Werner Schmidt

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that to be self-reliant does not mean to make a profit. That is absolutely correct, but that is not the way it has been interpreted by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services or the Minister of Industry. Each of these ministers has interpreted self-reliance to mean “make money and pay the dividend to the Government of Canada”. That is what they are supposed to do.

A crown corporation is a very unique creation. It is neither government, nor is it private. It is sort of a hybrid between those two. We need to look at some of the confusion that has resulted because of this situation. The crown corporations have confused their roles, goals, philosophy, management style and focus. Let us look at each of these in a little detail.

Concerning the roles and goals of crown corporations, they must ask themselves the following questions. Are we customer or client oriented, or are we politically oriented? Where is our primary focus: on the client or customer, or on our political master? What is our goal? This is the second area about which they are confused. Is our goal to fill a gap that is not being provided by the private sector, or is it to advance our profit prospects and compete directly with the private sector by expanding into businesses that are more lucrative? I have examples of each.

Concerning the philosophy of crown corporations, they must ask whether they believe they should serve the public, their customers and clients, to the best of their ability, or whether they should primarily look after the political interests of their shareholder, the government.

Concerning management style, they must ask whether their style is to be that of a consistent, compassionate team player in which employee and employer share in the pursuit of mutually beneficial corporate goals, or whether they are to be the strong arm of the government and say “This way or no way and, come hell or high water, like it or not, you are either going to do it my way or you are not going to do it at all”.

This was particularly evident in the most recent action by Canada Post to its postal franchisees. It started on April 1 by telling them this is what they were going to get. They did not like it. They found it to be troublesome. Canada Post delayed it until October 1. It said that it would hold a lot of consultation. It could not meet that goal, so it said that it would wait until December 1, which is tomorrow.

We still do not know what it is going to do. It went through the various consultations. I have talked to franchisees from across the country, from one end to the other, and every one of them said this was a one-way consultation: “This is the program. This is how you have to present it. This is how it is going to affect you”, with no particular change, unless there is a change happening today which we will hear about tomorrow.

That is not exactly in the interests of itself.

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

It does not surprise me at all.

What I am trying to point out, not only to the hon. member but to members opposite, is that is not in-depth thinking. This is superficial, manipulative, opportunistic thinking which allows individuals to take advantage of a particular opportunity to suit their advantage and to suit what they want to do. It is not in the interests of the Canadian public. That is the point I am trying to make. That is why it is worthwhile debating this particular point, mundane or otherwise.

I now want to move to the fourth area which has to do with the role of crown corporations generally. This is probably one of the most significant issues for us to come to grips with which has not been dealt with in the House for quite some time.

I would encourage the parliamentary secretary to read this document. This document concerns the crown's financial institutions. It was published by the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

That particular committee did some very in-depth thinking about corporate structures and crown corporations in particular. The report addresses the need for cost effective ways of delivering business oriented government programs to the public. To achieve these ends government must ensure that policy goals are clear, that the mandates of the agencies and employees to deliver its programs are clear, that they do not waste public resources through needless duplication of efforts within government and that the government and the private sector act in a complementary fashion whenever possible, with government doing what it does best while encouraging the private sector to do what it does best. Those are four fundamental principles that we need to observe.

It is significant that the committee came to an overall conclusion after it heard from all the witnesses and reviewed all the studies. It concluded that there is an important role for the federal government to play when the private sector fails to meet the needs of worthy business ventures. In other words, government must respond when gaps exist in the system. To this end the government needs to employ a number of strategies to fill these gaps. However, when these strategies lead to unnecessary overlap and duplication among different government agencies or to competition with the private sector the resulting inefficiency hurts everyone.

That is a pretty powerful statement and it fits right into the debate we are having this afternoon on Bill C-41.

During the last five or six years the government has been telling crown corporations that they must become self-reliant. In this case self-reliance does not mean they would manage their affairs efficiently. It goes well beyond that. It says not only must they be efficient, not only must they achieve the golden purposes of the organizations for which they were set up, they must also make a profit so they can return a dividend to the shareholder, which is the government.

This is abundantly clear upon reading the purpose and function of Canada Post, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian mint and the Business Development Bank of Canada, to mention only four. It is abundantly clear that one of the motivating factors is that to be self-reliant means to make a profit.

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

Yes, I think it is significant. This is the point. It is not just dollars and cents. The issue also becomes one of the possible manipulation of decisions that would be made by the board. If it looks like an issue that has to be dealt with and they find that they are not winning it with 9 directors, they can quickly appoint two more who they know will be in favour of their position.

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

There we go, two agreements in one afternoon, in one speech. That is absolutely tremendous. I commend the member because he is learning quickly.

The third area we need to be sure about, in which the government creates security, is the conditions under which we can conduct our business, namely the availability of capital.

We have had all kinds of talk here within the last four or five years about access to capital, particularly for small business.

If there is not availability of capital, it is very difficult if not impossible to do business, to get involved in a business, to develop a business, to grow a business. The availability of capital is the next issue the government needs to make sure is there.

There needs to be as well a provision for fair and just labour laws that work. The operative word here is work, labour laws that work, that do not create strikes, that create an environment in which both labour and management can work together, where the organization can achieve its goals and where labour and management can work together as a team to get this to work. We need good, solid, fair and just labour laws to make that happen.

We need more than that. We need reasonable government regulations as well, not regulations that become overburdening so that businesses spend more time figuring out how to fill in all the forms than doing business.

There has to be confidentiality and protection of intellectual property. In this new age of knowledge based industry that is particularly significant. Individuals need their intellectual property protected.

We need to deal with the protection of privacy. The privacy of persons, business and government needs to be protected. I am sure members are aware of what happened in July. A company that was to shred documents did not shred them but instead sold them at a profit. There were some very serious documents and some very significant breaches of privacy and violations of privacy provisions in that operation that did not meet the objective for which it was set up to work. Our laws are there but there was a failure somewhere with someone not doing what was necessary to monitor and ensure the laws were observed. Not only good laws and good regulations but the enforcement of those laws has to take place.

Jobs need to be available. In order to provide jobs we know now from a variety of cases that the first issue here has to do with reduced taxes. We have the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, large businesses and we have had individuals who create jobs say the number one stimulus for creating jobs is lower taxes. If we increase taxes, we reduce jobs. There is substantial evidence that is the case.

The Canadian taxation structure has been rising. The taxes we pay have been rising. There is excise taxes, GST, provincial taxes, income taxes, property taxes and on and on it goes.

There is another issue. People will say we need good safety nets. The best possible safety net is to have good, well paying jobs for people. That is the safety net that really works. With whatever safety nets we have for those people who are unfortunate enough to need them we have to make sure the benefits of the safety nets are not greater than the benefits that come from profitable employment.

If people are gainfully employed and make less on their gainful employment than they would from the benefits of a social program, that is a disincentive to seek gainful employment.

I believe the government is responsible to make sure the conditions within which businesses operate are supportive of entrepreneurship for gainful employment, creating jobs and things of this sort.

We need to move on to what I consider the shallowness of government thinking in the preparation and presentation of this bill. We heard the hon. parliamentary secretary say the mint was incorporated about 10 years ago. In the last 10 years there has been no review of the legislation, so we had better look at it. That has to be one of the most profound reasons for doing anything that I have ever heard.

We have legislation. It is working. The hon. parliamentary secretary recognized the master of the mint is doing a very fine job and I agree the job is well done. The mint is doing its work. It is making money. We have to review to make sure we know what it operates under. It is operating well. That is the reason, though, for presenting this legislation. We have not done it for 10 years so we had better do something.

We need to increase the borrowing power of the mint. It currently has the right to borrow up to $50 million. The legislation proposes that be increased to $75 million. Why? To take advantage of any possible business opportunities that might come about.

I was absolutely flabbergasted in committee when I watched members opposite listen to the argument that was presented. Guess what it was? The presentation indicated that during the last 10 year period an opportunity came along for the Canadian mint to buy a mint in another country. But it could not buy the mint in the other country because it would have had to borrow more than $50 million.

At no point was there any question about whether the Canadian mint was in the business of acquiring mints in other countries. That might be a useful discussion.

Why does the Canadian mint need to buy a mint in another country? That fundamental question was not addressed.

Let me look at another aspect of the analysis. This has to do with the number of directors on the board. The proposed bill suggests that the number of directors on the board be flexible, ranging from 9 to 11. The current legislation provides for 11 directors. Why the change to 9 to 11? It is to create some flexibility and to save costs.

If the real reason is to save costs, then I think we should fix it at 9. Why go to 11? If it is good sometimes to have 9 and sometimes to have 11, why would we not go with 9, especially if the reason is to save money?

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

We have it straight. Is that not interesting? We find two people in different parties actually agreeing. I think that is wonderful. It is about time members opposite recognize that where common sense operates there is agreement. The difficult part of it is that there does not seem to be much common sense on the other side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the debate on Bill C-41.

As the hon. parliamentary secretary has indicated, it is a bill to make some major changes in the mint. I find myself somewhat less supportive of the bill than is the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I would like to assure her, all members opposite, as well as the chief administrator of the mint, the master of the mint, that I in no way wish to cast any aspersions on how the mint is being operated. The master of the mint is doing a very competent and fine job. If I were wearing a hat I would take it off to her because the work she is doing is excellent. She is a very good manager. She is aggressive, alert and knows what to do. She is capable and competent in the work she has been charged to do. She has also been very successful in turning the mint around so that today it is a profitable venture. I just wanted to recognize that and support the work she is doing. I certainly agree with the hon. parliamentary secretary that the mint is in good hands.

The matters I want to come to grips with have nothing to do with the operation or focus of the mint as it presently exists. My purpose this afternoon is to focus on those things that have to do with government and public policy which are implicit in the amendments proposed by the government. It is very important to recognize exactly what it is that underlies the amendments that are currently being proposed in Bill C-41.

I want to focus on the issues from three particular points of view. First, I focus my analysis of the bill on the role of the government in providing programs and services for the people; second, the role of government to determine the conditions under which the economy operations; third, the mechanism of crown corporations and their place in light of the role of the government and how it presents itself.

It is very critical and necessary for us to remember that the mint is a crown corporation, as is the Business Development Bank, as is Canada Post, as is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and a whole host of other crown corporations. The mint is in the same kind of category.

The first perspective is the role of government in providing services and programs for the people. First the caveat. Those listening might say what in the world does that have to do with Bill C-41. As I progress through my remarks it will become very clear that not only do the principles apply but they should apply not only in the case of the mint but to all other crown corporations. We want to be sure we recognize that is issue. We need to go one step further and assert that the principles existing here should apply to not only crown corporations but to the provision of government services and programs to meet the needs of the people of Canada.

What is the role of government in terms of determining the conditions under which the economy operates? The number one principle I would like to annunciate clearly is that of freedom. The Government of Canada needs to provide for the people of Canada, and for businesses generally, freedom. What is the freedom we want them to have? We want them to have the freedom of expression, to express and to hold views that are consistent with their particular sets of values and beliefs. We want them to apply their talents, their abilities, their competence, their innovations, all those kinds of things in a way that best suits their needs and developments and in a way that they can reap the most money and benefit from the application of those skills.

Mr. Speaker, you are one of those entrepreneurs. You know exactly how this kind of thing works. You express yourself in a most powerful way in your particular business, the one you are involved in now, the businesses you have been involved in before and the businesses you will be involved in the future. It is not only yourself, Mr. Speaker. There are other people on both sides of the House who also want the freedom to express their creativity and the things they do in the best way possible to garner a profit and at the same time provide a service and fulfill a need in the public.

There is another kind of freedom we want. We want it in business. We want it in the individual lives of people. That is the freedom to believe what we want to believe.

This morning it was my privilege and honour to be at the Sri Chinmoy peace celebration at the Chateau Laurier. Sri Chinmoy has gone around the world in the interests of peace. We had representatives from New Zealand, Zimbabwe, South Africa and many nations of the world at the Chateau Laurier this morning. They were there with one purpose in mind, to declare Canada and to celebrate Canada as the first nation in North American to be a Sri Chinmoy peace nation. It is wonderful to be a part of that. I was there to witness this event. The idea that we can be free to express whatever we believe in a positive way is necessary and essential for us to do what is right.

We have talked a little about entrepreneurship and the ability to apply one's capital in the way one wants not only for one's own benefit but to build the economy and build the country.

There is more than that to this business, the matter of ownership. There comes with ownership a certain pride. People who own property somehow feel a little better toward maintaining that property and keeping it looking good and things of that sort.

The first principle the government needs to provide is the concept of freedom. Next we need security and stability. Members saw in question period questions raised about how people sometimes find their personal security, their personal life being attacked and their comfort being attacked.

We want protection and safety of person. We want to make sure that is there and that it is maintained that way. We also want security of property. So often we find that people want to damage property.

We need to be sure that our society and our government provide an environment so that the property we have maintained is safe, so that we can go home and we do not have to worry that somebody will damage our property while we are at home looking after our children or doing some of the other things we like to do with our loved ones, our children, play games and things of this sort. We want our property looked after when we are away from home.

Here I think is the very fundamental issue where we come to this business of ownership, expertise and enterprise. We need conditions established by the government to create laws that encourage entrepreneurship. To create a bunch of crown corporations does not stimulate entrepreneurship. Our laws that establish crown corporations do not encourage entrepreneurship. I will get into this in detail when it comes to the mint.

We need to do that in a variety of areas. We need fair competition. There are all kinds of indications today about being sure it is fair, that there is not abuse of dominant position.

In Canada we have the Competition Bureau and the director currently involved with probably one of the most difficult decisions he will have to make a recommendation about to the government. That has to do with the merger of the big banks. We want to make sure the laws the government creates are such that competition is fair.

The hon. member opposite suggests the Competition Bureau has no power, it cannot do anything. If that is the case, the government has made another mistake, creating a Competition Bureau which is apparently supposed to have some power. The hon. member says it has no real power. Therefore the government should then create a law that gives the Competition Bureau some power. I suppose the hon. member will say do that then. That is exactly what we are talking about here.

[Canada Post, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. Does the minister admit by that statement that Canada Post will announce on Tuesday that there will indeed be a moratorium on the imposition of the new commission structure?

The minister knows he can change this and keep these people in business if he imposes a moratorium thereby protecting small business and the postal services in Canada.

[Canada Post, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is about to force postal franchises out of business across this country by imposing a restructuring of commissions on stamp sales. Atlantic Canada will be especially hard hit. In fact none of the postal outlets in Atlantic Canada say they will be viable after this imposition.

The minister knows that allowing Canada Post to close businesses is a hardship on these people. Why is he allowing Canada Post to force these people out of business, killing jobs and disrupting the postal service in Canada?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague, who made a very good analysis of the problem, if he could expand just a bit on this checkerboard of land that is purchased by the Indian bands in various parts of the municipality.

It is not automatic that these lands become part of a reserve because it seems to me that the Indian band may purchase these lands and those lands are then held in fee simple. If they are held in fee simple, then the tax base that exists for other land in that area is precisely the same on the land owned by the Indian band as would be the case if another person owned that land.

Is it the contention that what the municipality should be looking for is some sort of a shift in legislation or some predictable way in which the decision would be made by the federal government as to how these fee simple lands that have been purchased by the Indian bands from individuals will become part of a reserve?

[Golden West Document Shredding, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works was responsible for shredding 22,000 boxes of confidential private information on Canadian families. Instead of shredding that information, it was sold at a profit.

Yesterday the minister told us that everything is okay, after all he knew about it since July. The privacy commissioner does not think so. He is launching his own investigation.

Why did the minister keep this scandal of a major breach of privacy a secret? Just how bad is the news?