Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Petitions December 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the House on behalf of residents largely from Moose Jaw but also from other communities in Saskatchewan.
They ask that the government take all necessary action to ensure that the continued and stable funding of the 431 air demonstration squadron Snowbirds remains a priority.
Petitions November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, several hundred petitioners have signed petitions in regard to the Snowbirds.
They come largely from Moose Jaw but I also note Caronport, Southey, Mossbank, Mortlach, as well as communities out of province like Winnipeg, Keswick and Barry, Ontario.
They are calling on parliament to take the action necessary to ensure that stable funding for the 431 air demonstration squadron continues for the foreseeable future.
Agriculture November 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have a communique from a Saskatchewan resident for the agriculture minister. Saskatoon resident Dennis Gruending notes that agriculture was the number one issue in Monday's byelection in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Given the particularly dismal results of the Liberal candidate in that byelection, Dennis Gruending asks the minister of agriculture whether he will now change his government's disastrous policies and introduce a transitional payment and provide some real assistance for prairie farmers.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if they were the nation builders the hon. member suggested they are, then they would surely come up with a program that would assist the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba rather than the pathetic performance on AIDA that even as it has been announced today falls a day late and a dollar short.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to respond to it.
Part of my background is in labour management negotiations. I have seen folks on both sides of the table come in with very strong, hard negotiating positions and then I have seen those positions collapse.
The concern I have is how strong will the government be in defence of the Canadian Wheat Board given the political realities in western Canada. There are precious few members from the government benches who will be out there vociferously saying to the trade negotiators and others that we have to hold fast and tight on the Canadian Wheat Board. I am concerned.
The member opposite referred to it as a wild accusation but I called it a prediction. What I am saying is that when push comes to shove, we will see how strong the resolve of the Canadian delegation is to preserve and protect the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope I am wrong.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to pursue the fourth paragraph of the NDP opposition day motion on free trade. I will read into the record the entire paragraph because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food concerned himself with the first half of it. The entire paragraph states:
The government should take action to remedy its overzealous and irresponsible pursuit of greater trade liberalization, which has caused extreme hardship for Canadian farmers, whose domestic support payments have been slashed by 60%, three times what was actually required by Canada's international trading obligations.
I will take a moment to define what I think is intended in that paragraph and to go over what has transpired in the past six years.
In 1993 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed by Canada and by a number of other countries. For the first time ever GATT dealt with agricultural issues. I was not there but I believe I can indicate what the agreement was. We do not have time to get into all the agricultural concerns right now, but let me say as a starting point that the signatories were to reduce by 20% domestic support subsidies over the next five years. That was the arrangement made and all the signatories to the GATT Uruguay round signed on to that agreement.
In 1993, also an important year, the government opposite came to power in October of that year. As I noted earlier today in questions and comments, the Reform Party became the only opposition in English Canada with official party status in the House. It had an entirely different agenda, which was to get rid of domestic support payments as fast as possible. This fit very neatly with the decision of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to balance the books. It was a very happy marriage.
The long and short of it is that instead of Canada reducing its domestic subsidies by 20% on agriculture over the five year period it was reduced and slashed by some 60%. This has meant the elimination of the Crow benefit, the subsidy that predated Saskatchewan's entry into Confederation. It actually came into force and effect in 1897. With its elimination there was a loss each and every year on the prairies of some $600 million; $325 million in the province of Saskatchewan alone. Also freight rates for farmers shot up dramatically since the end of the Crow benefit.
The government had the option of eliminating or phasing out the Crow over a number of years, but because it had a different domestic agenda of balancing the books as quickly as possible, it did it all in one fell swoop with a very modest payment going back to farmers and producers.
It now means in my constituency of Palliser for a farmer in Rouleau or Wilcox with three hopper cars filled with grain that 33% of it goes to pay the freight alone. It is no wonder farmers are going broke so fast on the prairies.
Mike Gifford, an international trade negotiator for the Government of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that Canada could put $2 billion back into domestic support payments tomorrow without fear of raising any concerns among our trading competitors. That is how much we have reduced our domestic support payments in recent years.
What they got instead was a modest little announcement today of some welcome assistance for AIDA. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan were here a week ago today, along with the farm lobby, seeking $1.3 billion. The announcement today says there is a further $170 million available for the agriculture disaster assistance program, barely 10% of what farmers in the two prairie provinces feel they need for their provinces.
There is an interesting sentence in the minister's release wherein he says:
We presume the provinces will maintain the 60:40 cost sharing arrangement on total safety net expenditures.
That is a rather large presumption for the minister of agriculture to make, especially for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan provinces because I do not think they will decide to enter into this 40% arrangement. The AIDA program is so tainted in those two provinces that I think they will feel they can get a better return on their investment by doing something directly for their farmers themselves rather than entering into what they feel is a very flawed program.
Let me turn to our competitors, particularly those south of the border. We have some concerns. We are not only concerned about what has happened in the past, but now we need to be concerned about what will happen at the upcoming WTO in Seattle. I note what Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, has been saying within the last month. I will quote from a document where she said:
The goal of the Clinton administration is to eliminate all farm export subsidies, reducing sky high tariffs used by Canada and other countries to keep out U.S. imports and strengthen disciplines on state trading agencies such as the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is the goal of the United States. I think it will find support from some other countries as well. It does not like state trading agencies or enterprises and we do not agree. The Canadian government has been very dogmatic in its comments that it will defend to the fullest the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. There is no question in my mind that the Americans have their guns trained on Canada, on the wheat board in particular, and on supply management.
My concern in this regard is that our government's response is very timid and very pale. It seems to be paralyzed with fear that anything we do in terms of trying to protect our primary producers, particularly in the prairies but elsewhere as well, will trigger retaliatory action by the Americans. They are concerned that everything is in the green box in terms of making it palatable.
For example, in 1995 Canada's total for amber support, the yellow light, was only 15% of WTO spending while in the United States it was almost 27%. In the European Union it was just in excess of 60%.
Canada must approach the next round of the WTO agricultural negotiations in a very cautious and thoughtful manner. That is what paragraph 4 is all about in the motion before us.
A new agreement which just continues the existing formula in reduction of protection and support without correcting the inequities in the current agreement will not necessarily be beneficial to Canadian farmers. In fact, such an agreement will just exacerbate current inequities.
I would make the observation that Canada is so intent on making sure that the very tiny domestic support we have is in the green box and that our farmers in western Canada are turning purple as a result of that.
I notice that you are giving me a signal, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize the time had flown by so fast. I do want to close my speech with a couple of predictions.
I have talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and I have talked about supply management. This is my prediction. The next round of the WTO which starts later this month in Seattle will see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian government will fight it to the death, but at the end of the day the Americans will win and we will lose the Canadian Wheat Board. The next round of the WTO after this round will spell the demise of supply management. I hope I am wrong but I do not think I will be.
Currently there is a movie called
Eyes Wide Shut
. That is how Canada went into the last round of agricultural trade. I hope we go to Seattle with our eyes wide open.
Supply November 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, indeed I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the Reform Party. He said in his speech that any of the problems in terms of agriculture should rest on the heads of this government and the previous Conservative government. I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that the Reform Party should share in some of the blame.
In 1993 when members of the Reform Party arrived here in any significant numbers they said to the government that they opposed all government subsidies for agriculture and that everything should be based on market driven forces. I submit to the hon. member from Manitoba that the situation is a result of these programs. The finance minister over there put on his Cheshire cat grin and asked how much Reformers would like him to cut. Indeed the government has cut programs by about 60%, three times more than it was required to in 1993. I would submit that was done because it wanted the deficit eliminated as fast as possible. The Reform Party was sitting over here, the only party with official party status from English Canada at the time, and the government could not do it fast enough.
Would the hon. member stand in his place and agree that the Reform Party has contributed directly to the agricultural crisis that is happening right now in western Canada?
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
Farmers cannot compete with the foreign subsidies which we know they are facing. I would simply ask the minister what he will do about it and when.
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, why does the minister confuse the issue? Why does the government not commit to helping prairie farmers who have been decimated by the slashing of agriculture domestic support payments proposed by these folks over here and readily accepted by you guys instead of—
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, last month's update for prairie provinces on the 1999 farm income forecast has finally been public.
For Saskatchewan the net farm income will be significantly below the five year average. In fact it will be significantly below the five year average for next year as well.
Why did the government hide behind these numbers as an excuse not to give either hope or relief to farmers when they were here on Parliament Hill last week?