House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forward.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Progressive Conservative MP for Brandon—Souris (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is very laudable to suggest that every motion should be votable, and we agree. Had the Reform Party felt that this was a very serious issue, I am sure it could have made it one of its votable supply days.

As for taxation, I agree with the member that producers pay taxes as do every other sector of society in Canadian life. What I said was that the tax relief program put forward by the official opposition will not resolve the problem we have today. A five or ten year tax regime ultimately is the best thing for Canadians. It will not resolve the problem of those producers who cannot put a crop in this spring. That means there has to be support programs put into place.

If the Reform Party wants to hang its hat on a five year program of tax relief, then unfortunately the people now finding themselves in difficulty will not be around in five years to support its tax relief program.

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised actually because David Orchard espouses the policies of the NDP. It is nice to see that the hon. member would support Joe Clark, as I have done right from the beginning.

I do not like to refer to it as emergency aid. As the minister has rightfully said, we do not want ad hoc programs. We have always said in this party that what we need is a crisis program, a natural disaster program to deal with crises, the ice storm, the Red River flooding, the commodity crisis in the marketplace right now. Yes, we need a program in place to provide the necessary financial resources for farmers to put in the spring crop. I cannot say that any more emphatically. That is what we would support and I would be more than happy to put our vote on the table.

David Orchard, fortunately for our purposes, will not be in our party much longer. I am sure he will be embraced by his previous party, the NDP.

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the member can read another platform. It is too bad that they cannot put into place their own platforms right now to support agriculture.

What we did say emphatically is that there would be an amalgamation of a number of departments. The money saved from the administrative function of those departments, however, would go back to the people who really deserved it, the producers. That was the premise of that policy.

With respect to the hon. member's position as to whether subsidization should be stopped, times change. It is unfortunate that the government cannot deal with the change in what is going on around us right now in the global economy. Those negotiations were in place and subsidies were to be reduced from the EU and the U.S. It is not subsidies—

Supply November 3rd, 1998

I do not think those members should get on their high horse just yet because there is a but here. I find it ironic that a party which obviously comes from the grassroots of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia would not make it a votable motion so that the government's feet would be held to the fire. Then government members would have to stand and indicate which way they voted on the motion.

As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the motion speaks more to long term tax relief. As was mentioned earlier, I do not think there is as member on this side of the House, and perhaps on that side of the House, who does not agree with long term tax relief. However long term tax relief does not solve the problem we face today.

Being that I come from the wheat city I get an awful lot of people coming through my constituency office. I can honestly say—and I am pleased to say it—that many of the people who are coming through my door now perhaps would not have come through my door a year or two years ago.

These are farmer producers who have suffered in silence throughout the decade or the numbers of years of downturn in the farm economy. Quite frankly there is no more suffering in silence. They are coming through the door and saying “Rick, this is not good for agriculture”. They are saying that if something is not done within the next three to six months they will not be able to put in a crop this spring.

They are saying that they have suffered in silence and have done all they possibly could. They have taken the equity out of their land. They have taken the equity out of their farms. Their operating lines are to the maximum right now. Unfortunately there is no more help on the horizon. If they try to go to their suppliers or if they try to go to the banks to get more money to put in their crops, they will be told to sell their land, that there is no hope.

If we as Canadians want to get farmer producers off their land, we are heading in the right direction. My party and I say that help should be put in place today. We should not look five or ten years down the road when we can in fact bring in tax reforms and give them some relief from their taxes. The producers I talk to do not pay taxes because they have no income. They are not generating income and therefore are not paying taxes. Tax relief will not help them. They need support programs to offset the American and EU support programs that are in place.

Let me give some examples of what is happening out there. It is not simply the producers who will be affected. It is the community that producers support on a regular basis. I am talking about the industries that will be affected such as bulk fuel dealers, implement dealers, grocery stores and people who sell goods and services to farm producers. The economy goes around. If there is no income in the farm economy there is no income in the communities. When those industries stand up and do not suffer in silence the government may well get the message.

Let me give some examples of what is happening in the farm economy. I have received a number of letters, but I pulled this one from a farm wife. She sent me a copy of the grain receipt statements she received when her husband delivered his wheat quota for this spring. They sent in $19,677 worth of grain or almost $20,000 worth. The deductions for elevation, transportation and cleaning were $6,281. They received approximately $12,000 from $19,000 or $20,000 worth of grain.

That would be fine if that $19,000 worth or grain could have been $40,000 or a reasonable amount to compensate them for putting the crop in the ground. It is not. It is $20,000 and a third of it goes to other uncontrollable costs. The $12,000 they received is not sufficient to be able to break even with their inputs and what it cost them to produce the commodity.

Another gentleman walked into my office and gave me a complete financial statement of what it cost him to put in 160 acres of crop and his return.

These are producers who are good managers. These are producers who have done everything right. The problem they found is that they cannot sell the commodity for what it is worth.

An individual producer walked in, showed me his financials and said for every quarter section of land that he puts in right now, he is losing $115. That does not include the debt servicing of the land. That is strictly the input cost and the revenue that is coming off the land.

Would anybody here stay in business and produce a commodity that will be less than what it costs to grow or produce? The answer is that it cannot be done very often unless the equity comes out of the land. That is what they are doing right now.

When our government was in power we supported agriculture. Currently we have the ability under our trade agreements to have support programs in place that would equal $3 billion to $4 billion annually.

Currently that contribution is less than $1 billion, so there is room within the trade negotiations that we have already entered into but the government in its wisdom has decided that the agricultural producer is to take a great deal of the burden when dealing with the deficit that it so gladly says it has brought under control.

Let me give an understanding regarding what we did for agricultural producers. We have a record of stating quite emphatically that we will support agriculture.

Between 1984 and 1985 support for our farmers was greater than ever before. Crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion. The PC government eased the burden of borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation by setting up new programs like low interest refinancing of loans with the size of payments tied to price of products.

Farmers were also helped by a one time interest rate cut for those locked into long term loans with high rates. Farm debt review boards were set up to help farmers in financial trouble make arrangements with their creditors. A special fund was set up to help restructure debts.

We eased farm input costs with rebates on gasoline and diesel fuel bought for farm use. We doubled the ceiling for advance payments under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. We changed the Farm Improvement Loans Act so that farmers could borrow money not only to improve their farms but to diversify and develop new marketing ideas.

Grains and oilseeds farmers hurt by the 1988 drought received $850 million in emergency help. In 1985-86 and 1986-87, $146 million helped farmers through another season with no rain. A $15 million rural water development program was set up in 1988-89. I could go on and on.

We were there when farmers needed us. All I am asking is that this government be there when producers need it today. It is very difficult to say what has to be said in 10 minutes, so I ask for questions and comments. I would love to have more time.

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the issue on the floor of the House of Commons today is a very important one. It is more so important perhaps to my constituents and me than to a lot of other members on either the government side or the opposition benches.

I will clarify that by simply saying that coming from Brandon—Souris the economic backbone of my constituency is without question agriculture. Both from a direct and indirect standpoint the total economy developed in my community is based on agriculture. Therefore I feel very comfortable and very privileged to speak in the House, hopefully with some ability to convince the government the situation we are facing right now is one of crisis. That word has been used substantially today. I cannot help but use it again to identify the total crisis in the farm economy today.

I would like to thank the Reform Party, once and probably the last time in my illustrious political career, for putting the motion on the floor today so that we have an opportunity to debate it.

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Palliser. He talked about the NISA program and how the minister of agriculture basically held it up as being the be-all and end-all of the farm crisis. Today we heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that support mechanisms should not be put in place but that it should be long term tax breaks.

Could the member for Palliser give me some indication as to what his party would actually like to see with respect to farm support programs? Does he have any idea how they should be delivered to agriculturalists or producers that will have some difficulty putting crops in this coming spring season?

Supply November 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned NISA many times and said that we hang our hat on the NISA program. The minister also mentioned that there is $2.5 billion in NISA. Would the minister agree that it is an accumulated amount which is sitting in accounts and that, in fact, NISA contributions are not made specifically by the federal government? There is a contribution from the producers, from the provinces and from this government.

When we compare the $2.5 billion in Canada to the $20 billion in the United States, that is an unfair comparison. In fact, the Americans right now are acknowledging that they will put $6 billion into support programs and an immediate $2.9 billion will be in cash.

Would the minister please correct the impression that in fact the $2.5 billion came from the federal government and that it is enough to combat the $6 billion in the U.S.?

Government Appointments November 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, when Ron Fewchuk was appointed as the CEO of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board there was a CEO in place already. In fact, for the last year there have been two CEOs.

Mr. Fewchuk has resigned. As a matter of fact, when he gets his pink slip there is going to be a severance package paid to Mr. Fewchuk. He had a severance package when he left parliament. He had a $100,000 salary and now he has another severance package.

Will the minister please tell us how much it cost Canadian taxpayers to have this Liberal appointment made to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board?

Government Appointments November 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, a year ago I questioned the Liberal patronage appointment of Ron Fewchuk, the CEO of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.

After a year of turmoil it seems the minister is about to make some changes, including the infamous Mr. Fewchuk.

Does the minister not realize that it takes more than running a bait shop to run a $50 million operation?

Is the minister prepared to stand today, take responsibility and admit that he made a mistake with this patronage appointment?

Health Canada October 29th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious matter. It is like shutting the barn door after the horse has run away when the deputy minister now suggests that no documents be destroyed.

Monsanto has contacted departmental officials with concerns that the Senate committee disclosed confidential information. The company has also commented on leaks of confidential information.

Is the minister taking matters into his own hands and making sure Monsanto's information turns into dust?