Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[Mark Wartman]

I was very serious. I want to make sure that the producers are elected, as they have been in the past, and that people are appointed to the board for particular expertise that will help the board fulfill its function of maximizing return to producers.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm disappointed in that. We want producers to be able to manage the board, and we don't have a problem with appointing them. I think it's a good idea.

Your department got caught writing news releases for a new farm lobby group. I think it's called Real Voice for Choice. Can you tell us how much you've budgeted on the Wheat Board issue?

[Mark Wartman]

I'm glad you raised that question, because I'd like to clear the air. We try to help farmers in a variety of ways. One of the ways is to offer them space for meetings. Our staff is very accommodating, and occasionally they'll run faxes for people. The cost on that would be roughly $15. Our work to date has basically been time spent meeting with people. We don't have a draft budget. But I can tell you it will be far less than the $1 million the Alberta government spent on their anti-Wheat Board activities.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We'll see that. We'll see when we're done.

I'm wondering why your staff told us they weren't involved in writing that document when we called.

[Mark Wartman]

They may not have been involved in the writing of it. They facilitated by providing some facts.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It was an SAF document. We know that.

[Mark Wartman]

No, you don't.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, I do. That is where it was generated.

[Mark Wartman]

It was put together by the folks from Real Voice for Choice. They may have had some assistance from people who are involved in Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, and I'm proud of them if they did help them out. Is there a problem with our people, who are there to help farmers, helping farmers?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

There's a problem when you're taking up issues with particular organizations and not being clear with people about what you're doing.

[Mark Wartman]

We are being very clear with people about what we are doing and why we are doing it. We have not hedged in any way. I have not equivocated at all on this issue, nor has my government, nor has the department.

Thank you.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You're not representing half your producers, and I think you're aware of that because you've taken--

[Mark Wartman]

You don't know that. In fact, you may not be representing 75% of your producers in your particular area, according to what some of the farmers in your area tell me.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

According to the Wheat Board's own surveys, 55% of the farmers across western Canada want choice. We know it's higher in Saskatchewan and we know it's higher--

[Mark Wartman]

It depends on how it's painted. If you believe that, have a plebiscite, a fair and honest and open plebiscite.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

For me, the issue is not about a plebiscite. The issue is the ability of people to do their own business, to have the freedom to do their own business when they choose to do it. I've been consistent on that position for a long time.

[Mark Wartman]

David, we have a democratic structure here that is legally constituted. There is nothing wrong with having a legally constituted structure, and within that structure there are all kinds of freedoms. Farmers have choice. They can deliver feed wheat anywhere they want, feed barley anywhere they want. They can sell into markets. They can engage in a producer-direct context. They can do basis--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Let's have some order. Questions and answers, please.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mark, you know you're not being accurate, because these folks don't know how the Wheat Board operates. The Wheat Board offers contracts and they take the premium off the top on each of those contracts. The farmers pay a penalty because they have to deal with the Wheat Board.

Mr. Horner understands this, so I'll ask him to explain it from his perspective.

[Doug Horner]

One of the things that drove me nuts as a primary processor and a producer many years ago was the fact that I had to sell my barley to the Wheat Board and then buy it back to reprocess it. That in and of itself is a ridiculous system to have.

I have to respond to Minister Wartman's comments with regard to the democratic, or duly constituted, or voted-on Wheat Board. It was never voted on that Alberta be a part of the Canadian Wheat Board. This was shoved upon us in the early thirties to ensure cheap wheat for the war effort. So let's not paint a rosy picture about how the Canadian Wheat Board came about. The Canadian Wheat Board came about because of the war effort, and that is it in a nutshell, for cheap wheat. That's why it was established: to ship raw material, not to encourage value-adding in the province.

And the honourable Mr. Anderson is exactly right, the premiums can range, depending upon whose study you've looked at. The Saskatchewan government has done some numbers that now claim--and this is different from before, but $256 million to $375 million a year is quite a spread. I have no idea how those numbers were arrived at.

But things like the interest earned by the Canadian Wheat Board is accounted for inaccurately and goes against its administration charges, so when you talk about what it costs the producer, let's be honest about those costs. They haven't been, because they've been spending a lot of money selling themselves.

So when you talk about the $1 million that the Alberta government has spent over the last three years, I'm not even sure if that's an accurate number. I can tell you that the policy of the provincial government is to give our producers the fundamental right to choose and I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for the third party studies we have initiated. We've not done a lot of the stuff in-house because, quite frankly, as you gentlemen and ladies have seen, it's a very complicated issue. If the monopoly is providing that much premium, why is it not self-evident? Why is there even a question about it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Horner.

Mr. Atamanenko or Mr. Martin. Who is going to do the first round?

Mr. Atamanenko, please, seven minutes.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much for coming.

I'm going to try to be brief. I have two questions, and hopefully we can get through them with some quick answers.

We seem to be talking a lot about freedom--freedom of choice. We have this idea of freedom of choice. It's kind of a philosophical question that I think we have to get at.

There's evidence to say that collectively we in Canada have benefited in agriculture. This was brought home to me when I met with the president of UPA from Quebec last week. By the way, he is going to Manitoba to talk about the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board. Obviously there is a solidarity here. We see some link between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, otherwise those people probably wouldn't be travelling all this way to talk about it.

In Quebec, people have benefited. Their agriculture has been strengthened by the people working together collectively. This has happened with the Canadian Wheat Board and prairie grain farmers. Apparently New Zealand wants to get back to single desk for kiwi selling, because apparently dual marketing hasn't worked. Quebec people are telling us--and André has mentioned it--that they want to get back to some collective way of doing things.

So it's a philosophical question. Given the U.S. pressure in today's world, the WTO, and other countries wanting us to weaken our state trading enterprises, if we see this is a threat--and it is a possible threat--should a small minority of people who want this freedom have that choice to the detriment of the collective majority? I think this is what we're looking at. Sure, it's this kind of rugged individualism, but should we allow someone to say, to heck with the Wheat Board, I'll do what I want and it doesn't matter what happens to those other farmers who have this collective choice? It's a philosophical question, and I hope you understand.

I just want an answer before we move on. Mr. Horner, please

[Doug Horner]

I guess I would ask the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, if he believes that 67% is a small minority. If that was the collective voice in his constituency, would he believe he should do that or what the 33% are asking him to do?

In our province--and I can't speak to plebiscites or votes or surveys that may have been done in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, but I can speak to the 54% that the Canadian Wheat Board survey came out with--the large majority of our producers want to be able to say they are either part of that collective group or they are not. I think they have a fundamental right to be able to do that.

We jailed Canadian farmers for selling what they grew. The charges were on the wrong side, folks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Did they break the law?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay, let's move on.

Ms. Wowchuk.