The point I was trying to make is that we have an institution that was designed, built, and structured so that it would be an exporter of raw materials to the world. The vision of agriculture that we have in Alberta is that we do not want to export raw materials to the world. We want to export value-added products and have our producers have ownership in that value chain.
Put simply, we're not capturing the full potential from the value chain in the province. Rather, we are exporting that value, the product of a traditional and outdated commodity orientation. These examples and trends point to a Canadian Wheat Board system that is unable to meet the requirements for the future that I've outlined.
I know the inevitable comments are going to come. What about the farmers? What about the benefits of the current system to Canadian farmers? These will be lost and farmers will not be able to function in and open market situation. They will be victimized by the large multinationals, the U.S. bogeymen.
I have looked at some of the many and varied numbers put forward. From what I know, they range from hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits per year to a net economic loss of almost $400 million. Given the range that I see, and given the assumptions that must be incorporated in doing the analysis in the Canadian context, the only conclusion I can draw is that the numbers are inconclusive. Again, I state that if it's a monopoly and the evidence is not plainly visible, then something's wrong.
Probably the high variability is due to the underlying assumptions that have always been involved. No economist is going to be able to resolve this issue. One thing that puzzles me, though, is how a system that supposedly produces such huge benefits is generating declining production and revenues for farmers.
Along this line, I'm compelled to mention other crops and products outside the Canadian Wheat Board statutory system. Canola has experienced huge success, and although I hate to say it, it is attracting huge investment in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We're hoping to change that.
While we debate the Canadian Wheat Board issue, open market crops are moving forward at a rapid pace. Cattle, hogs, and other products all operate successfully in the global markets.
Our farmers are not stupid. They know how to be entrepreneurs and they know how to market their grain. They don't need to be told how to. If they choose to form a cooperative that only they sell to, we have no problem with that. In fact, we are encouraging it. But a state-wide monopoly that does not allow the choice for someone not to do it is un-Canadian.
How will the farmers function under a choice environment? The answer: as they do already in canola, in oats, in cattle, in hogs. I have full confidence in the ability of our farmers to adjust to that. Certainly there's going to be some transition time needed to get price discovery and other mechanisms in place, to enable some to make adjustments, but we can do it. The biggest adjustment required will by the CWB, because the CWB has said it will not be the same entity in a choice environment. I believe it will be better. I believe that we'll have to compete for farmers' grain, and I want grain companies to compete for farmers' grain, because that's better service to the farmers.
How the CWB chooses to organize and structure itself can be up to the board and all of us at this table. At the very least, in my view of marketing choice, the Canadian Wheat Board must provide the opportunity to be a successful player.
I understand that the mandate given to the task force is to address some of those transition-type issues. We believe in Alberta that the Canadian Wheat Board can adjust. Alberta has conducted a number of studies that outline options for transition and provide examples of successful transition. I would encourage you to read the entire studies, not just one page and one line taken out of context.
Before I conclude, I would also like to take this opportunity to raise the issues around grain transportation. Shippers in the western provinces are very concerned about the level of service being provided by the railways and shippers' ability to hold the railways accountable for service levels. These problems are particularly severe for CN shippers.
I understand that Minister Cannon will be introducing, on a priority basis, a bill to deal with rate provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. To resolve shippers' concerns, the railways must be given a sufficient incentive in the legislation to participate in an effective commercial dispute resolution process that includes service disputes.
Accountability for service levels is very one-sided in favour of the railways. Besides legislative changes, there is a need for a special review of the level-of-service provisions in the act to identify redress measures that are easier to access, inexpensive, timely, and effective in correcting service problems. I ask that the members of this committee use their considerable influence to support these measures.
I wanted to touch briefly on some other issues around the Canadian Wheat Board and who is going to stand up for the farmers. I can tell you who will stand up for the farmers in Alberta, and that's the Government of Alberta. I can tell you who speaks for the farmers in Alberta when it comes to transportation issues and issues of trade, and that's Government of Alberta, because that's who it should be.
I have listened to our producers in Alberta. On a consistent basis they are telling me they want to expand their value chains and their value-added. They can't do that right now.
On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, as I close, I'll give you an example. My family started an oat and barley processing facility in 1987. We would have located that oat facility in Montana had oats not been removed from the board, for all of the reasons I have listed above. Oat processing in western Canada has grown, and we are now a very large shipper into many marketplaces because we grow the best oats in the world, and farmers have reaped the benefit of that.
Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chairman.