Agriculture Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Why is that?

[Stephen Vandervalk]

We don't have a majority group taking rights away from a minority group. I feel that whether the vote is 70% in favour of dual marketing or 20% in favour of dual marketing, really at the end of the day it does not matter, because that 20% should still have the right to market their own grain. It's a fundamental freedom. We live in a free country. Ontario has that right; B.C. has that right.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

But sir, this is the very essence of a democracy. When a referendum is held on a particular issue, the government must bow to the wishes of the majority. Why are you calling these basic principles into question?

[Stephen Vandervalk]

Well, if that's the case, why do we have judges? If everybody just voted on something and the majority ruled, then how would society carry on? You can't have a majority group say that this group doesn't have the right to vote. If the majority of the people say that this group doesn't have the right to vote, it doesn't mean that group doesn't have the right to vote. That's the whole point of having a Constitution.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So then, you're telling me that a minority of producers want a dual marketing system. That's what I'm hearing. You want your option to win out, but you're in the minority. When Mr. Anderson refers to producers in general, that's not exactly an accurate statement. In fact, this option is favoured by a minority of farmers, in fact, by only 30 per cent, according to your estimates.

[Stephen Vandervalk]

I was just using it as an example. I feel that if the right question were posed to the farmers, there would be a majority vote. I'll let Blair continue, but I was just saying, for example, if only 20%....

It doesn't matter what the number is. It shouldn't affect a person's rights.

[Blair Rutter]

The latest Wheat Board surveys show that 49% of farmers favour the dual market; 47% supported a single desk. That's the Wheat Board's own survey of permit book holders. But setting that aside, on the issue of the number, whether--

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Rutter, but can you tell me where you obtained these figures? According to my sources, 76 per cent of producers support the Canadian Wheat Board and 88 per cent are in favour of holding a referendum. Therefore, we disagree on the numbers.

[Blair Rutter]

Thank you for the question.

Why we have different figures is because the survey asked the question in many different ways. So it all depends on how you ask the question what the result will be. In fact, that's probably the major--

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

That's the way it goes in politics as well.

[Blair Rutter]

--finding of the survey.

Regardless of the percentage, it's close to fifty-fifty. Half the farmers want marketing choice; half the farmers want to have the single desk.

But the question is, at what point is it the right of the state to impose its views on all farmers? To enforce the monopoly, you have to have state intervention. The monopoly can only be enforced by the state. So you don't have farmers deciding whether they want to market individually or market collectively; you have the state, the Government of Canada, in its wisdom, having decided that one group of farmers will impose its wishes on another group of farmers.

The Wheat Board monopoly was brought in without a vote back in 1943. It was during wartime. The government of the day felt that it was in the best interests of the country. I think we can all agree that during wartime certain individual freedoms can be set aside, but it's 60 years since the war ended, and we feel that farmers individually should decide whether they want to market individually or market collectively.

If farmers wish to market collectively, that should be their right, just as people invest in mutual funds, or they deal with credit unions or caisses populaires. People have choices of whether they want to operate in pooling arrangements or whether they want to invest or sell on their own. That's all we're asking for the farmers of western Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, madame.

Mr. Bezan, five minutes, please.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Oh, I'm sorry, did someone else have a redirect for that?

[John Heinbecker]

The question was posed to both of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay, John, do you have anything else to add?

[John Heinbecker]

I'll just need one minute.

The WGEA doesn't really want to comment on the surveys, the studies, or the price tests that have been done by the parties. I think it's pretty clear that numbers can be made to say anything they want, and it depends on who is doing the study. So we tend to stay away from them.

I think it's clear that the industry is polarized, but I don't think polarization should be an excuse for inactivity. I think it's very healthy to have these types of discussions. We're operating in an environment today that is much different from 50 or 100 years ago, and I think the legislation that is currently governing the way the Canadian grain business is operating needs to be revisited on an ongoing basis so that Canada can remain competitive, in whatever form, dual marketing or anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for coming in to testify today.

There is a lot of discussion going on around the Wheat Board, and services and that. I do have a concern about the Grain Commission. There have been some complaints brought in lately about services at the ports, about slowdowns in the movement of grain, lack of inspection during certain times of day. I want to get some comment and feedback, both from the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Grain Commission, on why that decision was made--I understand it was a unilateral decision--without taking in mind the business that exists at the port and the need to move product 24 hours a day.

[Christine Hamblin]

I can start with what happened.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we do have a very tight budget this year. It's about the same dollars as we functioned under last year. We have not cut services. We have indicated that we have the same dollars as we had last year and that we need to live within those dollars.

What we have said is that there may be times--Sunday evenings, for example, midnight to eight in the morning--because we can't have our staff working beyond 16 hours at a stretch. It's unreasonable for our staff to work that shift and be expected back in at work at eight the next morning. So what we have said to the industry is, if you can keep us informed as to when you expect vessels or rail cars to arrive, we will do everything in our power to accommodate your needs. However, if we get last-minute requests, it will be difficult, because if staff are already assigned, there are health and safety rules we must comply with. So what we have asked for is better communication, better dialogue, so that we can do everything we can to address the industry needs.

[John Heinbecker]

To further that point, the holding back of services is critical and it's a huge problem. But to go back to my earlier presentation, I think the legislation under which the Grain Commission is presently being governed is the problem, and if we were to revisit that legislation it might in turn free up the Canadian Grain Commission to behave differently or be able to act differently, and it would probably allow them to provide those services they're presently not able to do.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

You mentioned during the presentation, John, the COMPAS report that was written and how there's a disconnect between what the industry needs and what we're trying to do with the grain review. Why do you think COMPAS erred so major league, given the comments you made in your presentation?

[Wade Sobkowich]

If I may add to that, one of the things that COMPAS didn't speak to is the more fundamental question regarding governance and mandate. We all know that major change happens when you can take a good solid look at the mandate and the governance structure of an organization. This problem we're talking about, CGC level of service at the ports, is just symptomatic of deeper problems that aren't CGC's fault. It's just a problem that is symptomatic of the need for review.

To put this particular issue in terms that I can understand, basically what has happened is the Canadian Grain Commission has a statutory obligation to provide service and the grain companies have to use that service. They cannot by law go anywhere else to get inspection services. If the CGC cannot provide that service they are supposed to offer an exemption. In this case the CGC has decided--they have been forced to decide, or whatever--that they can neither offer the service when we want it, nor are they prepared to offer an exemption.

So they're requiring us to use something that they're not prepared to provide.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

My last question is for the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, surrounding some of the issues with CWB and value-added opportunities. We heard Mr. Venn earlier today talking about some of the impediments there, and I wanted to get some comments.

You already mentioned how there are also pricing issues here with winter wheat. As it currently stands today, I know farmers in my area--and I'm a farmer--are concerned about value-added opportunities, not being able to participate in those upflows of revenue that could come from more value-added activities happening on the prairies. Oats are a good example. Oats were freed up and we now have record acres in production and value-added processing across the prairies.

I would like some further comments from you on that, Stephen.

[Stephen Vandervalk]

I think the malt is a really good example, because if you have a maltster next to you, say 50 or 100 miles away, it might cost you $8 or $10 a tonne to haul it there. If you sell it to the Wheat Board you have to bring it to the elevator, pay elevation, pay the freight to Vancouver, pay it back, and it costs you $50 a tonne, where you could haul it directly there for eight bucks a tonne.

I know of maltsters paying more than the Wheat Board is selling it to them for, buying it from the United States for more money than they're paying to the Wheat Board because...sorry, for more than what the farmer gets in his pocket, but it's less than what they could buy it from the Wheat Board for because of all the freight deductions, elevation, cleaning and inspection, and the whole works.

So that's one clear example.

Look at what some of the crush plants for canola have done for the industry nearby, at what Bunge in Saskatchewan has done for canola prices in that area. You can see what just one plant can mean to farmers of the entire surrounding area. They truck it in from all over the place. There is example after example of value adding, and some of these companies will not deal with the Wheat Board and they will not come in. What are we to do? We have no choice.