House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was reform.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, that is the only good advice I have heard from them all afternoon.

One of the members of the Reform Party said that he wanted me to address at least one aspect of the bill. Let me do that. If you listened to the Reform Party and you did not have the facts, you would quickly believe this changed wheat board would still be in the hands of the federal government.

The fact is the new wheat board will have 15 directors, 10 of whom will be elected directly by farmers and only 5 will be appointed by the government. The last time I checked my arithmetic 10 constitutes a full majority. I would think that the directors elected by the farmers would enjoy majority support on that board. I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense that the farmers will still not have an opportunity to run the board. Under Bill C-4 farmers will be put in the driver's seat. They will run the board. The farmers will run the show and the federal government will be in partnership with them.

Most farmers on the prairies who are at least acquainted with Bill C-4 realize this is the opportunity for them to take over the wheat board and run it to their benefit, not to the benefit of the federal government and certainly not to the benefit of the Reform Party.

Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998

Yes, I spent the first 19 years of my life on a farm. I happen to know a considerable amount about farming. The hon. member can throw that at me all he likes. I spent a good many years on a farm and I am very proud of it.

Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party would like us to believe that a majority of farmers on the prairies are against the wheat board, that they do not want anything to do with the wheat board.

If memory serves me correctly, not too long ago there was a plebiscite on the prairies having to do with barley. If there ever was an opportunity for farmers on the prairies to embarrass the government, to support the Reform Party and to show that they wanted nothing to do with the wheat board, all the farmers had to do was to vote against the board. In effect they could say “We do not want barley attached to the board any more”.

What were the results? Notice that the Reform Party in all its speeches will never say anything about the plebiscite, never a word. I wonder why. Is it possibly because two-thirds of prairie farmers showed in that plebiscite that they support the wheat board? Two-thirds of farmers said “We want our barley sold through the Canadian Wheat Board”. That was the fact but we will never hear that from the Reform Party.

The Reform members would never want too many facts to get in the way of their presentations because facts will kill them every time. They also say “We are not against the wheat board. All we want is the right to have dual marketing. We can have the wheat board but we would also like to sell our grain to other grain companies”. Is that not nice. If we were to adopt the Reform Party proposal, imagine how long the wheat board would last. We have to remember that the wheat board is in partnership with the federal government. Over $6 billion of its financing is underwritten by the federal government. That is something no other grain company has.

Imagine in a dual marketing situation if we had one agency, one company called the Canadian Wheat Board enjoying the support of all the taxpayers in the country, and all these other companies on the other side not having that privilege or honour of the support of the federal treasury. How long would that situation last? Two or three minutes. I suspect we would be in the courts just like that. A situation where one particular company is favoured and not the others would be untenable.

Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians who have been listening to the debate this afternoon will have heard it very, very clearly from the Reform Party, that unless you are a member of the House of Commons from the prairie provinces, you have no right to speak in this debate.

All I can say to the members of the Reform Party is shame on you. It is beneath your party to even entertain such a terrible thought as that. I say shame on you. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will address my remarks through you.

The member for Elk Island accused members on the government side of acting as, I think he used the words trained seals. He admonished us to stand on our principles. Again, I would like the Reform Party to listen to its own advice that it has given so freely to us.

I have listened to members of the Reform Party on this issue, and all we hear is the same old ideological line that you get from the Reform Party on the wheat board bill. It is the same old right wing stuff we have been hearing for years and years. Would it not be nice if just once we could hear a refreshing thought, a new thought, something a little different from the Reform Party when it comes to C-4. But no, Reform members are the trained seals. They are the ones who stick to one particular line over and over again.

There is one more thing. Members of the Reform Party love to pretend that they are the voice of the west when it comes to the issue of C-4. I would concede that members of the Reform Party do speak for some farmers, and I emphasize the word some, but they do not speak for all prairie farmers.

It is very interesting that in all this debate about the pros and cons of C-4, the Reform Party never talks about a popular survey that was taken among farmers. They never refer to an Angus Reid poll or a Gallup poll or any other reputable poll. When it comes to support for the wheat board, we will never hear anything from the Reform members because they know and we all know that the wheat board enjoys majority support on the prairies.

Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member who represents part of the Peace River area said that this was a serious matter and I could not agree more. I wish that members of the Reform Party would listen to their own advice. I do not think they are treating this matter very seriously. I believe they are much more interested in listening to themselves, much more interested in grandstanding and much more interested in trying to score some cheap political points.

I come from one of the prairie provinces. I feel that I have to apologize to all members in this House who do not live on the prairies because what the Reform Party has said over and over again in this debate is that if you do not reside on the prairies, you have no right to speak to this bill, that you have lost your franchise, that you do not enjoy full citizenship in this country.

I can say that the last time I checked, all 301 members of this House enjoy full citizenship when they come into this House. They can speak to any matter, regardless of where they live, regardless of which riding they represent. I say to every member—

Petitions February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of several dozen residents of Winnipeg, some of whom are in my riding.

The petitioners would like to remind this House that legislation for equal pay for work of equal value was passed in Canada 12 years ago and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission agreed that the findings of an independent inquiry were reasonable and correct.

The petitioners request that this legislation take effect immediately and that the appropriate government workers be reimbursed at the rates recommended.

1998 Olympic Games February 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, Canada is seeing gold, Olympic gold.

I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate the 153 Canadian athletes who make up our country's team to the 1998 Nagano Olympic Winter Games. I know all hon. members and Canadians wish our athletes the very best.

It is of particular pleasure to rise in this place to congratulate Canada's first medal recipient, Ross Rebagliati. Rebagliati has not only won gold for Canada. He made Olympic history and did so in a new sport, the snowboard slalom.

My sincerest congratulations to all the athletes who are representing Canada with such grace and style and who epitomize the values of excellence, dedication, discipline and fair play. They are indeed great ambassadors of a great nation.

Good luck Team Canada, your country is behind you.

Ice Storm 1998 February 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on the federal role in helping people who were hit hard by the recent ice storm. I am proud that the federal government was quick off the mark in getting the ball rolling and working with the provinces and Canadians in the affected areas.

Once again the people of Canada have rallied around and helped their neighbours. We have seen this spirit three times in recent years; first with the flooding in the Saguenay region of Quebec, then last spring with the Red River flood in my home province, and now this ice storm.

Manitobans were extremely grateful with the help they received last year and I am proud of the way they have responded to this crisis. For example, Manitoba Telecom Services sent people and equipment to help restore telephone lines. Manitoba Red Cross helped gather supplies and money for storm victims. The Mennonite Central Committee and the Winnipeg Free Press started collections for money, blankets and clothing. Banks and credit unions were also at the frontlines of assistance.

I could go on, but to be brief, I would like to thank Manitobans, indeed all western Canadians for their support to the communities hurting as a result of the ice storm.

The federal government also reacted quickly. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was one of the departments whose proactive efforts played a key role. The department started by taking steps to help prevent further damage and to help those in crisis. It followed up by working with provinces, industry organizations, banks and others involved in the crisis.

The most immediate concern in the early hours and days of the storm was getting power to farms, dairy, hog and poultry. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada staff worked closely with the generator committee established by Emergency Preparedness Canada to track down and assure the distribution of generators in both Ontario and Quebec.

As well, the department provided and moved generators from its research centres in St-Hyacinthe, Ottawa and southern Ontario.

The second biggest concern was getting the dairy processing capacity back on line. The department worked with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to get temporary authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to export unpasteurized milk to the U.S. for processing and return it to Canada.

In all, 1.35 million hectolitres of milk were moved to Michigan and some milk was also moved out of Quebec to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Unfortunately about 13.5 million hectolitres of milk had to be dumped because the trucks could not get to the farms to pick it up, or if they could, there was no power to run the pumps.

Thankfully these efforts and many others are now largely complete with the return to more normal operations throughout the regions affected by the storm. However, we cannot forget that there are still thousands of people without power.

These storms affected a massive area with a huge concentration of food production. At the height of the crisis, one-third of Canada's milk supply was affected. In Quebec alone, 50% of milk, 40% of hogs and 60% of the maple industry were affected. Based on the 1996 census of agriculture, there were 10,471 farms in the area of eastern Ontario affected by the ice storm.

To date, much of the concern is focused on damage experienced by dairy and maple producers. Approximately 25% of all farms in this area raise dairy cows and 5% have taps on maple trees. Other major commodities produced in the region include beef and poultry with 44% of farms reporting beef cattle and 11% reporting hens and chickens.

One of the more pressing concerns is getting the maple sugar industry up and running again. We have only four to six weeks before the sap begins to run in March in eastern Ontario and Quebec. Some of the affected trees will produce sap this year and then die. Some have been destroyed already and some will only recover over time.

In the interim the Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced measures to help the maple sugar industry. Producers have already begun to sign up and are being encouraged to apply to their local HRDC offices.

Federal emergency assistance to hire labour for clean up is available now under existing programs, including up to $40 million under the Employment Insurance Act for targeted wage subsidies and job creation partnerships and up to $5 million under youth initiatives.

I referred earlier to the disaster financial assistance arrangements. It is important to understand that under DFAA it is the provincial and territorial governments that must first develop and implement disaster relief measures. They must indicate what they consider to be eligible and make the compensation payments to individuals and communities.

The minister issued a news release on January 21 that outlined some of the damages that could be claimed under the DFAA guidelines if provinces choose to cover them. The following would be eligible for cost sharing with the provinces if the provinces cover these costs: asset losses such as livestock; costs incurred by farmers who had to dump their milk during the crisis; reimbursement of the value of milk; costs of renting generators and other storm related costs such as diesel fuel, repairing assets damaged by the ice storm like barns or lost inventories because of power outages, animals that died as a result of the storm; and costs associated with moving agricultural products out of affected areas for urgent processing.

All those affected in rural communities are eligible for compensation under provincial programs. Again it is up to the provinces to decide what is covered and to do the actual compensation. We will share the cost. Federal departments quickly initiated the ongoing discussions with the provinces.

From the beginning Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been in constant contact with key farm organizations and remains in contact with the Quebec and Ontario ministries. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been in touch with his provincial counterparts, ministers Julien and Villeneuve. I assure the House that relationships with and among the provinces are very positive. Regular contact is being maintained at the officials level with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

It is this government's objective to ensure interprovincial equity by gathering information on what each province is planning to cover. The provinces decide on the level and type of assistance to communities and individuals. Officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have met and remain in contact with the provincial ministries of agriculture in the affected provinces. They are providing assistance to the provinces regarding DFAA and possible subsidiary agreements. The federal government continues to work with the provinces to identify gaps in the assistance provided by DFAA to small businesses impacted by the ice storm.

Quebec has experience with DFAA and the negotiation of subsidiary agreements as a result of the Saguenay flood in 1996. Ontario is inviting Quebec to meet and to share this knowledge and experience regarding the DFAA and subsidiary agreements. The federal government encourages the provinces to work together.

The full nature of the damage by the storm has still to be tallied. It will take some time to do so but the federal government will continue to work closely with the provinces and farm organizations much as Canadians from across this country did to help those affected by the storm.

Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has a membership larger than all the organizations he mentioned, supports this clause.

Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997

I know that members of the Reform Party have trouble with facts. They have trouble with information. Any time we try to bring facts to the debate, what do we hear? A whole lot of hollering from a bunch of yahoos.