Gilles Bernier

[Parliament Hill, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Public Works told the Treasury Board that the parliamentary renovation would cost $750 million, it told the truth. When Glenn Duncan announced that the renovations would cost $800 million to $1 billion, he also told the truth. Two days ago when the auditor general said that the renovations would eventually cost $1.4 billion, he also told the truth.

Why is the minister using different numbers? Can he not count?

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I said that we are debating Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act. I am not talking about other corporations. I am talking about the Royal Canadian Mint which is a crown corporation.

That corporation itself does not get money from the government. The mint has borrowing authority from the government to go outside and borrow the money it needs. I do not know where the hon. member from the Reform Party is coming from when he says it is the taxpayers' money. It is not taxpayers' money. It is borrowing money from a bank. It is the bank that owns the Royal Canadian Mint until the loan is paid. What is wrong with that? It is a business deal.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member from the Reform Party has a good question but he is way off base. He does not know what he is talking about.

The reason I am saying that is the Royal Canadian Mint is building a plant in Winnipeg for a price tag of some $30 million. The mint is not using taxpayers' money. It has borrowing authority. It borrows from banks. A person who wants to buy a car does not come to the government, that person will go to the bank. That is what the Royal Canadian Mint did.

The mint is asking parliament to increase its borrowing authority from $50 million to $75 million. The plant it is building in Winnipeg was started last March, before presentation of this bill. The mint went to wherever it went and borrowed the money. It is not taxpayers' money. There is a cliche in that. If the Royal Canadian Mint makes money, Canada wins. If the Royal Canadian Mint, which is a crown corporation, loses money, the government is liable and the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab. The money used to build that plant in Winnipeg is not taxpayers' money, it is money that the corporation borrowed from an outside source.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. I am very flattered. It is not often that this happens in this place.

I believe that regardless of which political party we are from, we were sent here by Canadians to represent Canadians. I am here to represent the people of Tobique—Mactaquac in New Brunswick. In my portfolio of public works and government operations, I am here to represent all Canadians, whether it has to do with Canada Post or the Royal Canadian Mint. It is one of the biggest departments in Canada. It includes Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and a lot of others.

Whether one is a Reformer, an NDP, a Bloc, a Conservative or a Liberal, we have to work together in the House to make things happen for Canadians. That is what Canadians deserve and that is what we have to do for them. I hope by the time the next election comes around people will see the work that I do and they will elect more Conservatives.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member of the Reform Party for his question. It is a very good question.

I have been in business for over 20 years. I said from the start that government should not be in business. The mandate of government is to manage taxpayers' dollars, and I have not yet seen this government do that.

When there is a bill in front of the House, members do not have to agree with everything in the bill. They can work hard along with their party colleagues to try to make amendments and to change some provisions that would make the bill acceptable. That is what I did.

There are some flaws in the bill. However, being 43 years old, I believe in a life of compromise. That was the way I was brought up. My dad always told me that if someone wants to get a little in life they have to be able to give a little. I strongly believe that.

It is true that there are still some flaws in the bill. However, just because there are a few flaws here and a few flaws there, whether we vote for it or vote against it, the bill is going to pass anyway.

I fought to get the amendment I wanted and I won the amendment. The amendment is good for members of parliament because it keeps the power here in the House of Commons and it is good for Canadians in general.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to be able to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act. I just want to get back to what we are here for, and it is not criticizing each other.

When the minister responsible for the mint first introduced the bill on May 7, I was careful to go through it with a fine toothed comb. I saw many important changes being proposed, but I also identified two items which caused me grave concern.

In the time since I have had a great number of meetings and have done a fair bit of work on the bill so that I am satisfied now that most of my concerns have been dealt with. As a result, I am pleased to say we will be supporting Bill C-41 at third reading.

Today I would like to talk about the process we have gone through to get to this point, readdress my original concern and discuss why I now believe it is important for members to support the bill.

When Bill C-41 was first introduced it contained two provisions that prevented me from immediately endorsing the bill without further study. The first of the changes contained in clause 3 would have stripped parliament of the authority to introduce new coins into circulation or to delete old coins from circulation. It proposed putting that authority into the hands of cabinet and streamlining the decision process.

I have always jealously guarded the authority of the Chamber. Members of the House are the people's representatives.

It is right that having been vested with this authority we should have an important part in the decision making process of government. Unless there is a clear and compelling reason for any power held by members of parliament to be moved elsewhere, I oppose any effort to diminish the authority of the Commons.

This is not an academic discussion. It is very likely that at some point in the near future members of parliament will be asked to consider whether they wish to replace the $5 bill with a $5 coin. It is also quite conceivable that they will have to decide if having a penny in circulation serves any useful purpose or if it should be retired. As it stands now, if the government wishes to take an existing coin out of circulation, or bring in a new coin, it must introduce legislation for consideration by parliament.

As with all bills such as the one before us today, there must be a full public debate with committee hearings and ultimately a public vote before such a change can take place. This bill proposes turning this decision over to cabinet. It would require the minister to give 15 sitting days notice before cabinet makes the decision. However, it would have been powerless to stop any decision the public found undesirable and that is what I oppose. Government works best when it bases its decisions under the full scrutiny of the public eye. It is not pretty at times, but it works.

For example, take the decision to replace the $1 bill with the $1 coin back in 1987. I remember that there was great discussion over the efficacy of having the loonie. On one side of the discussion we had the vending machine lobby and the bus companies which promoted the convenience of having a $1 coin. On the other side was a diverse group of people who were concerned about replacing the dollar for reasons that ranged from nostalgia to concern that pant pockets would have to be reinforced because coins were too heavy. Regardless of what our individual feelings were on that issue, it was right for us to have that debate in the House, the most public of forums. It is right that we should have a debate here if there are to be similar changes to Canada's currency in the future. Understandably, the fact that Bill C-41 would take this decision away from parliament troubles me a lot.

I was fortunate enough to have a briefing on the bill in June by officials from the Royal Canadian Mint, including the master of the mint, Danielle Wetherup. When I asked Mrs. Wetherup why the government would consider removing from members of parliament the power to approve a change in the country's coinage she was able to give me some history behind this portion of the bill.

Apparently, when parliament was dealing with what was then Bill C-82, the act to replace the $2 note with a $2 coin, the master of the mint received some negative feedback from members of parliament on the process involved in approving the new coin. At that time it was in late June. The days were very hot. The government had a very busy agenda. The committee room where the government operations committee was reviewing the bill was not air conditioned.

In the heat of the moment, if members will pardon the pun, and faced with a large number of bills to approve in the final days before the House recessed for the summer, some members of parliament observed that Bill C-82 was not the most important piece of legislation before them. They wondered out loud if there was not an easier way to deal with what seemed to them to be a straightforward change.

Understandably, mint officials made a note of this. When it came time to update the Royal Canadian Mint Act, as is done every 20 years or so, they decided to propose changes to simplify the approval process for changes in coinage in response to suggestions by members of parliament at that time. The result was clause 3, as it appeared in the original printing of Bill C-41. However, members will note that clause 3 has changed.

For reasons that I have already explained, it was unacceptable to me that the decision to change Canada's coinage should have been taken from parliamentarians. Therefore, on behalf of my party I drafted a amendment to leave that decision where it belonged, in the hands of the peoples' representatives.

I shared my idea with Mrs. Wetherup, the master of the mint, on two occasions, during our first real briefing with members of parliament and during the hearings of the natural resources and government operations committee into Bill C-41. Throughout the committee meeting she rightly stated that the final decision as to whether the government would support the amendment rested with the minister. She indicated during our first meeting that since the original idea for clause 3 had come from members of parliament the mint would not oppose leaving the decision making process the way it was if, on reflection, members of parliament believed it should remain that way.

I also spoke to the minister's office and to the critics from other parties about my amendment. I argued the importance of my amendment and said that members of parliament must continue to have an important role in the government decision making process. Apparently they must have found my arguments to be persuasive. When I presented my amendment in committee last Tuesday, it received the unanimous support of the members of parliament present. I acknowledge and thank all members of the committee and the minister for their considered, non-partisan support of my amendment.

Clause 7 is another provision of Bill C-41 that concerned me. It proposes increasing the borrowing authority of the mint from its present $50 million to $75 million. This proposed change troubled me because of a new venture the mint is undertaking in building a new facility in Winnipeg to manufacture coin blanks.

Clause 7 worried me principally because I thought the mint would use this newly acquired borrowing power to finance this poorly thought out venture and put a successful Canadian company out of business. I did not realize at that time that the mint financed this $30 million venture in March and that the building which will house the coin plating facility is nearly completed. It is clear at this point that Bill C-41 has no bearing on the mint's decision to build this new facility. Therefore, I must separate my opposition to this scheme from my position on the bill and evaluate clause 7 on its own merits.

Do not mistake my support of this bill as an endorsement of the mint's decision to get into the manufacturing of coin blanks. I oppose that decision for two reasons. First, the facility will put the Royal Canadian Mint into direct competition with a successful Canadian supplier of coin blanks, Westaim of Alberta. Westaim has supplied the mint with coin blanks for 35 years. It employs 110 people at its plant in Fort Saskatchewan and the entry of the mint into this industry will jeopardize this Westaim division and its 110 employees.

Second, this is a risky venture for the mint to undertake. Because it has borrowed the money on taxpayers' credit, it is also risky for Canadians. There is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the world's coin blanks market. If the entry of the mint into this market does not drive Westaim out of business and put its 110 employees on the unemployment line, it could go spectacularly down in flames and take millions of taxpayers' dollars along with it. Industry experts agree that the market for coin blanks will experience a slight blip in demand as the new European currency starts, but it will then continue its steady decline as electronic transactions become more popular and the need for coinage and paper money decreases.

As if poor markets were not enough, the costs of getting the mint into the coin plating business are enormous. The $30 million dollars borrowed by the mint in March is just to build the Winnipeg plant. Start-up costs are substantial for a new competitor in a mature to declining market. The Royal Canadian Mint will have to compete against established, experienced, well-entrenched competitors which have had decades to build their expertise and economies of scale.

For example, consider employee costs. The process of manufacturing coin blanks requires highly skilled workers. There are only two ways to obtain employees such as this. The first way is to spend an extraordinary amount of time and money to train these people. The other option is to hire them away from competitors by offering them more money. Either way, employee costs are going to be higher than those of competitors, and in a commoditized, price sensitive industry this is bad news.

Not only will the mint have to contend with its high cost structure, but like any brand new business it will make many mistakes.

Thus, I fear for the Royal Canadian Mint, I fear for the employees of Westaim and I fear for the taxpayers who are, so far, on the hook for $30 million.

However, I realize now after considerable debate and consultation on Bill C-41 that these are two separate fights. Although I will continue to search for a resolution to the mint's entry into the coin blanks industry, I can happily say that we have won the fight on Bill C-41. Now that the committee has fixed the problem with the bill, it has removed the final obstacles to my party's support.

In closing, I would like to again thank the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations as well as the minister for helping to get my amendment approved.

I would like to thank Danielle Wetherup and the other officials of the mint who were kind enough to meet with me on a number of occasions, both privately and publicly, to review this bill and to discuss my concerns in detail.

Although, as I have mentioned, I do not agree with everything the mint is doing, I do agree with the changes to the Royal Canadian Mint Act and Currency Act as proposed in this bill.

I have no hesitation in supporting this bill and I would urge other members to do the same.

[Agriculture, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in Atlantic Canada are also feeling the crunch from the government.

We have grain in abundance because of a bumper crop and the market is flooded, which drives prices down. Yet the government is allowing grain from Europe into the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John.

If the minister is as much of a Canadian as he feels he is, is it not time that he took care of Canadian farmers instead of farmers from Europe?

[Criminal Code, November 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, for several weeks now the Prime Minister and the solicitor general have been avoiding answering questions about APEC, with the excuse that they could not say anything because the matter was under investigation by the RCMP public complaints commission.

The solicitor general has totally contradicted what he said previously in discussing APEC in a public place, on a plane.

The solicitor general has questioned the accuracy of the account taken by the member for Palliser on that plane, but he has never denied that he discussed APEC, nor has he ever stated exactly what he said in that conversation. In fact, the Prime Minister has made reference to the accuracy of the account as it deals with Airbus. By trying to impress a friend and chattering on in a public place about very sensitive information entrusted to him in his position as the minister responsible for the RCMP, he has demonstrated he is unfit to sit in cabinet.

Indeed, by his indiscretions he has become an object of ridicule by his colleagues, the media, voters and even his own constituents.

This was best summed up by an editorial in the Globe and Mail on October 8: “Stupidity isn't a crime, but it's no foundation for cabinet office either”.

The Hill Times said: “This has damaged the solicitor general's career and has raised some serious questions about his competence”.

The Halifax Herald said: “The member from Fredericton should not be solicitor general. His offence was to say anything about a matter before a public tribunal for which he has ministerial responsibility. This was as wrong as a judge casually talking about cases out of court”.

The member for Fredericton was indiscreet by talking about confidential information in a public place. It is immaterial what were his exact words used in that conversation. It does not matter who heard the conversation. The fact that he had this conversation at all shows that the member has compromised the office of the solicitor general. He has put his own self-interests ahead of the interest of Canada and the APEC inquiry.

I have not changed my mind. He should do the honourable thing and resign.

[Canada Post, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Canada Post has once again run amok.

I have been given information from several Canada Post employees that Mr. Barry Bennett, the director of the Fredericton region, used the Fredericton sorting station to store his sports car last winter.

When exactly did the minister begin allowing Canada Post managers to use crown owned properties as their personal storage facilities?

[Access To Information Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

I would like to commend the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga for bringing this legislation forward. It is a tribute to her efforts that we are debating a private member's bill at this advanced stage of debate.

Hopefully the Liberals will be more co-operative with opposition parties in the House to ensure that private member's business is treated in a better manner.

It is well known that the Access to Information Act does not have enough teeth. Even the former information commissioner has said so in his most recent report.

On that note, I would also like to take this opportunity to belatedly congratulate the hon. John Reid, a former member of this House, on his appointment as the new information commissioner. I am pleased that my colleague, the House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party, was able to facilitate the appointment of a qualified, hard working person such as Mr. Reid.

Bill C-208 would create an offence for a person who denies the right of access under the Access to Information Act, who destroys, mutilates or alters a record, who falsifies a record, who makes a false entry in a record or who does not keep required records.

As amended by the justice committee, Bill C-208 would also create an offence for anyone who directs, proposes or counsels someone to alter or destroy official records.

This is an extremely important amendment because it extends responsibility to senior managers who may order someone to break the Access to Information Act. A person found guilty of this indictable offence would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both. We would have liked to see the maximum punishment of five years as originally proposed under Bill C-208 kept, but we in the House should focus on passing this bill.

In essence, Bill C-208 remains a very simple amendment to the Access to Information Act that will nonetheless strengthen the provisions of the overall act. For some time now Canadians have been losing confidence in their public institutions and especially in government. Canadians need to know their federal government is truly working on their behalf and truly working well, otherwise people feel that both their votes and their taxes are wasted.

The Access to Information Act is one of the tools for the public to achieve that objective and this amendment proposed in Bill C-208 is simply helping to make the law more complete. The amendment would give more visibility, more access and more teeth to the Access to Information Act by including strong penalties for those who do their utmost to prevent its application. This is not to say that more could have been done to improve the act.

For example, amendments could have been proposed to allow the public access to documents of the privy council which are currently confidential. In fact, many other amendments reflecting the concerns and expectations of information commissioners, past and present, could have been tabled in the same manner.

This is not a reflection of this bill or the bill's sponsor, the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga, but it is a reflection on the Liberal government that is obsessed with keeping secrets and covering up instead of being open and straightforward with Canadians. On the other hand, it was the Right Hon. Joe Clark during his tenure as prime minister who first acted on a longstanding call for an Access to Information Act. His Progressive Conservative government introduced such legislation in 1979.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP, out of their partisan interests, defeated that government and the bill died on the order paper. Several more years would pass until the legislation was reintroduced and took effect. Thankfully, Mr. Clark is returning to the scene and will no doubt bring the same fresh and innovative ideas to change government for the betterment of Canadians.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I am pleased to support Bill C-208. I encourage all members to do so. We believe it is a step forward in opening up the government to more public scrutiny and in giving Canadians a stronger sense of public control and identity with their public institutions.

I hope the government follows the example of the member for Brampton West—Mississauga and introduces more comprehensive amendments to the Access to Information Act.