Elwin Hermanson

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hillsborough for his speech on Bill C-98, the oceans act.

It was interesting that just a few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting Atlantic Canada, his part of the great country we live in. I had the opportunity to visit and dialogue with many inshore fishermen. I discovered somewhat to my surprise that while our current minister of fisheries seems to enjoy a lot of popularity among Canadians who have the impression that the minister is standing up for the Canadian fishing industry, the inshore fishermen I was speaking with in Atlantic Canada were appalled by the actions of the DFO and of course the minister of fisheries who is responsible for the DFO.

These hard working, entrepreneurial people who make their living from the sea feel there is a conspiracy to put them out of business in the way the quotas are structured. They are given quotas to catch fish when the fish are not catchable and there is no quota for the species that is available. They have a quota for a species that is not even in the waters they are allowed to fish. When the other species come in the quotas are reversed. It is so bad that they cannot even pay for the fuel to take the boat out into the water to go after these fish.

These fishermen are also very concerned about the implementation of access fees which I understand would be made possible if Bill C-98 is passed. That will be the trigger which allows the DFO to impose access fees on the fishermen. It will make barely profitable enterprises unprofitable.

I ask the member for Hillsborough if he would stand up and vote for his constituents rather than voting the party line in supporting this bill. Perhaps he needs an opportunity-

[Agriculture, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the publication Agriweek sums up the opinions of thousands of prairie producers affected by the Crow buyout. I quote:

The buyout exercise-is turning out to be distressingly like other government clerical undertakings: disorganized, confused, rigid, user unfriendly. Whoever designed this could not have had even a passing acquaintance with the workings of prairie agriculture and no one with experience in such things could have been consulted.

Except for the agriminister's admonition a fair arrangement should be made, there has been no guidance of any sort as to what would be fair and the payments office has scrupulously avoided giving any advice. Neither owners nor tenants could know what others were doing.

The landlord-tenant split of the payment will go down in history as among the most bizarre rules of any government farm program ever invented, as well as a source of owner-renter friction for years to come.

Prairie farmers know Liberal agricultural policies and programs usually end up a wreck.

[Canada Post Corporation, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time, but I will make a few comments about Canada Post.

I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, as being one of the Liberal members of Parliament who withdrew from the MP pension plan. You are to be acknowledged for that effort on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. You certainly have my personal congratulations as another MP who absented himself from the MP pension plan. We are in different parties but we share a kinship in opting out of the MP pension plan.

I find it really strange, really odd that there is a private members' motion before the House from a separatist suggesting that we somehow change a federal crown corporation. That is an irony and a bit of hypocrisy, if I am allowed to say that.

Twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada resides in the province of Quebec. If this member were a member in a separate Quebec, would he be putting forward such a motion to use the postal service of Quebec, a separate entity, for municipal development within his province? I suspect that his motives are not entirely pure and noble in putting the motion before us today.

I believe Canada Post should be put to more public scrutiny and exposed to competition.

I have been approached by many competitors of Canada Post who would like to get into the flyer business but find they cannot compete with Canada Post, not because they are not competitive but because Canada Post is subsidizing third class mail with first class delivery.

In New Zealand the first class postal rates have decreased and we have seen our rates go up. I believe the motive is to put competitors out of business. That is wrong and Canada Post should be scrutinized for the effort to squelch the competition unfairly.

[Taxation, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers have been held up, held down, sand bagged, walked on, sat on, flattened out and squeezed by our income tax system and by the GST.

Every year Revenue Canada makes sure that as taxpayers we are inspected, suspected, audited, examined and re-examined to the point that we do not know who we are, where we are or why we stay here at all. All we know is that as taxpayers we are supposed to have an inexhaustible supply of money for every whim that suits high brow Liberals but not brow beaten Canadians.

Taxpayers are tired of being held up, hung up, robbed and darn near ruined by excessive taxation in this country. Many families are hanging on now fearful for what happens next. Our message to them and all Canadians consists of two simple words: flat tax.

For all those who have cussed, discussed and boycotted our convoluted Income Tax Act we say hang on. A simple, visible and fair tax system is on its way; so too is a Reform government for Canada.

[Business Of The House, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, somehow I have an idea we may not be spending too much time here before our summer break, perhaps not tomorrow at least.

I also extend my thanks to the pages. Their decorum and support of the members have certainly been appreciated by all members of the House, definitely by my colleagues in the Reform Party. We wish them an excellent summer and a wonderful future.

I thank those who have sat in the chair, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues. I thank the clerks who sit around the table who have helped us and all staff on the Hill for their support. I wish all members a good summer, a bit of a break, and I know they will be continuing their responsibilities even though they leave here.

Certainly we have not accomplished all we thought we would to this point in the 35th Parliament. However, we have made some progress and for that we are thankful. I give my assurance we will come back on September 18 or whenever the government House leader calls the House back to pursue our responsibility as Canada's unofficial opposition.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the members opposite that I will not be long, but it is only fair that having seconded an amendment that I speak briefly to it. I assure members opposite, who I know are concerned about the time, that I will be the only Reformer speaking on the amendment.

All across Canada, Canadians are doing business today. They were buying and selling. They were working and travelling. They were caring for kids and patients in hospitals. That is the real Canada. In here we are debating minting a $2 coin in place of a $2 bill when this country is going $100 million a day in the hole. That is a really sad case to consider.

I just want to briefly outline why we suggest that a January 1996 implementation date is not a reasonable and fair imposition on small business, which is the engine of our economy.

In the bill the government has failed to address the actual cost to the industry of the conversion to a $2 coin. My hon. colleague from Elk Island has given us 101 on the cost of implementing this bill and certainly a 101 course on vending machines and the problems involved in converting them to accept $2 coins in the new regime that is being planned by the Canadian Mint under the supervision of the minister of public works.

The cost to the industry will be substantial and in all likelihood these costs will be passed down to the consumer. As just an example for comparison, when pulp prices increased there was an increase in the price of newsprint resulting in an increase in the price of newspapers which was then passed on to the consumer. The same will happen with the vending machine industry.

Three organizations have asked the government to reconsider this proposal and, in particular, the implementation timetable for Bill C-82. They are the Canadian Soft Drink Association, the Canadian Automatic Vending Merchandising Association and the Canadian Bankers Association. The CSDA represents manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks across Canada. Members distribute their products through approximately 100,000 vending machines. The CSDA, along with all vending industries, is requesting that the federal government delay by one year the introduction of the new coins to provide adequate time to convert existing coin mechanisms to new ones.

Paulette Vinette, president and CEO of the Canadian Soft Drink Distributors Association estimates that it will cost its industry $200 per machine to convert existing mechanisms to accept the new coins and as much as $600 to replace an existing mechanism. The total cost to the industry would be approximately $30 million.

The Canadian Automatic Vending Machine Association estimates that changes to pop, potato chip and candy machines will cost between $75 and $800. The total cost of conversion to the industry, according to Canadian Automatic Vending, will be as much as $80 million. This $80 million cost also includes the government's plans to replace the metal alloy used in pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters and 50-cent pieces with cheaper plated steel coins.

They also bemoan the fact that the proposed date of implementation will not provide the industry with enough time to develop and implement the required modifications. That is a real problem. The industry has yet to receive sample coins from the Mint so that it can develop coin recognition equipment.

Vending machine operators are asking that the federal government provide compensation to help defray the cost of conversion to some 200,000 pop and candy machines. These operators insist that they are unfairly bearing the burden of cost cutting by the government.

In 1967, when the government fiddled with the metal content of the coin, the government agreed to compensate vending machine operators for half the replacement costs of the coin mechanisms. That is not the case in this bill, therefore more time should be offered to the industry.

Cash registers will also have to accommodate the extra coin. Instead of having five slots for coins, the registers will have to have six. This will result in additional costs for the cash register users.

The Canadian Bankers Association also has concerns with the introduction of the $2 coin, as I pointed out during second reading. The Canadian Bankers Association has proposed a total abandoning of the $2 coin as mentioned by my colleague from Elk Island.

The banks have anywhere from $30 to $50 million in excess loonies sitting in the vaults and as the government has refused to take back the surplus coins, the banks are unable to earn interest on that money. This is likely to be repeated with the $2 coin.

The government is so confident that the Commons will approve the $2 coin that it has asked manufacturers for quotes to deliver 25 million blanks by the beginning of October 1, 1995.

The Reform Party proposes that the government reconsider its decision to delay the introduction of the coin for a year. This will allow vending operators the time needed to convert the machines. Ideally we should scrap the coin but if that does not happen, we should certainly delay its implementation.

Mark my words, there will be big problems if the government pushes this ahead too quickly. The minister of public works has not shown good judgment in the past and he is not showing good judgment now by insisting on ramming this legislation through before the industry and small business people have time to adjust to its consequences. I would appeal to the minister to be more considerate.

In closing, I want to update the House. In my speech at second reading I recognized that the government was probably going to ram this bill through. We would prefer that it did not ram it through but it probably will. We would prefer if it was to ram it through that it would consider some amendments.

If it is going to go through, those members have said that they want suggestions for what should be put on the $2 coin. I made a suggestion at second reading and surprisingly enough it is getting a lot of support from across the country.

I ask that the minister of public works consider putting a replica of the Hanson buck, a white tailed deer on the $2 coin. I did that to deal with some disparity in the images and the representations on our bills.

I have to be careful not to use props in the House but I am using real notes. We have a $20 bill which was actually donated by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre to the Heart Foundation for me to ride a bicycle to raise money for the Heart Foundation this coming weekend.

It has on it a replica of the common loon swimming in a pond.

We have the $10 dollar bill with a replica of the osprey. It is a beautiful animal. May I have a donation to my cause by from the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands? I appreciate that he donated five dollars for me to ride this bike on the weekend to raise dollars for the heart foundation.

The $5 dollar bill has on it a belted king fisher, a beautiful animal as well. Then we are to get rid of the two dollar bill. It has on it a very nice picture of two robins. I guess we will have to say goodbye to the robins and have a new coin.

We have the loonie in existence already and it has a loon on its tail side. The quarter has a caribou. The loon actually is from the wetlands; the caribou is from the north. Our next coin is the dime with the Bluenose on it, representing the history of the Maritimes and the wonderful history surrounding the Bluenose .

The next denomination is the five cent piece with a beaver on it, representing the development of Canada when the fur trade occurred and the country was inhabited by trappers and traders looking for this pelt. The penny has a maple leaf.

It so happens the prairies were overlooked in all these symbols and so I have recommended to the minister of public works and to the Canadian mint that they consider a replica of the Hanson buck on our new $2 dollar coin should they go ahead with it. I have a lot of support for this idea. I have had support from people from Halifax to Montreal. Fellow members of Parliament have supported this.

A newspaper report said I wanted to put a dead deer on the $2 dollar coin. I do not know if that beaver is alive, but I know the Hanson buck was and was a beautiful animal. It represents a world champion record for the nicest antlers of any white tail ever taken. It broke an 80 year old record held by the Americans and certainly it would be a wonderful replica, a wonderful image to put on our $2 dollar coin should we pass this bill. It is elegant. It has been represented in paintings, in photographs. It represents an animal that has been an environmental success through proper conservation practices.

If the minister goes ahead with this $2 dollar coin, please delay its implementation. I ask the minister to consider putting the Hanson buck on the coin.

I encourage entrepreneurs who might be listening to invest and start manufacturing men's suspenders because our pants will weigh a lot more with our pockets full of $2 dollar coins. Women's apparel manufacturers may need more shoulder shoulder pads and probably stronger purse straps.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 20th, 1995]

Hear, hear.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a seasoned parliamentarian. He should certainly recognize his comments have no relevancy to Bill C-69, absolutely none.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the statement the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made is absolutely untrue. He has no basis to make that comment. I ask him to retract it.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if no one stood for questions or comments, then you call for debate and you have to recognize someone when they are prepared to stand for debate.