Larry McCormick

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because I was very concerned about this.

I wanted to make sure that my colleagues and my friends in western Canada were being represented well and not just by the Reform Party. I went to the minister's office, I went to the records office and I found that more than 100,000 letters have been sent to the producers and only a very few hundred people responded. I have talked to people from the west. Not all people are represented by Reformers. I would like to put the facts on the table.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am going to take this opportunity to learn something about how this Chamber works. I am not trying to get extra time. Madam Speaker, you can kindly add the time on.

My colleague who just spoke said I did not answer that question. I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the record on how many times questions have been asked across the floor and did they always answer those questions? I would be very glad to speak to any part of this bill, but I do not think I want to accept that from—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. As I started to make my remarks in this Chamber, one of my hon. friends in the Reform Party—he is a good friend and a fine gentleman—asked whether I had ever handled wheat, whether I had ever been on a wheat farm. I may have combined as much wheat and I am certain more than several Reform Party members. I just thought I would answer that.

The hon. member from Yorkton asked about the board of directors in his question. He compared it to Ontario. There is a difference between the wheat board in Ontario and the wheat board in western Canada.

The Ontario Producers' Marketing Board markets about 900,000 tonnes of wheat a year, mainly in Canada and the United States, while the Canadian Wheat Board markets an average of 25 million tonnes of wheat and barley per year to more than 70 countries. It should be noted that the financial implications of the decision by the Canadian Wheat Board are much larger than those associated with the Ontario wheat board.

The bottom line is that the power has been given to the directors. Ten out of fifteen of these directors will be elected by the producers and two to one is a good majority.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. The amendments contained in Bill C-4 are based on nearly three years of extensive consultation and discussion with western Canadian grain farmers to determine what kind of grain marketing organization they wanted.

Western Canadian grain farmers have asked to retain the Canadian Wheat Board, but they also wanted a more democratic, accountable and responsive Canadian Wheat Board, one that was truly in their hands, allowing them to shape the Canadian Wheat Board to meet their needs. That is in fact what the proposed changes in Bill C-4 provide for.

The proposed changes in Bill C-4 would put more power into the hands of producers than they have ever had throughout the 63 year history of the Canadian Wheat Board. The proposed changes would modernize the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board. They would improve its accountability to producers through the creation of a producer elected majority board of directors. The marketing changes proposed to Bill C-4 are enabling. They would give farmers the tools and the power necessary to shape the CWB's marketing structure to fit their present and future needs.

I would like to address some of the questions that have been raised and in so doing clear up some of the misconceptions that have arisen around Bill C-4 and its proposed amendments to the CWB.

Some farmers have asked if they would have more control under the new system of CWB governance. The answer is yes. The 15 member board of directors would be comprised of 10 producer elected directors and 5 federal appointees. In essence, farmer elected directors would enjoy a two to one majority. Directors would have effective control of the strategic direction of the new CWB and would be able to reflect the views and the needs of farmers in all future operational and marketing decisions.

These elected directors would not be subject to dismissal by the minister responsible for the CWB. Only those who elected them would be able to accomplish this through subsequent elections.

Under Bill C-4 all directors would be entitled to complete disclosure of all CWB facts and figures, bar none. They would be able to examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, all operating costs and whether the CWB is operating effectively.

With their full knowledge of the CWB and its global competition, the directors would be in the best position to assess what information should be made public and what for commercial reasons should remain confidential.

Why is the board of directors not 100 per cent producer elected? Under the proposed legislation, the government would continue to maintain a substantial financial commitment to the Canadian Wheat Board. The government would continue to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board's initial payments, its borrowings and its credit sales made under the credit grain sales program.

This represents a strong case for the government having a continued role in appointing some of the members of the board of directors. In addition, the CWB has public policy responsibilities. For example, the CWB is charged with issuing all wheat and barley export licences for all of Canada, not just the prairies.

I have heard the question asked about why the Canadian wheat board is not legally obliged to get the best price for farmers' grain. The Canadian wheat board seeks to obtain the best price possible as a matter of policy. However, making this the corporation's legal objective would be difficult.

Because the CWB seeks to obtain the best price for producers jointly through the pool accounts, it would almost always be possible to show after the fact that somewhat higher returns could have been realized for individual producers had a different set of marketing decisions been made. Therefore, to make the CWB legally responsible to achieve the best price for individual farmer's grain would result in countless legal challenges respecting the board's marketing decisions.

Looking to the future, the board of directors would be responsible for ensuring that the sales program is well managed and that the Canadian wheat board operates in the best interests of producers. This would be preferable to taking a legalistic approach.

Why does the Canadian wheat board need to establish a contingency fund? What would this money be used for? A contingency fund would be developed in order for the CWB to make adjustments to initial payments during the crop year on its own responsibility without the delays involved in getting government approval to provide for potential losses in cash trading operations and to provide for an early pool cash out.

The contingency fund would provide the CWB with the ability to adjust initial payments and get money into farmers' hands more quickly. Given the history of adjusted initial payments, the related risk would be minimal and less than the related benefits to farmers. It would be up to the board of directors with its two-thirds producer elected majority to determine if, when and how to create the contingency fund. The opposition asks why the Auditor General of Canada cannot examine the CWB's books.

The Canadian Wheat Board currently retains an independent firm of chartered accountants to audit its operations. Through its pool accounts, the CWB is managing farmers' money and not government appropriations. Therefore it has always made sense that a private sector auditor rather than the auditor general audit the books.

Under Bills C-4 the CWB would cease to be an agent of Her Majesty and a crown corporation and become a mixed enterprise. This reduces even further the justification for involving the office of the auditor general.

Finally, some private sector users of financial reports take comfort in the fact that private sector auditors unlike the OAG are liable under the law for negligence and other professional misconduct.

The proposed changes in Bill C-4 are balanced and fair. The government realizes the changes contained in Bill C-4 cannot hope to satisfy all parties in what would have been a polarized debate among western grain producers. The government feels nonetheless that these proposed changes to the CWB would equip farmers with the tools and the power to shape the CWB as they see fit so the Canadian Wheat Board could meet the needs of farmers both today and in the future.

I want to share my time with my hon. colleague from St. Boniface.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

What is wrong with that.

Making the Canadian Wheat Board subject to the Access to Information Act would force it to reveal far more information about its activities than any of its competitors. The release of company information would put the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage when it negotiates sales with international buyers. This would not help their constituents.

I also ask members opposite to listen not just to the members of their own political party but to meet with their constituents in general. We cannot pay attention just to the letters we get from a few people. We have asked the members of these groups to come before us at the committee. They do not represent a majority of the people in this country. They do not represent the majority of the growers in western Canada.

A member opposite said that this party here does not represent the voices of the growers in western Canada with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board because these growers have not replied with the forms that were sent to them. The members of the Reform Party talk about the board of directors and that the growers have no control with this new Canadian Wheat Board.

I thought that when the growers had the opportunity to appoint 10 directors out of 15 they would have a majority. They will have the power to do what they want to do. They will have total control. What amount of money could they pay this director? If they do not like the director they could lower the pay. They have the majority.

I do not think this is a laughing matter. This is something I would like to see discussed fully in the House.

I have listened to groups from across the different prairie provinces and I welcomed the opportunity to learn from them. However the biggest thing I have seen from all these groups is that everybody wants to protect their turf. Everybody wants to say that they are representative of the groups. I do not think we can have 14 different marketing groups within some commodities. There has to be an umbrella to cover all of these groups.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the most successful bodies in the history of this country. The amount of money and the quality of a great Canadian wheat product will make for increased sales in the future. We have to have control over a product like this. What more control can we have than 10 directors who represent the growers who produce this product?

The member from the NDP said that all parties are against this bill. The member also said it was for various reasons. They are not all in support of the Reform policy and the Reform amendments. I would like to bring attention to that.

Yesterday we saw history being made in this House when we saw the PC party vote with the Bloc. I believe the NDP voted with its brothers too.

In this case the farmers of western Canada are watching the Reform Party, not just letting the Reform Party lead them. A group of these Reformers have taken out ads on the Ottawa radio stations to tell us in Ottawa how we should vote. We should not listen to the producers. We should go by a paid radio announcement. I heard these ads on the radio and I do not think some radio advertisement is the way to go. I would rather that the same groups made use of the standing committee which is open to the groups.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I look forward to standing in the House and speaking on the next reading of the bill.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

They check the numbers. I understand that a professional auditing firm does check numbers and if it produced a report I would accept it. One of my colleagues in the standing committee has asked members of the Reform Party if they would give us an audited statement of the finances of their party and we are still waiting for that.

I just want members opposite to recognize the fact that the government, our party and the committee have not heard at all from the majority of the growers in western Canada. The majority of the growers are satisfied with the status quo. They have faith in the Canadian Wheat Board.

The members of the Reform Party are asking that the Canadian Wheat Board be subject to audits by the auditor general.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Politics are alive and well in the Chamber. People are laughing about the popularity of the wheat board bill, but the standing committee on agriculture in the previous year listened to all groups involved in the production and the sale of wheat. They spent days and even weeks on the road listening and consulting with people.

Since that time the ministry has sent out hundreds of thousands of forms and letters of information to all growers in western Canada, all growers of all commodities. Growers have been happy with the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been one of the most successful bodies in the country.

The Reform Party is guilty of twisting the facts. We are not surprised about that, but it is unfair to the majority of the people who produce and grow wheat, the people whom I respect very much.

The bill, according to one of my colleagues, has been rushed to judgment. Again I repeat that my colleagues spent months on it. Since that time we have heard from representatives of all commodity groups at committee. Who would represent some of those groups? The growers cannot decide themselves who should represent those groups.

The Reform Party wants a voluntary wheat board. It wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants to do a flip-flop, jump in, jump out, and have it both ways.

The area of one of my colleagues opposite who sits on the standing committee has been dealt very severe blows by Mother Nature. In the Peace River area the people do not deserve what they have had in the way of weather. I know this hard working member has raised the concerns of these growers. Yet how do we address them? There are programs in place to help these people.

We survived the 1998 ice storm. It was the most severe natural disaster in the history of the country. There may be a difference between a major natural disaster and something we can insure against.

In this case the Reform Party wants the people who had no insurance to receive money for the buildings that burned down. They want the best of all of this. The members of the Reform Party want the auditor general. They are doubting the words of one of the most professional auditing firms in Canada. They tell us that this auditing company does not give them a transparent report.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very popular Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to take part in this take note debate as proposed by the government's loyal opposition leader. I think it is a great idea. It is something we will continue to do on the main streets and in the coffee shops of Canada for years to come.

Canadians from all parts of Canada again displayed their love and their caring for their neighbours and for all citizens of this great country. Again Canadians showed that they knew there is a better feeling, a feeling of giving. The feeling of giving is even better than the feeling you get from receiving. Canadians gave. They gave until they hurt. People helping people, that is what this country is about.

The ice storm of 1998 has again reminded me personally of how proud I am to call this country home. Certainly the spirit of the people who built this country shines through this tragedy. The pioneer spirit is alive today.

People in the central and northern part of my riding told me about the thunderous night when the crowns broke free from the tree trunks and about the devastation they witnessed in the morning. Trees a hundred years of age and more are no longer standing or else they have been severely damaged. Saplings are bent over like the crescent of a moon. Their tips are still frozen in the ice and snow. We are not going to know the extent of this damage for a few years.

People are starting to enter their sugar bushes. It is so risky. The safety hazards are there. The widow makers, those branches that are torn loose and hanging from the trees, have to be looked at and caution has to be used.

Yes, the loss of income to our rural Canadians is very severe. Small business as well as all rural citizens—and farming is a very important business in this country—all these people were affected and people were hurt. Again, farmers were the first ones to share and to care and to look after the people in their communities.

I hope there will be many books written about the human interest stories. I am thinking about one couple, Ruth and Dudley Shannon who are very active in the Frontenac Federation of Agriculture. Like thousands of people in our areas they went around and knocked on the doors of their neighbours' homes. There were no lights anywhere. It was just to make sure everybody was okay. Yes, rural Canadians are very resourceful but people do need water to drink. These people, like many other people, said, “We are dairy farmers. We are very fortunate. In our area we have a generator and there is fresh water in the milk house. We will leave the door unlocked. Come along and help yourselves”.

People were wonderful. Business people in our area displayed no price gouging. People were there to help people. Volunteers came together. Of course we often pay tribute to our volunteer firefighters but we cannot do it enough. These people are volunteers who every day and every week while on these firefighting crews risk their lives.

Of course the minister of defence spoke just before me about the military. It was heart warming to see their response. These people went the extra mile. Around Sharbot Lake, Ontario along the highway between Ottawa and Toronto the helicopters showed up early following the crisis, following the devastation. It is a very rural area but the fact that these birds were in the sky, people knew that there was someone caring for them and it made a big difference in people's lives.

All the municipal workers, the municipal politicians, everyone worked together. Hydro workers risked their lives. There were some tragic events following this. Telephone workers, police, RCMP, people right across the storm's path demonstrated their courage, their generosity and their determination.

I want to thank the Prime Minister who visited the farming community of Wolfe Island which adjoins the riding. People there appreciated his visit. They knew he was concerned. As always the Prime Minister walked down the street and talked and listened to the people.

Immediately after the storm several ministers visited our riding. I was glad to see the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of National Defence. They personally assessed the damage. They had the opportunity to talk directly with the Canadians who experienced the storm's violent intrusion into their lives and livelihood. Their visits were very important to my constituents.

I am proud to have been part of this Team Canada, the internal Team Canada helping to ensure that this is a great country. I also want to say thanks to a few colleagues. We should not list people but the people who phoned me at home around the clock were the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Health, the President of the Treasury Board, my seatmate the member representing Erie—Lincoln, the members representing Haldimand—Norfolk, Brant and also my colleague from Guelph—Wellington. All these people offered help and assistance and it came by the truckloads.

I especially want to thank the member representing Stoney Creek because the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce sent truckloads, tractor trailer loads of supplies continually into eastern Ontario. It helped and also made our people realize that there are so many people who care.

The federal government will cover most of the storm related costs and that is the way it should be. We do turn the money over to the provincial government. I am very glad to see that the governments are acting quickly because these people need the support now. To date I believe the federal government's contribution is approximately $250 million which has been designated for this purpose.

Canadians can smile and tell stories even during disasters. The military showed up at a home in North Frontenac. One of the senior staff in this Chamber answered the door when this military truck showed up in the middle of the night. A knock came to the door and he answered it. The soldier said, “Sir, you have no hydro”. “No,” he said. “How are you making out, sir?” This gentleman who works with us here every day said, “Oh, I am fine”. The soldier asked, “How long has your hydro been out, sir?” “Well,” he said, “for about eight years”. He had no hydro. However, people still have neighbours and friends and he invited the military in to have a coffee. His own family was helping in the reserves.

The thoughts and stories of people helping people in this country again I repeat they make me feel so good. My heart goes out to the people who are still suffering from this storm especially in our neighbouring province of Quebec. It is very hard for us to realize the disaster that still exists there today.

We have to learn from this disaster. We all have to work together in this country. I encourage all members of the House to join me in recognizing the volunteers in our community who make this country so great.

[Ice Storm, February 2nd, 1998]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to recognize those who responded to the January ice storm, people who assured the safety of the storm's victims with compassionate and caring hearts.

As member of Parliament for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and as chair of the eastern Ontario caucus, I want to recognize the community volunteers, firefighters, snowmobile club members and others who responded quickly and efficiently. They ensured that roads were cleared, isolated residents were visited and those who wished to go to shelters were assisted. Others such as municipal employees worked well beyond the call of duty to implement emergency response actions.

The women and men of the military have earned special recognition for their efforts right across the storm area. I also want to acknowledge the hydro and phone workers who risked their lives to restore service.

Many Canadians in eastern Ontario and Quebec have moved past the crisis. Unfortunately others remain without hydro today.

Please join me in saying thank you to the volunteers and workers who have given so much and especially to those who continue to meet the challenges in the wake of the storm.