Elwin Hermanson

[Privilege, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege but in a different vein-

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Frontenac for his question.

He began by talking about what farming used to be like back in the 1960s. While I was not a grown man at that time, I remember what farming was like. I remember my parents shipping cream back in those days, not quite the way the hon. member described it, but it did bring back some memories hearing his comments.

As the hon. member for Frontenac is aware, agriculture has changed substantially in the last 35 years. The industry and the producers are always far ahead of government. It is not government regulation or legislation that causes progress in industry, including the agriculture industry.

Whether it be a supply managed industry, a free market industry or the growing of wheat under the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in neither of the aforementioned categories, we have seen dramatic changes in the industry over the last 35 years as world and domestic conditions have demanded better operating practices from farmers no matter what the commodity is that they produce.

The member talked about the need for a consistent supply of milk over a 12-month period by producers. I understand what he is saying. He seemed to be indicating that my colleague from Vegreville was suggesting something that would be in conflict with that requirement. I was not in the House to hear what my colleague said yesterday on this issue, but he related to me that he talked about a need for a more competitive environment.

The hon. member for Frontenac indicated that would pit producer against producer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are talking about the need to be competitive as a Canadian industry. We are looking at the industry versus the needs of the consumers and what consumers expect of the industry. We are also looking at what will be required both internationally and interprovincially with regard to the dairy industry.

For the most part international agreements have already been signed. We know that Bill C-88 will be before the House very soon. It deals with internal trade in Canada. There are some real problems with internal trade, particularly in the dairy industry. Some things have to be dealt with. Part of that was the cause of the bickering between the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals yesterday.

I am sure what my colleague was suggesting and what I would reiterate is that the industry needs to be competitive. However it needs to be competitive as a whole industry, not producer against producer. In this way we can compete in the new climate under GATT and NAFTA and break down the barriers to internal trade within Canada so that our agriculture industries and other industries flourish under that scenario.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when debate resumed I was the first speaker following a rather bad movie unfolding in the House called "milk wars" between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois over what would happen to the dairy industry should Quebec separate. It was rather amusing at times.

The Reform Party supports the tariff levels agreed to under GATT. However, we should become proactive in this area and address future concerns.

I am concerned about the health of the dairy industry down the road. The trend toward more open and competitive global markets is happening whether we like it or not. Failure to adapt will undoubtedly result in the destruction of an industry that has provided Canadians with a quality product for many years. Dairy farmers must move to a more efficient means of producing milk.

I would like to address a few aspects of Bill C-86. I have already mentioned that the Canadian government had no choice but to make alterations to the supply management commodities. As with many of these programs that were initially developed by the Liberals, they, the creators of the system, are reluctant to change them or drop them entirely. Sentimental feelings are driving the government's agenda.

All we have to do is look at the GATT negotiations and the Liberals' position, who at that time were not the government, with regard to the GATT negotiations and article XI. They said that article XI was non-negotiable. They told people in the dairy industry to support them and they would defend article XI and it would be in the new GATT agreement.

A few days after the Liberals took office, history shows us that in fact article XI had to be negotiated away. We had no support in the international community for article XI. Tariffication was put in place to replace that article.

I might add the Reform Party anticipated this event. We said in our election platform that we believe the structure of national supply management agencies need not change at all as long as

these agencies continue to have the support of their producers. They should continue in any manner in which they feel best serves their interests. Tariffs will be reduced as other countries reduce their support. This will allow Canadian producers to remain competitive and will ensure that these sectors are able to adapt to the new market driven environment.

The point that we raised was that tariffs should initially be set at levels sufficiently high to protect the domestic market and industry. We said that supply managed producers should have access to our comprehensive income stabilization program. We went on to say that import control regulations as a defence against foreign dumping should be rationalized and strengthened.

We said that licensing and arbitration regulations as an improved safeguard against business which might engage in unfair practices should be strengthened. We also said that competition and anti-combines legislation intended to place limits on the power of buying groups should be strengthened and vigorously enforced. We concluded by saying that the impact to the sectors during the tariff reduction period should be carefully monitored.

The Reform Party believes that this approach will not only ensure the continued viability of supply managed sectors, but will build a bridge to a new era of opportunity and expansion.

Bill C-86 fails to address the problems it has set out to correct. While the intent of the bill is to help the Canadian dairy industry to comply with the GATT regulations, it is almost certain that industry will be open to other trade sanctions, especially from the United States.

The pooling market system which replaces the existing system of levies has long been a bone of contention with the United States. We have seen the response of the U.S. over the last five years to the effect of the Canadian Wheat Board. While the Canadian Wheat Board has been functioning in the manner it should and we have been winning the trade disputes, nevertheless the pooling is an irritant. If we are looking at pooling in the dairy industry we need to be very careful that we do not structure it in such a way as to become a trade irritant with the Americans, or at least not a trade irritant that we would lose a scrap over.

The Reform Party is concerned that this government has not been honest and open with those farmers that are within the supply managed areas. I believe this government has not reacted to the global trend toward a more open and a more competitive market. As we know, Canadian dairy farmers are capable of competing in these competitive markets.

More and more, Canadian farmers are going to have to compete in a global marketplace. As we see trading blocs forming, currently NAFTA is expanding with the inclusion of Mexico and negotiations with Chile and other Latin American countries, we realize that there will be more and more observation of our own trading practices here in Canada. We will have to be very careful as to how we design our marketing and our trade deals so that we do not jeopardize industries which at the current time are very sustainable and are functioning very well.

The Liberal messages to the industry have been misleading in the past and we are concerned that they may be misleading in the future. We will be scrutinizing the bill very carefully to ensure that we are not sending the wrong signals to the dairy industry with respect to what it can expect in the future from agreements such as the NAFTA and the GATT.

There have been some good questions brought forward in the House as to whether the NAFTA supersedes the GATT or the GATT supersedes the NAFTA. Those are important questions and we need more clarification from the government that in fact the legislation which it is proposing will not be challenged under the NAFTA and we will not lose the challenge.

The question I ask of the government is whether Canadian dairy farmers will be given the tools and the time to adapt to a new market driven economy. We need not look any further than the current fiasco with the WGTA and the Crow buyout. Imagine a government which would discontinue the Crow benefit and replace it with a one time payout and then talks about a transition period and a transition program which would take place one year following the conclusion of the Crow benefit. That is not very good planning in my mind and I am getting the same message and the same signal from my constituents and other Canadians who are affected by the elimination of the WGTA, the Crow buyout and this transition program.

It would seem to me that it would be much more logical to have a transition program spelled out before implementing legislation to end the Crow benefit and introduce a buyout to producers. We wonder about the logic of a government which would eliminate something and then a year later introduce an unspecified program to help the industry make the transition from transportation subsidies to an unsubsidized system.

We have the same concerns about the dairy industry. We are concerned that the government is not looking at the long term. It is not considering carefully the outcome of its policies with respect to the dairy industry. It is not looking at the need to access new markets. It is not thinking long term; it is continuing to look only at the short term situation.

Another important issue which needs to be addressed is whether supply managed industries should have access to income stabilization, in particular, a whole farm income stabilization plan. Many spokespersons in the dairy industry and other supply managed industries are suggesting they would not like to be a part of any income stabilization plan or a whole farm program.

I think part of the reason they are suggesting that is because the Liberals have made guarantees to them about the current supply managed system which perhaps are not supportable in logic. In fact, perhaps if the industry was given the true picture of what awaits it in the future it might be more interested in looking at belonging to some kind of income stabilization plan, something along the lines of NISA.

Again I would communicate to the House that the Reform Party envisioned the need for that to happen. We suggested that an income stabilization plan should be a shared federal-producer program having universal application, which means all sectors. It would include the supply managed sectors. This would be made available at the whole farm level. If a farm produced many commodities all those commodities would be recognized by the plan. Supply managed sectors would have access to the program upon the introduction of tariffication.

Of course, that was written before the tariffication was introduced. We were correct in anticipating that. I believe we were correct in anticipating that there will be a need for the supply managed industries to have access to a NISA type income stabilization program, given the market trends and the formation of a global economy in which eventually supply managed industries will have to participate and be in a competitive position.

I would like to conclude my speech by asking the government to be more honest and more open with the Canadian dairy farmers. The government promised that it would be very open and honest with the public. It is in its red book. We sense that those pages are being torn out of the red book and it concerns us very much. It should concern dairy producers across Canada as well.

Before the Liberals were elected it was very easy for them to say they would be open and honest, but they seem to be having some difficulty now fulfilling some of those red book promises. We are concerned that one of the casualties may be supply managed industries, in particular the dairy industry if the true situation of international negotiations and of course the jurisdiction of the NAFTA versus the GATT are not correctly and very clearly communicated to the industry. The Reform Party would like to see that honesty and openness with regard to this situation.

Hopefully, the House will get away from the milk wars I spoke about in my remarks yesterday. I think we should quit talking about marriage and divorce and start talking about birth and death. Let us let the old system die and let us see a new Canada formulated in which we all get along well and where we do not have milk wars and turf wars over just about every other issue in Canada. To be competitive in the global economy we certainly cannot be scrapping within the borders of this great country.

[Committees Of The House, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some quick consultation here. I believe there might be unanimous consent to allow my colleague from Wild Rose to introduce a private member's bill today without the usual 48 hours notice, since he is not available to be in the House on Thursday and Friday. I would ask the House to give him consent to introduce his bill today.

[Points Of Order, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that during this last question in question period, the question concerned specific matters that happened in committee. My understanding of the rules under the standing orders is that is not a proper question for question period. I would ask you to rule on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the debate to this point has been quite insightful. It tells us a bit about Canada and some of the problems we face. It is interesting that the debate is over something as simple as milking cows. The previous Liberal speaker has been actively involved in the dairy industry. I cannot say the same although I have milked cows.

It is very interesting to see a debate in the House, an argument, a scrap might be the correct word, between the Liberals and the Bloc over milking cows. It was at the point at which they were talking about marriages and divorces over milking cows. We have to wonder, in the marriage or the divorce who is the cow and who is the bull. Maybe we have two bulls, in which case where is the milk?

If we have this kind of debate over milking cows, can we imagine a fight over the future of Canada as to whether we remain a united country? We can imagine how the scrap will intensify. We will not be talking about milking cows, we will be talking about the St. Lawrence seaway, the division of assets, federal buildings across the river in Hull, federal buildings in Montreal and all across Quebec, apportioning the federal debt. We can only imagine the difficulty.

The problem is we have two parties in the House talking about marriage and divorce. It is time to change the parameters of the debate and start talking about life and death. With the parties involved in the debate all I see is the potential of death. They will scrap until someone is killed.

We may be talking about some new life in this issue. When I think about new life I think about Reform because Reform talks about a constructive new way of looking at things. Perhaps both parties need to lay aside their instruments of war and listen to Reformers who talk about a new Canada, the birth of new ideas, a new Confederation with 10 equal provinces working together because they have responsibilities appropriated to each level of government in a manner that will allow us to work co-operatively and lay aside some of these foolish and silly debates like the debate over how we milk our cows.

I farm and I have milked cows, mostly as a young lad. I do not claim to be an expert but I recognize the importance of the industry. Therefore it is a privilege for me to speak this afternoon on Bill C-86 which provides for the replacement of levies with a pooling system of market returns from different classes of milk use, which system maintains producer equity and is consistent with Canada's international trade agreement.

I rise in the House today to talk about an issue that should have been addressed many months ago. While I congratulate the government for finally addressing the issue of supply management, I have many doubts whether the government has the resolve to develop a policy that addresses farmers' concerns for the long term.

Canada's supply management system has provided stability to the dairy industry. In the system farmers are given a reliable means of marketing their product with a consistent price. Consumers are guaranteed in receiving a product of high quality. However, this has come with a hefty price tag for consumers with goods in some cases double what the same product would cost in the United States.

As long as our dollar is relatively low, below 80 cents U.S., it does not create too much of a problem. However, when we see our dollar increase above the 80 cent mark certainly we have cross-border shopping. Any Canadian who goes across the border to shop in the United States will put in their hamper large quantities of dairy products such as cheese, milk and the like. That indicates perhaps there are some fundamental problems and pitfalls ahead with regard to not only the dairy industry but all supply managed areas we need to openly discuss in the House and in the industry.

Recent developments in world trade have signalled the inevitable end of Canada's supply managed systems as we know them. The status quo will go, just as it will go with regard to the squabble between separatists and federalists. The status quo in the supply managed system will have to pass away as well.

As of August 1, 1995 under the Uruguay round of GATT all import quotas must be converted to tariffs. While tariffs may protect supply managed commodities in the short term, it is doubtful they will be a fixture in the long term. Canada will try

to maintain the 85 per cent tariff level until the year 2001 but it is likely the United States will challenge it. Even the parliamentary secretary to the federal minister of agriculture has said publicly this is inevitable.

I quote the MP for Prince Edward-Hastings:

What will likely happen is that the Americans will ask for a NAFTA panel in the very near future. The panel of industry experts is made up of two Americans and a fifth person who is chosen by a flip of a coin'. The system is somewhat biased, depending on which countrywins the toss of the coin'. That's the way the system works.

The government is confident it can win an American challenge against tariff levels. However, what plan of action has the government developed if the Americans win the challenge? It reminds me that the Liberals said they were sure Canada would win the debate over article XI in the GATT negotiations.

Everyone knows the Liberals were wrong. We have found out the Liberals are wrong a lot of time. We are concerned that they do not always accurately communicate the conditions not only of the dairy industry, but those that many sectors of our economy may face in the future. The Liberals are not being straightforward with the results of the ongoing deficit and increasing debt.

It is about time we started to deal realistically with the issues before us and address in a very direct form the concerns of the dairy industry. For instance, a ruling in favour of the Americans would put the current system in jeopardy. We are reminded that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Reform Party supports the tariff levels which were agreed to under GATT.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Okanagan Centre for his concern about small business and for bringing this to the attention of the House, despite the fact that we thought the government would be bringing forward debate on Bill C-88, a bill that would deal with internal trade barriers and hopefully remove some of those.

I wonder if the member would expound on whether the report deals with the harm caused to small business because of the trade barriers we have in Canada between provinces. It has been

determined that these trade barriers cost our country $6 billion to $8 billion every year, and I suspect the brunt of that cost is borne by small business.

I would like the hon. member to relate to the House what the harm of these trade barriers is to small business and whether the report does make any recommendations, and also whether Bill C-88 does go far enough in bringing an end to these trade barriers, which are so harmful to Canadians.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to address the House with regard to Bill C-67 on third reading of the Veterans Appeal and Review Board Act.

In the last few days our attention has been focused on the men and women who served our country so valiantly 50 years ago, men and women who left family and friends to fight for freedom, democracy, and peace. As I and thousands and perhaps millions of other Canadians witnessed the V-E Day celebrations here in Ottawa and on television from Europe last week, it evoked emotions of pride for this country and respect for all

those who served here and abroad. While we have honoured these veterans through pomp and ceremony, we have failed in many cases to provide them with the compensation that is due them.

I want to briefly refer to a couple of incidents that happened in my riding. First, there was a huge air show in the city of Lloydminster last week where we were able to show off both military and domestic planes in a huge air show. It was a success. The Snowbirds were involved. Of course they are based at the Moose Jaw airbase. They were very well received.

A couple of days later there was another event in my riding. It too occurred in the city of Lloydminster. It was sponsored by the Kinsmen and the Kinnettes. It was a raising of the flag ceremony. It was truly an honour for myself as well the mayor of Lloydminster and one of the MLAs from the area to be involved in the ceremony where annually they raise the flag and we reflect on our country and the democracy we enjoy and remember those who paid a heavy price for the democracy that we enjoy. There was a colour guard there and cadets present, as well as the Kinsmen and the Kinnettes and dignitaries.

Following the raising of the Canadian flag and following the ceremonies I had an opportunity to meet with a couple of veterans. They were two brothers from the area who had just returned from the Netherlands and the celebrations over there. We were able to talk with them about their own experiences, first of all on the advancement into Europe when the liberation took place and then the recent trip over there. They expressed real emotion about the warm greetings and the warm reception they received from the people of Holland for the efforts they had been involved in 50 years before.

As I spoke to one of these veterans, one of these brothers, he said he had not been able to stay the full time. He had not been involved in the entire liberation, he said, because he got hit a few times. He pointed to his left hip and said "I got hit here first and then a little while later I got hit in this hip, and then finally they got me a little higher up, in the arm and the chest. After that they decided they had better send me home."

When we think of the commitment to democracy and we think of the commitment to Canada and what we stand for that was displayed by these veterans 50 years ago, it really humbles us who have not experienced the sacrifice and hardship that they did. It elevates in our minds the value of our veterans for their dedication and for their service to our country, and not only our country but democracy around the world.

Just a few minutes ago we also listened to the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan as he also described some of the horrors of war both past and fairly recently, including the gulf war and the gulf war syndrome.

We realize that war is a terrible thing and that people are involved in it not because they enjoy it but because they feel a sense of duty and want to be involved for the pursuit of peace and democracy.

We realize once again that we do owe them more than just a thank you for a job well done. We need to come through with more than just kind words and phrases, but with actions and deeds as well. That is why it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-67, the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.

The government has stated in this House a number of times that the goal of this legislation is to speed up the time it takes veterans to get their disability pensions without the veterans losing any of the rights they currently possess. This too is the aim of the Reform Party. Yet we disagree with the means to this end.

One of the main points of disagreement centres on whether the Bureau of Pension Advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of veterans at the first level or whether it should be made part of the department reserved for the appeal level only. A number of arguments have been made in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and in this House as well in this regard. They have been reviewed extensively by my colleagues in the Reform Party, my fellow MPs who sit in this part of the House. After careful consideration we have concluded that the Bureau of Pension Advocates should remain an independent body at the disposal of all veterans.

Let me explain. I fail to see how removing the bureau from the first level will save any time in the current system. The only way to speed up the system is to ensure that more applications are accepted at the first level. These applications must be well prepared, because the department currently rejects 70 per cent of first applications but then goes on to accept 80 per cent of appeals at the second or third levels.

The typical time it takes for a bureau lawyer to prepare an application is two to three months, a modest period of time to prepare a case when the veteran is forced to do battle with the department to receive a disability pension. The remaining delays at the first level, which can take up to a year and a half, are the responsibility of the department. Ironically, the government feels that removing the bureau from the first level will speed up the system because they will now focus on appeals only.

Under this legislation, the government intends to have a department clerk assist the veterans in filling out their first level application. The first level decision will then be adjudicated within the department. It could be true the first level decision will be faster, but will the acceptance rate be greater than the current 30 per cent? Given the department's past record of

rejecting 70 per cent of first level applications, I doubt if this will change. We have no reason to believe that Bill C-67 will improve this situation.

If the veteran then has to appeal his case, he will have to go to a bureau lawyer who works for the department directly. This lawyer, who answers to the minister, must start to prepare the appellant's case from scratch, which will take months or years, because there is nothing in this bill that will speed up the appeal process, which currently takes up to three and a half years.

One gentleman who had served in the armed forces for a number of years waited approximately five years to receive a disability pension for military related injuries. This was after he had made several long trips for medical examinations for the appeal process and after he had written a number of letters to the department.

Veterans are becoming increasingly frustrated, frustrated to the point that many are unwilling to go through the lengthy appeal process. How many bureaucratic hoops must these veterans jump through to receive what they are legally entitled to?

If the government intends to focus all the bureau resources on the appeal level, it is obvious the first level acceptance rate will not increase. The majority of veterans will still have to wait years to get their disability pension. With an average age of veterans approaching 74, this is too little and too late.

I firmly believe that if the process is to be speeded up, the first level acceptance rate must be increased so there are few appeals. The way to accomplish this is twofold: first, have the first level application expertly filled out by a bureau lawyer so the veteran's case is solid; second, the department should consider the success rate for past appeals, which is 80 per cent, and use the benefit of the doubt clause more liberally to increase the first level acceptance rate. This two-track approach would substantially speed up the system and serve the best interests of all veterans.

The government in this piece of legislation has also proposed the merging of the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board. It has been implied that this amalgamation will streamline delivery and hence cut turnaround time for pensions in half and eliminate the backlog in two years. This is to be done without affecting veterans' benefits or appeal rights.

As this House knows, the Reform Party is in favour of streamlining government and eliminating bureaucratic entanglements. However, there must be some guarantee that the veterans will receive what they are entitled to in the shortest period of time. As I have already noted, only 30 per cent of veterans' claims are accepted by the Canada Pension Commission, whereas 80 per cent of the appeals heard by the Veterans Appeal Board are accepted. Why is there such a discrepancy in the rulings of the two commissions?

Currently the Canada Pension Commission has an independent policy from that of the Veterans Appeal Board to determine what constitutes a disability. With 70 per cent rejection of veterans' claims by the Canada Pension Commission, it is evidence that they have taken a more restrictive view of the assessment of disabilities than the Veterans Appeal Board.

What position will the new amalgamated board take? Will it take a more restrictive position, as that of the Canadian Pension Commission, or will it take a more liberal position, as that of the Veterans Appeal Board? A more restrictive position taken by the board will undoubtedly increase the number of second appeals and lengthen the average turnaround time. Therefore it is essential that if the two boards amalgamate they adopt the more liberal policy of the Veterans Appeal Board. Any other position would adversely affect veterans' rights and benefits.

In addition, there is some concern from veterans whether or not the proposed Veterans Review and Appeal Board will provide for a new and independent look at each of the levels or simply be a review and appeal process. Under the new board, commissioners may hear both reviews and appeals but not of the same case. The whole review and appeal process would lose its independent look. As a result, any appeal would essentially follow the department's stated policy and procedure. The checks and balances the two independent boards have provided would be lost. Further, there would be no reason for a veteran to appeal any decision made at the first level.

We have given our veterans medals. We have honoured them in ceremonies, and rightly so. We have given our veterans parades. However, we have failed to provide our veterans with adequate financial compensation for their faithful and loyal service to this country when it was due.

We in this House have a moral obligation to provide support to veterans in a reliable and timely manner. How else can we say thank you to those individuals who laid down their lives for us?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

You were not here yesterday.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

You have not.