Agriculture Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Horner.

We'll move on to Mr. Bellavance.

Let's keep our questions tight and our answers without the editorialization, and we'll get more questions in.

Mr. Bellavance, for seven minutes, please.

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

Good day, Madam, ministers. I'm truly delighted to meet with you today, especially as you are in the best position to speak to us about the Canadian Wheat Board.

I'm from Quebec, Mr. Horner. You made a rather impassioned presentation, in my opinion, but regardless of whether one comes from Prince Edward Island or Quebec, that's no reason for farmers and producers not to stand united. I was talking yesterday with officials from the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles who were on hand to testify about the Canadian Wheat Board and that's precisely what I was told, namely that farmers stand united.

We were democratically elected to serve and we can legitimately review all matters submitted to the committee for its consideration. If we failed to do so, we would, quite naturally, be accused of not doing our job. Hence our interest in these matters.

Earlier, Mr. Horner, you said that you were a proponent of freedom of choice. We often hear the federal Conservatives say the same kind of thing. I admit that I also support freedom of choice, but to the extent, however, that farmers should be free to choose how they want to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board and what marketing tools they wish to use.

You're telling us that the Alberta government knows what's best for farmers in that province. We often hear the expression: Ottawa knows best. Your provincial government is sending out the same message to your farmers back home.

Why would you object to a referendum on the relevance of the Canadian Wheat Board, as suggested by the majority of members on this committee? No doubt you're aware of this motion tabled by Mr. Easter. I think it's important for your farmers back home to know exactly where you stand on this issue. Why not hold a referendum?

[Doug Horner]

In fact, we did hold a referendum in 1995, and we've also continued to tap into the surveys of producers across the province. For the information of the committee, the referendum in 1995 was a 67% vote for choice. Indeed, the support for choice amongst barley growers in Alberta, even as late as this year, is well above 60%. The support for choice in wheat is well above 55%.

You ask me if we would have a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board. It's the same question as Mr. Easter asked. If you're going to give me a question that says, either you want the Canadian Wheat Board or you don't want the Canadian Wheat Board, that's not our position. Our position is, do you want to have the choice to belong to the Canadian Wheat Board or to do your own marketing? That's a fundamental right.

Our position has always been that the Canadian Wheat Board has told us time and time again how good it is. They have told us about the branding they do, the marketing expertise they have, and the information expertise they have. They've told us that all of these things make them a very good organization. As was mentioned by one of my colleagues, all of the new offerings they've made have thousands of farmers signing up. If that's true, why are they afraid of choice? Why are they afraid of being a competitive player in the marketplace?

You talked about a plebiscite. Quebec has a lot of sovereignty in terms of some of the decisions they make in regard to marketing boards and other things. That's fine. But this vote should be in Alberta, and this vote should be by Alberta producers on a question of choice, and it should be based on how much skin they have in the game.

I think it's interesting. The shareholders in the Canadian Wheat Board are producers, so let's not try to scare everyone by saying that the business is bad and farmers aren't business people. Farming is a business. It's a way of life, but it's also a business. In most cases, it's a family-owned business; 97% of the farms in Alberta are family-owned. I am not representing big business; I'm representing that 97%. I'm representing those farmers who have told me they wouldn't mind building a flour mill and exporting that flour to Central America. They can't do it competitively right now because of the purchasing rules and regulations the Canadian Wheat Board has on domestic pricing. I know. I used to be in that business.

You asked me what I'm afraid of. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid they can't compete?

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

Ms. Wowchuk, I read in the newspapers today that you were prepared to hold a referendum in Manitoba. Mr. Wartman and you also made some very interesting comments about supply management.

Personally, I've probably been the target of more attacks than my colleagues from other parties, because I've expressed the concerns voiced in Quebec about the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a collective marketing tool, much like supply management. I didn't draw comparisons and claim that both mechanisms were identical. Rather, I stated that there are two collective marketing tools in Canada, namely the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management, both of which have been under attack for some time now at the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and in particular from the United States and the European Union.

My question is this: if the Canadian government strips the Canadian Wheat Board of its powers, what will it do next?

However, I am happy to see that we share the same view, because I'm hearing from the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food that the Bloc's allegations about supply management are false and ridiculous. Even the parliamentary secretary got involved, and he doesn't tend to issue many press releases. He even claimed that it was irresponsible to lump together such different issues as supply management and the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. He went on to add that associating the two was blatant demagoguery.

I'm rather indifferent to these attacks, because I claim to defend the interest of Quebec producers. I've listened to them and I'm reporting what they had to say. I'm happy to see that you have the same concerns in Western Canada. In fact, you are in a better position that I am to know this file.

[Rosann Wowchuk]

You are right, we have announced that we really want the federal government to hold a plebiscite, because we think they have that responsibility under the act and it should be held. But we have said that if the federal government will not do it, then we will give a voice to Manitoba producers and we will look at how we can have a plebiscite to give producers a voice.

You raised the issue of supply management and orderly marketing. People can say they aren't tied, but in reality they are. Both supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board involve compulsory marketing of their commodities through an orderly marketing system, and they work for the benefit of their producers.

I really believe that a philosophy that attacks the Canadian Wheat Board also attacks all orderly marketing systems, such as supply management. This is a time when we've just come through failed WTO talks. When we were there, when Canada was there, we were defending supply management and defending the Canadian Wheat Board. Those talks failed, and if the first step that the federal government takes is to attack the Wheat Board, it sends a very dangerous signal to our competitors around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Horner, did you have a comment on that?

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

I would have liked to hear from Mr. Wartman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

We'll hear Mr. Wartman first. They're your seven minutes.

[Mark Wartman]

Thank you.

You have heard me say several times that we believe a plebiscite should be held, that it is the democratic and right thing to do. But any plebiscite or any survey question that is asked needs to be clear, honest, and honourable. That means it has to respect the best evidence that we have. The best evidence that we have tells us very clearly that a Canadian Wheat Board will not survive, it will just become another grain company if it does not have the single desk.

It took years to put this together. If the single desk is lost, it will never be replaced. It cannot be replaced. You can't go partway. So the question, to be honest and honourable, really does need to ask, are you in favour of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board or not? That is clearly the evidential choice that farmers should be able to make. Any kind of twisting and turning and manipulating of information that does not allow them a straight, clear, honest, and honourable question is anti-democratic.

I am convinced that you must come at it from a philosophical position. I can tell you from conversations with many of the people who are farming and do not like the Canadian Wheat Board that they'll say they don't care about the economics of it; it's the philosophy.

In a democracy, we have a right to organize ourselves in a variety of different ways. With a lot of work historically, farmers chose to be organized in this way and got the support of their government to be organized in this way. This is a democratic structure, it is not anti-democratic. People do have a right to be involved in this board.

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

The government claims that the Canadian Wheat Board will nevertheless continue to exist. If that's true, do you believe the two systems, namely voluntary marketing and collective marketing, can co-exist and be viable?

Quebec has had some experience with voluntary marketing systems. However, attempts at having both systems co-exist have always failed. The last attempt was during the 1990s. As I mentioned earlier, we heard some rather eloquent testimony yesterday on this subject. A study was carried out on different products such as potatoes and apples and the findings showed that two separate marketing systems cannot co-exist.

Based on your experience, do you think this scheme can work, as the government claims it can?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I'll ask you to respond to that in a short way. We're way over time, gentlemen and ladies. We want to get through the questioning. Thanks.

Mr. Wartman.

[Mark Wartman]

Very briefly, no. With all the evidence we have seen, the best analyses of our economists tell us very clearly that they could not coexist. You either will have a Canadian Wheat Board or you will have another grain company. And I don't care what you call it. You can call it the Canadian Wheat Board, but it's just another grain company. And without assets and without a port facility, which it would not have, it would not be competitive. The key marketers who are there would be in high demand by the grain companies. They would be quickly taken over. They couldn't operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Ms. Wowchuk, do you have anything else to add?

[Rosann Wowchuk]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Horner.

[Doug Horner]

There's a lot of discussion here about our best information and all those sorts of things. Just as I was accused of coming up with various pieces of information, there's no proof in any of the numbers that are being espoused that the Wheat Board would be in demise if they lost their monopoly.

Again, I go back to the fact that if you have producers who want to choose to form that collective—and the potato growers are a good example in Alberta—it does happen and it does work in tandem. If you have producers who want to have that clout and be a part of that collective, I am not opposed to that at all. I think they should have that opportunity. But they should also have the opportunity to say no, to be able to say that they want to do their own marketing for their products on their farms. Currently they do not have that option. They do not have the ability to do the entrepreneurial things that developed our grain industry.

What are we doing when we talk about protecting the Canadian Wheat Board? Or are we trying to protect the future of our industry? I would suggest to you that we do not need to protect the Canadian Wheat Board as an entity, we need to grow the future of our industry, because that will give sustainability to those farmers. That's really where we need to go: sustainability, so that they have income and gain their income from the marketplace, just as Minister Wowchuk said and just as canola growers do it today.

The other thing was supply management, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

You are talking about supply management within a closed market system. You're talking about a control of the supply, which is not the case with the Wheat Board. You're talking about provincial legislation and provincial jurisdiction in many cases, and that does not happen with this Wheat Board. It's important to note that there are severe differences between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, and to tie the two is only to try to scare producers for no good reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller, on a point of order.

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

It's a point of order on procedure, Mr. Chairman.

This is a very hot topic. I understand that. We're here to discuss and ask questions of our witnesses. But it's to be a discussion, not a debate. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it has devolved into that.

We have a timeline set, and to go over a little bit is acceptable. But I would respectfully say to our guests that we heard their stance on the Wheat Board in their forward comments. They're quite clear. We know. If we could keep our questions as brief as possible, that's up to us as committee members, but if I could, I would ask our guest to please keep as much rhetoric out of it as possible and to answer the questions as directly as possible, because, Mr. Chairman, most of us here aren't going to get a chance to ask our questions otherwise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Wartman.

[Mark Wartman]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the timing, could I ask if you would help us? Could you give us a flag when you'd like us to wrap up quickly? I would find that helpful, because I don't want to take up the time of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

That's fine. I'm trying to give everybody as much opportunity as they can to explain their point. Maybe I've been a little too lenient, and I'll take the hit for that.

Mr. Thibault, on that point. Please be very short and succinct, or I'll wave.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, on the same point, I agree with Larry. Further, I think the three panellists have made their positions clear. As questioners, we can ask the questions to whichever witness we wish, not necessarily to the three and have to be answered by the three, because sometimes a questioner might want to come with a second question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay, point out who you want the question directed to. I won't allow anybody else to comment on it. Is that your point? All right.

Mr. Anderson.

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

Ms. Wowchuk, do you recognize Alberta's plebiscite as being valid?

[Rosann Wowchuk]

Alberta had a plebiscite. What I'm looking for is a national plebiscite for producers across the country.