Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Do you want to pick up at this point, Mr. Easter? You still have roughly two and a half minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Why don't you just go to the next one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Fine.

Mr. Bellavance is next for seven minutes, please.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you for being here. I thought that we were going to hear a shorter summary of your report or, at least, a less detailed presentation. This report does however contain nearly 200 pages. I was expecting you to tell us what had happened and that you would talk about your mandate.

What exactly was your mandate concerning this study? Tell us what the parameters were, on the whole, without going into details. You no doubt had a sufficiently clear mandate to be able to present this report? What was it?

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

You’re quite right. The mandate was simply to do a completely independent review of the Canadian Wheat Board and of the statute. That was our objective, our mandate, and quite simply, our mission.

We did not have a mandate to look at the Wheat Board, for example. To the extent that we looked at the Wheat Board, it was only to ask ourselves, “Among all the different opinions about the Wheat Board that are reasonably well known, if some of those opinions took effect, what implications would it have for the Grain Commission?”

Do you want to say anything else about our mission?

[Tom Halpenny]

Yes. Thanks, Conrad.

On the other elements of the mandate, some things were prescribed, such as generating a discussion paper, which we issued on a public basis nationally. There were also eight public forums that were prescribed, so we held public forums in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. That was an opportunity for stakeholders to provide us feedback on the discussion paper we generated, to ensure that the issues we identified were those of stakeholders. Then they could provide their opinion on those issues that we identified in our discussion paper. That helped guide our final report.

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

Our style was to present a very emotionally and policy neutral discussion paper that didn't advocate anything, in order to avoid any risk of prejudicing feedback.

Also in that style and spirit of objectivity, COMPAS launched an online survey and invited hundreds of stakeholders to participate. We also made it possible for other members of the public who had not been invited to participate.

So our approach was to be extremely objective. It frustrated a number of people, because they didn't know where we were going. Our purpose was to make it possible to receive all feedback. Then with the evolution of the forums we gradually became more candid about the direction in which we were going.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

There is a list of people that were consulted. I understand that it was stated, in a short note, that they all had been more or less consulted. However, there is quite a complete list of all the people who were consulted.

It appears that my colleague, Wayne, is mentionned. However, at the last meeting, he told me he hadn’t been consulted. I also see the names of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec, Mr. Yvon Vallières, as well as the name of the spokesperson for the Parti québécois for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that of the former Minister, Mr. Maxime Arseneau. So, some people from Quebec were consulted.

I see the name of my colleague, Wayne, and that of my colleague, Alex, but I don’t see mine, not that I really want to. I’d like to know what influenced your choice of people to consult and why the Bloc québécois was not consulted. I’d also like to know how extensively Mr. Vallières and Mr. Arseneau were consulted and what they told you concerning the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

I don't think we said specifically that they were consulted. We said this was a list of people we invited to give us feedback and advice. We simply selected among politicians, among elected officials. We went simply by rules. All the provincial ministers of agriculture were invited automatically, for example. We did not make judgment cases.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That doesn’t answer my question.

For what reason, were we, the Bloc québécois, excluded? We’re the third most important party in the House of Commons.

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

Frankly, I have doubts. When I return to my office, I’ll enquire but I have some doubts, because our rule was simple, it was to write to every federal political party leader to invite them to give their opinion and advice.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

In the 102 recommendations contained in your report, there seems to be a tendency in favour of what the grain companies want.

You stated that you had meetings with farmers and grain producers, but does the report really reflect what they want? I think they will be the first to be affected by all the changes that could come about. How many farm producers and how many companies did you meet? Which portion of the opinions expressed in your report represents their opinion?

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

That's a good question. I'll answer that initially, and then I'll ask Tom to answer.

We obviously met far more farmers than grain company executives. If the criterion were initial happiness with us, then you'd have to say the farmers loved us and the grain companies didn't. That wasn't the criterion by which we made our recommendations, nor were we particularly interested in the conflict between grain companies and farmers. We were much more interested in issues of accountability and transparency.

We live in a modern, democratic age, and it is extremely important that everyone feel it's easy to know who makes the decisions and it's easy to know the basis of their decisions. An example is our proposed modification in the act about “in farmers' interests”. The act, which Tom can speak far more eloquently on than I can, talks about that in general.

Whenever you have anything in general there's a huge risk that nothing in particular will ever happen. Why is the air polluted? Because nobody owns it. Why are public desks written on? Because no one owns them. Try to write on your mother's desk and see what happens to you. Because someone owns it, it's your mother, she's going to kill you.

We looked at what is viable, what would work, and how to protect farmers. We believe producers are far more adequately protected by making the protection very specific.

Tom, do you want to talk?

[Tom Halpenny]

Yes. I will answer the question more directly as it relates to how many agricultural producers, although I don't have the numbers in total in terms of the attendees at the forums. One thing that's very important to note is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was responsible for the advertising that was done for the public forums, not COMPAS. That being the case, we understood our forums were held in the last half of June, and that's traditionally a busy time. We were in the middle of the growing season for producers, and we acknowledged and recognized that. We made extra special efforts by making personal phone calls as well as follow-up e-mails to as many of the producer organizations as were identified, with the assistance of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I think you can see we have a very broad list.

We had fairly decent representation at the public forums and with regard to written submissions from the various producer groups. Having individual producers come and making sure that approximately 100,000-plus producers in Canada who grow grains were aware of this process was obviously something that was logistically impossible, so we did the next best thing. We tried to address their representative organizations, and hopefully those organizations could provide the opportunity and information for their members to invite them to come, as well as the public advertising that was part of the process by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here. I'm going to ask all my questions and then let you answer them.

Your report states that the grain sector is at a crossroads. Of course, one of the things it mentions is biofuels, which I had mentioned earlier, and I think it's an important part of this process. Animal feed grain, and with it the ethanol that's basically low protein, that kind of thing, which is the opposite of what we're using for human consumption.... Basically, there's going to be a transition in there for government through the market and this kind of thing. I'd like to know how long you think that transition will take.

When it comes to research undertaken by the Grain Research Laboratory, it's probably going to require government funding. I'd like to know what you think the cost to the government is going to be. Basically, it's a cost that's attributed to modernizing the Canadian Grain Commission.

On another item, our high quality of grains are recognized worldwide. Can we ensure that a reform of the agency that's responsible for this quality won't raise concerns among our trade partners around the world? We don't want to lose our place globally that way.

Also, do other countries that import and export grains have a similar agency like the Canadian Grain Commission? Can you give us some examples?

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

I'll be really brief, and then I'll ask Tom to also address your questions.

Let me summarize that with biofuels, ethanol, and the global situation, we're in an era of tumult. The history of economic forecasting is that people aren't very good at forecasting tumultuous times. That's why we're not recommending solutions. We're not saying that biofuels are going to take over, that hog production is going to sweep the country, or that everyone is going to be driving ethanol-fuelled cars at 25% ethanol. All we're saying is that these changes are taking place, so what processes do you need to enhance Canada's competitive position?

First, you need a lot of research. It's dumb not to have a lot of research. We're in a knowledge-based era, and we've been underfunding research. Other countries, like Australia, have been investing more in research than we have.

Two, we can't forecast exactly how much each of these areas is going to contribute to the economy or to agriculture. What we can say is let's be as transparent and open as possible. A lot of our reporting has to do with recommended forms of consultation, forms of round tables, between the commission and all the interested parties. I mean, we can't even know who the interested parties are, because in this case there are so many of them. That's why one of the headaches we had was deciding what a board of directors might look like. In the end, we decided not to recommend one, just because there are so many interested parties.

So we can't even know who the interested parties are, we can't forecast the demand for ethanol or biofuels or hogs or anything like that; we can just come back and say that process really matters, that transparency and accountability--

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Perhaps I could interrupt you there. Specifically, I think you know the direction that government has said they want to go in, and that's basically my question. I'd like you to tell me, knowing what you know out there—and I'm not going to go into the details because of time—how long the transition period would be in there, considering what we have made clear we intend to do, or would like to see, as a government.

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

You're talking about...?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Biofuels.

[Dr. Conrad Winn]

With biofuels, a fair rule of thumb is that all major changes take longer than initially forecast. So I think a decade is a reasonable assumption.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay.

Go on the other question, if you would.

[Tom Halpenny]

If I could, I'll perhaps answer some of your questions directly. But first, with regard to biofuels, we could probably have a whole afternoon in discussion on the policy requirements and the timing and the reaction from the marketplace in terms of meeting the commitments that Canada has put forward for four years' time for standards for renewable fuels and transport fuels.

But let me come back to the four questions you originally posed. You asked about the transition of new feed varieties, how long it would be. I think you're aware of the proposal for a general purpose wheat class, which basically preserves kernel visual distinguishability for the two main wheat classes--Canada western red spring wheat and Canadian western amber durum--but allows the requirements for visual distinction of the other classes of wheat to not be a registration criteria for varieties. That's in the works. I believe CGC is looking to implement that in about a year's time.

There are varieties that are on the shelf that may very quickly be registered that have different characteristics, and of course new ones will be developed, given this policy. That's the timeframe. You asked how long. That's a rough estimate.

You asked what the impact of our recommendation on government funding for research was. In general terms the research budget is approximately $10 million, which rests with the Canadian Grain Commission. We recommended over a seven- to ten-year time period an increase of four times, or fourfold that amount, to take it to $40 million. We also recommended that this money be given not only to the Grain Commission but also to establish a separate fund that would provide funding for universities and other private research groups, so it's collaborative, so it's not just money for the Grain Commission.

We're targeting research overall, and this is research primarily relating to quality and quantity control for grains. The budget for research in agriculture and specifically for grains is considerable, so we're talking about that piece.

On the third point, ensuring that reform of the agency doesn't cause concern with customers and our reputation, this was something we considered very seriously. For example, on the inspection of grain for export, although we recommend that the inspection of grain on inward movement into export terminals may be optional, at the request of shippers, we recommended that the outward inspection and weighing continue to be mandatory. It's for that very reason. We felt very strongly that there's an expectation of third-party unbiased documentation of quality and quantity assurance by customers. It's a competitive advantage in a reputation that Canada has that we feel strongly needs to be protected and preserved. That was the basic rationale for our recommending that the outward inspection continue to be mandatory.

Lastly, just very quickly--I won't take too much time--on your question about other countries, there are other countries that have agencies similar to the Canadian Grain Commission. Of course, the aspects in each country are considerably different, but take, for example, numerical grading, which is a part of our framework in Canada. The U.S., France, Australia, the Ukraine--you can go down the list--all those countries have numerical grading for grain that is essentially established by governmental regulation and standards.

There are a number of different agencies. I won't take too much time there, but we can go into some more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Sorry, you're done at this point.

Mr. Atamanenko, seven minutes, please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Usually, when we begin a study such as this one, we want the results to be representative, don’t we? We want the report to reflect what people think in the agricultural sector.

Do you think this was the case during this process? During the process, were there some weak points during the consultation phase?

My name appears on the list of persons. I know that sometimes, my memory is not as good as it used to be, because of my age, but I don’t recall having answered those questions. If that’s the case, what percentage of those people really participated in the study?

Those are the three first questions I wanted to ask.