Elwin Hermanson

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-33, a bill that was introduced in this House scant hours ago and is being railroaded through because of some concern by the Liberal government that Canadians may find out the facts about this bill. It is afraid that the dissent within its own party may grow as Canadians realize there is absolutely no need for Bill C-33, that the opposition to it is significant and growing.

Members opposite have spoken in support of the bill but they have omitted a very significant factor in their speeches by saying that all good Canadians should support this bill and that all members in the House should support it. They have ignored the public that is speaking out in opposition to Bill C-33.

I want to let the House know what is happening in the real world that is Canada. My office has received hundreds of communications in the past few days since Bill C-33 was introduced in the House. The ratio is about 200:1 in opposition. Of course that does not matter to the Liberals. They have to railroad it through. They had better do it quick. If there is that kind of opposition building,

we certainly do not want the opposition to gain momentum. We want to squelch this opposition, nip it in the bud. We will railroad the piece of legislation through.

On my answering machine over the weekend the calls were unanimous in their request that I as their member of Parliament oppose Bill C-33. There was not one call received suggesting I support Bill C-33.

People have said to me please vote against Bill C-33. Prior to that, they asked me to vote against Bill C-41. They opposed that because of the undefined phrase sexual orientation included in the bill.

I was chatting with another member of Parliament who said his office was receiving 15 phone calls every 10 minutes. His staff members did not have time to eat yesterday. They were being deluged with calls, 90 per cent of which were asking their member to oppose Bill C-33.

To the members opposite it does not matter. They are on a mission that they want to succeed. They have made some statements, some claims that this legislation is necessary.

Even if Canadians are strongly opposing it and the opposition is increasing, it does not matter. That is all the more requirement that they move with haste and make sure the bill is passed before the opposition can increase.

Members opposite say they have no agenda other than the prevention of discrimination against the gay and lesbian element of society. They say "that's it, we do not want to see anything happen beyond the primary principle. This does not mean there will be spousal benefits for gays and lesbians. It does not mean that we will give them adoption rights. We are not expanding the term sexual orientation to include currently illegal activities. We would never do that. Why don't you get your head on straight? Why would you even suggest such a thing?"

We are debating Group No. 1 of the amendments to the bill. These amendments clarify those issues. They would reinforce what the members opposite are saying. We would think members opposite would be clamouring, saying "that is a good idea, we want to support those amendments, that reinforces what we on our side of the House have been saying".

They do not do that. By not agreeing with the amendments put forward to this bill they are increasing the suspicion of Canadians. I will get more calls in my office. I will see more opposition to this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation like it that will follow.

People are saying they cannot trust the Liberals. We could not trust them on the GST. Their word did not mean anything. Why should we trust them on this bill? Why should we trust them when they say this is not a stepping stone to spousal benefits for same sex couples? Why should we believe them when they say this will not provide same sex couples with the right to adopt children? They do not tell us the truth. They just play it by ear. They kind of go along and make it up as they go. Whatever seems convenient to the lobby group that last talked to them is what they will try to put forward in legislation

I was on a talk show with a Liberal MP, the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. Several callers were concerned about the infringement this legislation might create on religious freedom. The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn said: "I am a good Catholic. This does not have any impact whatsoever on religious freedom. That is a red herring".

If that is true, why do the Liberal members not support the amendments that would protect religious freedom? One would think they would be clamouring for it. One would think they would be jumping up in their seats and saying they support these amendments, these are good amendments, but they do not.

We are left to ask why they will not support the amendments. What is their agenda? What are their plans? They have not told us in the past. They certainly did not tell us the truth about the GST. They mislead Canadians about the GST.

Canadians are wondering what they will do with this piece of legislation. What is their agenda? What is their mission? What are they trying to accomplish in the long run?

If the claims they are making are true, why do they not say so by supporting the amendments put forward on Bill C-33? Why do they not put their actions where their mouths are? Why do they not stand up and vote for some of these amendment? Where is their courage?

I am tired of these members saying it does not mean all these things and yet they will not support the amendments. That is fundamentally wrong and it brings dishonour to the House. I am very disappointed in members opposite who will not support amendments that clarify the very points they have been trying to make. That is intellectually dishonest and wrong. It brings disrepute on the House of Commons.

The Liberals say the purpose of Bill C-33 is to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians. Reform opposes discrimination against all Canadians. I do not see that discrimination is epidemic

in Canada. Maybe I have been missing something. Maybe the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn knows something I do not and that is why he is not listening to the hundreds of calls he is receiving in his office and opposing this bill.

I have not not been reading in the papers that discrimination is epidemic among the gay and lesbian community. However, even if it were we have laws in place that can be enforced. Even if someone discriminates against a gay or lesbian we have something called the charter of rights. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians except gays and lesbians? No, that is not what it states. The charter applies to all Canadians. Everyone who is a Canadian is covered under the charter: "Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".

Angus Reid did a poll of Canadians which said right now the charter of rights reads that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The question was "do you believe additional legislation is required to protect the gay and lesbian group in society?"

If Canadians knew this was present in the charter of rights and freedoms 90 per cent of Canadians would oppose Bill C-33. They would categorically say it was not required.

I close by reading a letter I have written to those who have inquired about my position on this bill. This will also clarify the record for the House.

I am opposed to the bill for the following reasons:

I support the equality of all Canadians regardless of race, language, culture, religion, gender or sexual orientation, not because of these defining characteristics.

This is also Reform's position.

I believe all Canadians have ample protection against discrimination with the laws that are already in place.

The term sexual orientation is currently undefined which opens the door for practitioners of deviant sexual practices (such as pedophiles) to claim legal protection for these acts.

Many legal experts suggest this measure will-

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 3rd, 1996]

Concerning the Western Grain Transition Payments Program (WGTPP), ( a ) which specific farm organizations were consulted by the Department of Agriculture about the program prior to and after the announcement of the WGTPP

on February 27, 1995, ( b ) which specific farm organizations have indicated support of the WGTPP in written form along with the date of that support and ( c ) which specific farm organizations have indicated opposition to the WGTPP in written form along with the date of that opposition?

[Petitions, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present signatures of a few hundred of my constituents, primarily from the Kindersley area in west central Saskatchewan.

The petitioners state that section 241 of the Criminal Code says that everyone who counsels a person to commit suicide and who aids and abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

The petitioners ask Parliament not to repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way, and to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicides and euthanasia.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that I have had Questions Nos. 8 and 9 on the Order Paper since February 28, which is 53 days. Furthermore, Question No. 9 was in the exact same form in the last session of Parliament-nothing has changed-and it sat there, I believe, for over 150 days without being answered.

The previous parliamentary secretary to the House leader assured me that departmental officials were working hard on the answer and I would have it soon.

Several weeks have gone by and I have not heard anything. It is unacceptable that I cannot get this information in a timely fashion.

[Somalia Inquiry, April 22nd, 1996]

Let us be fair in here.

[Agriculture, April 17th, 1996]

I can tell the member for Kingston and the Islands does not understand prairie agriculture one iota. He probably would not even know what a sheaf of wheat looked like or which end of a combine the grain entered.

However, these are issues of vital concern to prairie producers.

There was the experiment with the continental barley market that was taken at the end of the Conservative term. A very interesting thing happened. The Canadian Wheat Board members said they can function under this scenario, a form of a dual market. They said they were happy because they knew the regulations had been changed. They were not about to fold up their tents and go home. They were prepared to compete. That opened a lot of farmers' eyes to the fact that perhaps the Canadian Wheat Board would not disappear under a dual marketing system. That again increased their discontent with not having a voice in how their products are marketed.

We could argue for quite some time whether a single desk seller is better than an option or a dual market system. I do not think members on the Liberal side should be making that decision. To be quite honest, I do not think members on the Reform side or the Bloc side should be making that decision. The producers should be making that decision.

It is very interesting that prior to the last election and prior to the reversal on the continental barley market the Prime Minister and his key agriculture people said the producers should make that decision. The Prime Minister said there should be a plebiscite. Suddenly the tables are reversed and a plebiscite is out of the question. "Well, the farmers may not be able to understand the question". Imagine the insult of the Liberals saying farmers would not understand the question. I would like members opposite to know farmers are very intelligent and would not have survived this long in Canada under some of the burdens they have faced had they not been extremely intelligent. Give them a chance a the tools to do the job and they will do extremely well.

The western grain marketing panel is the tool the minister of agriculture has set up to review all the marketing of western grains. The panel members are supposed to look under every rock and find out what course of actions to recommend to the minister of agriculture.

Much of the work has already been done and measured through the plebiscite, the polls and the surveys done by the province of Saskatchewan.

The member for Lisgar-Marquette did a survey of his constituents and found the majority of them wanted a plebiscite, no matter which side of the issue they were on. In the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminister over 70 per cent of respondents wanted a plebiscite. That coincides with the scientifically accurate poll done by the province of Saskatchewan which lends credibility to the survey we are doing of our constituents.

That survey really bothers the member for Kingston and the Islands. He does not like to deal with the facts.

I ask the House to seriously look at the motion. I would be extremely disappointed if any member of the House would not agree we should support the creation of an environment in which agriculture producers make their own decisions about how their products are market.

I appreciate the time to speak on behalf of Canadian farmers.

[Agriculture, April 17th, 1996]

moved:

That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural producers make their own decisions on how their products are marketed.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be in the House when everyone is in such a good mood. I hope that mood continues as we discuss agricultural issues.

Mr. Speaker, you read the motion but I want to put it on the record again:

That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural producers make their own decisions on how their products are marketed.

This is a motion, because it deals with a principle rather than with specific legislation, in which case it would have been a bill.

I want to quote from Reform's agricultural broadsheet which was printed prior to the 1993 election and which also supports this principle. It states: "The Reform Party believes that producer organizations, including marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives, should receive their direction from producers who should structure their organizations in any manner in which they believe will best serve their interests. In consultation with producers, Reformers will seek to provide for a viable, self-reliant market driven industry to create an environment in which producers make their own decisions on how products are marketed".

This was the policy our party membership approved in 1992 prior to the 1993 election. It was these principles and others like them on which we campaigned and on which we were very successful in many rural ridings.

This is an issue today with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an issue in supply managed industries. It is an issue pervading much of agriculture.

This principle was one Reform took before there were any plebiscites of producers such as the one in Alberta, before some of the data that is more scientific was done by polling organizations. It proves that Reformers have their ear open to the public, have their ear open to businesses and in this case, have their ear open to what those in the agricultural sector are saying. We have been proved to be correct by recent developments in the industry. Therefore I would hope that the speakers that follow me will endorse the principle I have put forward in the motion.

The industry sectors which producers are debating are about having more input and influence over the marketing of grain and also in the supply managed sector. This includes the matter of pork marketing. It has become an issue in Manitoba whether producers should have new marketing options and who actually calls the shots when it comes to marketing pork in that province.

Far too often the operations of marketing boards and commissions become removed from the individuals they are meant to serve. As a result the decision making process is left in the hands of individuals who do not necessary have the best interests of the producer at hand or share the need for good timely decisions on marketing that are required. Many producers feel that they need more options for their marketing. I want to focus my comments primarily on the Canadian Wheat Board. One of my colleagues will follow and spend a bit more time dealing with the supply managed area.

There has been controversy regarding the Canadian Wheat Board during the past few months even though the controversy in general has raged on for as long as I can remember. It seems to be increasing in intensity and often even makes the news today.

A plebiscite was held in the province of Alberta last year. The results of that plebiscite on the marketing of wheat and barley clearly indicates a growing trend toward a system in which producers will have the opportunity to decide how their products will be marketed.

In the Alberta plebiscite 66 per cent of barley growers voted in favour of having the right to sell barley to any buyer. That is two-thirds of the barley producers in Alberta. Sixty-two per cent of wheat growers voted in favour of having the option to sell wheat to any buyer. That is a substantial majority and must be taken heed of and not cast aside. It is an important factor.

The producers were asked: Are you in favour of having the freedom to sell your barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets? Are you in favour of having the freedom to sell your wheat to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets? The answer was a resounding yes. Participation in the plebiscite was extremely high with thousands of voters taking the time to cast their ballots because they felt the issue was important.

That is Alberta and Alberta may not represent the views of all of Canada. I know that Albertans' views are important but I happen to represent a riding in Saskatchewan and so the province of Saskatchewan is important to me. My colleague from Lisgar-Marquette has to have his ear open to what producers in Manitoba are saying.

The Government of Saskatchewan did a scientific poll of its producers, asking their opinions on the Canadian Wheat Board. From this survey some interesting statistics are available to us.

Approximately 80 per cent of Saskatchewan producers indicated some level of support for the board. This does not surprise me because there has always been strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board in the province of Saskatchewan. I happen to be one of those 80 per cent. My party is part of that 80 per cent that supports the Canadian Wheat Board. Some people have indicated otherwise but that is simply not true, and we have not said that in this House. We did not say it in our campaign material and we are not about to change our minds unless our members tell us we are on the wrong ground and our constituents tell us we are not moving in the right direction.

On further study of the survey some very interesting opinions are expressed by Saskatchewan's producers. For example, while a majority of producers believe that the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board give it market power internationally, producers are divided on whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board gets the highest price. There is a saw-off on that one.

More significantly, 58 per cent of Saskatchewan producers believe that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made voluntary. This is not some cooked up poll. This poll was done by the Government of Saskatchewan, probably the provincial government in Canada that most strongly supports the Canadian Wheat Board. Its survey which it commissioned and paid for suggests that 58 per cent of producers in Saskatchewan want to see selling to the Canadian Wheat Board be more voluntary.

A major of producers were in favour of selling grain to the domestic food markets without having to go through the Canadian Wheat Board. They were about equally divided but a small majority in favour of being allowed to make direct sales into the United States.

A majority of Saskatchewan producers were in favour of the federal government having less control and influence over the Canadian Wheat Board.

There was a breakdown of the demographics with regard to this survey. It indicated that younger producers were more open and in fact even requesting change than were older producers. It tells us

that those who will be farming in the future are in the majority in wanting to see changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

It is interesting that they want to see structural changes to the board. They talked of discussing a dual market, domestic versus export and how that would be handled. The primary focus during the last election campaign was that the Canadian Wheat Board needs to be made more accountable and it needs to be more responsive to the producers it is supposed to serve. There is overwhelming support in this survey for the Canadian Wheat Board to be made more accountable to the producers that it is supposed to serve.

Currently the Canadian Wheat Board is controlled solely by the federal government. It is answerable to the minister of agriculture and, by extension, to the Privy Council. The commissioners are appointed by the Privy Council. Their term lasts until they reach the age of 70. Their benefits are extremely luxurious and in their jobs there is little for which they can be held accountable. It is not what the producers are calling for.

Two-thirds of the respondents to the survey said that the federal government should have less control and influence over the Canadian Wheat Board. That aligns perfectly with the motion I brought today. The producers should be able to make their own decisions on how their products are marketed.

Farmers may recommend that certain alterations be made to the Canadian Wheat Board, but the decision to implement those changes is still solely at the discretion of the federal government. Farmers are powerless. The wheat board advisory board is powerless to make changes to the board, even though it is supposed to be the elected body which has influence over the board.

The board is a crown corporation and the government retains the power to direct the board with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties are performed.

More recently, a number of occurrences involving the Canadian Wheat Board have called into question the ability of the board to represent the interests of all producers. I could talk about its mishandling of the fusarium disease in southern Manitoba, its mishandling of frozen durum in southern Saskatchewan and its mishandling of the export of barley in the last crop year, just to mention a few.

This has created a lot of unhappiness in the farming community. A few farmers want out from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the way the wheat board act is written they are not allowed any freedom whatsoever.

A group of farmers called "The Farmers for Justice" has been formed. I am not in the House to condone some of the things which that group has done. However, I would say that the reason we have a group of farmers in the prairies that goes under the banner of "The Farmers for Justice" is because they feel they would like to have the ability to market their produce outside the board. Currently, the way the wheat board act is written, they are restricted. They cannot export their wheat into the United States without a Canadian Wheat Board export permit even though they might not have a wheat board permit or a contract with the board.

I am not suggesting that farmers should break contracts. If a farmer contracts with the Canadian Wheat Board, they should live up to that contract. Farmers across the country accept that. When farmers make a deal, for the most part, they stick with it. However, these farmers have no choice in this matter. If they choose not to contract with the Canadian Wheat Board, their wheat is not their own. They have no choice in the matter but to apply to the board for the right to market their wheat.

These farmers are asking that this be changed but they are not getting any co-operation from the government. They are taking steps that are beyond what we would like to see. They are doing things I cannot condone. However, they are frustrated, simply because there has not been any movement either within the board or within the Liberal government to correct the situation.

I belong to a political party. Many Canadians support my party. If they want to get involved they can buy a $10 membership and they will have a voice in the way my party functions. They can have an equal vote on the policies which my party espouses and they can have a choice in the selection of candidates. If they are not happy with the Reform Party and they want to join another political movement of lesser quality, such as the Liberal Party, they have the right to buy a membership in that party. If they are not happy with my party I would rather they were in the Liberal Party because I would like to see them involved in a way in which they are comfortable.

The farmers in western Canada do not have that choice. They are bound by the Canadian Wheat Board Act to market through a board in which they have no voice. They have no ability to assist in the formulation of the board's policies. They have no ability to select the commissioners who sit on the board. There is no democracy in the board. It has become a very political institution.

There have been some reports and studies done on the Canadian Wheat Board in recent months. One was recently commissioned by the board, the Kraft report. This report is called the performance evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was commissioned by the board and paid for with the farmers' money. It was apparently given confidential information to determine whether the Canadian

Wheat Board was doing a good job. That is fine. The board should be looking at itself internally and evaluating itself. I do not find fault with that.

However, the problem is there was another study commissioned by the board, the Deloitte & Touche evaluation, which was kept under raps and never revealed to farmers until a copy was made available through Reform a few weeks ago. This was a 1992 study which found many serious deficiencies in the Canadian Wheat Board.

I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands agrees with me. He is also concerned about these deficiencies in the board because he seems to be very interested in the matter.

As a result of the hiding of this study, we have no idea whatsoever whether the board has acted on the recommendations made by its own auditors.

We had another study commissioned by the Government of Alberta, pushing for dual marketing in wheat. It is the government which launched the plebiscite and did a study called the Carter study. It comes to an opposing position to the Kraft report. The Carter report suggests the wheat board is a more costly institution than it has been letting on and it costs more to market through the wheat board than we have been led to believe.

Because producers do not have any direct say in the board it is hard for them to determine whether the board is being run efficiently. Because it is not transparent, they cannot tell how good a job the Canadian Wheat Board is doing. They also have no option to market outside the board.

It is good to do these studies but it is much more important to give this board to the producers it is supposed to serve.

The Ontario Wheat Producers Board serves much the same function as the Canadian Wheat Board expect that it is controlled democratically by Ontario farmers. Ontario farmers elect the directors of the board. They divide Ontario up into districts. They have an organization and the wheat producers in Ontario choose the directors who serve on the board.

They do not have to go to the Government of Ontario or come to Ottawa because they can choose those directors themselves. Prairie producers do not have that opportunity. They have no voice whatsoever in selecting the commissioners.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using more time. It is probably my fault and I accept responsibility.

Would the House consider granting unanimous consent in the short time we have before the bells ring to give the hon. member for Elk Island about 10 minutes to give his speech. If the House denies I understand, since it is my fault, but if the House would be generous I ask for unanimous consent.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry if I went over my 10 minutes. I was of the understanding that we had indicated we were dividing our time. Could you indicate whether there is still part of the half-hour slot remaining? Would the member for Elk Island at least be able to use some of that time if there is some time remaining?

I apologize if I went longer. I was expecting a sign from you when nearing the 10 minute mark.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting. What the member was doing was quoting from the Liberal finance department's briefing notes. This is what the hon. member should say in response to Reformers. Use this quote, this quote and this quote, and see what happens.

I am not sure of the economic credentials of some of the people who wrote some of those articles. I am sure they are all excellent journalists in one form or the other. A lot of what the member said is true. The finance minister has hit his target.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, if you put a string a foot above the foyer I could jump over it without any problem. If you put the target up where it should be, where I would be competitive, in my case it still would not be too high because of the shape I am in. Let us say three or four feet and then it would be a challenge.

The finance minister has set his sights very low. He is certainly hitting his targets but he is doing it at great cost to future generations. Low income seniors will not have their old age pensions and CPP because of the finance minister's low targets. Young people today, our kids and our grand kids will be paying taxes that they cannot afford to pay and they will be looking for jobs that are not available because the finance minister set his targets far too low.

Mr. Simpson said that this should have been done sooner. It certainly should have been done a whole lot sooner. The debt was $17 billion in our centennial year. Now the deficit is $30 or $40 billion a year.

One of the worst finance ministers during that period is the current Prime Minister. He started us down the wrong road. The Mulroney government came along and it could not fix it either. Canadians finally started getting mad and now they are electing Reformers because they realize they were headed on a course to disaster if we do not get the federal ledger balanced and get it done soon.

As far as Mr. Moscovitz is concerned he is a great reporter. I enjoy watching his show. He is always entertaining but he reminds me in that statement of a lot of reporters who said in 1988 that the Reform will never elect an MP. These are the people who said that. "They will never elect an MP. You will never see one of them sitting in the House of Commons". In 1989 we elected our first MP.

They said that Reform would never get anywhere outside of western Canada and it will never be anything more than just a rump in the west. We hold the majority of seats in western Canada and we elected a member in Ontario. We were the second strongest party in Ontario.

The other day we almost won a seat in Newfoundland where the experts had written us off and said we would never even get a toehold.

Mr. Moscovitz may be wrong. We see the Liberals breaking their promises, taking away OAS, not being able to fund CPP, not being able to support post-secondary education. Then Canadians will say the Liberals betrayed us, the Reformers were right and that is where we had better put our stocks in the future.