Réginald Bélair

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-82 is of wide ranging significance for Canadians. The piece of legislation will enable the government to modernize Canada's currency by introducing a new $2 coin.

The bill is part of a two-tier approach that will transform Canada's currency system and save Canadian taxpayers a half billion dollars over 20 years. The other element of the strategy is the decision to change the metal composition of the 1-cent, 5-cent, 10-cent, 25-cent and 50-cent circulation coins. Such a move has become necessary given the rising cost of producing the coins.

For example, it now costs approximately 1.4 cents to produce a 1-cent coin. In all, altering the metal content of the coins will result in annual savings of $12 million.

These new measures, an important stage in the history of our currency, are arousing a lot of interest throughout the country. For Canadians, their currency is more than a mere payment instrument. It is part of their heritage, a national symbol.

By deciding to replace the $2 bill with a coin and by changing the metal composition of the lower denomination coins, the government remains true to the principles it has always stood for.

Since our government took office, it has been faced with difficult choices. We have never shirked our responsibilities and we always tried to face the music in cooperation with all Canadians.

The savings to the people of Canada are considerable. I have already discussed the savings that will accrue to the people of Canada as a result of changing the metal composition of the lower denomination coins. It is estimated that moving to a $2 coin will by itself save taxpayers $254 million over the next 20 years. This is because coins last so much longer than notes.

At present the $2 bill costs 6 cents per unit to produce, but with all the wear and tear it takes a note only lasts one year. A $2 coin, on the other hand, will cost approximately 16 cents to produce but will last 20 years.

The new $2 coin brings another benefit to the government: within 18 months of issuing the coin the government will obtain $449 million in seigniorage. The difference between the unit cost to produce a coin and the face value of the coin is seigniorage. Within 18 months of issuing the $2 coin $449 million in seigniorage will accrue to the government, thus an additional $500 million for the government's consolidated revenue fund within 18 months. This is not bad by any stretch.

This move also reflects the government's sense of priorities. All Canadians understand that we have to get the government deficit under control, which demands spending cuts in every government department. As was stated in this year's budget, Canadians want the government to spend money and secure savings in ways that make sense and that reflect their values. To do so it is essential that our efforts be guided by clear principles.

The proposed changes to our currency are a good example of the savings that can be achieved with some determination and creativity.

Let me also tell the House that the government is looking for other ways to reduce spending in order to avoid tax increases. The introduction of the new $2 coin and the proposed changes to the other denomination coins will also meet our needs, since coins are still widely used in Canada.

In fact, despite the growing popularity of credit cards and debit cards, coins are still used in over 75 per cent of all financial transactions made in this country.

The third principle is frugality; each dollar matters. The initiatives put forward today are probably the best way to illustrate this principle. Some will argue that savings of $12 million a year, or half a billion dollars over 20 years, are not a big deal, but on this side of the House, we think that every little bit counts and as the old saying goes: "Little streams make big rivers". This government thinks that a dollar saved is a dollar in the pockets of the taxpayers.

By making these impressive savings in the production of our coins we are helping Canadians avoid painful budget cuts in other areas. Let me be perfectly clear. Our government is committed to eliminating the deficit, which will require more spending cuts in the years to come. Reducing the cost of our currency is a good example of spending cuts that are fair to all Canadians and relatively painless.

Some people have expressed concern about the changes to our national coinage, but the disadvantages which are mostly related to the bulk of coins are far outweighed by the advantages, especially the considerable savings.

I am convinced that if given the choice all Canadians would choose a few more coins in their pockets or purses over fewer dollars in their bank accounts as a result of tax increases. Canadians understand that a $2 coin will add a little weight to their pockets but will take a big load off the debt.

The government also understands the concerns of the vending industry and is committed to giving this and other important factors the time they need to adjust to the changes. The 8 to 12 months advance notice they have received should allow them to convert their equipment to handle the new coins. One reason we decided to introduce the new $2 coin at this time as we change the composition of other coins is to assist the vending industry.

By pursuing the two initiatives at the same time the industry will only face a one-time investment in recalibrating its machines.

Not only will the new $2 coin be better adapted to the needs of our trade and industry sector, it will also be more practical for users. As more and more goods and services such as coffee, snacks, laundromats, subway tickets and public parking require the use of coins, the need for printing low denomination bills is increasingly reduced.

By modernizing its currency in this fashion, Canada is joining the ranks of the many countries all over the world that already have higher denomination coins. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland are only some of the countries which have recognized the practical value of coins as a method of payment. Many countries have coins that have a much greater nominal value than ours. For example, in the United Kingdom, the one pound coin has approximately the same value as our new $2 coin.

France is another country where low denomination bills have been withdrawn. In fact, their smallest bill, the twenty franc bill, is worth almost $5. Some European countries have coins that are worth as much as our $10 bill.

The proposed coin is composed of a nickel outer ring with a round aluminium bronze core. The use of bimetallic coins is another trend that is growing throughout the world. Such countries as France, Italy, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico and many others are already using such coins. The government's choice of a bimetallic $2 coin reflects another one of our principles, that of helping Canada break into new markets with new products. The capability of producing a bimetallic coin in Canada will position the mint and Canadian suppliers to compete internationally for the bimetallic coin business.

This is especially true given the Royal Canadian Mint's worldwide reputation for unsurpassed quality, its markets and its production expertise internationally. I am convinced that the capability of producing the bimetallic $2 coin will give the mint and potential Canadian suppliers another advantage in foreign markets.

I have outlined many of the tangible benefits that will flow from the changes. Canadians will benefit directly from the immediate cost savings as well as from the more cost effective method of producing coins. All this will result in a more efficient and effective coin system that can only help our economy.

The criteria for an effective coin system are that the system will first meet the needs of trade and commerce, will be cost effective, will have public acceptance and will meet public preference.

I have already addressed the first two points regarding the new coin. I would now like to address the issues of public acceptance and public preference. As was the case with the introduction of the ever popular loonie, I am confident that Canadians will also come to enjoy the convenience, the distinctive look, and the feel of the $2 coin.

The $1 coin may give us an idea of how popular its sibling could prove to be. Since its introduction, more than 685 million

$1 coins have been struck, which is more than double the number of $1 bills that were in circulation when they began to be withdrawn.

As a matter of fact, after seeing the success we have had with our loonie, the U.S. general accounting office is looking at reintroducing the $1 coin in the United States. That says a lot.

It is not necessary to wait and see if our $2 coin will be popular. According to the information we have now, more than 79 per cent of Canadians are in favour of the new $2 coin because of the savings it will bring.

Once they are informed of all the advantages associated with the new coin and of the modifications that will be made to the metal composition of other coins, I am convinced that Canadians will support this project wholeheartedly.

Canadians in all the provinces have shown their support for the new $2 coin by sending their ideas on the theme and the illustration of the coin. The Royal Canadian Mint has already received over 17,000 submissions from school children, artists, coin collectors and other Canadian men and women.

I encourage members of this House who have received suggestions from their constituents or who want to make their own suggestions to send them to us, but they have to do it as soon as possible because this cost-saving measure is progressing very quickly.

Our government is making these changes in the interest of all Canadians. The savings alone justify this decision but, more importantly, these changes reflect our determination to prepare for the future.

In making these changes we are also responding to the message we received from Canadians from coast to coast and we are putting into practice the message we sent out in the February budget. They want us to spend money and secure savings in ways that make sense and reflect Canadian values. We want to carry out their wishes in ways that cause the least pain possible.

It is only a small step in our larger march toward the future, but it is a symbol of our government's ongoing commitment to reducing the cost of government while providing service to Canadians.

Surely the people of Canada will benefit greatly from the introduction of the new $2 coin. That is why I strongly urge all members of the House to help us in passing Bill C-82.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House a petition signed by 60 residents of Kapuskasing and area on the gun registration legislation.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to deal more with crime control than gun control. The system should also concentrate its efforts on the criminal element of society instead of further eroding the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to this House a petition signed by 44 constituents from the town of Smooth Rock Falls who oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. They say that this inclusion will infringe upon the historic rights of Canadians such as the freedoms of religion, conscience, expression and association.

[National Mining Week, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government and the hon. Minister of Natural Resources in particular for establishing National Mining Week.

This is a timely recognition of mining's importance to Canada and to regions of the country such as northern Ontario.

In Ontario, with 56 mines and 103 quarries, the mining sector contributed $4.9 billion to the economy last year. There are 300 companies providing mines with services and equipment.

The mining industry is a high-tech industry, very much part of our new economy. It is developing technologies for robotics and process control and anti-pollution systems. In addition, the mining industry has invested heavily in training and boasts a highly skilled workforce.

Ontario's mines have played and continue to play a leading role in developing these technologies. In areas like northern Ontario, mining is an integral part of our heritage. Mining is also an essential part of our present and our future.

I look forward to National Mining Week as an annual celebration to raise the profile of mining among all Canadians.

[Eh-101 Helicopter, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oakville-Milton for her question and commend her for the concerns she has for those small subcontractors in the EH-101 helicopter deal.

As members know, we kept our promise in the red book and cancelled this deal in 1993. In March 1995 a final settlement was reached with Unisys Canada for a total of $166 million, $98 million of which was for work that had been completed upon the cancellation and $68 million for work that was in progress upon termination.

The settlement agreement between Unisys and the crown includes a provision that a portion of the settlement will not be paid to Unisys until this company reaches its agreements with the primary subcontractors of the deal.

[Petitions, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to present to the House of Commons a petition containing 1,375 names.

The petitioners humbly suggest that there is a need for more crime control in this country, not necessarily more gun control. The petitioners also ask for the removal of the firearm registry from Bill C-68. The petitioners also ask Parliament to concentrate its efforts on the criminal element of our society and not to erode gun owners' rights in Canada. The petitioners ask that common sense prevail.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I find myself wondering whether the real issue being debated is Quebec's borders or the electoral boundaries to be set by the new commissions.

Firstly, much has been said in this House and in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the subject of the new electoral boundaries, especially for northern Ontario and more specifically for my riding, Cochrane-Superior. The fate of my riding, and of northern Ontario in general, depends on the recommendations the commission will make.

First off, it must be said in this House that all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada, have the right to fair and equitable representation. Obviously, these two words are charged with meaning. In particular the word "equitable" is defined in Larousse to mean "in accordance with justice". Fair representation is the most important point which must guide us in this debate, and this means that rural regions in Canada should always have direct access to their members of Parliament. It is not enough for members of Parliament and their constituents to communicate with each other by telephone or fax, because this will ultimately depersonalize all that Canada represents.

The House affairs committee was somewhat conciliatory when it permitted the new commissions to be set up to accept an amendment wherein the same commission may depart from its application to the rules when considering the economies, the traditional and natural boundaries and rural characteristics of a territory, and the access to means of communication and transportation.

The commission may in its wisdom go beyond the 25 per cent quota when we talk about the population. This means that a riding may have less than the 25 per cent permissible quota in relation to the quotas of a specific province. This is the case for my riding of Cochrane-Superior and the riding of Timiskaming-French River.

In future it will be almost impossible to reach the quota of 97,000 people in a riding in northern Ontario and for that matter in most ridings in northern Canada. Suffice it to say that once the commissions and the hearings are set up, my colleagues from northern Ontario and I will fight to the end along with many concerned citizens and organizations to save the riding of Cochrane-Superior. This is not only for the sake of saving a riding but also saving a voice of rural Canada in Parliament.

In general across Canada there are 13 ridings with 100,000 square kilometres and more. Cochrane-Superior has 351,000 square kilometres with 41 organized main communities. It stretches from the border of Quebec to the east and goes west to the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, which is some 425 miles.

In 1994 I logged 23,000 kilometres in order to try to serve my constituents as best I could. It would take 18 hours non-stop to go around the riding of Cochrane-Superior. To divide it into

four as was recommended, annexing the four parcels to existing ridings, would simply mean that in most cases those ridings would double in size and 16,000 people would be added per riding.

In other ridings, namely the urban ridings, a member of Parliament can attend a function at either end of the riding in the same day, in many cases within the hour and in some cases within minutes. That is not to say that urban members of Parliament have it easy. We in northern Ontario recognize those ridings have a much larger population and those members therefore spend more time with constituents. A member of Parliament should be accessible to his or her constituents no matter what.

In large rural ridings many people feel isolated and that is why there is a need for the member of Parliament to meet with his or her constituents. Those people also have to be heard and counted, and they need to feel they are a part of this country, that not everything is being decided by the urban ridings. Handicapped people and the elderly, given the long distances which they have to travel in rural ridings, practically have no chance of meeting their member of Parliament unless he or she visits them. To further increase in size rural ridings would mean disaster for many Canadians living in those ridings, especially in isolated areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a summary of an extremely interesting conversation I had with a public servant: "An electoral district is much more than a geographic division for electoral purposes. An electoral district represents an economic, social and cultural group of several thousand people. An electoral district is as much a tool for grouping common interests as it is a means of expressing the identity, lifestyle and shared values of its inhabitants. From this perspective, the electoral district should be given the same status as a town, a province or a country. Any substantial change in the boundaries of the electoral district could cause major economic and social changes in that area. The boundaries of existing electoral districts must be revised equitably and changes must not upset their economic and social equilibrium".

I have two concrete examples to illustrate my point. Let us consider first of all the selection of candidates. If my riding were split in four and annexed to the four neighbouring ridings, without fail, the chances of the party nominating a person from a rural region as a candidate would be about nil, if he or she were competing against a potential candidate from an urban region or larger town with many supporters and able to sell membership cards, etc. People from rural regions, in the true sense of the word, would have very little hope of ever being elected to the House of Commons.

The second example I want to mention concerns rural regions and their economic relationship with Canada. We are rich in natural resources. The viability and vitality of our economy depends on those natural resources, and the rest of Canada should appreciate our contribution.

I could also draw a comparison with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Obviously, we cannot rewrite the Constitution Act, 1867 and the agreements concluded at the time, under which New Brunswick was guaranteed ten ridings and Prince Edward Island four ridings. However, together these two provinces have more or less the same area and population as northern Ontario.

At the present time we have eleven electoral districts, while New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have fourteen. This is an example of inequity. As I said before, it would be very difficult to change this without amending the Constitution Act, 1982. My point is that we should at least recognize the fact that, compared with other regions in this country, northern Ontario is under-represented and cannot not afford to lose another seat in Parliament.

Canada is a huge geographic misunderstanding. This misunderstanding will not be resolved for many years to come. The fact that rural Canadians represent a minimal part of the population of Canada is not a good enough reason them not to be justly and adequately represented in the House of Commons.

[Purchase Of Eh-101 Helicopters, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the preamble to his question, my hon. colleague said that discussions should be held, but a little later he says that negotiations should not be undertaken. He should first make up his mind; then, we will talk.

[Purchase Of Eh-101 Helicopters, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations have indeed been undertaken but, since legal proceedings are under way, I think it would be inappropriate to comment publicly at this time.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 29th, 1995]

Telephones help.