[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 20, 1997
.1725 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward - Hastings, Lib.)): Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for coming before the committee as we continue our discussions on Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I think you were all in the room just before we recessed when I outlined the schedule for this afternoon. You have all been advised that your presentation is to be five minutes long. I know that's not very long, but you were given that indication beforehand, so we will listen to each of your five-minute presentations and then we will have the maximum amount of time afterwards to have dialogue between the members and everyone at the table.
We have to conclude the meeting at 4:30 p.m. so that we can get to the airport and catch our flight. That gives us about an hour and three minutes.
Mr. Fankhanel, would you please start. Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Dale Fankhanel (Individual Presentation): I welcome this opportunity to present my views today on Bill C-72, and I want to thank the committee for coming to Alberta.
I come here today to represent myself, my family and my farm. My hope as a producer is to see that the Canadian Wheat Board is not weakened, to see that it remains the state-of-the-art marketing agency it is known to be around the world. Most of the proposed changes are so comprehensive and complex that if they are implemented they will destroy the structure that the Canadian Wheat Board is built on, which is single-desk selling, price pooling and government guarantees.
I will only be able to cover a couple of points because I don't have enough time.
With respect to government-guaranteed borrowing, in proposed subsection 7(3) the federal government will terminate its guarantee of initial price adjustments. It should be noted that the federal partnership with the Canadian Wheat Board saves farmers in the neighbourhood of$60 million annually. Every farmer I have talked to is extremely opposed to any move to lessen the government guarantees. A potential for faster adjustments of initial prices by dropping the Order in Council requirement could be counterbalanced by the reluctance to adjust payments if the Canadian Wheat Board will be liable for the shortfalls.
It is unclear to me how the federal government and the Canadian Wheat Board will reconcile their competing interests in setting adjustment prices. To avoid the necessity of adjustments to the initial prices, it would be in the best interests of the Canadian Wheat Board to set the initial price as high as possible to avoid adjustments that the Canadian Wheat Board would be liable for. On the other hand, the federal government will want the initial price as low as possible because it is liable for losses that occur there.
I fail to see why the federal government would shirk its responsibility to western farmers. In the history of the Canadian Wheat Board, a deficit in the payment adjustments hasn't occurred. The termination of the government guarantee will cost farmers millions of dollars and save the government nothing. This will severely damage the structure the Canadian Wheat Board is built on. I think the Government of Canada should continue to guarantee initial price adjustments as it does now.
This also brings into question the need to establish a contingency fund.
In proposed subsection 6(3), with respect to the contingency fund, first, it is to guarantee adjustments to initial payments, and second, to provide for potential losses from operations. If potential losses are created by methods that cause financial risk to the Canadian Wheat Board and contribute to the need to create a contingency fund, these methods are then a problem. If such methods are used to support cash buying or in any other way erode price pooling, they are definitely unacceptable.
The Canadian Wheat Board has managed its risks inexpensively and effectively for farmers through the price-pooling mechanism. Commodity marketing hedging can be effective, but hedging also brings risks of losses, and the cost of options and losses, both real and potential, create a need for the contingency fund. This is one example of the high cost of moving away from price-pooled risk management. No method should be used that in any way undermines price pooling, which is the Wheat Board's primary risk management tool. We don't need to create a contingency fund.
.1730
I'm sick and tired of how commodity groups here in Alberta force me to pay for something I have no say on. But I think Mr. Goodale said it best on February 13 in the House of Commons during the transportation debate, when he said:
- Grain companies will ultimately collect their handling fees as product moves through their
facilities sooner or later. Railways will ultimately collect their freight rates. Politicians,
officials and others will continue to collect their salaries. For farmers it's not that simple.
They're at the end of the line when it comes to picking up the tab.
I'm strongly opposed to a move away from the Canadian Wheat Board price guarantee by the federal government to a system in which those prices are guaranteed by contingency fund. I recommend that proposed paragraph 6(1)(c.3), which would create a contingency fund, be deleted.
With respect to governance, some critics say the Wheat Board is unaccountable. Trying to address the alleged lack of accountability creates a real problem. Accountability means responsiveness and responsibility.
I believe the Canadian Wheat Board has been responsible throughout its history. It has been accountable and has satisfied the demands of most farmers. The commissioners are responsible when they report to the Parliament of Canada. I have never heard of a commissioner being fired for being dishonest or incompetent. I get full reports and good service from the Canadian Wheat Board just as it is.
As I stated in my opening comments, Bill C-72 is very comprehensive and complex. I caution everyone involved to move slowly. I don't think the authors of Bill C-72, or anyone else, fully comprehend what the ramifications of each clause will be on the way the Canadian Wheat Board and farmers do business.
The Canadian Wheat Board is far from being perfect, but let's not dismantle it and make it dysfunctional so that farmers lose a marketing partner that has marketed some of the highest quality wheat in the world for some of the highest prices in the world.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Jim Ness.
Mr. Jim Ness (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a farmer from New Brigden, Alberta. I raise wheat, barley and beef, and I am a member of the Canadian Farmers for Justice. Our goal is to achieve the freedom of dual marketing by defending our legal rights.
I am here today hoping that this committee is somewhat open to opinions that are contrary to those held by the Minister of Agriculture. His changes to the CWB reflect the socialist ideology of an intrusive and oppressive regime.
There is an ever-increasing anger among western Canadian grain producers because of the CWB monopoly and its poor performance in the marketplace. And just as great a concern is the sloppy planning and shipping.
The very root of this dissatisfaction is the inability to maximize farm gate receipts because of an inflexible CWB that is not geared for the times. Farmers pay demurrage on dozens of ships. This is ridiculous. This monopoly that is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars is corrupt and illegal.
Goodale is denying us the simple solution to a complex problem. Dual marketing would allow economics to change the CWB operations rather than having a political solution that will just make things worse.
The freedom in the marketplace that we demand is not up for negotiation by a majority vote. It is a God-given right in a free society to own the fruits of our labour.
Producers take all the risks, do all the work, and pay all the bills and taxes, and are then told that the government knows what is best in marketing our grain.
Please learn from Canadian history. The Riel rebellion was caused by the refusal of government to recognize legitimate concerns of Métis and Indian peoples.
Today, intrusive liberalism from central Canada refuses to consider the freedom of choice we demand. Already farmers have been jailed, strip-searched, harassed, subjected to middle-of-the-night raids and have been falsely prosecuted. I've been fined $4,000 for exporting$8 worth of barley to the U.S. I donated 100 pounds of barley to the Montana 4-H. More than100 farmers have over 200 charges against them for demonstrating against the monopoly.
.1735
Get one thing straight: we are not interested in exporting grain to the U.S., but we want access to world prices that would be available in our local terminals if the monopoly were abolished. We will continue with demonstrations until Canadians realize that we have civil rights and individual freedoms that have been trampled by 53 years of monopoly.
It is my belief that Bill C-72 is more repressive than the old CWB act. In my opinion, it makes the minister a czar. It's time the system was producer-driven instead of government-driven. The CWB has never been a farmers' body but has always been a government agency.
Of particular concern is proposed section 3.94, which indicates to me that buried in the files of the CWB is maybe evidence of illegal acts. Why else would the employees need this?
I recommend the following. One, get rid of Bill C-72. It doesn't please anybody except its author. Government is going to have to learn to listen to the people. Two, deregulate the marketing, handling and shipping of wheat and barley by eliminating the monopoly. Three, allow producers, who are supporters of the CWB, to recommend and initiate any modernizing of the institution. Four, initiate a public inquiry into the administration and past activities of the CWB.
I'd like to thank the committee for coming out west. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Jim.
Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I farm in the Sherwood Park-Ardrossan area, just east of Edmonton. I understand the clerk will be getting translated the packages I put together for you to read at your leisure.
The Chairman: All of the presentations will be circulated once they're translated, yes.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. What I'll do then is go straight to the point and target a couple of areas that are of concern to me and my legal counsel in regard to Bill C-72.
The Wheat Board, when it in the future can buy grain from any entity anywhere, is no longer a western Canadian marketing agency but really in fact has the ability to be the wheat board of the world, and they will back this financial activity with a contingency fund that's taken from western Canadian farmers.
As far as I'm concerned, the pooling accounts, if they are not set for a specified time, make no sense. They do not help in reducing the volatility over that time. If they can be ended, they become virtually useless.
This brings me to the point where my legal counsel and I have been very concerned with some of the legal aspects of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and its accountability to the judiciary.
I'll turn this over to Doug Christie, my counsel, who will discuss some of these things.
Mr. Douglas Christie (Individual Presentation): When Tom asked me to speak for him, I said, ``Tom, you're wasting your time. Save your breath. This is just a bunch of Liberal hacks touring western Canada to be a public relations exercise for the government''. And I believe it is. ``Frankly'', I said, ``Tom, they couldn't care less whether you give them 10 pages of paper or no pages of paper, because they won't read them anyway. They've made up their minds, as they always do, and then they come out and present what they've decided as if they had public sympathy and support''.
I used to be pretty nice about things like this to people like you and others, Mr. Chairman, because I used to think Canada was a nice country, until I watched an innocent, honourable bunch of men stand up in a court and plead not guilty for selling their own wheat.
Some voices: Hear, hear! That's right!
.1740
Mr. Christie: I cannot tolerate that in any free and democratic society. You, sir, should tell the government there's people here who know what's wrong with that.
This country allows women in their ninth month to have an abortion, but men can't sell their own grain. What choice is that?
If the Wheat Board is as wonderful as its advocates say it is, let farmers choose whether they want to participate or not. That would be a free and democratic society, not this one. This is contrary to fundamental justice.
This proposed amendment, which just strengthens the stranglehold on ordinary citizens, would not be tolerated in any other country. It should not be tolerated here, but it will be. It will pass. Or it'll be dumped in the dustbin of history, if this Parliament dissolves and the Liberals get back again with another split for the right wing.
You have it in the bag. You can do what you like and you know it. The Reform Party, that thinks it can reform this system, will find out how quickly it's impossible to reform it. The sooner the Bloc Québecois succeeds in breaking this corrupt stranglehold on free and democratic people, the better. I wish them Godspeed.
Bill C-72 will remove the status of an agent of Her Majesty, which is open to review in the courts, and substitute that with a mixed corporation. Crown corporations cannot be taken for charter review before the courts of this country. Why would any democratic society want to remove the institutions of control from the judicial review process unless it wants to strangle and destroy the charter freedoms that would otherwise limit their power?
That, sir, is an indication of the arrogance and the corruption of this process that denies people freedom of choice.
Some people don't like to take risks. Some people like government cheques. Some people like security. Well, some people like freedom. Don't you think they should have the choice? You don't want choice for anybody.
There is a choice here, all right, between the communist idea of state control and state marketing and the free individual idea of taking risks and getting benefits. Some people don't like freedom.
There will be a real struggle in this country, this part of the world, and Tom Jackson and others will see after the next election that reform is impossible and the smug bureaucrats in Ottawa will have their way. The Liberals will be the next government and you'll have your CWB with more power, you can be sure of that. But don't count on everybody to be so stupid that they go along with it forever while you smile from your high and mighty places.
More and more, people will realize that Ottawa is the source of all this corruption, this oppression, this contempt for freedom and individual liberty, and they won't tolerate it forever, any more than the thirteen colonies tolerated a tax on tea.
The Chairman: You have half a minute left.
Mr. Christie: I've had enough time.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. We'll now go to George Calvin.
Mr. George Calvin (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for coming west to hear the views of farmers.
I support changes to the Canadian Wheat Board provided those changes expand and strengthen the board. I didn't include everything in my presentation because there is not the time for it.
The Chairman: You can table your report.
Mr. Calvin: With respect to the pooling period, the pooling period should be the same as the crop year. With this type of pooling period we can save expense and work by delivering as much as grain as possible from the combine and know we'll get the same price as if we deliver it later in the year.
A crop-year pooling period will also give added incentive for a smoother flow of grain into the handling and transportation system. This will help the Canadian Wheat Board develop and service markets and ultimately should enhance the pooled price.
Addition of other grains to the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction: Bill C-72's proposed section 45 must be amended to provide a mechanism to add other grains to the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction. Other grains could include oats, rye, canola or flax. I would recommend that this move be approved by the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, the Canadian Grain Commission and subject to a producer vote.
.1745
On governance, I think the CWB does not lack accountability. Some people may think it does because it does not do what they think it should. American multinational grain companies would be far less accountable. I think the system of commissioners and advisory committee should be retained. The advisory committee could be expanded by, say, four members, four farmers, one from each province and one from the Peace River block in the Canadian Wheat Board area.
I recommend that sections 12 to 17 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act be retained, subject to any necessary housekeeping changes. I further recommend that the expanded Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee become the proposed board of directors.
As to single-desk selling/dual market, our single-desk selling system and our quality control regulations have enabled Canada to keep our fair share of world markets. In ``Rating of Major Grain Exporters by Importing Countries'', in the Western Grain Marketing Panel report of July 1, 1996, page 52, Canada was rated last in the price category because Canada's price was too high. That's a good fault. Studies by economists have shown that single-desk selling has provided average price benefits of $265 million per year for wheat for the 14-year period from 1980-81 to 1993-94 and an average price benefit of $72 million per year for barley for the 10-year period from 1985-86 to 1994-95. In 1993, when we had the open border, in our continental barley market the price of malt barley dropped by about 28% or over $40 per tonne. We must retain the single-desk marketing system.
On government-guaranteed borrowing, while the federal government still guarantees initial prices, I believe it is important for the federal government to continue to guarantee initial price adjustments. The borrowing partnership between the CWB and the federal government saves farmers over $60 million annually. This more than pays the $45-million annual cost of operating the CWB.
As to the status of the Canadian Wheat Board, I would recommend that the Canadian Wheat Board remain ``an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada'' and that Bill C-72 be amended to remove all references to subsection 4(2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Calvin.
I will go to Mr. Woolley.
Mr. Thomas Woolley (Individual Presentation): I thank the committee for allowing me to be here. I'd like to say that they've done very good in keeping control of this meeting.
I'm not a farmer. I'm a general Canadian citizen who about four year ago decided to market grain across the border...and all the hardships I had dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board.
I was able to make connections with a fellow down in the States who wanted 100,000 bushels of barley a month. I figured I could make some money. When it got down to the nitty-gritty I could buy the barley for $80 a tonne from an elevator, but then I found out I'd have to pay another $40 more for the buy-back policy. I'd never heard of that before, but it's something the Wheat Board has. That $120 priced my product out of the market. The sale could not be completed.
As long as barley or wheat is sold in Canada, there is no buy-back policy. How much grain is actually sold here in Canada, especially as feed wheat? When the farmers take it, they take the price they got and they're happy with it. As I said, again, as long as the grain is sold in Canada there's no buy-back policy, but as soon as it is, it increases.
You do not get an exporting permit unless you pay the buy-back policy, and you have to get it from the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board certainly has a lot of control, more than I do.
If I could go to an example right now, let's say barley is $3 a bushel. The buy-back policy was half the cost of the product. Let's use that also. Let's say the buy-back is $1.50, which is half of $3. That puts a product at $3.50 a bushel, and that's before it even gets out of the bin.
.1750
Let's look at another example, barley, and the buy-back comes to $3. Maybe in selling it for $3 you could make some money taking it across the border if you choose to do so. If the buy-back is half the cost of the product, that means the farmer would have to sell his barley to you for $2. The buy-back is $1; that makes $3. Who's going to sell you his barley for $2 a bushel when he could possibly get $2.85 or $2.90?
The buy-back has caused a lot of sales to fail and will continue to do so unless it is removed from the Canadian Wheat Board Act. A lot of sales were lost before mine ever came along, and there are a lot sales that have been lost since mine fell through, and will continue to do so.
One day I decided to phone the Wheat Board. I felt like looking for barley across the States for this fellow. I phoned the Wheat Board and they said: there's no problem for you to look for barley for this American client; you're not under our jurisdiction. That actually gave me the biggest feeling of freedom compared with the hardships I had working with the Canadian Wheat Board. Due to the transportation costs, I cannot make the sale, but just enjoying the feeling of freedom was worth it. Though I did not make a sale, I almost did.
I'll put the statement this way, as if I actually had made the sale: When a person can sell another country's grain easier than his own, then something is definitely wrong.
Through a friend, I make connections with a fellow in Mexico. Again, I had to go through an accredited exporter, one who has been authorized by the Wheat Board to sell grain overseas besides the Wheat Board. It either goes through the Wheat Board or an accredited exporter. Here again we have the Wheat Board with full control. To become an accredited exporter, you have to follow certain qualifications. If you don't, you don't become an accredited exporter. They seem to control everything.
One day I was talking to the guy in Vancouver, the accredited exporter I was working with. He said something to me that I've never forgotten, something to this effect: ``Yes, if the Wheat Board will give you a permit to work in that area''.
I know a lot of you have my paper there, but I'm going to expand more than what I've actually put in the paper.
As I was talking to this fellow in Vancouver, I said something to this effect: ``Have they actually stopped you from getting a permit to export grain?'' The way he talked about it to me, it's very tough sometimes to get permits.
As an example, if the Wheat Board, which has an office in Mexico, is working in the city where they're at, and let's say Cargill or the wheat pool wants to make a sale there, what's going to stop the Wheat Board from not giving those guys a permit? You know, the Wheat Board can stop those guys from getting a permit, because they control everything.
The Chairman: You have half a minute.
Mr. Woolley: Thank you.
I've had my hopes set up and I've had them shattered by the Wheat Board. I believe in a one-price system. I believe I should be able to go and market grain across the United States and not have to pay any buy-back policy nor get a permit from the Wheat Board.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. The last witness is Mr. Rasmuson.
Mr. Earl Rasmuson (Individual Presentation): Thank you for the opportunity to present a brief concerning the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Bill C-72. With the changes proposed in the Canadian Wheat Board governance, the Wheat Board will lose its status as an agent of Her Majesty and will not be eligible for some borrowing privileges.
I am encouraged, though, to see that this legislation provides for federal government guarantees of Canadian Wheat Board borrowing and the sales of grain made on credit. This provision alone will maintain savings of $60 million yearly to the agricultural community.
I am concerned about the removal of federal guarantees on adjustments to the initial price and what it may eventually lead to, the removal of guarantees on initial prices.
The creation of the contingency fund with Bill C-72 is for two purposes: to replace the government guarantee on interim payments and to act as a backstop for potential losses from cash purchasing.
As it has been pointed out by Mr. Goodale that adjustments to initial payments have never resulted in a deficit in the 61-year history of the Canadian Wheat Board, these payments have always been made in response to a more buoyant market and represent no risk to the government. If it hasn't happened in the past, it is unlikely to happen in the future.
.1755
If a contingency fund is used to cover the entire risk for the Canadian Wheat Board when it begins to buy grain on the full cash basis, then it becomes a price insurance program. By allowing direct cash purchases from farmers by the Canadian Wheat Board, this would have a negative impact on the pooling system. It would result in a situation that producers may opt for a cash price when prices are higher and sell into the pool account when the average price.... The Canadian Wheat Board system would allow it to become a sale of last resort. As a result of this provision, cash purchases would allow the Canadian Wheat Board to meet its sales commitments when it has not been able to attract sufficient quantities through its regular programs.
It is important to meet these sales commitments and to maintain our reputation as a reliable shipper. It is equally important to maintain the pooling system. I think this legislation should restrict this option to cash purchases from the grain trade only at the port and under unusual circumstances.
The contingency fund will be paid for entirely by farmers who have set aside from the Canadian Wheat Board pool accounts. Because of Bill C-72, cash buying becomes a completely unfamiliar territory for the board. The question then becomes how big a fund will be necessary.
The Canadian Wheat Board presently operates four pooling accounts, which means four separate contingency funds, because a deficit from one account can never be used to cover a deficit in another. Regardless of how this fund is accumulated, farmers will bear the cost of establishing and maintaining the fund.
Bill C-72 has provisions to make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on wheat and barley subject to Order in Council and a producer vote. This legislation only provides for the removal of jurisdiction. I think there should be provision for the addition of any kind of grain to the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board through Order in Council and a producer vote.
I hope the suggestions made in this submission will help your committee ensure the success of the Canadian Wheat Board, as it continues to serve farmers in the future.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Rasmuson. I want to thank all of you for being clear and concise with your comments.
We have two 15-minute periods.
Elwin, if you and Leon want to take your 15-minute period first, we'll then go over to the other side, if that's fair. You don't get much time if you split it, that's the problem; but it's up to you.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't be too long. I'll more or less put some things on the record, so if some of the presenters want to comment, that's fine.
I guess I was a bit disturbed by some of Mr. Christie's comments. I want to put some things on the record.
Yes, Mr. Jackson, I believe this is a bit of a PR exercise by the Liberals. But I want to make it clear that there were several requests from some pretty legitimate and responsible farm groups from western Canada that asked this committee to come out west. I and other Reformers support that and believe in dialogue and this type of process, even though I believe, as some of you have also expressed, that the Liberals really aren't listening and have a bottom line that is unacceptable to us and to many other producers on the prairies.
Any time you have to raise your voice to try to get your point across in an environment like this, I think it weakens your position. Actually, Mr. Christie, you probably should debate in a basement somewhere with David Orchard, who presented yesterday to this group and made about as much sense as you did. You probably deserve each other even though you're on opposite sides of the issue.
Having said that, I want to also put on the record some comments about the Farmers for Justice and the status quo. As Reformers, we have not publicly supported - or privately supported, for that matter - the moving of grain by alleged illegal methods across the border. However, we agree with the objectives of the Farmers for Justice that you should be able to move your grain across the U.S. border - or across the ocean, for that matter - outside of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We've been very clear on our support for the board to be an agency in which you participate voluntarily. So while we've stayed out of the legal wrangling and the legal things that the Farmers for Justice have got involved with, nevertheless we support the same objectives they support.
I want to make that very clear and have it on the record, Mr. Chairman, because I think it's very important. Of course, there's a big argument in the courts as to whether what they're doing is illegal or legal. I'm not in a position to comment on that because I just don't know.
On the other hand, I've heard from the three gentlemen...and we've heard from several people who have basically stated almost the exact same thing: support for the three pillars; any change to the board is going to weaken it; comments that we should just leave the advisory board and the commissioners in place; basically leave the status quo there; and a lack of support for any changes to the board whatsoever.
.1800
I want it put on record too - and I said this yesterday in Saskatoon - that as much as you might suggest that these changes are going to destroy the board, I would submit to you and others who have taken the same position that this position will go much farther to destroying the board than making the constructive changes that are necessary to adapt to the new trading environment that it has to function in.
In fact, with the way the WTO is going to treat trading enterprises in the future, with the growing discontent, particularly among younger farmers, to be strapped to the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, if you who want to maintain those three pillars win the philosophical battle here and maintain the support of the Liberal government, that will go much further to seeing the Canadian Wheat Board wiped out overnight than the changes we have been suggesting, which will ensure the viability and survival of the Canadian Wheat Board in the future.
Reform wants to see the Canadian Wheat Board survive. We know many farmers want to market through the Canadian Wheat Board. But we also know that many farmers want the option to market outside the board and we believe they make a very, very strong case in defence of their position.
You all may want to respond to that. I could get into some individual things. There was some discussion about buy-backs and good comments made about buy-backs. It's really legal extortion and certainly needs to be addressed. As far as I know, it is not addressed in Bill C-72. It's another flaw in the bill; one of dozens we have made note of by the submissions that have been brought forward.
Having put that on the record, that's the time I want to use, Mr. Chairman.
In all fairness to the chairman, and in response to Mr. Christie, the chairman has been fair and this process has been open to everybody who wanted to appear before it. Nothing has been fixed. I want to make that clear. I think that needs to be on the record. Yes, it may be a PR exercise. We'll find out when we see what changes, if any, are brought forward to Bill C-72. This bill may actually die and gather dust like many other proposals to modernize the board. We'll deal with that at election time.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments to the chair, Elwin.
Tom, if you wish to comment, go ahead.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important that the things that Doug Christie said were said, because I believe in my heart that tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada are saying the exact same things - and I've heard them in coffee shop row - that Doug just said. If you people are serious about listening to what the farmers of western Canada are concerned about, then please take to heart what Doug said, or we will have another Quebec out here.
Prove me wrong. Prove that Doug is wrong. To the committee, I beg you, prove that he's wrong, because I'll bet you there's a 95% chance that he's right, and that will go down in history on each one of your names.
The Chairman: Jim.
Mr. Ness: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify one point. I believe in enforced collectivism for the socialists, people of the left-wing political persuasion, but I also just as strongly believe in freedom for the rest of us. In that light, that's why I put point three in my brief. I believe people of NFU persuasion, like Mr. Easter there, should have the privilege of having input to their wheat board, but an ever-growing number of farmers in western Canada are not asking to be freed from the monopoly; we're at the point of demanding to be freed from the monopoly. It's our grain, not yours, and we're not going to pay this extortion any more.
So I'd just like, in a very nice way, to send a message to your Liberal colleagues down there in Ottawa to sit up and take notice that there's a groundswell of anger here that can be defused very, very easily if the Liberals get enough jam just to take away the monopoly and give us freedom to market our own product how we want.
Thank you, sir.
.1805
The Chairman: Thanks, Jim.
Tom, did you wish to comment?
Mr. Woolley: I never said this before, but I'll make the comment now. I certainly do believe in dual marketing. I believe, as others have said, those who want to use the Wheat Board, let them use it; those who do not wish to use the Wheat Board, let them market how they want to. They shouldn't have to let the Wheat Board know that they've marketed it, where they've marketed it, or get a permit to do so.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Does anyone else wish to comment?
Mr. Calvin: Yes, thank you.
I don't very often agree with anything Mr. Hermanson says, although I did agree with him in his remarks concerning Mr. Christie.
Mr. Christie, I think your tirade was despicable. I'm sorry, but that's what I think.
As far as selling grain to the board or not to the board, I've never done it, but I personally have no objection to going through the buy-back process. I mean, when you sell into the U.S. on the open market, that is all you get. If you can get a higher price than what you can get here or get anywhere else, then go through the buy-back process. You're then also entitled to any payments that come out to the Wheat Board. I think that would have to be a plus.
That's all I'll say at this time.
The Chairman: Earl Rasmuson.
Mr. Rasmuson: I would like to take exception to Mr. Hermanson's comments, too. I think in society as such we do have rules everyone has to respect.
In regard to Mr. Christie, I get rather upset when he tells me I'm not willing to take a risk because I choose to market my grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. As a farmer, I take a heck of a lot more risks than he does, from the time I put that seed in the ground to the time it's harvested. That's a tremendous risk.
I'm assuming that you're a lawyer and a member of the bar. Are you? There must be regulations there as well that you have to follow. You can't be represented by anyone who isn't a member of the bar. There are a whole bunch of provisions there that, as a lawyer, you have to follow. There are regulations as well.
To say that you are entirely free, as a lawyer, to do exactly what you please is a judgment call that I think is not right, either. It just depends on where you're at, I guess. If you're a doctor, you have a medical association, do you not, in essence a union? Really, if you're going to market, whether you market your grain or you market your time, it's the same thing to me. It depends on how you view your professional association, I guess.
The Chairman: Mr. Fankhanel, did you wish to speak?
Mr. Fankhanel: Yes, please. I'll make a couple of short comments with regard to whatMr. Hermanson said about federal trading enterprises in the World Trade Organization's upcoming.... I think a lot of the stuff that's being thrown back to the Liberal government is fear-mongering. I think the Liberal government should stand up to the United States, as they have in the past, and protect and support us.
As far as marketing outside the Wheat Board, Elwin, on my farm we have a cow-calf operation, a hog fair and a fish operation. I can market my grain outside the Wheat Board in many, many ways. I sell peas, I grow canola. I market that outside the Wheat Board. If I want to sell barley on the open market, I can market it outside the Wheat Board. There are many choices. I can export permits and market wheat in the States, if I wish to do that also. There are many choices to market.
The Chairman: That gives us a little time to come back, if somebody wishes. So I'll go over here for equal time, Wayne, and that'll give each side a quick one after that.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate very much all the witnesses that are here, but I think it's really, really useful to have the Farmers for Justice appear - I know you're appearing in your own name as individuals - because we do recognize those concerns. I have certain points of view, too, but I think it has been a really useful exercise for this committee to travel out west and hear farmers individually.
.1810
We heard a lot of different things yesterday and the two days before in Saskatchewan and Manitoba than we've heard today. It's something we've been trying to do and hoping to do as an agriculture committee, to come and to hear directly people's concerns.
I have no problem at all with people being very forceful and very direct in terms of their point of view, because if that's how they feel, that's how they feel, and I think we have to know it.
One of the biggest difficulties here, though, is basically the principle of marketing that we get to at the end of the day with the Canadian Wheat Board. There's certainly the point of view, asEarl, George and others have presented, that if you go to a dual market, then you basically eliminate the single-desk selling. From their point of view, that then has a major impact on them in that they believe they will not maximize returns out of the marketplace that the single-desk selling agency in fact gives them.
As a committee, and indeed as a government, at the end of the day we have to make some decisions. I heard what Mr. Christie had to say, but the facts of the matter are that governments are elected to make decisions and choices based on what they've heard. Laws are then implemented. I understand that you have a challenge at the moment. They will be challenged, and the courts will come down where they may.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, if I could, get to some of the specifics. We've heard from both pro-board people and anti-board people on the governance issue. The governance issue involves in part the setting up of a process whereby producers, being a majority on the board - I know the legislation doesn't specify that, but the minister has said that's the way he'll move - can make some of these other decisions down the line that the enabling legislation allows them to make.
My question to the witnesses here is, in terms of the bill as it is currently written, from your point of view will the change in governance accommodate the accountability that farmers are asking for and allow the board to become more flexible down the line?
The Chairman: Mr. Jackson and then Jim Ness.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is one of the things that Doug and I struggled over. In my brief I say that if you're going to retain the single desk, these are the things you have to do: you have to emulate the world market and get it back so that it is transparent to the producer. You take the pressure off the borders so that there isn't a big fight, and it ends the problem. Or, instead of putting into legislation 15,000 pages of rules and regulations, is it much simpler to just say market where you will? Instead of emulating the world market, you allow the world market to work in Canada.
Doug has basically said to me, Tom, this is a dead end, the Liberals will never do it. That's why he said what he said, that this thing appears somewhat to be an exercise in futility, or whatever you want to call it.
I really believe there could be a way to make the single desk work. But is it efficient and will it get us by the year 2005 to the most efficient, productive system in the world? What is the easiest and most productive way to get to that system? Doug's argument is to deregulate.
I am simply putting forward some suggestions that take apart the pool, but Bill C-72 takes apart the pool anyway. It doesn't guarantee a year-long pool and when they can end the pool at any time they want, it doesn't guarantee an initial price any more. So it does nothing. It effectively chops the legs off the productive side of the volatility price mechanism of pooling. That's why it's useless in the way Bill C-72 leaves it.
.1815
The Chairman: Jim.
Mr. Ness: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to Mr. Easter. I really appreciate his comments.
There's maybe one thing that you have to realize. You mentioned that at the end of the day it's the principle of marketing that counts, but that's actually the second step. First, before you get to the marketing part, you actually have to recognize the principle of ownership.
This is the mistake that the government is making. The government is not recognizing who owns the grain. I own my grain. Therefore, I have the say in the marketing of it, not someone who is going to assume ownership of the grain after I did all the work. I'm not anti-CWB, I'm anti-monopoly.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Earl.
Mr. Rasmuson: In regard to governance, I really don't think any elected form that you come up with will be viewed as accountable in all people's eyes, on everybody's terms. I'm sure that you, as elected officials, realize that there's always...if somebody agrees with you on whatever the particular issue is, you're accountable to what their views are, and if you disagree with them, your opinion may be that you're not accountable, that they don't reflect your views.
I think if one went with some sort of delegate system - I don't know whether that is the proper term - and then reduced that again to a board of directors, perhaps it would be a bit more effective than electing ten or twelve people from a bigger area. I think then you would probably get some...the more well known you are would probably be the thing that has more influence over whether you are elected or not, moreso than what your opinions are and what positions you are espousing. Sometimes with that type of situation, you may end up with a more politicized board that may not be as effective as one elected through a delegate system on terms that are a little bit broader.
The Chairman: George.
Mr. Calvin: I want to comment on two things. In regard to monopoly, we've heard lately about farmers in the U.S. who are complaining about paying too high a price for freight in areas where there's only one railway. That railway has a monopoly and they object to that because they're paying too high a price. We've seen instances where companies have tried to get control of a product to sell. They want to have sole control of that product so that they will have a monopoly and can sell the product for a higher price.
Second, I want to comment on something that came up this morning, this Alberta plebiscite we had in November 1995. That plebiscite was a total farce. The way it was made up.... I won't go into that.
But with respect to the voting procedure, there were no qualifications set out on how you could vote. The qualifications were different for different people. They weren't even the same on two consecutive days. When I went in I took my wife because I thought she was qualified to vote. And the chap this morning said as long as the wife helped out on the farm and had an interest in it, she could vote. When I went to vote, my wife had to be a permit-book holder. The fact that she worked on the farm or helped out had nothing to do with it. But when other people went in their wives got to vote without holding a permit book.
The Chairman: Dale, do you want to comment?
Mr. Fankhanel: I have just a couple of comments. I'm hearing a lot about ``the most efficient system in the world''. I'm wondering who will decide - and when - that we have the most efficient system in the world. I haven't heard how we're going to do that. That really is an issue for me.
There's been a lot of talk about deregulation. We were told time and time again, ``Deregulate the railways and let them have their say. Everything will be better. It'll be better service and it'll be cheaper.'' Ever since we deregulated, it's been worse service and it's been more expensive.
The Chairman: I think I'm going to go back to Leon's questions.
I'm not being flippant about this, but I would have to ask how we define the most efficient system. I think that is one of those things in our lives that is probably in the eye of the beholder, as a number of other things are. I'm not joking about that. What I might think of as efficient, somebody else might not. Maybe it's just as well, like some other things in the eye of the beholder, that we don't all think the same one is the best.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Leon.
.1820
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Thank you.
Lyle, if you agree that it's in the eye of the beholder as to what's efficient, I wonder why the dual marketing option wasn't presented to those who are directly dependent on this marketing system as one of the three options on the plebiscite we just had. The argument you made would certainly indicate that we should have that option and we should let the people who are involved decide whether they choose dual marketing or the other two options that were presented.
Once again, I have a comment on Mr. Easter's comment. I've heard this quite often. He commented that ``pro-board'' and ``anti-board'' is what he's heard over these past few days. I say that the far more common point of contention is the monopoly. Some people want to keep the monopoly and some want change and the freedom to market on their own.
I really resent his wrong portrayal of what the real debate is about. I guess I don't resent that quite as much as I resent how we get the terms racist, extremist, sexist and so on hurled at us from these same gentlemen across the floor in the House of Commons, day after day. I resent that. That's no way to carry on a debate. That is the way to kill a debate when you're losing an argument.
Let's have an open, honest debate on this issue. Let's acknowledge what the debate is really about and then let's get on and talk about it and see how we can reach a solution to the problem. I resent Mr. Easter putting up this false portrayal of what the real debate is about here, at least for most people.
The Chairman: You have about one minute left, Leon.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: The other comment is about the Canadian Wheat Board being accountable to Parliament.
Mr. Fankhanel, that was your comment. I want to tell you very clearly that Parliament has no idea what's going on inside the board. We are given no information beyond what you get. The Wheat Board is accountable to the agriculture minister, period. It is not accountable to Parliament.
I, as an MP, have received no information beyond what you've received. In fact, the only way that I found out that commissioners are entitled to a $290,000 severance package whether they quit or whether they're fired is through a leaked document. It's one of the most secretive bodies that we have in this country. Again, in terms of secrecy it is comparable to CSIS. It isn't accountable to Parliament in any meaningful way.
I wanted to make that point, and I'd like any of you who would like to respond -
The Chairman: Very quickly, Jim.
Mr. Ness: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one observation about the party you represent. I recently heard Mr. Rock on the television news responding to the biker situation in Quebec, how he wasn't going to interfere for fear of being the first minister to interfere with someone's rights. That same minister is very quick to see that we are prosecuted and harassed for taking $8 worth of barley across the border. It seems pretty ridiculous. Those bikers are killing one another and blowing up each other vehicles and he's not going to do anything about it. But he's quick on the draw to deal with us.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your input and your cooperation here this afternoon. You have certainly all clearly expressed your views.
I will repeat from a personal perspective the comments I made just before lunch. It is the sincere wish of the government to have the grain marketing system in western Canada do as much for as many as it can. But in the last hour I think it has been demonstrated very clearly again that the views of people about how grain should be marketed in western Canada are as divergent as where the sun is at midnight and where the sun is at noon.
Following from that, as I said before at other locations and earlier today, if we were to close the doors on this room now I would challenge us to design a marketing system - whether it is a total free-market system, a dual marketing system, or a single-desk marketing system - that would satisfy everybody in western Canada. I think I would be safe in saying that is absolutely impossible.
.1825
We respect all of your views, but I think we also have to recognize the changes and challenges that are happening in our industry and hopefully work together to the best of our ability to take advantage of the opportunities in our industry.
Thank you very much for coming before the committee.
I will adjourn the meeting. We'll reconvene tomorrow in Grande Prairie at 8:30 a.m.