House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was trade.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Independent MP for Edmonton—Beaumont (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 43% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Agriculture October 7th, 2004

In any event, I agree with the member's premise that we must have more capacity and this loan loss formula is not working. I had a call yesterday from somebody in southern Alberta who said basically what the member just said: the banks will not touch it. They have basically said they will not deal with it. They say to pull it back and replace with something that will work and then they will do it.

I do not know how many new plants the member thinks we can have in Alberta. I gather the proposal is for about 25. We cannot have 25 new plants. We must have proposals that will work whether the border is open or not. I gather from talking to people, as the member does, that there are three or four proposals that would be viable whether the border is open or not. I think he is probably referring to a proposal from a former member of Parliament, if I am not mistaken, who has done a lot of extremely good work on the matter.

Agriculture October 7th, 2004

Mr. Chair, I would point out to the member from Crowfoot the quote at the end of my talk was one from one of his constituents. He probably knows her.

Agriculture October 7th, 2004

Mr. Chair, first of all, congratulations on your appointment.

Mr. Chair, as many people have said here tonight, there has never been a more urgent time for all levels of government to start addressing the problems that we have heard about tonight and finding intelligent solutions to the continuing BSE crisis which is hurting tens of thousands of families across this country.

A good many producers are becoming more frustrated at not being consulted on how the crisis should be dealt with. The federal and provincial governments have worked with industry organizations, such as the Alberta Beef Producers and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, but some producers say that those organizations do not represent them at this particular time on this particularly vital issue.

They complain that the various government initiatives to lessen the impact of BSE have disproportionately aided large meat packing concerns and ensured a consistent oversupply of cattle at low prices at the expense of producers and taxpayers. Cargill and Lakeside, for example, have been doubly compensated since they received $42 million after June 2003 while simultaneously benefiting from the oversupply of cattle caused by producers lacking access to the U.S. slaughter facilities.

Those who operate independently in the feedlot centre say the current situation is increasingly untenable, as colleagues know. Even with the funds that they have received from the CAIS program and other government initiatives, they are facing increasingly hostile lenders. One feedlot owner from Alberta expressed the following yesterday:

The real story of what farmers are feeling out here on the ground is not getting through to the people at the top, whether it's politicians or industry spokesmen. The banks are starting to put the death grip on some of us out here, especially the independent operators who feed exclusively their own cattle and do not custom feed for packers or Americans like ourselves. We need government to tell the banks to back off.

Without more assistance soon, some operators, as everyone in this House knows, will be forced to sell their operations to buyers from the U.S., who will benefit by picking off their farms at low prices and filling them with artificially cheap Canadian feeder animals.

Feedlot operators have also indicated to me that a 10% cap must be imposed on packer ownership of cattle. Without this the large packers are free to purchase feeders at currently depressed prices from thousands of cow calf operators, and then to contract them out to a select number of custom feedlots to be finished. At the same time that packer owned cattle are finishing, privately owned ones are doing so as well.

The large meat packers have no obligation to buy from private feedlot operators and can thus offer lower and lower prices to those who are anxious to get rid of their inventory, since the finished cattle in their possession are costing them money for maintenance and losing value as they become older and heavier.

The situation in regard to cull cows has been especially bad since they cannot be marketed domestically due to a lack of processing capacity. Nor can they be exported as live animals because they are more than 30 months of age. This has put many feedlot owners in a very severe predicament. They cannot sell these animals due to the lack of domestic slaughter capacity and yet they cannot afford to keep them as they are incurring maintenance costs on them, and banker's interest, with each passing day.

Although the new aid program announced in Calgary pledges money to support initiatives to increase domestic slaughter capacity, it has proven problematic for those attempting to secure financing to build plants to slaughter animals over 30 months of age. The current proposal is simply unworkable they say, because no financial institution will agree to accept a 60% liability for losses on loans which they deem to be high risk. This problem must be solved soon because if it is not, very little if any new slaughter capacity will come on line to absorb the glut, or the wall of beef as it has been put, and a lot of money will simply go to waste.

One key lesson we can all take from this crisis is that Canada needs to diversify our exports, as other members have mentioned. Canadians consume about 28% of our production. The rest must be exported. In the past the customer of choice of course has been overwhelmingly the United States. With the U.S. refusing to accept live animal exports, it becomes exceedingly urgent that Canada find other markets for beef. Australia, by the way, exports its beef to more than 100 countries.

Before foreign customers are willing to accept our beef, their consumers need to know--we know it but they need to be assured--that it is safe. Providing meat packers with the regulatory and financial support to allow them to implement private BSE testing systems as part of their operations would provide this assistance.

There have been arguments, as we all know, about how private testing is unnecessary and expensive, but the reality is that foreign consumers require assurances concerning the safety of our beef, which they are currently not getting. Japan and South Korea have already indicated that they will accept Canadian beef exports provided all animals are screened for BSE. I believe the added cost of setting up regulatory and support for private testing is a small price to pay in comparison to the almost complete lack of access that Canadian beef is faced with at present.

Through private testing, we have the opportunity to turn tragedy into triumph. Once Canadian meat packers begin testing privately for BSE, they will be able to boast that Canadian beef is not only the best in the world but it is also the safest. That in effect would be a huge competitive advantage for Canadian beef and it would help the industry to thrive.

Finally, reopening the U.S. border is not the panacea to the troubles of the beef industry that some seem to think, although we all want it open. Without a strategy for diversifying the customers of Canadian beef, history could end up repeating itself. We could once again be faced with a situation where one BSE-positive cow, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, would threaten to destroy our entire industry again.

Producers have recognized that getting the U.S. to allow Canadian beef will not ensure the long term stability of the beef industry. Let us support their efforts in finding a lasting solution rather than trying to impose one on them.

Allow me to end with this plea for help from a Ponoka region producer. She said:

This is an emergency call...Farmers are getting more disillusioned every day...we have a wealth of knowledge and know-how that needs to be passed down to the next generation that is going to feed the world, and yet there is no one to stand up and do the job...When we all go broke from trying, or die from broken hearts and broken spirits, all Canada will be losers.

Human Rights May 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, following the Dalai Lama's visit to Parliament recently, the subcommittee on human rights decided to look at human rights abuses in China, with particular reference to Tibet.

Last week Iris Almeida of Rights and Democracy testified before the subcommittee. She had this to say:

--we are not talking here about anything other than respecting human dignity and autonomy. We are not talking about independence...we are talking about the dignity of people who are isolated, marginalized and who are struggling within the context of known violent strategies to be heard by both China and by the international community.

Canada needs to play a more proactive stance and as an honest broker, as a mediator, as a peace-builder--

One hundred and sixty-five members of Parliament and Senators have called for Canada to act as a peace mediator between China and Tibet. The subcommittee plans to continue its work this afternoon. Many colleagues believe the government must address this in its upcoming international policy review.

Agriculture April 23rd, 2004

Mr. Speaker, our chicken farmers in B.C. are facing the very worst: birds with a seriously contagious virus have been found in 31 farms in the Fraser Valley and about 950,000 infected birds have been destroyed thus far.

Even birds from uninfected farms within a one kilometre radius of an outbreak are being slaughtered in an aggressive effort to end the spread of this terrible virus.

At times like these, farmers in Abbotsford, Mission and the rest of B.C. need to know that the rest of the country stands with them shoulder to shoulder.

Agriculture March 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Yesterday I spoke to packers in the United States who told me that they are laying off 100 employees soon because they do not have access to live cattle from Canada.

Thousands and thousands of families on both sides of the border depend on that border being opened. Does he have any words of encouragement for Canadians on that?

Supply March 11th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is working well. Things are not perfect of course, but, for the time being, it works well when expenses are split between the two levels of government.

If the present situation means that the federal government is paying 40% of health expenses, of course the other 60% are paid by the provinces. It seems that everything is working reasonably well.

I imagine my colleagues will rise to their feet and tell me that this is not the case for Quebec residents, but I will wait for them to speak later.

Supply March 11th, 2004

I thank the member; she is too kind.

Supply March 11th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble accepting, as my colleague said earlier, that Quebec residents prefer that the provincial government be the one spending health money.

However, in my province, Alberta, opinion is divided. I have seen surveys showing that Albertans distrust both levels of government.

Supply March 11th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, that was the arrangement with the parliamentary secretary.