John Solomon

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for his question. I am surprised why the member would not understand the history or the implications of what happened between 1982 and 1991 in Saskatchewan under the Devine-Reform-Liberal coalition. I know he would not be aware of it because as an RCMP officer at that time he was all over the country except in Saskatchewan.

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

The member from the Reform Party does not know what socialism is because if he did he would not say what he just said.

However, that aside, I am pleased to see the amendments undertaken by the government to retain the power of parliament in this bill. As a result we will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote.

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

A member of the Reform Party is asking about British Columbia. I would like to know his recommendations on how to manage a provincial economy when the population is increasing over a 10 year period by 85,000 or 90,000 people a year and no additional revenues are committed to infrastructure or to health programs. He would not know about that because he probably cannot count to 85,000 or 90,000. If he did, he would realize that when the population grows by a million over a 10 year period there have to be additional programs, supports and initiatives by government in infrastructure or transportation.

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

The NDP style government in Saskatchewan and the hon. member from the Reform are doing a fairly good job. They have taken the $15 billion debt of the Reform Party from 1982 to 1991 and have turned it around. They have made it very clear that they will continue to be responsible and accountable for their actions, unlike the Reform style government of Grant Devine.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House this afternoon to put forward the viewpoint of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian MINT Act and the Currency Act.

I want to make a few comments about our position, what we think has happened and might happen in the future. I want to put forward some opinions I received from various Canadians across the country on the topic of money, currency, and in particular that part of the currency we refer to as toonies and loonies.

The bill will amend the Royal Canadian MINT Act to update the terminology for coins in order to reflect the market surge rather then the metals of which the coins are composed. The amendments simplify the process for issuing coins by giving additional powers to the mint and to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The mint is given the capacity of a natural person and the power to incorporate subsidiaries and to acquire and dispose of interests in other entities. I will make some comments about that in due course. Other amendments are of an administrative nature. I want to make one reference in particular. It is not administrative but it may be viewed as administrative by the government.

Some of my colleagues in opposition have pointed out that the mint's capability of increasing its capital from $50 million to $75 million is an important development because the mint will be basically borrowing extra cash to expand its operations.

We support most of the sections of the bill. It is important to update the powers of the mint as time goes on and to make sure it is in line with the powers of other crown corporations. We are happy with a particular change that occurred between second and third reading when the bill was at committee.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona spoke on the second reading of the bill. He indicated he was concerned that the coins circulated in Canada would continue to be circulated but any new issue of circulated coins would be on a 15 day notice. I see the committee has changed that to sustain the power of parliament to decide whether or not a new denomination of coin would be created.

I acknowledge the efforts of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I think that is an important democratic function and an important responsibility of the House of Commons and of parliament rather than letting regulation determine whether or not these things will happen. We have had additional time to consider them rather than just 15 days before they become law. The bill provides for this provision. I am pleased to see the amendment. But every Canadian will be affected by additions or deletions of coins. We must ensure their needs and concerns are properly heard.

We have seen the introduction of the loony under the former Conservative government. It was widely believed at that time and has been actually proven accurate that the Mulroney government made pocket change of the one dollar bill. People were quite upset with that move until of course the Liberals got elected. They did one better than the Tories who were so roundly rejected by the taxpayers in 1993. They created pocket change out of the two dollar bill. So now what that means is that taxpayers have to earn a lot more money to buy the same goods and services they purchased earlier and the Liberal government is responsible for that effort.

The mint will drum up additional business outside the country. Before I get into that issue I want to make reference to the fact the Reform Party was quite concerned about a couple of issues, about the need for fair competition. Of course everyone is embracing and supporting fair competition.

The hon. member from the Reform Party made reference to the fact that the Competition Bureau ensures there is competition. The Competition Bureau is actually called, in the circles I travel in, not the Competition Bureau but the lack of competition bureau.

Time after time, whether it is drug pricing issues or gasoline pricing issues, the Competition Bureau has failed Canadians in terms of protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring there is fair competition. In fact, it has done the opposite, according to the thousands of people I have spoken to.

This legislation was brought in by the Conservatives. The Liberals endorse it wholeheartedly. The anti-combines legislation, which existed prior to Mr. Mulroney's getting elected in 1984, provided power to the Competition Bureau to investigate price fixing, to investigate predatory pricing without needing a letter from one president of a company to another saying let us fix prices. It had the ability to go into a particular business and investigate without notice whether allegations of price fixing or predatory pricing were true.

I join with my colleagues in the Reform Party by saying I agree with their comment with respect to having fair competition. I believe the only way we can do that is to have a competition bureau that has some teeth and has some capability to look into some of these very serious allegations.

I come from Saskatchewan. We have, depending on the year, approximately 25 crown corporations. What I find incredible with the federal government is that there is no committee responsible for holding crown corporations accountable for their actions.

In Saskatchewan I had the honour to chair the standing committee on crown corporations in the legislature. That committee had the power to call every year all the crown corporation presidents and their management individually before the committee as well as the ministers responsible. We could go for as long as we wanted, not two hours on each corporation, to investigate and question the officials and the ministers in charge of those corporations on matters before the public or matters they were dealing with in terms of their own crown responsibilities.

Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction I am aware of in the Commonwealth that has a standing committee on crown corporations. That is why in Saskatchewan we have very significant crown corporations providing very significant services to the people of Saskatchewan in a very reasonably priced way, in an accountable way and in a transparent way.

What I would like to see the government do with respect to the Royal Canadian Mint and other crown corporations is establish a standing committee on crown corporations so that we as parliamentarians can have the presidents and their top staff and the ministers responsible come before the committee to answer questions which are important and relevant to the business they are in.

What this does is provide, as a public committee meeting, an opportunity to make sure the crown corporations' objectives and missions are being adhered to, that they are transparent and doing the service to the public they were created to do. I think that is what we need in the House of Commons.

I am sure my colleagues in the Reform Party support this. We have a lot of support in the province of Saskatchewan for such a committee. I think the Royal Canadian Mint, a crown corporation, would not only continue to operate in a well organized way but its productivity, efficiency and profitability would be enhanced. I think that is a very important suggestion.

The annual reports would be on the table. We could ask any questions pertaining to those annual reports. We could ask any questions pertaining to the business of that crown corporation except for matters before the courts or matters pertaining to human resources for individuals. Those are logical things we do not want to talk about in public.

It is a similar recommendation such as I made to make the Board of Internal Economy a public board. In Saskatchewan the board of internal economy is a public board. The press and members can come. They cannot ask questions but they can see how the board operates rather than doing it in secret as we do in the House of Commons. It is a matter of accountability. It is a matter of being more accountable to the taxpayers and a matter of making sure everything is transparent in the business they do.

I also want to note the concerns of small business with respect to this bill. I am a small business person. Although I believe crown corporations play an important role in our economy, I support generally the initiatives of government to use crown corporations as economic instruments to deliver a program or service that is necessary. Collectively deliver it as opposed to individually if that is the mandate of the government.

The mint is located in Winnipeg where the minister responsible for small business comes from. I believe it is in his constituency. I used to live in his constituency many years ago when I was a young student. I know where the mint is located. It is a very good crown corporation. It provides a very good service. It employs a large number of individuals and pays them relatively well. I think that is something we have to continue to do.

With respect to the concerns of small businesses, they tell me they want to have in this bill enough notice as well as an opportunity to consult if any changes are made. I know the member for Saint Boniface, the minister in charge of small business, is very much aware of that. I know that in the minister's consultations with small business he has been told the same, in particular as it applies to the operation of the mint in his district.

We are very worried about this. I know that when the loonie and the toonie were introduced we had a number of small business people voice their concerns because of the short notice and the fact they were not consulted in advance and could not prepare their vending machines. Vending machines are becoming fairly important these days. We can get coffee from them, soda pop, food, sandwiches, all kinds of snacks. They are used in places without cafeterias. I think it is a very important thing to do.

Business people are telling me that when new coins are struck they should be consulted in advance so they can prepare their machines because it takes in some areas up to $300 to convert one machine for a new coinage denomination. Some companies have instituted some sort of cash box adapters, patented them and they are selling for around $10 each. Those are things that are a little more reasonable. But still they need time to convert those vending machines.

I would also like to make one quick reference with respect to what Reformers talked about. They talked about the need for fair competition which I agree with. I recommended the creation of a standing committee on crown corporations which they probably agree with. They made some reference to privatization. There is a good way to do privatization and there is a bad way to do privatization. What scares the living daylights out of me and my colleagues and the people of Saskatchewan is when the Reform Party starts promoting privatization.

We had a Reform style government in Saskatchewan from 1982 to 1991. That was a Tory government which was a combination of Liberals, Tories and Reformers. Many are now members of the Reform Party in Saskatchewan called the Saskatchewan Party led by the former Reform House leader Elwin Hermanson. He has the same caucus members who ran the province in 1982 to 1991. They attended the Saskatchewan party convention.

I want to talk about privatization in Saskatchewan as it refers to the mint bill. We have experienced firsthand the Reform style of government in Saskatchewan. It came to power in 1982. We had the lowest tax rates in the country. We had free dental care for children 18 and under. We had the lowest cost prescription drug plan in the world. We had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. We had no debt as a province. After nine years of a Reform style privatization government, with 1 million people we have $15 billion in debt as a result of its privatization initiatives.

When Reformers talk about privatization the people of Saskatchewan look at them and just shake their head and say will they ever learn. Having listened to today's debates, my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party have not learned a thing, not one lesson from privatizing and bankrupting the province of Saskatchewan. Now they want to bring that experience to the House of Commons and bankrupt Canada as a result of some of their initiatives.

Canadians will look very closely and think twice before they support that kind of party with respect to its privatizations.

I will give an example of privatization in Saskatchewan. The government privatized a Saskatchewan potash corporation worth over $2 billion. It kept the debt for the taxpayers. It gave away the assets to the shareholders. As a result of that we have lost revenues of about $100 million a year to the treasury to help out programs like health care and education. We have half a billion dollars in extra debt as a result of that privatization which the taxpayers are now paying off for the next 40 or 50 years.

We had a reduction in employees in the corporation, an increase in the profits, but all the profits are now leaving the provinces to other parts of the world, which is just fine. The other interesting thing is that when we ran the potash corporation as a crown corporation the salary of the president was $150,000 a year Canadian. The privatized corporation is now paying $2 million U.S. to a president of the potash corporation who is from the U.S. Guess who the vice-presidents are? They are from the U.S. and they are all getting millions of dollars in U.S. payments and working in Canada for a Canadian crown corporation. That is the legacy of the Reform style government of Grant Devine in the 1980s in Saskatchewan.

That is the bad way to do privatization. Maybe there is a good way to do it. If a crown corporation is struggling and is not particularly providing any service to Canadians or any kind of programs to Canadian we should look at privatizing that to make sure we have a better service or a better program if that is what the government decides.

At this point we can more or less support Bill C-41. The Reform Party will not support this bill. Privatization is one thing. The Reform member for Elk Island has been pumping a company that is competing with this crown corporation. He has been supporting this company. That is fair. But when the Reform Party is creating policy it always fails to sell its policy in the light of day. In the backrooms or in the dark, if not telling anybody both sides of the issue, they are not reasonably bad ideas from time to time. When we expose the ideas or recommendations of Reformers to the light of day we see that they are pushing other motives. I do not know what relationship anybody has to the company from the Reform riding of Elk Island, but it is another reason people should be aware of in terms of why Reformers would oppose the bill. This is a newspaper story, but the member wants to hear more about how wonderful Reform style government did in privatization in Saskatchewan respecting the Royal Canadian Mint Act.

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

Is that surprising?

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

Is this worth debating? It is a pretty mundane point.

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

I agree with that.

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

I support the Competition Bureau's having some power to do something. Right now it does not have any power really.

[Parliamentary Privilege, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver—Quadra for his remarks. I think he raised some good points in his speech. I would like to start from the member for Vancouver Quadra and then work my way back, last to first, in terms of responding to my motion.

Getting to the Progressive Conservative House leader, we see an example of somebody who has given a speech full of information which has basically little relevance to the motion we just debated.

I was going to rise on a point of order to point out to him that I can see why the Conservative Party is where it is at. I can see why Mr. Mulroney's government was tossed out on its ear. They listened to three previous speakers and did not get what the motion was about, either did not listen or did not understand what the motion was about. That is an example of Mr. Mulroney's government that we had in the country for eight or nine years. He did and said things and his members did and said things without regard for any of the responses or concerns of ordinary Canadians.

I have no personal vendetta. The Conservative House leader thinks that I do. Everything he talked about in terms of freedom of speech and all the other freedoms, I support and embrace wholeheartedly. I remind the member that what we were debating, to which he did not make reference whatsoever, is the privilege that allows members of the House of Commons and senators to refuse to give evidence in a court of law. We are looking at abolishing that particular reference. It has nothing to do with other privileges which I believe are very important in conducting our business.

The Bloc whip, the Bloc member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, talked about imperfect respect for parliament, lack of respect for parliament, and the rich parliamentary tradition. All of us embrace all these things we have talked about. I find this quite bewildering coming from a Bloc member, somebody who is paid by taxpayers, who comes to the House of Commons and wants to break up our country. He talks about the imperfect respect that I have for parliament. I think people in my constituency and in other parts of Canada will look at that comment and laugh because it is so unbelievable.

All Bloc members stand in the House time after time, person after person, being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and talking about breaking up parliament and breaking up the country. I do not think that is perfect respect for parliament. I do not think we want the kind of respect for parliament that comes from that Bloc member. He has misinterpreted the motion and should perhaps review it one more time to see where he stands on it.

I come to the Reform House leader, the member for Langley—Abbotsford. He had some very good suggestions which I think many members of the House of Commons might even embrace. He talked about how we perhaps need to have the House decide, as opposed to individual members being given these freedoms, on the individual merits of each case when it comes to subpoenas of members or subpoenas issued on members to appear as witnesses. I kind of like that idea.

Then we had the parliamentary secretary to the House leader who suggested that we should perhaps raise the issue in the procedures and House affairs committee. I think that is a very good suggestion. I think it is something we should look at.

I guess members do not understand what I have been doing in the House the last four or five years. This is one example in about five or six. I have been attempting to implement some democratic reform and to modernize parliament. When I introduced a bill to change members of parliament's pensions from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, that was an attempt to modernize what was happening with MPs. When I introduced a bill to make the Board of Internal Economy more public like other jurisdictions in the world and in this country, that was an attempt to make some reform of our democratic system.

This motion is another attempt to modernize our parliament, to modernize the way we do business in this country so that Canadians who do not have a lot of respect for us as a collective group of members of parliament will perhaps have a little more respect because we are undertaking democratic reforms in a very broad based way.

I have raised a number of issues in the House. This is yet one more. I find that all members are coming around to the point where they are enjoying this type of debate. They are finding some of these ideas perhaps a little too progressive for them. Some of them really think they are progressive and that we should look closer at them.

I would seek unanimous consent, upon the recommendation of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, to refer this matter to the procedures and House affairs committee.