House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament August 2016, as Conservative MP for Calgary Heritage (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 3rd, 2005

Madam Speaker, in terms of the BSE crisis, as I said in my remarks, there are a number of things that need to be done. We need to continue to have some tax incentives to produce some additional slaughter capacity. We need some top-ups and set-aside programs. I could go through the list, but the most important thing is the cull cow program. It has to be done no matter when the border is opened. Even if it were opened today, we still would have that need.

When it comes to cull cow problem and the coming problem on grains and oilseeds, and maybe the minister will not accept this solution, we all demand today that in this debate he recognize the existence of the problem and propose some kind of solution today for producers.

Supply February 3rd, 2005

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the minister is pleased that we are having a debate on agriculture today. I am glad to see that he is here, listening and rising on his feet, but let me point out that the government controls most of the agenda in this place and it is always one of the opposition parties that has to bring agriculture forward. It is never this government.

When we talk about exchanging ideas, I do not know what the minister is talking about. He and I both appeared at the same forum only hours apart in Yorkton just last month to discuss the issues we are talking about today, the very proposals, and he comes here and says he does not know, he was caught by surprise, he has never heard of any of this. The problem is that the minister and the government do not listen to producers and it is about time they started listening.

On the issue of provincial involvement, this is the same problem. I would encourage the minister to listen to his provincial counterparts. I think they recognize that there have to be changes. I do not think there will be a provincial government in the country that will resist this Parliament passing a resolution to show some generosity to producers at this time of crisis. And if the minister has information to the contrary, I challenge him to produce it.

Supply February 3rd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the House for permitting me to speak first.

I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, which calls on the government to immediately drop the CAIS deposit requirement and honour all of the financial commitments it has made to Canadian agricultural producers.

Many who will speak are much more technically knowledgeable on this subject than I. Let me just put this debate in context. The context is that we have, for a dozen years now, a government that has been in power, and during the period of that government's rule, notwithstanding its constant bragging about its financial and economic achievements, we have seen disposable family income in this country that has barely improved at all.

Throughout that period, the more serious problem has often been, particularly through neglect, the declining disposable income we have seen throughout rural Canada and many sectors of the rural economy. Families have been hit hard and probably no families have been hit as hard as those who operate family farms.

The family farm, in our judgment, remains a critical institution not just in this country's past, but hopefully will remain so in its future, because no institution so thoroughly represents all of the values that built this country: hard work, enterprise, cooperation, community, and of course the family itself.

Now I know these are not Liberal values, they are not the real Liberal values, but they are the values of real people and I constantly remind the government of that.

For two years now our agricultural sector, on top of the backdrop of declining farm incomes, has been decimated by a series of unprecedented and far-reaching crises. Obviously, one is BSE in the cattle industry, the effects of which have spread not only to other ruminants but in particular to the dairy sector. We have had sustained and cruel drought through grains and oilseeds, not just in western Canada but in other parts of eastern Canada as well. Of course we continue to have an international subsidy war in which our farmers find comparatively little assistance.

Let us take the cattle industry. Cattle and grain producers have historically required very little government support. They thrived in unfettered markets, but through circumstances that are beyond their control they need help today.

The economic effects of BSE have been devastating. Unknown numbers of livestock producers have been foreclosed on. Some have completely pulled out, salvaging what they could. We have experienced this and I have experienced this even in my own family. Others are faced with low land values and cannot bear to cut their losses.

The entire farming industry in Canada has been hard hit by these crises, including the BSE crisis. All our farming communities in every region need help in one way or another.

Recently, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles said that the BSE crisis has had a huge impact on Quebec, where 25,000 farms, or half the farms in the province, have been affected.

We currently have a government that thinks only about the big cities, where it believes it can get the most votes. It is a government that is insensitive to the problems in the regions. This was obvious in the disdainful refusal by the government, as represented by the Minister of Transport, to bring justice to the people of Mirabel whose land was expropriated, even after the complete closure of the airport to passengers and after 40 years of injustice, incompetence and insensitivity.

Everywhere I go in rural Canada I hear the same thing. I hear it over and over again. I do not know how the government can miss it. The CAIS program is not working.

There are all kinds of ways in which it does not work. It is complicated. It requires an army of accountants for people who can barely afford the normal burden of government paperwork. It is backlogged. The cheques never arrive. It does not pay out. It is like so many of the agricultural promises from this government.

But there is a more fundamental structural problem to CAIS. The problem is simple enough. We cannot effectively combine an income stabilization program with a disaster relief program. That is why this program has been so dysfunctional and why it has been getting more dysfunctional over the past two or three years and is fast approaching a crisis.

I say to the government members that they are going to have to find a better solution in the long term. This is not going to work. I know that there are some in the government who approve a review of this, but that is not good enough. We are going to have to take some action now.

I think this motion takes the action required. The motion calls for the elimination, for this year, of the deposit requirement contained in the CAIS program.

We are looking at severe problems on top of what we already have as we approach this year's planting and seeding. This problem has to be addressed now. This motion is the quickest way and the best way of addressing it.

Then we have to find a longer term solution. Members of our caucus, led by our agricultural critic from Haldimand—Norfolk, others such as our critic from Brandon, our critic from the Battlefords, the vice-chair of the committee, our members for Lethbridge and from Swift Current, all our members, have for some time been putting their minds to developing alternatives to this CAIS approach.

What we propose is that a Conservative government would implement a whole farm production insurance program based on a 10 year average of value and production costs for a commodity. The program would be funded on a tripartite basis one-third by the federal government, one-third by provincial governments and one-third by producers.

And we propose that a second level of support would exist, but would only be required in extraordinary circumstances such as that of BSE when normal markets and market access collapse. Our plan would include a bankable business risk program directed at primary producers and funded principally by the federal government. Unlike CAIS, this second level of support would not require producer cash on deposit.

For most producers, CAIS is not and certainly has not been a source of hope and comfort. In fact, it is becoming a supplementary cause of the anguish and uncertainty that exist in the agricultural community. The reliability and affordability of the program are primary concerns. CAIS is failing on both counts.

Frankly, having a program so dependent at critical junctures on producer pay-in, when there is so little payout, is hampering our producers as they try to compete worldwide with treasuries across the world that appear far more generous to their agricultural sectors than ours at home is.

As important as this motion is, let me end by saying there remains a lot to be done to restore predictability, stability and long term profitability to the Canadian agricultural industry. One need in particular is obviously the immediate needs of the cattle industry and the damages inflicted by the BSE crisis.

I will say what I have been saying repeatedly for the past few months: there remains a need, and it is not part of this motion, but there remains a need in my judgment for a cull cow program. It does not matter if the border finally does get opened; we all have our fingers crossed. It does not matter if it finally gets opened: we have an enormous older herd and that problem is going to have to be dealt with. I cannot believe the Liberals as recently as December voted against that notion.

Before Christmas, the Liberals voted against a cull reduction program. However, the problem still exists and the government has to assume its responsibilities.

What is needed most urgently and what has been lacking in so many rural sectors, not just in agriculture but in softwood and in the fisheries, what has been lacking, cruelly lacking, is political will and, frankly, a balanced political perspective from this government. Agriculture and agrifood, fisheries, mines, and forestry, these are economic sectors that sustain a large number of Canadians and a large number of Canadian communities. Rural Canada still contributes significantly to Canada's GDP and contributes 40% of our exports.

I remind the House that in rural Canada our most fundamental values are preserved and protected and passed from generation to generation, the values of solidarity, family and honest hard work. These industries and these communities have earned the respect and the admiration of Canadians. At this time they deserve the help of their Parliament and of their government. I urge all members, including government members, to support this motion.

Foreign Affairs February 2nd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another part of the Prime Minister's trip because not only did he let down the people of China, Tibet and Taiwan, let us take a look at Canada's own business community.

Before the Prime Minister left on his trip there was a CSIS report that said Communist China is actively engaged in economic espionage in this country targeting our aerospace, mining and nuclear industries.

Did the Prime Minister raise this issue specifically with the Communist Chinese leadership when he met with them?

Foreign Affairs February 2nd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows specifically what words I am referring to. I am sure he does because his own caucus expert on this, the former minister for Asia-Pacific, has written the following about the wording the Prime Minister signed onto. He said:

...beneath this antiseptic veneer...means Taiwan and Tibet are not Canada's business, and it doesn't matter if political freedoms, fundamental human rights or basic norms of international law are impinged.

Could the Prime Minister explain his absolute incompetence and negligence in signing on to that kind of communist wording?

Foreign Affairs February 2nd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Prime Minister's failures on his recent visit to China.

First, he apparently found a functioning opposition in the Communist system. Then, in his lust for photo ops, he signed an open-ended declaration with the Communist government with wording that implied non-comment on issues like Taiwan, Tibet and human rights violations.

How could the Prime Minister possibly sign on to language like that in such a declaration?

Sponsorship Program February 1st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, we all heard government lawyers give a very weak defence. The Liberal Party lawyers did not even show up at all.

Mr. Chrétien's attacks on Justice Gomery have disturbed the work of the commission.

Will the Prime Minister demonstrate leadership by picking up the telephone and telling Mr. Chrétien to stop threatening the commission?

Sponsorship Program February 1st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the only obstacle ever thrown in front of the commission was the government's refusal for months to provide the documents that have been requested.

We know that the former Liberal leader continues to try to put a chill on this inquiry.

I want to ask the Prime Minister, because he has not answered the question on two occasions, why the Liberal Party lawyers did not defend Judge Gomery. Was it on his instructions?

Sponsorship Program February 1st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to see today that Judge Gomery was not pressured into resigning from the sponsorship inquiry.

At the inquiry and in his role, Judge Gomery has been defended by many: the Auditor General, other parties in the House and by this party, and yet conspicuously absent from yesterday's hearing were lawyers for the Liberal Party.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why the Liberal Party's lawyers did not show up to support Judge Gomery?

Sponsorship Program January 31st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, what this party has done is exercise its constitutional responsibility to force answers on the floor of the House as well as at the commission.

On January 21, for the second time, Justice Gomery asked the Prime Minister to give him access to certain cabinet documents. And suddenly the former Liberal leader asked that the judge be replaced.

Instead of replacing Justice Gomery, will the Prime Minister give him the documents he is looking for?