House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was saskatchewan.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Souris—Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 63% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Brandon-Souris calling the AIDA program a subsidy? Is he calling the crop insurance program a subsidy?

All I said was that there is room within existing programs to sharpen them up to stop the human bleeding. That is what we are asking for. Quite frankly, if the government needs some help I can tell it how to help the hundreds of people who I know personally. Do not call it a subsidy. We are not calling it a subsidy. If the government wants to call it a subsidy, fine.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I believe that both the federal and the provincial governments believe that it should be zero for qualification and not a negative. That has to be changed.

Second, if the government does not get the agreement of the provinces, then this must happen. If this human suffering is going to be stopped, this bleeding that I referred to, then it will fall on the government's shoulders to say, yes, it can make those improvements to AIDA that will fill the needs at this time.

I understand that they are going to be asking for $1 billion. The most disappointing thing I heard came from the only Liberal member from Saskatchewan, who I thought had passed away because we had not heard from him. He said that we do not have enough jingle jangle down here. That is nonsense. If this human story is turned over to everyone in the government, my guess is that the farmers will get help. However, if it is turned over just to cabinet, I am afraid this may rest on its hands. I hope I am wrong.

We have to help and I think the hon. member would agree with that.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate for one basic reason and that is that the constituency which I represent was perhaps the worst hit constituency across Canada last spring.

My remarks will dwell on people. Everyone has done an adequate job of talking about the reasons, but I want to talk about the people, the people who I serve and the people across Canada, who through no fault of their own cannot extract one cent for the help that is needed now.

The people that I represent are proud prairie people, people who have been betrayed, people of the land. They are people who are fourth and fifth generation farmers. They are young farmers, young farm families, many of whom I know personally. They will tell me, as will some of the older people, that the situation they are looking at right now is even more severe than it was in the depths of the 1930s.

I get very emotional when I talk about these people. Make no mistake about it, these people have been betrayed. They have been betrayed by this government. They have been betrayed by their provincial government.

When the flood came two years ago to Manitoba the people that I represent rushed to help not only because of their location, many of them took equipment to help. Two years later there is more land under water in my constituency. A hundred times more land did not get seeded. While my constituents agreed with immediate help for the Red River flood, they are still waiting for some help from this government. Is it any wonder they feel betrayed?

My same constituents were happy to see the immediate influx of cash during the devastating ice storm. But there they sit with frozen grain in the field this fall. They filled out AIDA forms, which is like buying a $500 lottery ticket, and they lost because they have received nothing.

They are being betrayed because of the stubborn insistence of this government which says that the current programs are meeting the farmers' needs. They are not. The government should open up its ears to the provincial delegation that is coming down.

The sad part is that many of these young people are telling me that they are being politically punished simply because they do not support a government, provincial or federal, which really has no keen interest in agriculture.

They are feeling betrayed as well by the fact that they lost $400 million out of the provincial GRIP program. Boy, that would come in handy right now.

They are feeling betrayed because the property tax on their agricultural land is sky high.

They are feeling betrayed because the grain companies, which they really believed would be there when they needed them, are not there.

Finally, the greatest betrayal of all, they were told if they would just settle for the Crow rate removal, get rid of it, the government would pay them out. All they got was one year's free freight. That is all. That is not the end. This government told them in no uncertain terms that if they would accept the Crow, then they would not be fighting these big subsidy wars. The House knows the rest of the story. It is little wonder that I get emotional when I talk about this.

Virtually every night last summer, if a phone call was not picked up by my offices, I tried to make contact with that constituent. This House is dealing with a human tragedy which I witnessed for all but three days during last summer. People ask if anyone is listening.

Our daily newspaper, the Regina Leader Post , announced the results of a phone survey which revealed that even in Saskatchewan 60% of the people responded that farmers should not get any financial consideration. Obviously many people agree.

Farmers are not looking for a handout. They hate that term. They are not looking for a subsidy. Farmers are simply pleading with the government that they need some survival funds right now. That is what they are asking for. GRIP has turned them down. If farmers lost money for three years, GRIP does nothing. Farmers need assistance.

It is time the government stopped trying to score political brownie points. It is time the government took a look at people and helped them to survive so that they can, once more, pour billions of dollars back into the economy of Canada.

At this time of the year we hear the statement “If ye break faith”. Because the government's AIDA program was not designed for the area which I represent, it has broken faith. The government can correct that. It can correct that this Thursday. It can be corrected by making an agreement with the group coming here to put an end to what otherwise would be the blackest chapter in the history of agriculture in my constituency. The future is in our hands.

I want to mention three phone calls that I received. This will give members some idea of the extent of the suffering out there.

A young farmer's wife phoned me in August. She was 32 years of age and had one child who was starting school. She wanted to know if I could help. This family had spent $500 filling out an AIDA form. They were told that they would get a little bit. Two weeks later they were told that their application would be reviewed. Eventually this family may get something.

Before this phone call was over, this young lady broke down. She was in tears. She wept bitterly. The power bill would soon be due. The phone was about to be cut off. This lady's final words were that they had never asked for help before from anyone.

I want the government to listen. The programs which have been created have been misconstrued and misstated. The minister of agriculture said that individuals would receive $50 an acre for flooded land. Nobody received $50 an acre; not anywhere near it.

The second phone call I received was an even sadder case. This call came from a lady who was phoning from the bedside of her husband. She had spent the entire summer trying to get a bed in the hospital. Her husband is dying of cancer. The government had told this lady that they would get a small amount. All I could do was write to the government and beg on this couple's behalf. I want members to note her last words. She too broke down and said that their only son would probably never survive the agriculture crisis long enough to keep the land which was his great-grandfather's.

This is as great a crisis as that which has ever happened. Yet, we are still trying to make some political points from it.

The last phone call I received was very personal. It came from a young couple who are living on the same farm as my wife and I lived on. This young fellow bent my ear for 50 minutes. He basically said that he had learned not to trust any government. That is a sad case.

On behalf of my constituents and those across the prairies, we are not asking, we are begging that on Thursday the government meet with the provincial people and say, yes, that it can indeed look after those people who do not qualify because of some stupid form. They hate that form.

Let us look at the human tragedy. Let us stop the bleeding. It is in the hands of the government. Hundreds of farm families need to be listened to.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, much of what my hon. colleague from Palliser has said and has said very well is true but I do want to correct his opening remarks. Coming from the same province as I do, there are three basic questions I want to put to him just for the record.

First, could he comment on the fact that the NDP government in Saskatchewan took a real beating at the rural polls in the September election? Second, what government was it in Saskatchewan that stole some $450 million from the farmers GRIP program? Third, would he like to explain why the property tax on farmland has increased some 300% in NDP Saskatchewan?

Petitions October 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am extremely pleased that hundreds more petitioners are talking about cruelty to children that is in the form of pornography. The petitioners pray that parliament take all necessary measures to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a very serious criminal offence. I am proud that these petitioners may not be the last of hundreds and hundreds of signatures that are coming in from my constituents on this issue.

Agriculture October 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, a recent Angus Reid survey shows 46% of prairie farmers are seriously considering getting out of farming or have already ceased operations because of high taxes, unfair foreign subsidies and low commodity prices.

By the end of this year, thousands of farmers will be forced from their farms, not by choice, but by this government's inaction and lack of interest.

Unless the government takes immediate action to resolve the farming crisis, our farmers face a bleak future.

The Prime Minister continues to boast about Canada being the best place on earth to live. I wish he would face a group of Canadian prairie farmers and make that statement. But true to form, the Prime Minister and his government will continue to avoid addressing this very important issue.

Child Pornography June 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present today at least 300 more signatures from people in my constituency and across the province dealing with the same topic.

The petitioners pray that parliament will take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.

Supply June 3rd, 1999

Madam Speaker, one of the biggest fallacies is that the public hear that this is just another type of municipal government. It is not. It is another level of government.

I want to ask the question that the aboriginal people in my area ask me. In this treaty will the aboriginal people be granted the same rights as other municipal governments? Will they have accountability, annual audited statements and all the other rights that we enjoy? I say it is not within the treaty. Am I correct?

Agriculture May 31st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

A Saskatchewan Liberal senator has described this Liberal government's AIDA package as nothing but a disgrace as far as western Canada is concerned.

At this time, would the minister not come out west to see this area and then make the declaration that this is a disaster area and that the funds that go to support the farmers and the local governments for the collateral damage be two separate packages? Will he make that commitment now?

Agriculture May 31st, 1999

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

In touring the southeastern portion of my constituency, one will find 50% of the cultivated land under water and another 25% of the land that was prepared for this year's seeding too saturated. The total area is greater than the entire acreage of Prince Edward Island.

Will the minister tour this area and meet with the farmers and the local governments that are facing a huge financial crisis?