Charles (Chuck) STRAHL

STRAHL, The Hon. Charles (Chuck), P.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative
Constituency
Chilliwack--Fraser Canyon (British Columbia)
Birth Date
February 25, 1957
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Strahl
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ebfe7da1-60e6-4404-a884-5b0a4324dc9c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businessman, logging contractor

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
REF
  Fraser Valley East (British Columbia)
  • Whip of the Reform Party (Caucus Coordinator) (May 7, 1996 - January 31, 2000)
  • Chief Opposition Whip (January 1, 1997 - January 30, 2000)
  • Whip of the Canadian Alliance (January 1, 1997 - March 26, 2000)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
REF
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
  • Whip of the Reform Party (Caucus Coordinator) (May 7, 1996 - January 31, 2000)
  • Chief Opposition Whip (January 1, 1997 - January 30, 2000)
  • Whip of the Canadian Alliance (January 1, 1997 - March 26, 2000)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (January 31, 2000 - March 26, 2000)
  • Reform Party House Leader (January 31, 2000 - March 26, 2000)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
  • Canadian Alliance House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
March 27, 2000 - October 22, 2000
CA
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
  • Canadian Alliance House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
CA
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
  • Official Opposition House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
  • Canadian Alliance House Leader (March 27, 2000 - April 24, 2001)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
  • Canadian Alliance Deputy House Leader (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
April 10, 2002 - May 23, 2004
IND
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
  • Canadian Alliance Deputy House Leader (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
April 16, 2002 - May 23, 2004
CA
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
  • Canadian Alliance Deputy House Leader (June 23, 2003 - December 22, 2003)
December 23, 2003 - May 23, 2004
CPC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
CPC
  Chilliwack--Fraser Canyon (British Columbia)
  • Conservative Party Deputy House Leader (July 22, 2004 - October 4, 2004)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (July 22, 2004 - October 4, 2004)
  • Conservative Party Caucus Vice-Chair (July 22, 2004 - August 30, 2004)
  • Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons (October 5, 2004 - February 5, 2006)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
CPC
  Chilliwack--Fraser Canyon (British Columbia)
  • Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons (October 5, 2004 - February 5, 2006)
  • Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (February 6, 2006 - August 13, 2007)
  • Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (February 6, 2006 - August 13, 2007)
  • Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (August 14, 2007 - August 5, 2010)
  • Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians (August 14, 2007 - August 5, 2010)
October 14, 2008 - March 26, 2011
CPC
  Chilliwack--Fraser Canyon (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (August 14, 2007 - August 5, 2010)
  • Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians (August 14, 2007 - August 5, 2010)
  • Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (August 25, 2009 - August 5, 2010)
  • Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (August 6, 2010 - May 17, 2011)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 550 of 551)


January 28, 1994

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East)

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed that speech. There were parts that I thought were particularly good. The admonitions to all of us in the House to fight inequality and discrimination are well taken and I think she will find widespread support on all sides of the House for those kinds of sentiments.

Many of us who sit at this end of the House come from a region of Canada that was deliberately populated by an immigration program that brought a lot of immigrants into Canada at a specific time. Therefore there is a lot of support for an immigration program and a wide acceptance of a large variety and degree of different backgrounds. I applaud those sentiments and I think they are well taken.

I particularly liked the comments about no special status. There is a large degree of support in western Canada and in my riding for the idea that there is no special status, that all people are Canadians regardless of their race, colour, language or background. That concept has wide acceptance.

What I would caution the minister about is how we fight inequality and discrimination. She should use with much caution this idea of an affirmative action plan. In Ontario Premier Rae tried to move into a realm where he was going to force something on to people they felt was unacceptable and he had to back down. The reason is that people want to be treated equally, not with special status.

That is my caution to the minister. I would ask her to comment on the idea that affirmative action sometimes does not bring about the result that I know she is trying to achieve.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Speech From The Throne
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1994

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my maiden speech by taking a moment to thank the constituents of Fraser Valley East for the trust they have placed in me. I will be doing my utmost to earn their continued confidence in the months and the years ahead.

I also thank my own family for their ongoing sacrifice and support. If, as many people say, a nation is only as strong as its families then in this International Year of the Family we must emphasize the importance of the nuclear family in our own country. My own family, Deb and Karina, Mark, Loni and Kyla, can rest assured that for me every year is the year of the family.

Listening to the speeches in the House during the throne speech debate has been very enlightening. Each member describes their riding as the most beautiful one in all of Canada, representing the best that Canada has to offer. Each of these speeches comes from the heart. They bode well for the future of our country if the members of Parliament will emphasize the positive themes that make us distinctively Canadian.

As a proud Canadian representing a proud area of Canada, I will fulfil my mandate as a positive, constructive opposition member in the 35th Parliament.

I come from a constituency that has given much and yet has even more to offer to the Canadian way of life. We can all take pride in the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment from Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, a regiment that has represented us so well in Croatia. Often during Tuesday's debate on our peacekeeping role my thoughts were with the soldiers of 1 CER and their families as they prepare to go back into that very dangerous arena. We salute them all.

I could talk for a long time about my riding. Our forest industry has provided jobs for a century and continues to offer exciting opportunities for the future. From farms to flowers, high mountains and hot springs, our area is so colourful that we call it rainbow country. Tourism, fishing, golfing, unmatched scenery and warm weather year round make Fraser Valley East one of the finest places in Canada to live, to work and to play. All members are invited to B.C. to see for themselves.

I want to bring the attention of the House to a matter of great concern for the people who live in B.C.'s beautiful Fraser Valley.

Most Canadians can take satisfaction in the successful conclusion of the recent GATT agreement. The Reform Party believes that much of Canada's future prosperity is dependent upon the security of our export markets. To the extent that the Liberal government has secured this access we commend it. Consumers and western grain producers will benefit. Lowering import barriers will allow in turn our high quality Canadian products into more world markets.

However, in any deal there are winners and losers. I want to express the concern of my constituents especially in the poultry and dairy sectors. They were the losers at the GATT table. They were left swinging in the shifting wind by this deal, uncertain of their future. Many of these hard-working people have invested heavily in land, buildings, equipment and livestock. Most have purchased the right to produce at great cost. However the value of their quota could now drop drastically. It depends on the American response to the proposed Canadian tariffs.

What if the U.S. challenges our tariffs under the NAFTA agreement and wins? It is going to try. Promises that everything will be fine made by the agriculture minister last week in the House ring hollow compared with the stirring election promises that they will go to the wall for our producers in the GATT negotiations. A poet once said that a promise made is a debt unpaid. Many farmers are counting on the government for an IOU given during the election, the promise of a secure future. Many are concerned that a lack of foresight yesterday and wishful thinking today may spell disaster for their system tomorrow.

It is not just a system we are talking about. In Canada, it is an $8 billion a year industry. It is a way of life for 100,000 families who stand to be stripped bare by the global market. They feel they have been left naked by a government spending too much time promoting its much ballyhooed infrastructure program and not enough time tending to the bread and butter businesses that actually generate wealth in this country.

Does the Liberal government have a plan for agriculture? As of last week, we still could not find out who in the Liberal caucus was a member of their own agriculture committee. It is unsettling when a simple request for information from the minister a month ago not only went unanswered but unacknowledged. Worse, we hear that officials in the agriculture department admit there is no contingency plan if Canadian tariffs should fall under a NAFTA ruling.

The Reform Party has had a detailed plan for over three years now. Let me share with this House just a few of the principles from our agricultural program that should guide this government in the months ahead.

The first is summed up in just one word: Order. For all its flaws, supply management ensured a stable, orderly production climate and the government must now work to ensure that the transition from a managed to an unmanaged environment will be orderly. Because of the long cycles of crop yields and livestock renewal, predictability on the part of the government is essential to the farmer.

The throne speech repeated the second important principle and I quote: "The government will assist Canadian companies to translate improved market access into greater export sales". Access to markets is the key to future prosperity and for that we support the successful completion of the GATT negotiations. What we do not need is another level of bureaucracy to grind this search to a halt. Let aggressive companies search out new markets and develop new value-added products.

The third and final principle is the most important. Although the Liberal government expressed a vague intention a few months ago to reduce agricultural input costs, the House will note that Preston Manning delivered a keynote address on this subject over three years ago. Input costs, especially input costs caused by excessive taxation levels is one cost area we can control within Canada.

We envisage a day when the government assists our industry to compete by eliminating the interprovincial trade barriers-recent agreements are a step in the right direction-and by pushing aside antiquated regulations that impede our producers, restrictions that our neighbours to the south do not suffer from, a time when the government levels up the north-south playing field and lets our industries score the goals for Canada.

Our farmers are among the world's most efficient, but even the best farmers cannot overcome taxation levels and costs that are higher than those faced by their American counterparts. The elusive level playing field will never be possible until the government cuts federal spending resulting in a lower level of taxation for all Canadians, including farmers. Our producers can do the job but the government must supply this tool of competitiveness.

Reformers were talking about this for years and marketing boards, farmers and small businesses throughout my riding are in agreement on this issue. They have repeatedly urged governments at all levels to reduce taxes and cut the red tape that impedes growth, to get out of their pockets and off their backs so they can do what they do best: create jobs, create exports, and create wealth for my riding, for all of B.C., and for all of Canada.

We have talked for years about this subject but it is time to actually do something. The Liberals have a clear majority in the House but it remains to be seen if they have the will to push through on these reforms. I remind the minister that the Canadian people are reluctant to accept talk any more. They are

judging this government and all governments every day by their performance.

Over the past two years we have repeatedly invited other party leaders to debate this important subject. We have repeatedly asked them to place their ideas on the table for discussion, to help our industry plan for the future. Those invitations were never accepted. Now we see why. The ideas just were not there. The opposition party of yesterday, today's governing party, did not take the time to develop a well-reasoned agricultural policy.

To conclude, the Liberal red book is over 100 pages in length yet it has devoted a full four sentences to its agricultural agenda. That is all, four sentences. The throne speech did not even mention the word agriculture and I hope along with my riding's farmers that this does not reflect the priority that the government places on our own agriculture ministry.

It is especially unfortunate because the essence of real leadership is setting broad goals with the input of all the stakeholders, making public a detailed agenda to meet those goals and then pressing ahead with the plan. Our producers can run with the best in the world, but they can never win on an undefined course.

If GATT and NAFTA form the new rule book that farmers must take to the field in the next few years they will need the right equipment. Only stability, lower taxes, less red tape and an even chance in the marketplace will equip our industry, including the agriculture industry in Fraser Valley East, to proceed with confidence into the 21st century.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Speech From The Throne
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1994

Mr. Strahl

Mr. Speaker, some of the points the hon. member brings forth are valid in the sense that we recognized several years ago the inevitability of the GATT negotiations and the ruling on article XI(2)(c). That was never in question in the Reform Party. In fact we campaigned vigorously on it and took a lot of flak from members of the Liberal Party at the time which said that would never come to pass, that article XI(2)(c) was safe in their bosom.

Really that is what I am arguing about when I talk about order. Farmers were willing and are currently willing to live with the proposed tariffication rules of the GATT. However starting on December 29 and every week since I have asked the Minister of Agriculture for a legal opinion of even why he believes that the GATT ruling will supersede NAFTA because the Americans say otherwise. I have yet to receive a response to my request.

There again, that just creates more indecision and uncertainty in the farming community which is really only looking for that stability. Farmers are willing to work under the new rules but they need to know what the rules are.

Two years ago we proposed that the GATT negotiations should be successfully completed and that we should have negotiated the proper tariffication protection for our farmers at that time. We feel that had we proceeded then while we still had some bargaining chips in our hands we could have made a good deal for Canadian farmers that would have been negotiated rather than brought through the courts.

Really I am not arguing with the completion of GATT. My argument stems from the fact that it should have been planned. I think even at this late date if we can somehow assure our farmers that GATT will proceed, that GATT will supersede NAFTA, then they will proceed with confidence and do the investing, exporting and so on that brings prosperity to that industry.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Speech From The Throne
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1994

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East)

Mr. Speaker, the recent musings of this government that it may move to eliminate double-dipping has been appreciated and applauded I think by all Canadians, and certainly on this side of the House.

Will the government move to eliminate this example of triple-dipping as well?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   International Maritime Organization
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1994

Mr. Strahl

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last four years the government paid a housing allowance of more than $400,000 to a UN bureaucrat working for the International Maritime Organization. In the dying days of the Conservative administration the government further agreed to pay up to $12,000 a month, for a total of $580,000, in housing allowances for the same official for the next four years.

My question for the Minister of Finance is this. At a time when thousands of Canadians are homeless, will the Liberal government reverse this Conservative decision that gives this UN official the equivalent of about $500,000 a year?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   International Maritime Organization
Full View Permalink