House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was grain.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Conservative MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 69% of the vote.

Statements in the House

April 24th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of the Liberal government, the government is working hard to put in place a new set of programs for Canadian farmers that will address not only ongoing problems such as low farm income, but also address the extraordinary needs of producers that are created by things such as the droughts that we find in northwestern Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and southwestern Saskatchewan.

We are currently working to revise our business risk management programming to try to make it more responsive to the ongoing problems of high input costs that farmers face and the low commodity prices that often confront them. Officials are currently working, as the member knows, on the details of a separate disaster relief framework that will allow governments to respond more quickly to disasters, whether they be new diseases or natural disasters such as flooding or drought.

While CAIS remains in place for the 2006 program year, the government and its provincial partners have agreed, as a transitional measure, to implement under CAIS a number of key elements of a new stabilization program. This will allow producers to benefit from these program enhancements as soon as possible.

The government has also recently announced an additional $1 billion in two initiatives for farmers. We will soon be making a payment of up to $400 million to help offset the high cost of production faced by producers over the last few years. We have also earmarked a one time payment of up to $600 million to kickstart the new government producer savings account style program that will be put in place with the agreement of the provinces. To tie it to the savings accounts, the government has also committed another $100 million annually to address high production costs when they occur.

I think the member understands and realizes that the government is committed to agriculture and has been putting a large amount of money toward it.

It is essential in a sector such as agriculture, which is characterized by joint jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments, that we develop and implement these programs in a collaborative manner with the provinces and industries so that everyone is committed to the success of the programs.

One of the frustrations has been that as we have gone forward to try to convince the government that there is an issue here, that there is a drought that has taken place and that the government needs to respond, my own provincial government has been very reluctant to even admit that there is any sort of an emergency. While I am down here trying to say that we do have an emergency situation, we have a drought situation, the Saskatchewan government itself is saying that it does not really recognize that there is an emergency situation. This makes it much more difficult for me to represent my area and, if the same thing is happening to the hon. member opposite, I know it makes it much more difficult for him to represent his folks as well.

The Saskatchewan government has played with this issue since last summer. I know that the provincial minister has come out with a number of what he would call different suggestions, but what I have seen are just delay tactics. He suggested at one point that we should probably go to a 70-30 split. He told some of my producers that in meetings and then went public and said that we should do a 90-10 split. If anything is going to happen, it looks like it will be a 100-0 split. It is frustrating dealing with a provincial government that will not even recognize that we have an issue.

We will try to continue working with the provinces and territories to bring in these programs that are predictable, responsible and bankable and that deal with these emergency situations.

Petitions April 16th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from a group of people who want to support the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.

Petitions April 16th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of some folks who believe that because our 14 and 15 year olds are most vulnerable to sexual exploitation they would like the government to take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Agriculture and Agri-Food March 23rd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the government has made a commitment to farmers and a commitment in many different ways. It has just made a commitment of $400 million through a farm program; 600 million more dollars on top of the programming that we have had in the past in terms of setting a new program for farmers; and we are working toward drought assistance for those farmers who need it.

Unfortunately, in Saskatchewan the provincial government refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem, which makes it more difficult to work toward getting the aid that farmers need out there.

Committees of the House March 2nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, of course I have absolutely no disrespect for Parliament. I respect it. It is a great honour and privilege to be here. I also have respect for my farmers. I respect their ability to make decisions. For that reason, I am one of the people who believes they have the ability to make those decisions and should have the choice to make them.

We look forward to the opportunity of giving producers those options, the same options, as my colleague mentioned, that farmers have across the rest of this country.

Committees of the House March 2nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time and that I had actually come more prepared, because yesterday I read a statement into the record at the agriculture committee about how in the 1920s there was a movement among farmers to form voluntary pools. They were able to set up the wheat pools.

The wheat pools survived very successfully through the 1920s. They actually commanded over 50% of the market at one point. So we have historical documentation, if we can call it that, about the ability of voluntary pooling systems to operate in Canada, and we expect that the Wheat Board, given its position right now as one of the biggest players in Canada, would be able to participate and successfully operate in an environment like that.

Again, I just want to point out the three questions the member mentioned. I will read them out one more time so he can understand that they are not complicated at all.

First: “The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets”. That is pretty straightforward.

Second: “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer”. That is very clear.

Third: “The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley”. I know that my farmers are smart enough to figure out that question.

If farmers are really interested in finding out what went on at the committee, I think they should look at the Wheat Board site and read the La Liberté article on Algerian grain sales, from December 2006. They will begin to see why we had concerns.

Committees of the House March 2nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod who is very competent in this area. I know farmers will want to hear from him.

I want to read what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food actually said yesterday. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, I heard about the real voice for change group. They met the other day. I think there were about 30 of them who got together. It was a completely non-partisan event. David Orchard introduced the Leader of the Opposition and it just went on from there.

That is all he said. The member for Malpeque need only check Hansard. The member accused the minister of saying that he refused to meet with them and that is just not true. I think farmers are getting used to that member making things up.

This issue is obviously an obsession with him. Those of us on the agriculture committee have been trying since last October to deal with other important issues in agriculture, such as our business risk management planning, the APF issues that are going on and farm income support issues, but the member has consistently insisted that we come back to one issue. He is completely obsessed with it. We can see that by the motion that was put forward today.

If members take the time to read the motion, they will see that the minister the other day referred to him through his tinfoil hat. Members will see that it makes absolutely no sense for this motion to be in place right now because the barley plebiscite is underway. Thousands of ballots have already been sent back and farmers are responding to the plebiscite questions. If we have thousands of ballots back, it is probably evidence that the farmers actually do understand the questions.

Just as the ballots are coming back, the member comes forward with a motion that says we should call back all those ballots and replace them with something else. The motion does not make sense.

I hear the member referring to things like collectivism. It is a clear sign that he does not understand western Canadian agriculture in any way, shape or fashion. He laid out a lot of rhetoric today. He talked about there being more choice under the Wheat Board than there would be without it. He knows that is just ridiculous, that it is foolishness.

The CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before the agriculture committee yesterday and, as he gets paid to do, defended the Canadian Wheat Board. He rolled out the rhetoric that western Canadian farmers have heard forever, which is that the Wheat Board is doing a good job, that it gets premiums wherever it goes and that farmers should trust it. One of the reasons western Canadian farmers actually do not trust the Wheat Board is that for years they have asked for information but the Wheat Board has not been required to provide it. The farmers have said that they are smart enough and they want the information to sort it out for themselves.

This government has moved to bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act so that western Canadian farmers will finally be able to find out what has been going on at the board, how their money is being spent on things like communications, advertising, promotion and what polling companies are being hired.

We know the former prime minister's campaign chair for the national campaign was hired by the Canadian Wheat Board in the past to do polling. That was a good gig for him, especially after the failure that the Liberals have shown in the elections.

The member says that if we open the board up there will be a problem with the grain companies having influence in the market. I do not think he realizes that the grain companies already sell over half the grain that is marketed in western Canada. There is a whole list of companies that are called accredited exporters. They market half the grain for the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers do not need to be scared of a situation where they are dealing with grain companies. They deal with them in lots of other areas with other crops as well.

Yesterday in the agriculture committee, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound raised a very important point. The member said that Ontario premiums were at a discount to the western Canadian premiums but one needs only to look at what is happening in the market. In the agriculture committee yesterday, we talked about the fact that Ontario wheat was going into the United States and that the Ontario market was backfilling its market from western Canada.

If we were to think about that in any kind of economic terms, we would think that Ontario wheat was going into the higher priced market and the lower priced wheat was coming in to fill the gap that is left by the wheat that has gone out. We should take a closer look at what is going on and what advantage western Canadian farmers are getting from this system.

At the CFA reception last night, I spoke to a western Canadian dairy farmer who is very well respected in western Canada. He has been involved in the industry for a long time and has been successful at it. He found it to be quite a joke that people were trying to tie supply management to the Canadian Wheat Board. I asked him if he knew why they were trying to do that and he said yes, that it was a political thing. He was willing to acknowledge that the two systems were not even comparable. He got a bit of a kick out of the fact that the opposition was trying to tie these two things together.

I believe it is a sign of the opposition's desperation that it is far more willing to put its political ideology ahead of farmers' interests. We see that continuously.

I was disappointed today to hear the member's descent into personal attacks. I think he realizes that since his arguments are not sufficient he needs to resort to personal attacks. I guess I am getting used to that.

One of the points I should make is that there is no gag order on the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The member should be in western Canada to see the number of letters to the editors that three or four of the directors of the Wheat Board have written. One would almost think there was an organized campaign for them to get their message out into the papers. The Canadian Wheat Board was told not to continue to be involved politically in this and to get out and market grain. Yesterday, the CEO told us that they have been doing that. I think everyone in western Canada is comforted by the thought that the Wheat Board is trying to market grain rather than trying to influence things politically.

One of the other things we found out yesterday that was very interesting came from some events that happened a couple of months ago. When Mr. Arason, the new CEO was appointed, several directors on the board were indirectly attacking him by saying that his salary was higher than the salary of the previous CEO. We found out yesterday that the compensation Mr. Arason is receiving is definitely not higher than what the previous CEO was getting.

I am really concerned about the fact that those directors knew that what they were saying was not accurate. Farmers are calling me and saying that if the directors were lying about that kind of thing, they wonder what other things they have been misleading them on. There are a lot of questions in western Canada about what some of these directors are doing in their representation on the board. Farmers would like some answers to that as well.

We believe that western Canadian farmers need to have the freedom to choose how they market their grain through a strong, viable and voluntary Canadian Wheat Board.

Last fall, a task force on implementing marketing choice for wheat and barley had this to say about choice:

Marketing choice implies an open market in which CWB II, as an entity operating in that open market, will be a vigorous participant through which producers could voluntarily choose to market their grain. To achieve this, the existing CWB will need to transform itself over a transition period into CWB II. For this ‘choice’ to occur, CWB II needs to have a high probability of success in an environment where it will have to compete for business. One of our focuses has been on creating the environment for a high probability of commercial success for CWB II.

In closing I just want to say that it is the board of directors that has the opportunity to set the future direction for the Canadian Wheat Board in a voluntary system. There are some things they could do that would allow them to maintain their position in the industry and to move ahead and give farmers choice. I look forward to some of the options that they may come up with in the near future.

Committees of the House March 2nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member ranting and raving about the questions. I want to read out the three questions that western Canadian producers have been asking. I know our farmers are smart enough to understand them but I will take some time so the member can understand them. The first question is:

The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

I think the member can understand that. The second question is:

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

I think that is pretty clear, even to the member for Malpeque. The third question is:

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in marketing barley.

Farmers in western Canada have the choice between those three questions.

I could maybe understand why the member opposite would be confused given some of the things that he has pulled off here today. He was making up comments about the Minister of Agriculture right out of the blue. Our House leader challenged him on them but he would not back down.

Committees of the House March 2nd, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not sure if this is a point of order or a question of privilege. I believe the member opposite just called me a liar and I take great exception to that. I would ask him to withdraw the comments and to apologize if he could possibly be good enough to do that.

Business of Supply February 15th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is aware that we are not cutting funding to any of these areas. What we have done is move them from advocacy to direct programming so that the people who are most impacted by these situations are able to benefit from the programs, rather than have them go to people who just want to talk about them.

Obviously that is something that drives Liberals crazy, because if there is one thing they love, it is to talk about things and never do anything. That is not the way we do things. We are going to move. We are not going to just talk about things, as they have done for 13 long years.