Debates of May 19th, 1995

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, pursuant to subsection 7(7) of the Referendum Act, chapter 30, Statutes of Canada, 1992, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be the committee designated to review the proposed regulation made in accordance with subsections 7(3) and 7(4) of this Act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present this petition. It is signed primarily by residents and citizens of the Paradise Valley area of Alberta.

They would draw to the attention of this House the fact that they are very concerned about our streets being made safer for citizens and are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions to introduce.

As I am duty bound, I have a petition signed by constituents mainly from Regina and from Fort Qu'Appelle and district that asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicides are enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes to the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I am duty bound, I have a petition mainly from constituents of Regina criticizing Bill C-41.

These petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am also duty bound to introduce this petition from constituents of Fort Qu'Appelle.

The constituents and the petitioners are not happy with Image Cablesystem, which has changed their programming and rates. The petitioners ask Parliament to regulate Image Cablesystem and all cable companies in regard to program services and rates, regardless of subscriber numbers.

They also ask Parliament to address their immediate concern of requesting the CRTC take the steps necessary to restore their previous service, with new programming being offered in additional group packages at a competitive rate.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally read the entire petition, but in this case I will.

I have over 7,706 signatures that I have received from a group in my community called Fair Justice, which came into effect after a very tragic killing in our community.

Their petition reads: In 1990 an average of two Canadian women per week were murdered by their husbands or male partners. Over the period 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a stranger. Whereas the domestic killer is treated less harshly than any other by Canadian courts, the crime is usually defined as manslaughter. Killing family is much more likely to involve provocation or the heat of passion than killing acquaintances or killing for money or sex. While almost 60 per cent of those who kill during the commission of another crime are sentenced to life imprisonment, only 20 per cent of family killers receive this penalty.

Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament amend section 236 of the Criminal Code to include a minimum sentence of 10 years when a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of manslaughter of a spouse or partner.

I will therefore table these signatures that number 7,706, as I mentioned before.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Cariboo-Chilcotin constituents from 100 Mile House, Forest Grove, Canim Lake, and Lone Butte, British Columbia.

Those who signed the petition are of the opinion that existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more than enough to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun control laws, which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulating across Canada. This particular petition comes from the Calgary, Alberta, area.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also say that the

Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition from 258 residents of the province of Saskatchewan, who request and call upon Parliament to desist from legalizing the use of rBST in Canada. They further request that legislation be passed requiring it to be mandatory that all imported products from BST and rBST treated cows be so identified.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today and table in the House a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands, who call upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 147, 148 and 168.

Question No. 147-

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

For each of the calendar years 1990 to 1994, has the government developed detailed data measuring actual cigarette consumption, and if so what are these estimates for each province for which the data are available, and if not, why not?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

No consumption data are available for 1990 to 1994. However, domestic cigarette sales have always been considered an accurate proxy of retail sales and therefore consumption in the long term. All analysis of consumption have used these data in this fashion.

For statistical data on domestic cigarette sales refer to answer to Question No. 148.

Question No. 148-

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

For each of the calendar years 1990 to 1994, has the government received data measuring domestic cigarette sales and if so what are the total sales in each province for which data are available?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

The following are figures on domestic cigarette sales, excluding domestic sales of fine cut tobacco, for the years 1990 to 1993. All data for 1994 have not yet been released by the third party source and as such are not available for distribution.

Question No. 168-

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

On which occasions since September 1, 1994, has Gordon Campbell, the BC Leader of the Official Opposition, communicated by letter, fax or telephone with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or any officials within their offices, concerning the Kemano II completion project and what were the nature of the representations made on each occasion?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed that in so far as the Prime Minister and his office are concerned, Mr. Campbell sent a letter and other documents via fax to the Prime Minister on October 11, 1994 in which he outlined the British Columbia Liberal Party's position toward the Kemano completion project.

In so far as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his office are concerned, on October 11, 1994 Mr. Campbell wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to express the British Columbia Liberal Party's position toward the Kemano completion project.

Also, there was one telephone communication on January 23, 1995, the day the province of British Columbia announced the cancellation of Alcan's Kemano completion project. Mr. Campbell was informed of the federal government's public response.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Royal Canadian Mint Act

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise again in the House to debate an issue that is of importance to Canadians.

I would like to begin my intervention by simply stating that the intent of Bill C-82 is to establish a new $2 coin for Canada. The parliamentary secretary this morning, in introducing the bill in the House, gave a fair amount of rationale for it. I will not repeat those things, which we obviously agree on. They are already on the record. However, I do want to make a number of comments about what he said and refer directly to the provisions of the bill.

One thing I think we ought to understand is that even though in his presentation this morning he made rather voluminous reference to the changing of other coins-the penny, the nickel, the dime and the quarter, which are all being changed in content and hence in weight-that has nothing to do with Bill C-82. He was merely talking about another initiative, which is done by regulation and which apparently is going to proceed whether this bill is passed or not.

The fact of the matter is that if Bill C-82 does not pass and if Parliament fails to approve the authorization of the new two-dollar coin, then if the other regulations are implemented there will be wholesale changes required in order to manage the currency of our country by many, many merchants and vendors, irrespective of what this bill does.

I am not proposing that we ought to change the rules and that everything should be done in the House, because we would undoubtedly run out of time. I believe there is a proper role for setting of regulations that will determine certain aspects.

The introduction of the coin is not terribly controversial. We have had very little feedback. That is probably due to the fact that this initiative is not yet well known. I doubt whether it will generate a great deal of public outcry. It could even be that the bill will be passed before the public becomes aware of it. I do not think it has sufficient importance that it will grab the attention of the media. It looks as if it may be pushed through faster than what we can normally communicate via usual communication methods to our constituents.

In order to keep our options open we in the Reform Party will most likely oppose the bill. When I say that immediately the cry is: "They are in opposition; they are against everything". That is not true. In this instance we are doing it with a very open mind. In the event that the unanswered questions we have at this time receive satisfactory answers, we will have no hesitation to show support for the bill.

As I understand, the primary motivation for introducing the $2 coin is as a cost saving measure for the government. Much is made of this point. I cannot help at this stage to talk about the very important issue of cost cutting. The government would like Canadians to believe that it is cutting costs at every turn. If we look at the issue we are down to a very small amount of petty change. I say that in relation to the deficit and debt. If members opposite listen carefully they will hear in the next few minutes what I mean. I am not saying things to evoke a reaction. There is empirical, numerical evidence of what I am saying now.

We have a tremendous debt and a huge deficit. We commend the Liberals for bringing it down; it is better than increasing it. It is good that the deficit has been reduced. We ought not to delude Canadians into thinking that our debt problem is solved or that our debt is decreasing because it is not.

Not only does the budget of this year call for total government expenditures of $2 billion in excess of what was spent last year, but at the end of the fiscal year we will have another $32 billion of debt that we did not have when we entered this fiscal year. That is the straight fiscal reality. I am merely echoing what was reported by the Minister of Finance when he tabled his budget.

While I say that it is wonderful to be reducing spending and thereby hopefully reducing the rate at which we are going into debt, I also need to criticize it. Perhaps I can use a sports analogy. It is wonderful for the football team to gain a yard. That is better than losing a yard. On the next play it gains another yard. However, if only two yards in two plays have been gained in Canadian football the ball has to be kicked away. The opportunity has been lost.

At this time the matter is severe. Even though the government is saying this and I will echo it, there is a savings of $254 million over the next 20 years. I am not opposed to that savings, but it is as though we are gaining another yard and meanwhile the game is slipping away from us. We need to be cognizant of that fact. We need to address it very seriously.

I hesitate to say this. If Canadians hear me say that $254 million is petty change I will get hammered for it. I do not mean it. It is a lot of money, but relative to the total picture what we are doing in this measure is barely whittling away at the edge of the problem. The problem is so large that it is as if we are trying

to take the water out of the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. It will never happen.

Let me bring the numbers into perspective. I have shared before in the House that mathematics is my game. I have had some 31 years of experience teaching the subject. I have loved it and have used mathematics since I was a child.

In preparing my speech I immediately got out my calculator, did some number crunching and thought about what it meant. We need to be aware that the mention of savings, which is so highly touted by the other side, is extremely mediocre. Let me tell members how little the savings really are. I am sorry that we are spending time in the House today dealing with this one while the big ones are getting away from us.

A famous politician one time said: "I do not have time to be shooting rabbits when I should be after bear". That was a quotation of Tommy Douglas. That is what we are doing.

I ask the House to listen to the numbers. The $254 million savings is over 20 years. Usually when the government wants accolades for its savings it says a quarter of a billion dollars, which is a wonderfully big number. Then its voice drops when it whispers quietly "over 20 years" so that nobody notices that it is over 20 years.

What does this mean? It means $12.7 million in savings per year. We are going to deny it but we need to get it into the perspective of what it actually means in terms of the taxpayer.

I did a couple of side calculations. Here is one of them. Because of our massive debt, our interest payments of some $40 billion per year work out to about $110 million per day. Let us remember that I just said this was a cost saving of $12.7 million per year. Therefore we will save in this measure $12.7 million over the whole year. Meanwhile we are spending $110 million per day on interest. In the perspective of how viciously we are attacking the budget, this is not the measure.

Another way of putting it is that the savings "to be realized" by the implementation of the $2 coin will pay for our annual interest. This savings will account for the interest payment for two hours and 47 minutes of the year. That is the big saving.

Let us do it but let us recognize that if we are to do it and finally bring the debt under control, we will have to take some big steps. We will have to stop stepping gingerly. We will have to start looking at the big expenditures and at the big savings. Otherwise we will lose the game while busily wondering whether we made a yard or six inches.

I would like to bring it down to the individual because it is very appropriate. Not only does it put the savings into perspective. It also puts the economics into perspective. I made some assumptions because I do not have access to instantaneous figures. We are not yet on Internet in the House. It is impossible to get that technology going so it is difficult to get up to date measures.

I made a few assumptions on data that was several years old. It was the best I could get. Assuming 29 million Canadians, the savings this will produce will amount to the sum of 44 cents per year per Canadian. Over the whole year, after we have implemented the plan, every Canadian will say: "I have an extra 44 cents in my pocket this year".

Let us stop to think about it. The change in coinage will probably result in every coin operated machine in the country, telephones, food vending machines and lottery machines which I do not approve of in any case, having to be changed.

With the measure Canadians will save 44 cents per person per year. If the merchants increase the price on vending machines by 10 cents to recoup the cost of changing the machinery, any individual who uses a machine more than four times a year will end up spending more money. That puts the economic perspective of the measure into a different light. We need to think about these matters. Whether Canadians are paying money via their taxes or whether they are paying via the goods and services they purchase, it is still money out of their pockets.

I did another calculation. There are approximately 13.5 million Canadians who while filing income tax also pay tax. There are approximately six million taxpayers who file to receive the refundable tax credits. They are really out of the tax picture; they are only doing the paperwork. Those who are actually contributing to government income via the tax system number around 13.5 million to the best of my knowledge. If we forget about the people of Canada and only talk about the 13.5 million taxpaying Canadians, the savings are quite a bit more because there are now fewer people who are sharing the savings. The $254 million that will be saved by introducing the $2 coin gives every taxpayer a break of about 94 cents per year.

As a taxpayer I am sure that I use a coin operated machine more than 10 times per year. I am presuming. Maybe they will only increase the price by 5 cents. Maybe some of them will not increase the price at all, which I doubt, because it is our information that to change the coin recognition mechanism of machines will cost $500 per machine. That is the smallest number I have read about. I believe every coin operated machine in the country will increase their prices. I can anticipate a Pepsi or a chocolate bar which now costs 90 cents undoubtedly going

up to $1, so it will require a loonie. Maybe the new machine will accept a $2 coin and give a loonie back, so people will have almost exactly the same money in their pocket in terms of weight as before.

It has been mentioned that one of the reasons for doing this is that $2 bills do not last. That is also true. I know I cannot use props; I really know the rules around here. I cannot haul out a $2 bill, but I looked at one before I came here that was worn. The $2 bills get a lot of mileage. It reminds me a bit about the way the Canadian government handles grain. The government likes to put it on trains and give it a joy ride before it arrives at its destination. We do that with our currency as well.

The $2 bill undoubtedly does a lot of travelling. Statistics tell us that on average the $2 bill we have been using extensively since the $1 bill was discontinued lasts only a year and then it must be reprinted at a cost of 6 cents. It costs 6 cents every year for every $2 bill in circulation.

The coin, because it will last for 20 years, will not have that cost. It will cost approximately 16 cents to produce, but as we all know coins last for a very long time. To show that I am a true Reformer, when I was walking down the sidewalk the other day I saw a penny and I stopped to pick it up, as Reformers would be wont to do. I was amazed to see that the penny was almost as old as I am. Somebody had just dropped it. It was not quite as old as I am. The date on it as I recall was 1945 and I am six years older than that. But I thought it was really significant that that coin could last as long as I have. I assure you that no bill in circulation would last that long.

I have stated the cost per taxpayer and the saving per Canadian of 44 cents per year as a counterbalance to the statement of the parliamentary secretary. I think I wrote down the quotation correctly. He said: "This will be a big load off the debt". With all due respect, I think not.

I will indicate some other reasons for the temporary statement that we are going to be resisting the bill. I have already indicated that to the individual Canadian it may not be nearly as big a saving as is being touted. I want to find out before I vote in favour of the bill whether it actually is economically feasible. I am not certain. I have not had sufficient data on it to convince me.

Also I somehow feel that we ought to be presenting Canadians with more than just this option. We now have a $1 coin and we are jumping now to a $2 coin and then a $5 coin. The $2 coin is the one in question.

To my knowledge no studies have been done on the viability and feasibility of dropping the $2 bill and going from the $1 to the $5. I cannot use props here, but I could hold up four coins and show that those four loonies would represent two $2 bills. After we pass the $4 dollar mark we could then use a $5 bill. You do not ever need more than two $2 bills. That means we would never need more than two $2 coins. Which means that if we did not have a $2 coin we would have to have up to four loonies.

I looked at the spec sheet. The loonie weighs 7 grams. The new proposed $2 coin is going to weigh 7.3 grams, just slightly heavier. Canadians are going to say: "If I have to have yet another coin, then there is going to more weight in my pocket". Well, this is what it is: four loonies weigh 28 grams. My generation likes to hear it in the old British system, which is about an ounce. If you had two $2 coins they would weigh 14.6 grams, which for all intents and purposes is about half an ounce.

We are asking Canadians to approve the introduction of a new $2 coin with huge costs to all the vending industries and all the coin operated machines in order to save, at maximum, the necessity of carrying an extra one-half ounce in their pockets. I suppose that could be justified. I am interested in studying it further. I am certainly interested in hearing from Canadians to find out whether they are really going to say: "Yes, let us go for the $2 coin because I walk lopsided if I have an extra half ounce on that side". I am being facetious. My apologizes. That was supposed to be a joke to wake up members opposite.

Too many questions of this type remain unanswered. In fact, there are some problems with the bill itself. Consequently, our initial response is that we respectfully submit that we are going to oppose the bill, with the option that if proper answers are given to our questions, then we will show that we are willing to support the bill.

One thing the government has done based on the data we received from it, was a poll which found that Canadians support the $2 coin. We actually question the accuracy of the poll. The difficulty with the poll is that the only option given was whether they liked the $2 coin or not. They were not given the option of not having the $2 denomination at all. Therefore, Canadians were not given a number of choices, but a very narrow choice.

I was also told, and I hope this is correct, that the first poll taken was not supportive. The question was changed in order to get a positive poll so that the proposal for the $2 coin could be advertised as having the support of Canadians. When I found out that this was done, I wondered about the motivation behind it.

Another question we definitely want answered is: Who will actually benefit from the introduction of the coin? I am making no allegations, but it is a question which we will always and carefully ask on this side of the House. I am not going to say which Liberal supporter, but we will ask who is going to benefit from this. Who has the contract? Which are the businesses that change the machines? If there are any problems with that, we are

going to try to find that out and make sure that the motivations are all above board.

I will also talk a little bit about the retailers. I am sure a lot of Canadians are not aware that when a purchase is made with currency there is almost always change. Very seldom does the customer present the exact change. In any case, every merchant has the option of having the facility to accept a credit card. We understand that a great deal of merchandising is done via credit cards. The mechanism for processing credit card and debit card purchases has been refined to a great extent. That system is fairly efficient, but we still have a coinage system. We still have the rules of currency and legal tender. Therefore, the merchants are required to have change.

If you were ever to look into the till, you would see that there are different compartments for pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and loonies. We have very few 50-cent pieces in circulation; I think most of them are hoarded by collectors. With the introduction of a new coin, every tray in every till in the whole country is going to be put on the garbage heap and replaced with a new tray with an extra compartment because of the new coin.

Another aspect to that which was indicated by the parliamentary secretary is when the $2 coin was introduced, the government said it was going to do the vendors a favour by changing the metal content and hence the weights of the other coins at the same time. The vendors could then build new coin recognition systems and do that change only once.

That is commendable, but the government is not going to instantly take all of the old coins out of circulation. Therefore, the job for the coin vendors is to have a coin recognition system that no longer recognizes nickels, dimes, quarters and loonies, which is a total of four coins, but they are going to need a total of eight coins recognized. There will be two different kinds of nickels, dimes, quarters, loonies and the $2 coin, doubloonies, I guess we will call it.

When that happens the mechanism is going to have to be much more sophisticated and undoubtedly more expensive. I read an estimate that the vending machine industry is probably going to have to lay out approximately $25 million to change the machines. Remember I did the division by 20 on the projected savings. I said that if the saving is $254 million in 20 years, it is $12.7 million in one year. By the lowest estimates, we will be spending twice the annual savings of the government in order to change the machines when we start out.

Hopefully if there is some stability to our currency system, that change should not have to be made again soon. It is interesting to note it was approximately eight years ago when all the machines in the country had to be changed. I do submit one of the things we would call for is a longer period to guarantee Canadian businessmen the coinage will not change. Eight years is really much too short a period.

I would also like answers to questions like these: What are the actual total costs to industry? What are the total costs to Canadians?

It would also be appropriate to talk about seigniorage, which is the difference between the value of the coin and what it costs to produce it. We are told that based on this component, we expect to have an input into the Canadian government coffers of $449 million in two and one-half years. I will admit I am a mathematician but I am not an economist, so I do not fully understand how that accrues to actual value to the Canadian government.

I stand to be corrected but it seems to me that if we can actually bring in $500 million in two and one-half years to the Canadian government wealth and if it is real wealth, not inflationary wealth, because of the introduction of the new currency-and I understand that part-we will presumably be taking the $2 bills out of circulation when we bring in the $2 coin. If there is an actual accrual to the government of $449 million of added value, then I ask a very elementary question: Why do we not just greatly increase the number of $1 and $2 coins? Let us produce them in sufficient numbers to pay off the debt. If it really works then we should do that.

Now I think I know enough about economics to know that would not work. Unfortunately that is not the kind of economic policy that would keep us as a country in good light with all of the other trading partners. Our currency would undoubtedly be devalued by that.

Another aspect of this is profit to the mint. I like the fact that our mint is a money maker. I am sure many people are aware that the Canadian mint not only produces Canadian currency, but also provides a sizeable import of dollars by producing and shipping coins to other countries.

I understand it is definitely economical for the mint to tool up to produce a new $2 coin. Like a car manufacturer tooling up to make a new model of car, it is always economical because that will be recouped in sales. It is undoubtedly correct for the mint to do this.

I would like to know the details of the mint's cash flow. How is this actually going to work out? We also need to recognize there are ramifications to moving from the printing of paper currency to the production of the coins. Initially there will be a large flurry of activity in producing the new coins, but what happens to productivity once we have saturated the Canadian currency with the required number of $2 coins? Those are simple questions.

With respect to the bill itself there needs to be a long term plan which is not present in this very short bill. All it says is that we are going to make a new $2 coin. That is basically all it says in

layman's language. What we really should have is some sort of coherent, long term currency plan Canadians can count on.

There is a really serious question we ought to be asking, whether we should keep the penny. The penny costs about 70 per cent more to produce than what it is worth. It costs about 1.7 cents to manufacture a penny. It does not make a great deal of sense to keep manufacturing pennies. Think of the savings we could incur if we stop doing that. We could presumably go for many years utilizing the pennies out there now because their rate of replacement is not great. They are very sturdy coins.

Has there been any study on replacing the $5 bill with a $5 coin? If it is so good for the two, could it also be done for the five? Should it be done at the same time? Obviously if we are to make a change, to do it at the same time makes a great deal more sense than making this change now and then five or eight years down the road saying introduce a new $5 coin requiring all the vendors and all of the businesses once again to adjust.

These are some of the questions I want to have answered before I can support this bill. It could be that we are missing an opportunity of being very efficient if that is the long term direction we are to go. We need to have studies. We need to have answers to those questions.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this question. Obviously in my limited knowledge I will not have explored all aspects of it. Undoubtedly there are other things we must also take into account. We will certainly be watching and participating eagerly in the House and in committee, provided we are allowed to vote in our committee and other things.

We will pay close attention in committee and we will be eagerly asking for the answers to these questions. I want to reiterate the bottom line for us is not a saving to government but a saving to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer in total is to land up with a higher expense then we will be opposed to this bill.

I seriously doubt, based on the numbers I gave at the beginning of my intervention, the added costs of making the changes to the commodities sold through vending machines primarily will eat up the pockets of the taxpayers more than what will be saved for those taxpayers through this avenue of government.

I also want to make sure that before we give consent to this bill all of the costs have been anticipated. Too often in government we start on a project and hear the estimates. How often have we heard of overruns? Over and over; it happens with great frequency. We want to make sure there are very precise accounting and estimates of the total anticipated costs to the taxpayers. I want to make sure we have an open and honest discussion.

In my first year and a half in the House there have been times when I have really enjoyed the work. I have felt what I have been contributing has been very helpful to the Canadians I was sent here to represent, broader than the Elk Island constituency, all Canadians from sea to sea.

I hope in this bill, which is such an innocuous bill, we will be able to embark on a debate, a study in committee free from the acrimony and the bull headedness that has been displayed in some of the committees, particularly in the past several days.

It is so important that we as parliamentarians-in the committee we are backbenchers-have, as the Liberal Party promised in its red book, a more meaningful role. That role will have to be found in committee because of the sheer numbers.

Not many members have the privilege I have today to make a 40 minute speech. Members on the Liberal side almost never get that opportunity. When a bill is introduced either the minister or the parliamentary secretary takes that opportunity. All of the other backbenchers really do not have a role.

In committee we can have a real role provided it is permitted, encouraged and acknowledged and that there is a genuine and honest recognition that the recommendations of the committee are to be taken seriously. I look forward to working on this bill in the committee. Provided our answers can be forthcoming very quickly I am sure we can come up with a solution to this problem.

It is not a big problem for Canadians. It is a problem of some significance. We can come up with a solution that will be best for all Canadians. I am thinking of those ordinary Canadians who work from day to day struggling to pay their bills, struggling to pay their taxes. Those are the people we want to represent. We want to make sure they get very best possible shake out of this legislation and other legislation like it.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elk Island finished stating not very many backbenchers have the opportunity to speak for 40 minutes on any bill. That is a very pithy comment.

Many people would have a great deal of difficulty trying to figure how one could speak for 40 minutes on Bill C-82, which is a major struggle. How on earth does one go about speaking for 40 minutes on a debate on the introduction of a $2 coin?

A few minutes ago I was told we need to keep this debate going for another 10 minutes and do I have something to say about this. I thought sure. The automatic response was who needs a $2 coin? I have travelled extensively in the United States and I have never seen a $2 bill. Why replace the $2 bill? If we do

not want to have it, we should get rid of it. If we do not need it, we do not need it.

That is a question that will be answered in committee where wiser minds than mine will be debating this important consideration of the day. With a $2 coin if we start trying to figure out how much our country will be in debt on a daily basis, it would only be $60 million $2 coins rather than 120 million loonies. We could divide it that way and perhaps it does not seem that much.

There are some really important considerations in this bill. For those watching this debate, the country is into debt at $120 million a day. We have Bill C-68, the firearms bill. We have looming on the horizon the most important question facing our country outside of the debt, our relationship with Quebec and how we will deal with and get past this hurdle. We will get past it and it is my desire we will do it together. Here we are using up the potential of five hours of debating time to talk about the introduction of a $2 coin. We already have a $1 coin.

Some hon. members opposite said we are wasting our time. How can we argue with that? Some things do not require the same amount of consideration except if one happens to be in the vending machine business. Everything we do in the House affects someone somewhere. While it may not affect all of us to the same degree all the time, it affects someone substantially some of the time.

If I were in the vending machine business now and a member of Parliament asked what I thought of the debate on the $2 coin, I would say it could very well be the difference between my staying in business or going out of business. Think of the huge cost to the vending machine business with the introduction of the loonie a few years ago. It important we in the House have some consideration of the effects of what we do on others outside the House.

We all recall what happened with the introduction of the loonie. What happened to the cost of newspapers from vending machines? By and large there was an increase from $75 cents to a loonie. The vending industry raised prices from 25 cents to 50 cents to 75 cents to a loonie. It was not taking advantage of a situation. If it has to make mechanical changes it might as well make them to last.

What will happen if we introduce a doubloonie, a $2 coin? A vast number of ideas have come forward about what to call the new coin. Ideas came from the west saying we should put a picture of a deer on either side and call it the two buck coin. Another member said we could put a picture of the leader of the Reform Party on one side, the Leader of the Opposition on the other and say flip a coin.

There is a substantial cost, particularly to the vending machine business. As we make decisions and changes for the nation, things that seem pretty simple and straightforward very often have a result that extends far beyond what we are doing here.

I have two $2 bills in my pocket and a loonie. One thing brought to my attention the other day was if we get rid of the $2 bill, what will happen to the amount of change we carry in our pockets. I have a loonie and some quarters. I am trying to stretch this out. I suppose we are looking at effects this will have down the road, beyond the vending machine industry and beyond inflation. I suppose to some people the amount of coins they would have to carry in their pocket would be something of a consideration. Without a $2 bill and because we do not have a $1 bill, we would have to carry around a whole lot more loonies or doubloonies.