Lorne Nystrom

[Stelco, February 6th, 2004]

I think the time has come to act, Mr. Speaker, and you will notice that this week we have been asking policy questions on health care and star wars and we have not even asked why the Prime Minister did not know how much CSL got in contracts, but we are not johnny-come-latelies when it comes to standing up for the steel industry in this country.

But if the Prime Minister's corporate ties get in the way of Stelco and delay a decision, what about Kyoto? What about the seaway? He will be in and out of cabinet meetings faster than the Liberian flag goes up and down the masts of his ships. I ask once again, why does this government not stand up for Stelco and the workers in Hamilton instead of hiding behind the Prime Minister's corporation?

[Stelco, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as minister of finance the Prime Minister did not deal with steel tariffs because of his corporate ties. Now he is on the sideline again because of his family's corporate ties.

Has Hamilton now not been punished enough by the Liberals refusing to fight steel dumping?

I ask my very direct question to the acting prime minister. Does the Prime Minister's family corporation come before Stelco's 8,300 workers and 11,000 retirees or will the government now stand up and do something positive for Stelco, for its workers, for that community and for the retirees?

[Older Adult Justice Act, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words in support of the bill put forward by the member for Sudbury. I congratulate her for doing this.

In case I forget, I want to ask the member to take a look at a bill I drafted and tabled some time ago, Bill C-227. It was a bill to investigate the difficulties encountered by seniors when they deal with the Canada pension plan, the old age pensions and the different tax liabilities. It might be complementary to what she is trying to do. I had some help on that by people who were experts in the field. It might be something worth looking at.

In any event, I do support the bill put forward in the House today. We are an aging society. I just looked at some recent statistics showing that in the year 2000 some 16.7% of our population was over 60 years old. In the year 2050, another 50 years from now, the population over 60 years of age will be 31.9%. In other words, Mr. Speaker, 50 years from now you will be among the oldest one-third of the Canadian population. That will be getting up there in age by that time of course. We are an aging society and the baby boom is going through the cycle.

I suppose one of the deficiencies in our social system has been in making sure our older people, our senior citizens, get a decent, fair and just break in our society.

I have been a member of Parliament now for about 32 years. I was elected in 1968 and was out for one term. I have had my attention drawn many times to elder abuse. It occurs in all kinds of places and forms that we would not expect: abusive families, abuse between spouses, abuse between strangers and elders, and patronizing attitudes toward senior citizens. One sees and hears about it all the time. It is something for which we have to be concerned in terms of discrimination based on age.

One reason for referring the bill to committee for study is that there are all kinds of aspects of how we should be treating senior citizens better which we can study at the same time.

I am glad the member has taken the initiative in this bill to get the ball rolling and establish an ombudsman for older adult justice and the Canadian older adult justice agency and amendments to the Criminal Code. Of course that would include the Prime Minister of Canada as well. We may have to be very careful with how we question him in question period.

I think the bill is a move in the right direction and it is something we should be supporting. It is not right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, colour, religious background or on the basis of age, and that certainly does occur.

Some day in this country we will have a serious debate on an issue called mandatory retirement. I happen to agree with the Prime Minister of Canada that age 65 should not be a mandatory retirement age. I think that is discrimination based on age. At the same time, we have to make sure that people have adequate pensions so they can make a real choice as to whether they can retire at the age of 65.

We have made progress since the 1930s and 1940s on pensions, on seniors and on poverty, but I do not think that progress has been continuing on in the last 10 or 15 years as it was in the previous 25 or 30 years. It has levelled off. We have a lot of senior citizens living in poverty and below the poverty line.

Those are some of my concerns. We need an improved pension system. We need to improve the Canada pension plan so people will have a more adequate income. Private pension plans have to be more portable. We need to ensure that we have a retirement safety net for people so they can have a decent living and not live in poverty after they retire.

I remember growing up on the Prairies and believing all my life that it was the older people who built Canada, the pioneers who came out to my part of the world, Saskatchewan, which became a province in 1905.

Actually my father was born at the end of 1909. He was one of the last pioneers in this country in terms of filing for a homestead under the homestead act. He had one of the last homesteads in central Saskatchewan.

People of my grandparents' generation born in the last part of the 1800s and into the early 1900s were the real pioneers. They built a country through sweat and tears and hard work. They made many sacrifices and passed on a pretty good country to all of us. It is imperative for us now to make sure we treat our senior citizens with respect and dignity and to provide the financial means to make sure that they can live a decent life.

I am also concerned about adequate health care. We have across the way the sponsor of the bill who is a former minister of health. She knows the challenges in that field and the challenges that we have now. At one time the federal government paid half the cost of health care and the provinces paid half, but now the provinces put up over 80% of the health care cost. This is a big issue. The senior citizens use the health care system more than any other citizen. If we have a squeeze for health care, it is the senior citizens that tend to suffer more than anyone else. We need more money from the federal government for health care as well.

I have mentioned an adequate pension system. I have mentioned the need for more adequate health care and the concern that I have that a lot of people are living in poverty. Those are some of the other issues we have to wrestle with.

The pension issue is a very important one because of the aging of the population. We have to make sure that we can afford to pay adequate pensions for people when they retire, whatever that retirement age should be.

I remember when the member was a cabinet minister. An idea was floated by the Liberal government of the day which was called the seniors benefit package and was part of the present Prime Minister's deficit cutting strategy. The legislation, had it passed, would have done away with the last social program that was specifically there to help seniors, namely the Old Age Security Act. It is thanks to the intense lobby of senior citizens, the public and the opposition that this idea was dropped.

I also remember back in the Mulroney days when the Conservatives wanted to partially deindex old age pensions. There are a couple of Mulroney fans sitting here in the House of Commons, members of the Conservative Party. In the end the Conservatives did that.

I remember when they brought it in. Mulroney was very popular in 1985. There was a big rally here in the House of Commons. I see two Brian Mulroney fans sitting in the House, one from Yorkton—Melville and one from Ontario, two Conservative MPs. In 1985 there was a big rally in the House. A little woman named Madam Denis, who probably stood about 4 feet 10 inches, said in French to the Prime Minister, “Vous avez menti, vous avez menti”. She said to the Prime Minister, “You have lied to us”.

I remember the galvanizing of public opinion at that moment. I think the member for Sudbury became a member in 1988 and this occurred before she came to the House. I remember how the public opinion at that time galvanized and changed because of Madam Denis.

The grey lobby is increasing in size. It is politically a very potent force out there and an important force. The senior citizens should be listened to. When governments have tried to tinker with programs that they hold dear, and I have mentioned a couple of examples, there have been very effective protests by senior citizens. This is something we should pay heed to. They are our constituents and a very important part of our constituency.

The member for Sudbury makes some excellent points in the legislation. One of the points is that there are crimes being committed against seniors. We have heard about different scams and different con artists that prey on seniors, who telephone them with different ideas about where they should put their money. I have had cases where seniors have called my office after being taken by con artists on different schemes. They go after seniors because they feel they are vulnerable. In many cases it is older women who they feel are vulnerable and they take their money.

In summary, I commend the member for Sudbury. We should send the bill to committee. We should study the whole area of how we treat seniors and make sure we have a fair and just society for them in the years that lie ahead.

[Action Plan for Democratic Reform, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for the NDP, democracy is more about 33 million Canadians than just 301 MPs. There is too much concentration today on some parliamentary reform. Much of current parliamentary reform is fluff. It will not be substantive in terms of helping ordinary people in this country and members in the House. Democracy is more about what happens to the people outside of here than people right here on Parliament Hill.

I want to go over what I think the minister should be looking at in terms of what I call democratic reform. He called his package the action plan for democratic reform, but it is really about parliamentary reform. In terms of reforming the House, I like the idea of fewer confidence votes, and I certainly applaud that.

I am concerned about the enhanced role of parliamentary secretaries on parliamentary committees. I want committees to be independent. A parliamentary secretary is going to those committees with an enhanced role, reporting back to the government, and this runs the risk of the PMO having yet more control of committees than it has today. That is something we will have to watch because the goal is going in the opposite direction to what members of Parliament want to have happen.

What I want to see are the following four points.

First, in terms of democratic reform, the minister should also start looking at electoral reform. The House of Commons does not reflect the way people vote. We should be looking at various changes in the voting system. I advocate a system of proportional representation such as the majority of countries in the world have implemented. This would reflect the great diversity of Canadians. We should strike an all party committee and start looking at that process. I remind the minister that there are now five provinces looking at voting reform in their particular jurisdictions. We should be leading the pack instead of being behind it.

Second, we should look at the idea of a fixed election day as exists now in British Columbia. This would put all parties on a level playing field.

Third, we should look at bringing back enumeration. We have had all kinds of problems with the enumeration process in terms of people being left off voting lists.

Finally, the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 should also be looked at.

Those four things with regard to electoral reform would give us a more democratic country in terms of greater participation in our process.

The second major area is parliamentary reform. I have already said that I believe there should be fewer confidence votes.

Our committees should be more powerful. More resources should be given to committees. Committees should have the power to elect their own chairs, and I am glad that was mentioned in the House leader's remarks. Committees should be more independent from the government. A committee should have the power to set its own timetable and to initiate legislation.

I do not see in this parliamentary reform anything about the abolition of the unelected Senate. I wonder where that is. There is now a senator sitting in the Conservative Party. The Alliance Party has a senator sitting in its caucus. Where do those members stand? They did not support the unelected Senate, the unaccountable Senate, the undemocratic Senate. Where is that in terms of this proposal on democratic reform? It is not there.

We should give committees the power to ratify and review important decisions including appointments to the bench.

We should have a fixed budget date to assist the provinces and municipalities to plan their fiscal programs.

The power to ratify international treaties should be taken away from cabinet and given to the Parliament of Canada, including things such as the star wars treaty that is coming up.

A parliamentary vote should be required before we send our troops into the theatre of war. This is not a requirement today.

A national referendum should be required for any major constitutional change that this country might contemplate.

I agree with the minister about a code of ethics for the House, but it should apply to members of the other place as well.

We must look at our civil society when we talk about democratic reform and the minister might contemplate this in the future.

I believe that we must strengthen our freedom of information legislation.

We must implement self-government for our first nations people to give them the opportunity to have equality with the rest of the country.

Anti-scab laws and whistleblower protection must be expanded to protect the rights of Canadian workers. We must protect the right of Canadian workers to organize and the right to strike. The right to organize should apply to all workers, including workers right here on Parliament Hill.

We also must have in this country a balanced and diverse exchange of information through the media, which means: limiting the concentration of ownership of the media and the convergence of the media; providing adequate funding for the CBC; maintaining foreign ownership restrictions; and strengthening the media's right to seek information and communicate it to the public. That is very important in terms of democratic reform.

I conclude by saying that we need economic democracy with reform of global institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the IMF. We have to get rid of Chapter 11 and the state investor clause of the NAFTA agreement. We must have stakeholder rights and participation in our pension plans. Finally, we have to strengthen corporate governance to require a greater amount of accountability by the boards of directors and the senior management of different corporations in the country.

That is an agenda for democratic reform. It is parliamentary reform. It is voting reform. These are reforms that affect our civil society and these are reforms that affect economic democracy in the country.

I urge the minister to get his mind off reforming just the House of Commons and to look at the other aspects of our democracy, to start talking about reforming them as well, and to show the courage to do something about the unelected Senate, the unelected house, that house of hacks, flacks and bagmen who have been friends of the prime ministers of our country. I see the parliamentary secretary blushing across the way. I do not think it is from sunburn. He is blushing because of the former crusade we used to go on about this particular issue.

Finally, I remind him once again, how about establishing a parliamentary committee to begin the process of voting reform with the end result of having a system of proportional representation in this country like the majority of democracies have? That is true democracy.

[Member for LaSalle-Émard, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the Bloc Quebecois condemns someone for his refusal to fly the Canadian flag, it is clear that he has problems.

This weekend, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois ridiculed the former finance minister for his refusal to fly the Canadian flag on his ships in order to avoid paying Canadian taxes and wages.

That is not a good thing.

So, what flag should the new Liberal leader fly? I urge people to vote on the NDP's website, flyourflag.ca.

When one is the prime minister-in-waiting, the reluctance to abide by Canadian taxes, wages and environmental standards sets a bad example. Do as I say, but not as I do.

I ask everyone to check out the NDP's website that our Liberal friends are loving to hate. I ask everyone to visit flyourflag.ca and help the new Liberal leader choose his flag: the American flag, the Bahamas, or maybe Visa or Mastercard.

[Agriculture, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are reports from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that it has found some major deficiencies in sanitation in some 61 federally regulated slaughterhouses in Canada. This could possibly compromise some of the safety of our meat in the country.

My question is, could the minister explain to Canadians why the government allowed this to happen?

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to reinforce that.

We are dealing here not just with a magazine one may pick up and pictures one may look at. We are dealing here with videos. We are dealing here with the Internet. We are dealing here with violation against children. We are dealing here with the abuse of children. We are dealing here with the whole gambit of violation and degradation of the crassest kind one would ever want to imagine. We have to deal with it in a very tough way and that is what I want to do.

I commend the member for Wild Rose for putting this motion on the Order Paper. I go back to my central point. It comes down to the definition of the public good. Who defines the public good? Is it the courts or is it Parliament? My plea is that Parliament, and not the unelected judiciary, define the public good. That is where we have to start. Then we can have the arguments as to what is the public good, what is artistic merit, what is legitimate research, what is legitimate in terms of museums, where the two clash and where the fine lines are. Those are not easy questions to answer, but we start with Parliament defining it and not the courts.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with the member for Edmonton North that any adult who forces a child is obviously not artistic merit. It obviously should be a violation of our Criminal Code and the criminal laws. I want to make that very clear. We saw scenes provided by the RCMP, as the member for Edmonton North said, of 18 month old baby girls being violated by adult men. Obviously that is horrific and we have to come down extremely hard on that type of issue.

My answer to the member's question is that either we as parliamentarians define what the public good is or the courts define what the public good is. It is one or the other. My appeal today is that we as parliamentarians should make the definition. It is going to be tricky in many cases, we all know that, but I would sooner have parliamentarians do it because we are elected and accountable to the people. We should write the legislation without the determination of the courts. If we do not, the courts will do it. As I said, the Canadian Bar Association has said that the use of the term public good as a test is too vague and too broad to give the legislation any real effect.

The answer to the question is that we should do it, not the courts.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the opposition motion tabled by the member for Wild Rose.

The whole issue of child pornography is an extremely important issue. First, I want to begin by thanking the justice committee. A few minutes ago in the justice committee, members dealt with Bill C-23, the national sex registry. The committee agreed to an amendment I made to have a review of the registry in two years.

I am pleased that the chairman of the justice committee broke the tie. There were opposition members and some government members in support of the amendment and some opposed. The amendment as passed will provide for a review of the national sex registry in two years time. That is a good thing to do. It will make the role of parliamentarians more meaningful in terms of our political system.

The debate before the House today is one that is very important. We are dealing with Bill C-20 in our justice committee. The minister and his officials have been before the committee. We are trying to find an effective way to ensure that we are tough with people who are involved in child pornography and the abuse of children.

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for people who abuse children in the way that they do. I know the minister feels exactly the same way.

We saw some very moving video from the RCMP on some of the most horrific child pornography and the abuse of children that could possibly be imagined. It is the kind of abuse that brings tears to people's eyes. There is no doubt whatsoever that we have to deal with this in the toughest and most effective way possible.

The problem we have with the legislation before the House, and one which people are wrestling with, is clause 7, the public good, the definition of the public good and the whole question of freedom of expression, artistic merit, what a museum can display, what researchers can research and so on. There is a differing legal opinion, as the minister knows, as to clause 7 and the public good.

I want to begin by saying that there is a serious difference of opinion. The Canadian Bar Association, for example, believes that the public good test is too vague and too broad to give this legislation any real effect.

In other words, the Canadian Bar Association is saying that it is not really sure what the public good test really is. It could be too broad or it could be too narrow. It could be too narrow in terms of dealing with child pornography and those who abuse children. It could be too broad and catch in the sweeping definition in the courts genuine artists and researchers, museums or medical research in the country. We do not know what will happen. The jurisprudence will evolve through the courts. In effect what Parliament is doing here is giving the authority to the courts to define what is the public good.

I wish the member for Wild Rose was here. I wonder if he would agree that what we should is remove clause 7 from Bill C-20, with instructions that Parliament define what is the public good. Then the intent of parliamentarians would be clearly signalled to the courts. If we do not do that, the courts will make the definition of public good.

I am one who is very much in favour of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution. However, I am also one who has been a bit nervous about the evolution of more and more power to the courts, where the courts and not legislatures make more and more decisions in our country about public policy.

I respect the courts and judges. However, they are not elected. It should be us as parliamentarians and provincial legislatures that determine policy in terms of what direction our society wants to go.

This is really the whole debate that we are now having in the justice committee. The debate is what is freedom of expression. I see the member for Dauphin—Swan River who is a decent parliamentarian and human being. He believes in freedom of expression. If he went to a movie theatre tonight at nine o'clock and there was a very popular movie on, if he jumped on the stage half way through the movie to make a big long speech about how wonderful such and such was, he would be in contempt because freedom of expression has certain limitations. He could not do that because it would be a limitation on freedom of expression.

Section 1 of the charter is the limitation clause. It shows there are limitations, but it has to be demonstrated that these are in the public good or the common good. It has to be demonstrated. The whole debate in the justice committee is what is artistic merit, what is the public good?

We want to make sure we have tough child pornography laws that deal in a very tough way with people who abuse children in this country. Some of this stuff is horrendously offensive and is almost beyond imagination. We have to deal with it in an extremely tough way. However, in the sweep of the law we have to make sure that genuine artistic merit and expression does not become a criminal offence. That is a concern many have.

The Canadian Bar Association is about as credible an organization as possible in terms of expressing an opinion on a certain law before the House. Its concern, as I said before, is that the use of the public good test is much too vague and broad to give the legislation any real effect.

We should be instructing the government, instructing the justice committee, instructing Parliament, to make sure that we say what is the public good and what we mean in terms of the law and how it will be carried out.

I see in the House the member from Edmonton, the former Alliance House leader. I am sure she would agree that we often leave too much power with the courts, with unelected judges, when parliamentarians should make the decisions.

The scope of the public good, as I said, is too broad according to some lawyers, and too narrow according to other lawyers. We should clarify what we mean. The police will do a better job and make more sound decisions in their investigations of suspected child pornographers to protect children if there is a very clear definition of what we mean in terms of how we want to protect the children. On the other side, if we have a clear definition of what the public good means, then artists, museums, researchers and others will not be prosecuted for legitimate artistic expression or legitimate research in their field of endeavour.

One of my colleagues on the government side, who is on the justice committee has just walked in. He knows the debate that has been raging in the committee as to what those fine lines are.

We need clarity in what we mean by the definition of the public good. We have to give some guidance to the courts as to what we mean as a parliament by the public good. We have to stop delegating that power to an unelected judiciary. We parliamentarians should write the law and clearly signal to the courts what we mean when we tighten the law against those who commit pornography and abuse children, what we mean by the freedom of expression, what we mean by artistic merit and the right of museums to display certain pieces of art, what the fine line is and what the message is that we want to send to the court.

The bill before the justice committee, which I understand will be dealt with again tomorrow afternoon, is simply too vague on too many fronts on that particular point. We have seen that by the clash of interpretation among different witnesses and the clash of interpretation among different lawyers.

My main reason for intervening today is to say that it is extremely important that we are not derelict in our responsibilities. We as parliamentarians must make sure that we take clause 7 out of the bill as it stands.

We would be better off getting rid of the clause altogether than to have a vague clause which no one can guarantee what it means in the end and leave that power to the unelected courts. Once the jurisprudence and the precedents are built up by our legal system, we may have a very good law. On the other hand, we may have a law that one way or the other does not have the intent of what Parliament means. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to make sure that is done. I think this is an issue on which Parliament can unite, that it should be us and not the courts who define what we mean by the public good.

Artists should have the freedom to express what they want to express and not be fearful of being charged under the Criminal Code in terms of legitimate artistic expression. People should be able to do legitimate research and museums should be able to exhibit legitimately without fear of being prosecuted and convicted under the Criminal Code. At the same time the Criminal Code must have more power to prosecute and put away those people who abuse children or those people who are involved in child pornography that is so offensive to any kind of civilized society.

I hope we can come to that consensus, that it should be Parliament and not the courts that makes that determination. We can debate what the fine lines are and signal clearly to the courts what the House means.

[Competition Act, October 22nd, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-461, an act to amend the Competition Act (investigations by Commissioner and class proceedings) and to make a related amendment to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, my bill to amend the Competition Act would actually allow consumers to pool their resources or band together in a class action suit under the Competition Act. That does not exist today. Consumers, under my act, could initiate an investigation into their complaint and go through the whole process. If successful, they would qualify for compensation. I am sure it has the support of most members of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)