House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was respect.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Regina—Wascana (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Questions On The Order Paper May 3rd, 1996

The issues surrounding the reform and upgrading of western Canada's grain handling and transportation system have been the subject of intense study and debate across the prairies for at least 25 years. Within days of the 1993 election, the newly elected federal government was required to begin dealing with these issues in the context of the Uruguay round of world trade negotiations because those negotiations were beginning the process of eliminating "trade distorting export subsidies", and grain subsidies under Canada's Western Grain Transportation Act, WGTA, were included, in part, within that definition. Consultations were appropriately undertaken at that time by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food through the grain representatives serving on the sectoral advisory group on international trade, SAGIT. These included the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, among others.

The consultative process has been intense and ongoing ever since. This has included a great deal of correspondence and, more important, dozens of face to face personal meetings and teleconferences involving virtually every major western farm organization, several national organizations with an interest in the western grain handling and transportation system, untold numbers of individual producers, grain companies and co-operatives, the railways, municipal organizations, and provincial governments.

It would be impossible to reconstruct an absolutely all-inclusive listing of all those consulted prior to the February 27, 1995 federal budget, but the more prominent groups included in these consultations were: Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Unifarm, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canadian Dehydrators Association, Western Canadian Flax Growers, Western Canada Pulse Growers, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Pool, United Grain Growers, Canada Grains Council.

In addition, at the request of the minister's address to over 90 industry stakeholders in November of 1994, more than 30 other groups provided written input on WGTA and grain transportation reform prior to February 27, 1995. These included, most prominently: Prairie Farm Leaders Group, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Alberta Cattle Commission, Prairie Pools Inc., Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association, Manitoba Pulse Growers, National Farmers Union, Canadian Special Crops Association.

Prebudget consultations were, of necessity, general and broad ranging, but they clearly signalled the government's direction toward a western grain transition payments programs, WGTPP. The nature of the WGTPP, as announced in the 1995 budget, required ongoing postbudget discussions with farm groups about specific aspects of the program's design and delivery and related adjustment measures. The minister therefore continued to seek broad producer and industry input through further correspondence, teleconferences and personal meetings held through the spring, summer, fall and winter of 1995.

Through all these consultations in whatever form, opinions have been expressed both for and against the reform which have been undertaken. While there is general agreement that the reforms were necessary and unavoidable for trade, efficiency, diversification, innovation and fiscal reasons, it must also be noted that few organizations unequivocally approved of each and every aspect of the WGTPP. Advice and reactions were typically mixed. It is therefore very difficult to characterize any given organization as totally supportive or opposed. In most cases they were a bit of both. Not unexpectedly, everyone would have preferred to have more money available for distribution through this program. On the other hand, those consulted also acknowledged the compelling imperative of fiscal responsibility.

One point is clear. Few other initiatives in the history of Canadian agriculture have been subject to such open, lengthy and comprehensive consultations before, during and after implementation. The process continues.

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House and in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the government that this bill be referred to a committee before second reading.

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act May 3rd, 1996

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Supply Management May 3rd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, media coverage in the last several days clearly demonstrates how vigorously we are defending, as promised, our made in Canada supply management system before the NAFTA panel.

This defence is a truly Team Canada effort because it involves all relevant farm organizations and all provincial governments. We are all working very closely together.

Canada is fully convinced that on any plain reading of the words of the FTA and the NAFTA we in Canada have the full legal right to

do what we have done with our tariff equivalents under the WTO. The United States in our view is entirely misconstruing the negotiating history of the NAFTA and the WTO. It is now trying to obtain by the dispute settlement mechanism what it could not obtain at the bargaining table, and Canada will stand up for itself.

Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Law Commission Of Canada Act March 27th, 1996

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Trade March 26th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, certainly to the very best of my knowledge and belief, no such documents exist. I have already asked my officials to confirm that to my satisfaction.

I can tell the hon. member what I do know exists. It was delivered to me in Geneva in December 1993 when the initialling of the WTO agreement took place. It was a very clear, very strong legal opinion on behalf of the legal counsel acting for the Government of Canada that our position with respect to supply management was not only fully consistent with the WTO which was about to come into effect, but was also fully consistent with all of our obligations under the NAFTA.

Food Safety March 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to food safety there is no room for smugness or complacency.

The attitude we have always adopted in Canada is one of great vigilance and care. We set and we enforce standards which are among the highest in the world. That is why we can say with confidence that Canada's meat supply is safe.

Under our surveillance system BSE has not been detected in any domestic Canadian cattle herd. The one reported case, in 1993, occurred in an animal imported from the United Kingdom. During 1993-94, as the House knows, the government took extraordinary measures to protect Canada's livestock industry and consumers to eradicate that disease in Canada, even though those measures were criticized by some, including both the opposition parties in the House.

Agriculture March 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be absolutely assured that, as I have said in the House on many occasions, the government will defend staunchly those vital marketing agencies and institutions that are so valuable to Canadian farmers, including our supply management system and most certainly the Canadian Wheat Board.

Nisga'A Land Claims March 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has obviously been participating in a genuine process to lead to a successful conclusion an outstanding matter that has been a glaring discrepancy for over 100 years. I think the hon. gentleman and his party would be well advised, rather than raising ideas and suggestions that could well scuttle the whole process, to be a slight bit more constructive and try to bring this to a successful conclusion as this government is trying to do.