debate what I think is a big issue in this country, two classes of Canadians, the wealthy Canadians, the very wealthy Canadians and the rest of Canadians, particularly the poorer side of the spectrum.

What I want to do this morning very briefly is put some information into the House and hopefully put some parameters on the debate we are having today.

Since 1989, which I am going to use as our base year, average family incomes in Canada have fallen by roughly 5%. They have gone down, not up. This is despite the fact the Minister of Finance says the economic fundamentals are right, unemployment is finally starting to go down, inflation is below 1%, that the budget is going to be balanced and there will be a fiscal dividend.

Despite all that and despite the fact the economy, as the minister says, is doing better, the question is better for whom. It is certainly not better for the average Canadian family whose income has gone down by 5% in the last seven or eight years.

Since 1989 we have 538,000 more children living in poverty in this country, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The number of food banks has tripled in Canada since 1989. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has tripled since 1989.

We also see that the number of low income persons in 1996 was 40% higher than in 1989. What we are seeing now, I maintain, is the creation of an unjust society that is going to be the legacy of this Minister of Finance unless he changes his priorities and starts to redistribute income and opportunities in Canada. That is what this debate is all about this morning.

What are the reasons for this? I think there are four or five very obvious reasons. One has been the determination of the Bank of Canada over the last number of years, with the support of this finance minister and previous finance ministers, to fight inflation and put inflation ahead of the creation of jobs and economic growth. That has slowed down the economy, created unemployment, made the borrowing of money more expensive and slowed down the expansion of small businesses and the farm economy right across the board.

Second, there is no priority in this country to create jobs. There are no targets for reducing unemployment and poverty like we have had targets for reducing inflation in Canada. The big one has been the cutback by this Minister of Finance in the transfers to the provinces on health and education. This has increased disparities right across the country.

In addition to that, we have had the gutting of the unemployment insurance system by the Minister of Finance in an effort to save money to balance the budget.

Finally, I suppose the symbolism of what is happening where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer was the announced proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank about two weeks ago. I predict that unless the Canadian people and the Liberal backbenchers in Parliament get up and speak about this, the Minister of Finance will acquiesce to this demand of his friends in the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank come about October or November of next year.

These are some of the reasons why the disparity is growing. I have had a chance to look at focus groups over the last couple of months and a major concern has been the growing gap between the rich and the poor, growing inequities which have created despair and poverty and crime and the social unrest we are starting to see not only in our big cities but right across the country.

When we talk about income disparity, this is something we should all be concerned about. Last year the top 20% of the Canadian people saw their incomes go up by almost 2%. The bottom 20% had a decrease in their incomes of around 3%. The disparity widens and it widens under the tutelage of the Minister of Finance. We see tremendous disparities.

Chief executive officers had a 14% increase in salaries in the last year while their workers had an increase in salary in those same factories and same companies of some 2.1%. CEOs received 14% and workers received 2.1%.

The CEOs of the Toronto stock exchange 300, those companies in TSE 300, who exercised their stock options in 1996 enjoyed an average increase of $653,700 in the last year, up from $238,000 in the previous year. In contrast, the wages of the CEOs' employees were raised by an average of 2.1 % in 1996, again a tremendous disparity that all Canadians should be concerned about; once again, the creation of what I call the unjust society.

Another good example is the whole question of some of the salaries of some of the leading CEOs in the country. I can mention Matthew Barrett, the president of the Bank of Montreal or John Cleghorn, the head of the Royal Bank in Canada. Both of them, with stock options and salaries and bonuses, enjoy salaries of well over several millions of dollars each and every year.

Then of course there is our good old friend Frank Stronach, the president and CEO of Magna International. I want to tell a little about Frank Stronach, the friend of the minister across the way of financial institutions. Frank Stronach had compensation last year of $43.2 million. Frank Stronach said: “If I add up all the hours I've spent working over the last 40 years, I probably haven't made much more than the minimum wage”. That salary is $43.2 million.

Let us do a little calculation. At $7 an hour, minimum wage, it would take Stronach, even if he worked 24 hours a day each and every day of the year, some 688 years to make some $43.2 million. And the ministers across the way just smile and they say that is fine, they contribute to our party. That does not matter. We are friends of Frank Stronach, we are friends of John Cleghorn, friends of Matthew Barrett. Whatever they want they will get.

These growing disparities in our country ought to be of great concern to us. It is not just Frank Stronach or the Cleghorns or the Matthew Barretts, but wealthy 2% or 3% of the people in this country are increasing their salaries, increasing their compensation, increasing their bonuses month after month and year after year and the disparity is widening. That is not a very good legacy to leave to the next generation.

I want to close, because I want to share my time with the member for Vancouver East, by pointing out some international statistics that we should take note of in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor. This is based on household income. We will find here that Canada has the second largest gap of the seven or eight countries in the OECD.

In the United States the gap between the rich and the poor is over $54,000. In Canada it is $42,500. It is the eighth largest gap of these nine countries. We are the second worst in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor.

I plead with the minister who is going to respond today on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the minister of financial institutions, to get up and tell us how they are going to create in this country more equality and more fairness between the rich and the poor. It is an extremely important issue. It is a sad commentary on our country, a country of great prosperity, with great potential, to see that out of the nine leading countries like France and Britain and Germany and the United States, we have the second largest gap between the rich and the poor.

What we are seeing now is the creation of the unjust society, the legacy of this Minister of Finance and the legacy of this Prime Minister.

[Privilege, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about an incident that occurred shortly before question period.

I do not know whether it is a threat or some tasteless humour, but after I spoke in the House before question period I received a picture from an anonymous Reform MP. It is a picture of a mean looking bird of prey chewing the head off another bird of prey under which it says “how Reformers deal with the NDP”.

I would like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not that person could identify himself or herself or whether the Leader of the Opposition could help me to identify that person. It is one thing to have a debate in the House but it is another thing to be tasteless and have this kind of a note sent across the way.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are times when members get carried away. I would like to ask the member to withdraw that. He said I am a disciple of the communist philosophy. I am not. I never have been. I have always been critical of that. I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it is a legitimate one. The member from the Reform Party is geographically challenged. The riding of Qu'Appelle is one-half rural and one-half in the city.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been representing farmers in this House for some 26 years. I know what the farmers are saying in my riding and around Saskatchewan and around western Canada. They want a strong Canadian Wheat Board. They want Parliament to support that Canadian Wheat Board. Yes, they want it to be more accountable, they want it to be more democratic, but they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.

The real debate is whether or not that wheat board continues to exist. The Reform Party will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. They will set up a dual marketing system. They will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

They have had members in this House that have compared the Canadian Wheat Board to a police state. The member for Skeena did that. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was comparing the wheat board to the old Soviet Union. These are extremist statements. But that is exactly where the Reform Party stands. They are also not listening to the democratic will of western Canadians who voted very clearly to keep barley within the context of the Canadian Wheat Board.

So I say to them, why do they not listen to their constituents? Why do they not listen to what people are saying? If they did that, we would have a strong wheat board for the farmers of western Canada.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

The farmers are not saying that. When there was a vote in western Canada on barley and the wheat board, the farmers said very clearly they wanted to maintain barley in the Canadian Wheat Board by about a 65% to 66% vote.

The Reform Party says it believes in democracy and a referenda. There was a referendum on that issue. The Alberta government intervened on the side of the open marketers I think with about a million dollars and, despite that, the producers turned it down almost two to one going into the open market. Has democracy spoken? Reform Party members should be listening to democracy, listening to their constituents and listening to their farmers if they believe in what they are saying to the people of this country.

I am sure that the member for Wild Rose, being a populist, would agree that we should listen to the farmers of western Canada and listen to the democratic choice those farmers have made in western Canada. He should come around to our ridings and hear what people are saying about keeping the Canadian Wheat Board.

Instead, what we are hearing from the Reform Party—and western Canadians watching should be aware of this—the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands said in the House a while back that the Canadian Wheat Board in this country compares to the old Soviet Union. What kind of extremism is that? Here is a party that is so extreme that it compares the Canadian Wheat Board, which is supported by Canadian farmers, the people in my riding, to the kind of institutions in the old Soviet Union. That is what the Reform Party is saying and it is on the record here in Hansard .

What does the member for Wild Rose say about that? Why does he not go wild on that one? That is what the Reform Party is saying.

If that was not enough, the member for Skeena, that great grain producing riding of Skeena, compared the Canadian Wheat Board to a police state. It has been a long time since I have heard that kind of extremism in the House of Commons.

The members of the Reform Party are getting very excited. I am afraid they are going to start rushing me. I have not had much training in boxing recently, but I hear those extreme voices being raised once again about jailing farmers. There are some farmers in a movement called farmers for just us who broke the Canadian law. They were found guilty by the courts in this country and here are the members of the Reform Party saying they want to stand up on behalf of law breakers. Again, the extremism in that party ought to be noted by ordinary people in this country. It is about time they were called to task on that.

Some of the farmers in farmers for just us have broken the law and members of the Reform Party stands four square behind them.

An important part of any parliamentary democracy is to listen to the people, and the people of western Canada have spoken very clearly, very succinctly and often on the need to keep the Canadian Wheat Board and single desk marketing and have that as an institution of economic good for the people of western Canada.

There was a referendum on that as it pertains to barley. The Reform Party lost that referendum. They pretended it did not exist. They do not listen to their constituents. In fact some of them should be recalled on this issue.

I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and tell us why they do not want to listen to the people. I believe the whip of the Reform Party is hanging his head in shame up there at the Chair because the Reform Party was not listening to the people of this country when they spoke so clearly in the barley referendum. I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and explain how they can do this, how they can not listen to what the people are saying.

The wheat board is a very important institution. The wheat board sells about $6 billion a year of grain. The profits are returned to the farmers, not to private investors. The wheat board is accountable to Parliament. The wheat board has its books audited independently by Deloitte & Touche. The wheat board is accountable. It is open. It is there for the farmers of western Canada yet the Reform Party is opposing the Canadian Wheat Board. I wonder why.

Let us look at who funds the Reform Party. Conrad Black. I do not know if he contributed to your campaign, Mr. Speaker, but he did not contribute to mine. He contributes to the Reform Party. Imasco, some of the big banks and believe it or not, the CPR. That is why the Reform Party is in opposition to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Just like the fights which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s with the far right in western Canada as they opposed orderly marketing, those fights are occurring again by these new radicals and new extremists who are taking a stand against orderly marketing in Canada.

The whip of the Reform Party is so ashamed, he is now across the House and is sitting with the Liberals. A few minutes ago he was hanging his head in shame, but now he is sitting with the Liberals, dissociating himself from the Reform caucus.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating now is group 6, a grouping of amendments including three very progressive amendments moved by my colleague and next door neighbour, the member for Palliser.

I want to make very clear at the outset that I too object to the government's imposing closure on this very important piece of legislation for western Canadian farmers and indeed for all the country.

I am sure the government House leader understands that the Canadian Wheat Board is a very important institution, doing about $6 billion worth of business every year on behalf of western Canadian farmers. That $6 billion worth of business every year provides a tremendous spin-off to not just western Canadian farmers or western Canadians but to the nation as a whole. That is why this legislation should not be forced through the House with closure but that this House should be more receptive to accepting some of the progressive amendments that have been moved by members on the opposition side of the House.

I want to be very clear at the outset that our party has stood historically behind the concept of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We have had the wheat board now for roughly 60 years in this country. There was a real struggle back in the 1930s and the 1940s to fight for the creation of a Canadian wheat board that would market things collectively and operate as a single desk marketing agency for the farmers of western Canada.

I can remember the days when I was a kid and my grandfather telling about the struggles that people of his generation had in the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s against the Winnipeg grain exchange and the Chicago futures market in terms of getting a decent price for the grain they were marketing to different parts of the world. After a long struggle and through all kinds of prairie popular movements, the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board occurred some 60 odd years ago.

Today there is a fight on the prairies once again about the very survival of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our party is firmly behind the wheat board. We want it democratized and as open and accountable to farmers as possible, but we want the wheat board to be expanded to include more grains so that it can market those grains for the farmers of western Canada.

What is the option? The option is to open up the market and allow the big grain companies like Cargill and others to market grain and reap the profits of the farmers of western Canada. That is the position taken by the Reform Party. It is trying to disguise that by saying it wants a dual marketing system, a double marketing system in this country.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Or Mrs. Y.