Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1998

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Royal Canadian Mint Act

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly like the emphasis on the hon. member. I appreciate being back in the House and having you in the chair. I know you so enjoy the opportunity of listening to the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on any piece of legislation, but particularly on Bill C-41 which is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.

I find it interesting to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. It shows the diverse views in the House of Commons. Obviously it also shows that philosophically there are many differences in positions put forward.

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona indicated earlier it would be much better to have many more public services and public organizations and he talked about CN and its privatization. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona would prefer to nationalize Coca-Cola and have all such services provided by government as opposed to private sector corporations.

Bill C-41 was introduced in the House on May 7, 1998. From the beginning our party has opposed the bill and we will continue to oppose the bill. The bill would allow the construction of the Royal Canadian Mint's new plant to manufacture coin blanks to compete with a plant that is already in the private sector. We believe that the mint has not been forthcoming with Canadians on the new facility.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona spoke glowingly about the potential opportunities for the new plant. It is interesting that the plant is adjacent to the member's riding. It is also interesting that the plant is located in the riding of a minister of the crown, a member of the government, the foreign affairs minister.

Let us talk about the bill just a little bit. The minister mentioned that we have great pride in our Canadian currency and our mint. That is true. I suggest that this can still be maintained without having to put forward a capital expenditure of some $30 million to compete with the private sector. The private sector company mentioned by the Reform Party was Westaim which I will get to a little bit later.

I would say philosophically, and the government has said so itself in previous comments, that what the private sector can provide should be provided by the private sector and not by government. There should not be direct competition between the government and the private sector.

The bill will go back to committee. The minister also said let us take it to committee, discuss it, look at it, make the necessary changes and bring it back to the House. I would appreciate that that happened, but unfortunately I have lost a bit of my confidence and faith in the committee process. When members of the opposition put forward amendments to legislation that will make the legislation better for all Canadians, it seems that the committee does not bring forward those amendments.

In this case I wish beyond hope the committee would listen to what I consider to be very logical amendments that would be brought forward and amend the bill to improve it. As mentioned by a number of other previous speakers there are very serious areas of concern with respect to Bill C-41. I will review some of the facts and arguments members of my party have discussed in this case.

Through Bill C-41 the Liberal government has moved to increase the borrowing authority of the Royal Canadian Mint allowing it to build a coin plating plant, another patronage plum in the backyard of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This facility would put the mint into direct competition with Westaim of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Because the world market for coin blanks is shrinking, either Westaim will be forced out of business and 110 employees will be in jeopardy or else the Royal Canadian Mint's new venture will go down in flames. Taxpayers will be on the hook for those additional operating costs as well as debt servicing costs of an additional $30 million for a plant.

We have a corporation right now that provides the service to the Royal Canadian Mint. That corporation will be in jeopardy. Why is it put in jeopardy? Because a $30 million expenditure of indirect Canadian taxpayer dollars will go to compete against the private sector corporation. It is not a level playing field.

Westaim is a legitimate successful Canadian business that has supplied the Royal Canadian Mint with coin blanks for 35 years. I wish the members from the NDP would listen. There are 110 employees in this corporation who may well be in jeopardy if this plan of the Royal Canadian Mint goes ahead.

The entry of the Royal Canadian Mint into the industry would jeopardize this Westaim division and its employees. Industry experts agree that the market for coin blanks will experience a slight blip in demand for the Eurodollar, which is to come on in the next number of years, and then continue its steady decline as electronic transactions become more popular and the need for coinage and paper currency declines.

This is not some crystal ball gazing. This is reality. There is not going to be a need for the coin blanks, the currency, because of electronic transfers. We are now going to have overcapacity within the system with the Royal Canadian Mint having to compete with this private sector. The new coin plating plant will not only replace Westaim as the source of coin blanks but will compete in the world market.

The costs of getting the mint into the coin blank business are enormous. The $30 million announcement is just to build the plant. Start-up costs are substantial for a new competitor in the mature to declining market.

The mint will have to compete against established, experienced well entrenched competition that has years to build expertise and economies of scale. Not only will the Royal Canadian Mint have to continue with a high cost structure but it will, like any brand new business, make mistakes.

We recognize that any time government gets into business, there are many inefficiencies and many mistakes. We expect that the mistakes will come at the cost to the Royal Canadian Mint and indirectly back to Canadian taxpayers.

The Reform member mentioned 30% overcapacity. That overcapacity in the industry right now is between 30% and 40%.

With the entry of the mint into this market, it will likely either drive Westaim and the 110 employees out of business or else go spectacularly down in an inefficient operation with capital losses and operating losses to the Canadian public.

Even though there is no direct subsidy being proposed in this venture because all moneys spent by a crown corporation reduce dividends paid back to the crown, ultimately the taxpayers are the ones who pay.

Westaim still has an unresolved lawsuit against the mint involving the softening process necessary to make the coin blanks. The mint cannot legally proceed with this venture unless it settles both these outstanding matters, yet construction started in March.

There was no funding available to the Royal Canadian Mint under law to start the construction of the plant. However, the construction of the plant began in March 1997.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member should check his facts. I think what he just said is false.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, that is not a point of order; it is debate.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister can debate that point when he gets the opportunity. I can also suggest that there is a lawsuit outstanding which is factual. There are infringements being suggested against Westaim at this point.

So let us listen again. A plant is being built yet it does not have the patent opportunity to develop the blanks it wants to produce for the world market. Yet the plant is being constructed as we speak right now. If this were a business it would have been bankrupt a long time ago, but it is a crown corporation.

Getting government right is a Liberal government policy that has been in place since 1993. Among other things it stipulates that where the private sector can provide a service equal or superior to a government department or agency, then government should not be in the business. This venture violates the Liberal government policy. This government has said on many occasions that if the private sector can provide the service then government should stay out of it. It is unfortunate that the government does not follow its own rules or its own policy in this situation.

The only reason this is being allowed to happen is that this is a patronage plum in Manitoba. I am from Manitoba and I would love to see as many things happen in Manitoba as possible. But I wish to see them happen only according to good business practice. This is not one of those. I suggest very strongly that this change to the legislation is simply trying to assist a business practice that should not have gone ahead in the first place.

One does not have to look any further than the fiasco the Liberal government created in the oil industry in the 1970s to know that it does not make any sense for the government to take over part of an existing industry and to compete with private companies. Back then the Liberals nationalized Petrofina and created the national energy program. This hurt the industry, cost jobs and taxpayers ended up paying out millions of dollars unnecessarily. To a lesser degree this same problem will happen with the Royal Canadian Mint competing against the private sector.

As I have indicated, every bit of information we have seen reinforces our view that this scheme of the mint will put Westaim and its employees out of business and cost Canadians millions of dollars. This bill would take away from parliament and by extension Canadians the opportunity for a full and public discussion on any proposed changes to Canada's coinage. It would be left up to cabinet to be approved in secret, behind closed doors. The bill would require that parliament be informed of the changes but it would not be the decision of the people or their representatives. The decision would be solely that of cabinet. Neither would there be any requirement that Canadians be consulted before any changes are implemented.

In the near future it is quite possible that parliament may be asked to consider replacing a five dollar bill with a five dollar coin. It is also possible that this House may be asked to remove the penny from circulation. Because we all use these coins, these changes would affect all Canadians. At the present time under the Royal Canadian Mint Act coins can only be introduced into or removed from circulation by an act of parliament. The minister said today in the House that it will be elected representatives, that it will be the ministers of the government, that it will be an order in council, that it will not be an act of this parliament. That is not only a shame, it is very dangerous in my opinion.

Under the Royal Canadian Mint Act coins can only be introduced or removed by parliament. That is the where that decision should remain. That will be one of the amendments when the bill goes before committee. The government will have to look at that amendment very seriously as it considers changing this proposed legislation.

Based on our experience with the introduction of the one dollar and two dollar coins in the last decade, we can expect that Canadians would want an opportunity for a full and public debate on any proposed changes to their money, not cabinet's money, not government's money, their money. By requiring that parliament pass a law to implement such changes, the present legislation process allows for this. Any bill to introduce or remove a coin would have to receive three readings in both the Commons and the Senate. It would have to pass through two committees that could interview witnesses or hold public hearings before they give approval. This would not be the case if this legislation were to pass.

I will give the government three reasons why this bill should not pass in the form in which it has been presented. It violates the existing government policy of getting government right. I hope the government is listening. That policy was first launched in 1994 by Treasury Board. That initiative examines how existing government services can best be delivered to Canadians.

Government services that can best be delivered by the provinces, by the private sectors or that no longer have public policy purpose are divested. Building a new plating facility would put the Government of Canada in competition against its own current policy.

Second, it exposes scarce tax dollars to needless risk. The venture would put the Canadian government into a start-up business in a sunset industry where there is already a substantial oversupply in the market. Take business risks but we do so in a planned, orderly fashion. Look at the marketplace. Look at the cost of operation. Look at the capital requirements. Then say can we make money at this or not. In this particular business it is our opinion that the Canadian mint will be hard pressed to make this a paying operation of the business.

Last and probably most important, and even my colleagues in the NDP would agree with me, this particular operation puts in jeopardy 110 to 120 jobs at Westaim. I suspect putting any job in jeopardy would not be supported by any party of this House.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he mentioned that you had the honour of sitting in the big seat and listening to his diatribe. I get tired of listening to it. We all know he is going to vote for Joe Clark tomorrow. There are no new ideas coming from the Conservative Party, especially the member from Manitoba.

He falsely accused the most hon. member in the House, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, about wanting to privatize Coca-Cola. The actual issue is that after CN was privatized and has made money, it just laid off another 3,000 employees and their families. Volvo, a profitable corporation, laid off 223 employees. Air Atlantic laid off 525. The list goes on and on.

He remarked about people being laid off from profitable corporations, and the list goes on about what these corporations do in Canada, with absolutely no respect for the employees and their families.

I would like his comment on the fact that he is against crown corporations and against any kind of government intervention in companies and for the decency and honour for the employees. What does he have to say about profitable corporations that make a lot of money but continue to lay off employees, disrupt their families and only pay interest to their shareholders?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said when I first stood up, philosophically the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs with respect to privatization and nationalization of services.

I did not accuse the member for Winnipeg—Transcona of wanting to nationalize Coca-Cola. I suggested that corporations may well not be one of the finest words in the vocabulary of the NDP government. Corporations are a very important and necessary engine of our economy in Canada.

Not only philosophically do Progressive Conservatives and the NDP differ but the hon. member who posed the question may have some difficulty arguing with himself right now. Quite frankly what is going is going to jeopardize 110 jobs. These are jobs in the private sector. We talk about CN, we talk about Volvo, we talk about other corporations laying off people. Why is it the hon. member has no heart for the 110 people who are already employed in this industry? It is an industry that has overcapacity. When there is too much capacity in the marketplace there are going to be layoffs. These people are going to be jeopardized by that.

Why is the hon. member worried about other jobs and other corporations but in this particular case, where it is proven, he does not have any compassion for these 110 people?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot believe my ears.

I would like to ask the lone Tory from the west which candidate he is going to vote for tomorrow in the PC leadership campaign. I could not believe, quite frankly, that he would be voting for Joe Who. If he is, if that is indeed true, it really calls into question not only his opinion about leadership for his failing party but his opinion about everything, including the bill under discussion.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to, as a paid political announcement, mention at all that there will be a leadership vote for the Progressive Conservatives tomorrow night, October 24. I stand here very proudly and inform the members of the House that yes, I do support the Right Hon. Joe Clark as the next leader of the Progressive Conservatives.

The hon. member also suggested that as the lone Tory in western Canada I take some great pride in being that lone Tory. I would like to see where the members are for the Reform Party in Ontario. I see they are perhaps a little lacking in that area of the rest of Canada, including Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

On Monday there will hopefully be a new leader of the Progressive Conservatives. Our policy will remain Conservative policy. If it were our government in place, this piece of legislation would not be before the House right now.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is getting very interesting but maybe a little off topic. Just to prove how far off base the Conservatives are, we have a tremendous candidate running for the Conservatives with a new vision, with new ideas, who would probably make a tremendous prime minister, but the only Conservative from Brandon—Souris will not support this gentleman.

I would ask the hon. member if Mr. Pallister wins the leadership whether he will be prepared to resign his seat so that he can really become the leader of the Conservatives.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for an opportunity to rebut. The hon. member said “we have a candidate running in the leadership”. I take it the hon. member has now taken back his Progressive Conservative membership, because he obviously includes himself in our party.

He also suggested that if Brian Pallister should win I should give up my seat. I seem to understand, now that the hon. member is so infatuated with this member, that he now calls himself one of us. He comes from that same riding. Perhaps it would be best if that member for Portage—Lisgar gave up his seat so that the new leader of the party could run.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the lone Tory in Manitoba that when it comes to anybody being laid off in this country, losing their job, the one party they can always count on for support is the New Democratic Party of Canada.

The hon. member mentioned the 110 jobs that are apparently going to be lost because of this bill. I would like him to clarify where exactly in the bill it states that and how does he come to his conclusions.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again if the member was listening I said these 110 jobs are in jeopardy. The reason they are in jeopardy is unfair, unlevel playing field competition with government to private sector corporations. That is what I said and that is what is in the bill. Borrowing has now increased to $75 million under the bill to the Royal Canadian Mint or to the Royal Canadian Mint Act. There are inequities with respect to government competition with the private sector. Yes, 110 jobs are in jeopardy because of this act.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we put this issue to rest here. It is important that everyone understands that the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar defeated Brian Pallister in the last election. The member for Brandon—Souris should be the one to resign in the event that Mr. Pallister wins leadership, because the member for Portage—Lisgar, the Reform member, would again win in a byelection because he did win by 1,500 votes over the Conservative candidate. Unless the Conservative candidate wants to come back for a second defeat, so be it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I think the hon. member for Brandon—Souris needs to work the mint into his response.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are kind of getting off topic. However, I do enjoy the bit of banter between Reformers and Progressive Conservatives. It seems they have some concern that perhaps there may well be some more Progressive Conservatives in western Canada to augment their strength in the other parts of this country.

As the member for Portage—Lisgar won by only 1,500 votes, I would suspect that he would want to make sure that if there is a new leader and Brian Pallister should be that leader he would take the opportunity of putting his seat on the line to ensure that the new leader, Brian Pallister, finds his seat in Portage—Lisgar.

I am sure the member for Portage—Lisgar would like to take the challenge because he is a man of integrity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.