Certainly, but I think it's important to note that the law in Alberta applies to all Albertans, while the Canadian Wheat Board only applies to a certain portion of a designated area.
Thank you for including me in the proceedings today. As you probably know, marketing choice and the issues in the grain-handling and transportation system are very important to the Alberta government, and I believe they're critical to the future growth and prosperity of the agrifood economy. Needless to say, I am pleased that the current federal government has chosen to pursue marketing choice, but I am especially pleased with its demonstrated leadership thus far in following through on its commitments.
The federal government's actions clearly support the fundamental principle that individuals should not have different rights and freedoms based on where they live in Canada, and that these same individuals should be free to sell their products—the products they grew on their farm—to whoever they wish. I also believe strongly that the federal government's position reflects the business and economic case for change. It's focused on the future needs of the industry, not on the institutional structures of the past.
Alberta has a vision for our agrifood sector, one that has the support of those making a living in that sector. I'm confident this vision is aligned with that of my provincial counterparts around this table, and this vision is of an agrifood sector that's growing, profitable, sustainable, and enabling.
Participants in the agrifood value chain simply want the ability to prosper based on their management and entrepreneurial abilities. They want to do this free from the many undue regulatory, institutional, and other impediments that tend to plague agriculture in particular. We have conducted surveys in Alberta. They show a significant majority wants choice for wheat, and a larger majority prefers a fully open market for barley. I find it interesting that my colleagues from both Manitoba and Saskatchewan are pounding the table, figuratively speaking, that they would like to see a plebiscite, that they would like to see a vote in their provinces.
I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Chairman, because we did so in 1995, and none of our counterparts around the country rallied to our support when it was discovered that 67% of our producers wanted to have the choice as to whether or not they were in the Wheat Board. We've conducted other surveys more recently in Alberta and the support has not gone down. The Canadian Wheat Board surveys show that 54% want no single desk for wheat, 65% want no single desk for barley, and 60% say competition would bring them better prices.
I find it interesting that my colleagues would say that the Canadian Wheat Board cannot compete. If the only thing the Canadian Wheat Board has to offer is a monopoly, then I suggest to you the management needs to be changed, because they are consistently telling us how good they are. They are consistently telling us how many producers are signing up for this or that program.
If that's the case, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, then the Canadian Wheat Board need not worry about farmers running away from them because their monopoly is gone. In fact they could end up with a rather large cooperative movement that only sells to them and still has a strength in the marketplace, as well as all of the branding that was discussed.
Even though surveys indicate a strong understanding among farmers that change is needed, surveys don't reflect the full story. They portray a static picture, one anchored to the present and subject to the limits of survey methodologies. My focus, the focus of my constituents, and now the focus of the federal government is on the future needs of the sector. Indeed, the focus must be on the future if we expect to grow and to meet rising competition from existing exporting countries, as well as the new emerging ones that weren't around when the Canadian Wheat Board was formed.
At the same time, Canada is developing new uses for wheat and barley, such as for the biofuel sector, as well as sustaining and growing the livestock feeding industries. The shift from commodity-based wheat and barley markets to more value-based usage is changing the way western Canada needs to approach grain marketing. The status quo is not tenable. It means inevitable, or shall I say accelerated, decline in our sector, and this applies to the farm sector particularly.
The evidence is that Canada's share of wheat and barley markets has been declining, while other products have held their own or increased. Wheat and barley production has been declining. Productivity gains in wheat and barley in Canada lag behind other regions and other crops. The share of farm revenue accruing from Canadian Wheat Board grains is declining. If the net benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board system were as high as some claim and, I suggest to the committee members, if you have a monopoly in a marketplace that's supposedly controlled, the benefits should be self-evident and large, not argued amongst academics. I have academics who tell me that the $10 and $13 are actually negative, not positive.
What are the characteristics that would define the requirements for the future? These are difficult to describe in full in the short period of time allotted, but perhaps I can list a few words that convey the direction in which we need to be headed. They include responsive, nimble, quick, innovative, productive, cost-effective, consumer-connected, diversified, structured for competitiveness, global, and encouraging investments and new ideas.
Frankly, the current system for wheat and barley in western Canada is not accommodating these requirements, in some cases not at all. The evidence confirms this as well. This is not just because of the CWB, although it is a factor. It has to do with the entire system, from marketing through to grain standard setting and control. Of particular concern in Alberta are impacts on the value chain and the constraints on value-added.
For example, we have a surplus of malt barley at the same time as malt plants are establishing just south of the U.S. border. I personally have sat with the chairman of a very large malting company out of a South American country, and when I asked him why he located his plant just south of us in the United States, he stated unequivocally that he did not want to have a single supplier in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Durum processing capacity is increasing in North America, but not here. Investors are wary of the lack of surety posed by dealing with a single desk. They're also concerned about managing their supply chains in a monopoly situation.
I can tell you, members of the committee, as a value-added—