Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 21
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Agriculture committee  There was a bump-up in our equipment sales because of the money that came out with the elimination of the Crow rate. There were some dollars that were distributed to consumers, so what you're probably seeing is just the rebound after the run-up that we had in years previous.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  Yes. One change that was made because of this very issue by SIAST at Kelsey campus in Saskatoon was that they moved their agricultural technician program from a two-year program to a one-year program with the idea that they could provide the training needed to get these folks into a dealership more quickly.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  We have never taken a position on that question. We're at the point now that our equipment is so sophisticated that dealers have to purchase special tools to service it. Those individuals doing that type of repair wouldn't even have access to purchase those tools. As an organization we haven't really touched it, but from the way the market is going, it appears that the amount of new equipment those guys could work on is getting smaller and smaller.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  I don't think so. In western Canada, where our organization is, we have pretty close relationships with all the colleges that provide agricultural technician training, whether it be a one-year certificate program or a two-year diploma program. We meet with them on a regular basis.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  As the board of directors of the Canada West Equipment Dealers Association, we've partnered with Canada East to create a charitable foundation to raise money to do things such as the $250,000 that's going to Olds College. When we started getting serious about addressing this issue, we were looking for one thing that would solve the problems, and we quickly realized it's a combination of things.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  I won't go into the specifics of the California state program, but in short, if a customer has an older engine—a tier zero or a tier one—and wants to have an engine job done on it, the State of California will pay for the difference between the cost of the engine job and a new engine.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  The attitude of a lot of our members is that when we have a used equipment problem, we look for anywhere that can get it out of our dealerships. The reason eastern European countries have been attractive is their ability to purchase. As Duane said, how do they finance it? It seems they have more ability to purchase a used tractor from Canada than a new tractor from any manufacturer.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  There are a number of suppliers that will provide wholesale or what we call jobber parts. The only time that we are really required to sell the manufacturer's part as opposed to a jobber part is when we do warranty work on behalf of the manufacturer. It makes a lot of sense to do it that way.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  That's a great question. In August 2006 the North American Equipment Dealers Association convened a meeting in St. Louis of all dealer leaders to talk about the future of our industry. We have some challenges, and the one everybody agreed upon was profitability. The reason we are seeing dealers leave some of the smaller communities and consolidating is that we're not making a lot of money.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  In the capital cost allowance, the big difference between Canada and the United States, in my opinion, is that we never fully depreciate farm equipment. As it currently stands right now, it's 30% in the first year, but it's 50% of the 30%, so a farmer who purchases a new tractor or combine--any new farm equipment--gets 15%; each subsequent year after that, it's a percentage of the remaining amount, whereas in the United States a farmer can fully depreciate that farm equipment over seven years.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  This is something our members identified as an important issue. Recognizing that the laws in Canada and the U.S. were different, our association took the position that this was unfair. So we have addressed it through provincial legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  I think we can't underestimate the impact that the biofuel initiatives and ethanol initiatives are having on the marketplace. We're seeing that, and really what we're bringing today is what our members are saying. We're not bringing to the table today what our customers are saying.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  I'd be glad to answer that question. You're absolutely right, currency has a huge impact on the price of our equipment. The bigger impact our members face is on the value of our used equipment. As you know, a dealership makes it or breaks it, basically, on the money that they have tied up in their used inventory.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser

Agriculture committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll allow the individuals here at the table to introduce themselves. I would like to thank Howard Mains from the Manufacturers Association of Canada for joining us. We try to work as closely as possible with the manufacturers in Canada on issues that are of importance to both of our organizations.

February 8th, 2007Committee meeting

John Schmeiser