Crucial Fact

  • Their favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Portage—Lisgar (Manitoba)

Lost their last election, in 2000, with 10% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Parliament Of Canada Act November 22nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I finally heard the fact that I can agree with him, that what the member for Lethbridge is doing is not double dipping. We have heard the Liberals so often saying: "The double dipper is sitting right there". Finally they have seen the light. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. We are making progress in the House. That is what I like to see.

Supply November 22nd, 1995

It's ludicrous.

Canadian Wheat Board November 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers and western Canadians were shocked and

outraged to hear of the ludicrous benefits lavished on Canadian Wheat Board commissioners. For the last 15 years, wheat board commissioners have set their own perks and privileges that included eight weeks of vacation per year and severance packages of up to $290,000.

At last we have seen the reason for closed doors and secrecy at the wheat board. Since they are not accountable to anyone they have been able to fill their pockets at will. Shame on the Liberal government for not fully correcting an injustice by removing these benefits retroactively.

This is a damning reminder of the gold plated MP pension plan all over again, farm bankruptcies and fat cat wheat board commissioners. It is a prime example of the Liberal red book promise of equality.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act November 1st, 1995

It is too late for that. I was under the impression that we should do a little bit of ploughing before we start harvesting because the crop would be better.

The Liberals do not realize that we have to put in a crop before we can harvest it. They like to pluck the plums from the tree after they are ripe. We will continue to allow them to do that and hope that maybe in the next election we can change things around.

Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act November 1st, 1995

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Liberals get excited and give us some recognition.

As I pointed out a number of months ago, I used to have a red combine. It was the colour of the Liberal Party and it always seemed to give me grief. That seems to be the way the Liberal government is going with its bills. It seems as if its red combine has run out of cash and it has found another bill to get some extra cash. The combine might be beyond repair so I do not know how the cash will do it by itself. The Liberals do not have much to trade off. I do not think the money raised through the bill will buy them another election.

It seems queer to me. I have been trying to get the Liberal government to put some teeth into some of the investigative powers of the grain commission and the wheat board. When farmers complained that somehow one of the organizations had dumped 1.5 million bushels into the U.S. at half price, that there was an anti-dumping violation, it seemed strange the minister of agriculture would not even respond. That is Liberal justice.

The bill worries me. The Liberals want to increase fines from roughly $1,000 to $250,000. As far as I am concerned that is designed for big multinationals or some of the bigger corporations because they can negotiate and persuade the government to say that they will draw a lot of votes in the next election and it better go easy on them or it could backfire. That is not the type of justice we need.

It is important to start realizing that small players need some protection. Due diligence is not included. There is no recourse but to pay the fine or negotiate. If people have any money left over they might be able to go the courts, but that is usually not the way small players work.

It is interesting to note the bill is designed so that the minister has the power over eight acts and not just one. I remind the House that when I started the investigation into the irregularities and illegalities of some of the acts the first thing I looked at was the smuggling of Grandin wheat into Canada. Snowflake is well known for that trade. If it does not happen to be wheat, it can be done with alcohol or cigarettes and it seems to be very successful.

When I insisted that an investigation be done on the smuggling of Grandin wheat, it was interesting to see that customs officers were willing to testify, willing to come before the courts. However for some reason the agriculture department claimed no wrong was being done. Suddenly I hear the government is very interested in protecting the quality of wheat and the quality of our meat through

monetary funds. The court system could not prevail because it was told simply, more or less, to take a side glance and not prosecute.

I will read a statement I received through an information officer on the issue:

In 1993 when the issue became public through an article in the newspaper, at the same time agriculture made a statement that Canada Customs erred in not stopping the wheat from entering Canada. As a result, Canada Customs no longer allows the importation of wheat into Canada.

There was proof that it was smuggled and the government allowed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to avoid the law.

How will the AMPS fix that problem? All it will do is put more money into a cash strapped Liberal government when its red combine is dilapidated and ready to fall apart. The Liberals are trying to get more funds to buy another election. I do not think it will work. To do that they should probably make it legal to smuggle liquor too, because there is more money in that than there is in Grandin wheat. Why avoid the small funds? They should go for the big cash because they will need a good combine to win the next election. I do not think it will be done with the faded old red machine I saw in the last election.

The big problem with the AMPS is that it will not deter any of the violations or minor infractions. The big players will use Bill C-61. They do not really care about the money they pay because they usually make more by violating or trespassing the law.

When the last Farm and Country paper came into my office I was very interested in watching what was going on as far as chemical harmonization with the United States was concerned. It is amazing that $10 million worth of chemicals are being smuggled illegally into Canada to be used by farmers. What did the Liberals do about it? The parliamentary secretary said that they just did not have the manpower to stop it. If they do not have the manpower to stop this type of violation, how do they think the AMPS will stop it?

They tried to stop the smuggling of cigarettes by opening the borders 24 hours a day. The customs officers were there lighting candles and making sure the roads were clear. I have news for them. At least in the Snowflake area these violators do not usually use customs offices. They usually find a little road through the bush. That is where they seem to do their best business. How will the AMPS provide protection against those fellows? I do not know how we will enforce it.

When we have a bill like this one which tries more or less to make monetary funds do the trick instead of the justice system, usually it backfires. That is why I am leery of the bill. It will take some pressure off the courts, but it will probably increase the violations and the violators who are able to afford it will become richer instead of poorer.

I will not continue too long on the subject. My colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster touched on pretty well everything. We need a justice system that is equal for all, a justice system that imposes a certain fine for a certain violation or infraction.

The Bloc member pointed out very vividly that there is a set price for a speeding ticket for going 20 miles an hour over the limit. That is the way the program should work. There should be some guidelines that stipulate the fines to be paid by violators and they should be enforced.

Maybe someday there will be a different combine. Maybe when we get green machinery on the other side we will also have violations and infractions decrease because we will have a system of legal authority that will look after violators and transgressors in a fair and equitable way and the little guy will be protected the same way as the others.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate these few minutes and I hope that some of the amendments that Reform has proposed will be supported.

Manitoba October 23rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to pay tribute to Manitoba's 125th anniversary.

Over the past year, all Manitobans have celebrated the history of this great province and its place within Canada. All over the province, communities large and small have been holding events and gatherings focusing on Manitoba's 125th birthday.

The strength and prosperity of Manitoba has been built by people of many different cultures and customs. Bound together by a dedication to hard work, they have built a proud legacy that will endure long into the future.

The past year has also seen celebrations of special accomplishments in the history of Manitoba. These achievements have been a source of pride for not only Manitobans but all Canadians as well.

In this anniversary year, Manitoba serves as a shining example of what can be achieved through the fundamental values of hard work, dedication and commitment to building a strong community.

Agriculture October 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's WGTA buyout has turned into a total fiasco. It is clear that whoever designed this program had limited knowledge of prairie agriculture. It is confused, disorganized and poorly planned.

The system for distributing applications for this program relied on obsolete information. As a result, many farmers were left out of the initial mailing.

My office has received hundreds of complaints from both grain and livestock producers who are fed up with this boondoggle. An example is a recent letter I received signed by over 100 beef and grain producers incensed that compensation will not go to forage acres but will include other livestock feed crops.

If this is a forerunner of the way the government will handle changes for western agriculture, then farmers will be faced with many more hit and run farm programs.

Employment Equity Act October 16th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House after a week's break. Things have not changed too much. I heard Reform mentioned quite often which is music to my ears. We must be saying something right.

I always say that the proof is in the pudding and to practise what you preach. For example, we have tried to be employed as committee vice-chairmen in this House for a number of years. For some reason it has not held true that we have been equally treated to that extent. We have capable people who should be employed as vice-chairs in the committees but it does not seem to work that

way. That is democracy Liberal style, I heard an hon. member say, but let us get down to the basics.

It is a pleasure to address this bill, an act representing employment equity. I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in opposition to this offensive piece of legislation.

This bill sets out to achieve numerical equity by occupational groups in the following workplaces that employ 100 or more people: the federal public service; federally regulated private business; and businesses that undertake contracts with the federal government. The bill sets out to do this by correcting conditions of the disadvantaged experienced by certain groups through the use of racial and gender based quotas.

Under this bill all affected businesses would have to comply with extensive reporting obligations, including filing detailed analyses of their hiring practices and racial breakdowns of their staffs. This is a costly imposition.

The Reform Party believes that all Canadians are equal under the law and all Canadians have the right to be free from discrimination in the workplace. No one should be denied an employment opportunity for reasons that have nothing to do with inherent ability. The Reform Party also believes that merit should be the sole hiring criteria in the workplace. To pass over the best qualified candidate in order to fill a racially based quota is a denial of the merit principle and in itself is racist.

We believe in a system that is colour blind and gender neutral. Canadians who wish to pursue a certain vocation should not face barriers of discrimination. Those with ability and discipline deserve the rewards of their hard work.

The key assumption underlining the notion of equality in Bill C-64 is that equality means equality of numerical representation in the workplace. Even in a perfect world it seems unlikely that people from designated groups would enter each segment of the workforce in numbers precisely equal to their representation in the workplace. Yet this government persists in depending on numerical equality as the standard of justice.

A 1993-94 report on employment equity in the public service says that self-identification is the backbone of the employment equity program. This raises a serious concern over the reliability of the self-identification process. Many people may refuse to identify themselves as a member of a designated group because they fear they would be seen differently by co-workers. This avoidance could then skew the statistical base. If enough people refused to self-identify, then the appearance of discrimination would be elevated.

For example, the Clerk of the House of Commons appeared with the result of a self-identification survey before the standing committee studying this bill. This survey was sent to 1,700 House employees. Just 23 per cent returned the survey. Of that number, less than 50 identified themselves as a member of a designated group. Clearly the appearance of non-compliance can be created by inadequate data.

A 1992-93 report on employment equity in the public service stated that the number of visible minority employees may be underidentified by one and one-half times and the number of disabled by two and one-half times. This has serious implications for employers. If some members of designated groups fail to identify themselves as belonging to a designated group, the employer would have to consistently report an unrepresentative workplace. In this case the employer would be forced to report non-compliance when in fact he or she might be complying.

There is also the aspect that employees would be tempted to falsify self-identification surveys. Since no verification is ever attempted, no studies have been conducted on the possibility of abuse in this regard. However, the 1994 report of the Employment Equity Act notes that in 1991, 2.3 million Canadians reported having a disability, an increase of 30 per cent over 1986. Only part of this can be explained by an aging population.

This bill gives Canadians a strong motive to count themselves in as disadvantaged. Even more confusing is the fact there is no uniform definition of disability used in Canada and disabilities are often determined on a case by case basis.

This type of legislation results in reverse discrimination. It attempts to fight racism or sexism by racist and sexist means.

For a while in 1992 the RCMP in Alberta stopped accepting applications from white males. The RCMP now operates several preferential hiring programs. Out of the 426 cadets in training this year, 74 per cent must be selected from three of the four designated groups.

Polls in Canada have consistently shown that Canadians do not want employment equity programs. A 1993 Gallup poll showed that 74 per cent said that qualifications should be the sole criteria for hiring for management positions. The question is: When will this government start listening to Canadians instead of forcing legislation on them that they do not want?

This seems to have been the Liberal agenda for the last couple of years: "Do as we say or you will not do as you should be doing according to your constituents". This is another prime example of the Liberal government trying to force through legislation that will be detrimental not just to this country but to the economy of the

country. It is time we recognized that we have to listen to the grassroots people, that we have to listen to the grassroots businesses. They have the answers for this country and that is what the people of Canada want.

Agriculture September 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, farmers across western Canada are frustrated with the government's botching of the Crow buyout. Farmers who have diversified are being disqualified from compensation.

The FCC and banks are reneging on giving a fair share of the buyout money to producers. The government has failed to bring efficiency into the grain handling and transportation system. Furthermore, organic growers are penalized for marketing and transporting their own grain. Domestic beef producers are constantly harassed by arbitrary offshore beef imports.

For two years we have been promised a special crops act without action. Instead of encouraging the industry the government is putting small seed cleaner plants out of business with more regulation.

While the government expends all of its energy on the referendum question, farmers are forced to watch their problems being ignored. It has become clear they can expect no action from this thin soup Liberal agenda.

Canadian Wheat Board June 22nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I requested information through the Access to Information Act concerning a briefing note to the Solicitor General from the RCMP officer who mishandled my request for an investigation into the Canadian Wheat Board.

The briefing note merely explains how my claims were mishandled, which includes the officer's error in not opening a separate file, and subsequent reports. No file or report exists.

The Canadian Wheat Board, on the other hand, insists on laying charges against individual farmers exporting grain without an export permit.

Farmers are merely trying to eke out a living and draw attention to the fact that somebody is ripping them off, yet the RCMP maintains an extensive file and reports on these farmers.

I ask: What is wrong with this picture?