Debates of Nov. 19th, 2001

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change the “Object” of the Act from “marketing in an orderly manner” to “marketing to maximize the return for producers” and to provide an opting-out mechanism that would allow producers to remove themselves and the grain they produce from the Board's jurisdiction for a minimum period of two years.

Mr. Speaker, several years ago a young farmer had the misfortune of growing some grain which became infested with a disease called fusarium. The grain was not really suitable for human consumption and he was in danger of losing his farm. He tried selling his grain through the state marketing agency, which he was required by law to do. However it did not want his grain so he found an alternative market in the U.S. For this criminal act, he was placed in prison for months, strip searched and put in leg irons and chains. His family and neighbours were devastated. Because the courts in the country he lived in did not recognize property rights, he was destroyed.

In what country did this travesty of justice occur? It was Canada and it was recent. It was the Liberals who kept him in jail. In fact most government MPs paid no attention to the matter. Their attitude was that he did the crime, he should do the time.

I tell this terrible story because it makes the point that needs to be made today. The reason this debate over the Canadian Wheat Board exists is because we do not have property rights enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms. Pierre Trudeau refused to enshrine those rights, which was a travesty of justice.

Our courts do not fully recognize our bill of rights, nor do they recognize 800 years of common law tradition. Property rights should be a fundamental right that all Canadians enjoy. However the farmer growing good quality wheat and barley in three provinces in Canada does not own that grain until he or she buys it back from a straight trading agency, the Canadian Wheat Board.

We do not have this blatant override of property rights anywhere that I know of in Canada. Oil and gas companies can market their own product. Banks are regulated but do not have to pool their earnings. Lawyers do not have to sell their services through a central marketing agency.

I just want to pause here. Let us imagine that we had a lawyer board, a board that applied to Ontario and Quebec only. All lawyers would have to go through a central agency. They could not market their services nor deal directly with their clients. They would have to pool all their earnings no matter what their costs were. They would have to wait for their payments. They would not know what their clients were paying for their services. They would have to pay a huge bureaucracy to market their services. If we had this for lawyers in Canada, there would be a public outcry across the country, at least on the part of lawyers.

Here we have an agency dealing with farmers in only three provinces that make them go through this board. In fact, farmers cannot even make spaghetti and macaroni out of their own wheat for export without first selling it to the board and buying it back at a higher price. Organic wheat growers have to sell their wheat to the board first and the wheat board does not even sell it for them. Many have lost lucrative markets because of this.

All this information forms the background for my motion today. If the government insists that farmers go through the CWB, why not make the mandate of the board to maximize return for farmers, the people it is supposed to serve, rather than the present mandate which is to market the grain in an orderly manner, which can mean almost anything?

The second part of my motion asks that a farmer's property rights be recognized and that if he wishes to opt out he can do so. I would add that if these changes are not made, the Canadian Wheat Board will eventually be destroyed with the discovery that the convoluted borrowing process involved in the board's credit system that adds taxpayer dollars to the price of grain, court challenges internationally could under our free trade agreements force the Canadian Wheat Board to be more accountable and transparent in its operations.

In 1935 the Government of Canada created the Canadian Wheat Board as a voluntary marketing agency for grains. Since then, the Canadian Wheat Board has become a monopoly institution, cloaked in secrecy, leaving farmers wondering whether the board acts in their interests or in the interests of bureaucrats.

Times have changed. Farmers are able to seek out new markets on their own and fulfill niches that have been overlooked. The innovation of producers has forged ahead, thanks to marketing tools like the Internet and producer marketing clubs. Farmers are business people. When they see an opportunity to maximize the return on their product, they capitalize on it.

However these producers have been hindered, at times even stonewalled, by a bureaucracy that is the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat board has in essence stifled and choked the western Canadian grain industry by not helping the farmer but hindering him or her. Farmers have been frustrated with the wheat board. They know they grow the best wheat and grains in the world and yet have never been able to get top dollar.

The continuing financial crisis in western Canadian agriculture cannot be solely attributed to European and American subsidies as the government would like us to believe. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in an interview with the National Post published on May 22 of this year, said that farmers should stop growing grain. He stated that farmers have to produce to consumer trends around the world. Western Canadian grain farmers have been trying for years to produce according to consumer trends through value added processing. The milling of flour and the production of pasta are areas in which consumer demands can be met. However the Canadian Wheat Board has smothered any attempts by producers to create a market for their own wheat.

The minister has said that he supports value added efforts like ethanol production. However, the Canadian Wheat Board, which is the minister's responsibility, has scuttled attempts by prairie pasta producers to build a pasta plant in rural Saskatchewan and other similar ventures. The Canadian Wheat Board's marketing monopoly has become a headache for many farmers who wish to process their own grain where it is grown.

In the eyes of many farmers, the CWB has become an agency that has made the prairie farmers serfs upon their own land. The motion I am putting forward today has two very distinct parts that I believe will help prairie farmers gain an advantage over American and European producers. Part one of my motion calls for a change in the objective of the Canadian Wheat Board. Currently the CWB Act states that the board should market in an orderly manner. I would like to see that changed to marketing to maximize the return to producers. If there is any reason for the wheat board to exist it should be only to maximize the return to producers.

The second part of my motion states that an opting out mechanism should be provided to “allow producers to remove themselves and the grain that they produce from the board's jurisdiction for a minimum of two years”.

In essence, my motion would give prairie grain producers what they have wanted for years: a clear choice in marketing their grain.

My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance believe in a self-reliant and economically viable agriculture sector in our country. We believe in giving farmers the freedom to make their own marketing and transportation decisions and to direct, structure and participate voluntarily in producer organizations. This would be the best way for our nation's farmers to become economically viable. The current structure we have does not guarantee working for the benefit of farmers. It seems to be shrouded in secrecy and is more accountable to its political masters than to farmers.

Organic farmers are being hurt financially by the Canadian Wheat Board. Currently the CWB offers the organic producer what it calls direct sale or the buy back. For those members in the House who are not familiar with the buy back scheme, I will explain it to them briefly.

Organic producers who are certified and have a Canadian Wheat Board permit bookholder can ask for a personal identification number application. After the producers receive this pin number they must contact the CWB when they are ready to make a sale. They must also know the approximate net payment owed to the Canadian Wheat Board for doing the buy back. The grain must be tested by the Canadian Grains Commission for quality then the producer must contact the Canadian Wheat Board and notify it that they are ready to ship. The remittance portion of the statement must be returned to the Canadian Wheat Board along with payment to the CWB. An export licence will then be faxed to them and the official weight will be given to the CWB. All this is done at the producer's cost, $2 a tonne. In other words, the producers must pay the CWB for the right to market their own grain. We must remember that the Canadian Wheat Board is not in the business of marketing organic grain and does not even sell it, yet the producer must jump through these hoops and hurdles. The Canadian Wheat Board has never been responsible for organic grains.

Many prairie organic farmers have had problems dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to give a couple of other examples of how the Canadian Wheat Board has hurt prairie organic farmers. There are many of them.

Eric Leicht is an organic producer from Watson, Saskatchewan. He states that the situation he faces seems to only get worse. Through the CWB buy back scheme he is loosing an average of 60 cents per bushel.

He was also paying the difference between the asking price he was receiving and the initial price of the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Leicht then said that farmers had to hope and pray they would get most of that money back in the interim and final payments that the wheat board sent to them. Mr. Leicht said that the CWB policy was like a tariff being assessed inside our own country and that it was a hassle to get an export permit. Farmers had to give their own money to the CWB and in the end they lost.

I hope the people opposite who have been objecting to this will come to the help and aid of farmers and help them abandon a practice that is not fair. Could any businessman survive under these kind of conditions?

Another organic producer is Ron Tetoff from Kamsack, Saskatchewan who I know has had problems with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Tetoff is new to the organic industry. He was the person who stumbled upon this problem with the buyback. He was forced by the Canadian Wheat Board to cancel a large sale to Europe. Through some negotiation he was to receive a price of $9.26 per bushel. It was a done deal. By the way, non-organic wheat sells for less than half just to give an idea of the price differential.

In stepped the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. Tetoff lost his sale. At the time I spoke with him he was still waiting for a $5,000 final payment from the Canadian Wheat Board and wondering if he would ever see it.

Mr. Tetoff asked was this not a free and democratic country? Why could he not have a choice as to how he marketed his own grain? Why should he be penalized for being a producer in western Canada?

Many farmers feel the same way. They feel that if the Canadian Wheat Board has placed an iron curtain around them, they, as a landowner, should at least have the freedom to sell the product they produce without any barriers.

This past July I conducted a survey in my riding. I asked farmers two questions about the Canadian Wheat Board. The first question was did farmers think the Canadian Wheat Board aided or hindered the growth of industrial development diversification in Saskatchewan. Guess what farmers and business people told me. Of respondents, 79.9% said the Canadian Wheat Board was a hindrance to the industrial development of Saskatchewan and that included farmers.

The second question I asked was which mandate would farmers prefer: one that focused on orderly marketing or one that focused on maximizing the return to producers. Guess what the reply was there. Virtually 85% said they would like to see the mandate of the board focus on getting the maximum return to producers.

I am asking Liberals to support the farmers in my riding. I am speaking up on their behalf. If this motion passes it will give prairie farmers a clear choice. If farmers believe they can sustain their grain operations outside of the Canadian Wheat Board, then we should allow for it. By setting a minimum of two years for a producer to be outside the monopoly of the board, it would eliminate ambiguity between who is inside the board and who is outside the board.

This is supposed to be a democratic institution. At this point in time, after listening to what I have said about the support I have for this motion, I would like to ask the House of Parliament, which is supposed to be democratic, whether they it will consent to making this motion a votable item?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there consent to make the item votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe I heard right. Has that been denied?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Yes, it has been denied.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this chance to speak to Motion M-331. This motion calls for amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change the object of the act from marketing in an orderly manner to marketing to maximize the return for producers. The motion also provides for an opting out mechanism for producers.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

I would appreciate it if I could finish my speech.

The hon. member will recall that all aspects of this same issue were debated only three years ago, during the debate on Bill C-4, and that parliament rejected it at that time. In fact, it was the hon. member from the party opposite who proposed a similar motion in 1997.

I will reiterate once again why the Government of Canada and the majority of the members of the House do not support these amendments.

First, the objective of the Canadian Wheat Board Act was purposely left unchanged three years ago to allow the board of directors to carry out its duties. When changes were made to the CWB act we modernized its corporate governance to make it more democratic and to give producers more direct control. We strengthened the CWB's accountability to farmers and provided it with greater operational flexibility to respond to changing producer needs in a rapidly changing marketplace.

Central to all of this was the creation of a brand new board of directors to direct the operation and determine the strategic direction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The existing objective of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to market in an orderly manner provides the board of directors with sufficient scope to perform this role.

Members will recall that the Canadian Wheat Board was previously governed by a small group of appointed commissioners. As a result of reforms to the CWB act in 1998, the Canadian Wheat Board now operates under a 15 member board of directors, 10 of whom, that is a two-thirds majority, are directly elected by CWB permit holders. These directors are accountable to producers. If they do not act in the best interests of producers, producers can vote them out.

Second, the board of directors has determined the CWB's mission is to market quality product and service to maximize returns to western Canadian grain producers. In other words, grain producers, through their elected directors, have already determined that the CWB is to maximize returns to producers. They have gone further in specifying that the CWB's mission is also to market quality product and service. This is precisely what parliament had in mind when it amended the CWB act. Producers, not politicians, are determining the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing role.

As for providing an opting out mechanism that will allow producers to remove themselves and the grain they produce from the board's jurisdiction for a minimum period of two years, the government cannot support the amendment because farmers do not want it. In fact, a solid majority of farmers have clearly said they want to retain the strengths of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers also made it clear they wanted more flexibility.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

False.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if he would let me do my speech. I had the courtesy to listen to his. That is the new way the Canadian Alliance are supposed to conduct themselves in parliament.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You are always ignoring the rest of Canada.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Farmers also made it clear they wanted more flexibility from the Canadian Wheat Board in the market options it offers to producers. A balance was struck in the amendments made to the CWB act in 1998 that retained the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk seller status, while allowing the Canadian Wheat Board additional flexibility in how it markets the grain of producers.

The board of directors consults widely with producers to determine their views on some of the various pricing options now allowed. The board of directors has approved the Canadian Wheat Board offering farmers cash trading and early pool cash outs, whereby a producer can take full settlement earlier.

These payment options provide farmers with greater marketing and cash management flexibility. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board recently announced enhancements to its producer payment options program for the 2001-02 crop year which provinces a wide range of new pricing options to help farmers meet their individual business needs.

As well, changes made by the government in the way western grains and oilseeds are moved from prairie farms to port are having a positive impact.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

You should talk to producers.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

We represent the majority of seats out there.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now I understand why the Alliance Party has a popularity level lower than interest rates. If the constituents of members of the Alliance hear the way they are talking today, I understand why the party is at 6% in the polls.

The changes, which came into effect at the beginning of the current crop year following indepth consultations, essentially shifts the system from being an administered one to one that is more commercial, in the sense that it will be governed by contracts between the main industry players.

In fact, amendments to the Canadian Transportation Act as outlined in Bill C-34, and changes to how the Canadian Wheat Board will operate under the new system, will create an operational context that will provide increased accountability and be more transparent, efficient and competitive.

Also, as a result of these amendments, the rail companies have a statutory obligation to reduce revenues from regulated grain transportation by 18% from what they would have been had we not acted. In addition, recognizing the impact on rural roads from these changes, the Government of Canada is providing a further $175 million in new money over the next five years to the western provinces for road infrastructure.

Let me sum up by pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board sells western Canadian wheat and barley to more than 70 countries worldwide. As Canada's fourth largest exporting company in terms of dollar value of export sales, it had gross sales revenue in 1999-2000 of $4.5 billion. It is Canada's largest net earner of foreign exchange and is the largest single exporter of wheat and barley in the world.

All of this explains why a great majority of western Canadian producers support the Canadian Wheat Board as the sole exporter of their wheat and barley.

I believe that the House has spent enough time debating this issue, which was already debated in detail and rejected only three years ago.

The bottom line is that western Canadian grain producers were given the power to run the Canadian Wheat Board themselves. If the producer-elected board of directors is dissatisfied with any of the wheat board's operations, it has the power to change them.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a few remarks about the private member's motion presented by the member for Yorkton--Melville. The New Democratic Party has always been a supporter of orderly marketing so it will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that we would be opposed to the motion before us today regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.

The board has been operating for more than 60 years, as the member for Yorkton--Melville pointed out. Currently it is the marketing agency for wheat and certain barley.

The mover of the motion mentioned that the board exists only in three provinces. He is factually incorrect. The wheat board operates in parts of the province of British Columbia together with the three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The hon. member said the way the board is structured it would not be allowed in any other jurisdiction. He mentioned the legal community. While I would not associate myself with all the remarks of the parliamentary secretary who just spoke, there have been votes in the last few years on the board of directors of which the results are pretty clear. The individuals being elected to the Canadian Wheat Board are supporters of the board. They do not favour a provision for dual marketing or a voluntary board.

We heard a lot of these arguments in 1997 and 1998 when Bill C-4 was before the House. The bill led to the election of 10 of the 15 members of the board of directors. We heard about maximizing returns for producers.

I will take a moment to share with the House a conversation I had several years ago with a person in Chile who was an adviser to the minister of agriculture in that country. I asked him about his views on the Canadian Wheat Board. At the time I was a newly elected member of parliament and Bill C-4 was before the House and the standing committee.

He made two comments I thought were interesting. First, he said he disagreed fundamentally that people who defied the board should end up in jail. We heard the member for Yorkton--Melville talk about that today.

Second, he said that in his travels as an adviser to the minister in and around Santiago he would meet with millers in Chile and ask them why they continued to buy their product from the Canadian Wheat Board when they could buy it more cheaply from Archer Daniels Midland Co., Cargill Inc., Louis Dreyfus Canada or some of the other big grain companies of the world.

The comment he heard most frequently from the millers was that it was reliable to buy through the Canadian Wheat Board. They said they could sleep well at night knowing the product they were getting would be as advertised in terms of protein, nutrition and other things that are important to millers for the different kinds of flour, bread, pastries and other items they produce.

The millers were prepared to pay a premium to buy Canadian grain because it was reliable. They said Canada was known for being a good marketer and delivering what it said it would deliver.

There are plenty of these kinds of examples around. Virtually every analysis that has been done shows that while the wheat board has not always achieved the best returns it has been ahead of the market most of the time in terms of maximizing returns to producers. As an aside I would draw attention to the KPMG study that was done several years ago which we debated when Bill C-4 was before the House.

The second part of the motion says there should be an opting out mechanism that would allow producers to remove themselves and the grain they produce from the board's jurisdiction for a period of two years. We in the NDP think that would weaken the ability of Canadian farmers to compete in the international market.

The wheat board has introduced mechanisms for farmers to manage risks and undertake pricing options beyond the well established pool accounts. Fixed price and basis contracts off the Minneapolis grain exchange provide flexibility to farmers in managing business risks. For these and other reasons we continue to support the board.

We note in passing what Justice Muldoon said in Alberta a few years ago regarding the Alberta charter challenge against the board's authority as a single desk marketer of barley. He said a dual marketing system would do away with the wheat board and simply be a transition to an open market.

As I tried to indicate earlier, farmers have shown what they think of the board and single desk selling. In 1997, 63% of barley growers voted to have the board continue to market their crop.

In conclusion, it is not up to members of parliament to decide if some producers should be allowed to remove themselves from the board's jurisdiction. That is up to farmers to decide. They do that through regular elections to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We in my party fundamentally believe that the future of the wheat board is a debate for farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and parts of British Columbia.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House to speak to the private member's motion of the member for Yorkton--Melville. I congratulate him for bringing the issue forward once again.

The issue is not new to the House. It has been brought forward time and time again. Eventually there will be a resolution either in the House or by producers themselves and we will no longer need to debate the rights and freedoms of producers to market their own product the way they see fit. Until that time we must make sure the issue is identified on a regular basis so it does not lose its priority in the House.

I am disappointed that the private member's motion could not be votable. I believe strongly that not only this private member's piece of business but all private members' business should be votable in the House. We should let members stand in this place, put their positions forward, have them identified as democratic issues and decide whether or not they should be votable.

Since I was elected to the House in 1997, and certainly for many years prior to that, producers have been questioning the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to market their product the way they would see fit.

I have an awful lot of respect for the member for Palliser. He sits on the agriculture committee. He and I perhaps differ a bit on how the issue should be dealt with. However in his speech he indicated there is a choice and that the producer should make the choice. That will ultimately be the final resolution.

Canadians, members of the House and the government must recognize that all of us have a democratic right to produce and sell products the way we see fit. That right has been taken away from the producers of western Canada. Some of them seem quite content to have it continue in that fashion but the majority, and there are more and more, wants freedom of choice.

The motion does not talk anywhere about the total demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. Nor do we espouse the total demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe, as do some producers, that in some cases the wheat board provides a satisfactory sales group that can sell its product. However not all producers believe that. They would like to attempt on their own to achieve something better for themselves outside the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board should remain. Let us make no mistake about that. However it should remain a voluntary organization, as the motion says. Producers entering into agreements with the Canadian Wheat Board should be able to continue with their current sales mechanisms and pooling accounts while having the wheat board sell their product on their behalf.

Many producers are able to sell their product outside the Canadian Wheat Board. Canola is a prime example. Canola producers can sell their product to the marketing group they want to sell to. They can make that choice themselves. However they cannot do it with wheat.

Oats were taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board not that long ago. The same comments were made that oats taken outside the board would not be sold to the benefit of the producer. That is not true. Oats have gained quite a dramatic increase because producers now have the opportunity to sell them on the open market.

The Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated by the government in 1935. That was a long time ago. Times change. Producers have become much more sophisticated in the way they can produce and sell their product. All we are suggesting is that the government open its mind and allow producers the right to market their product the way they wish. That is all the member for Yorkton--Melville is saying. He is not asking that we destroy the board. He is asking that we give producers a choice.

There have been a lot of changes to the Canadian Wheat Board over the past number of years. It was originally intended by the Progressive Conservative government of Mr. R. B. Bennett that the Canadian Wheat Board be a voluntary institution with a mandate to operate in the best interests of producers.

It is unfortunate that the wheat board no longer operates in the fashion for which it was originally intended. It eventually became a monopoly and a means of controlling wheat prices for the federal government during World War II.

That was a long time ago and many things have changed. We should therefore be able to take off the blinders, open our minds and allow producers some of the freedom they are looking for now.

The member for Palliser mentioned Bill C-4 which was introduced in 1997. A substantial number of people appeared before the committee at that time who suggested there should be an opening up of the Canadian Wheat Board operations. Those suggestions were not taken into consideration when Bill C-4 finally passed. The government said that it had an elected board of directors that could make decisions on behalf of producers.

I believe that decisions based in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made by producers themselves. For example, it should be put to producers whether they want a one tier monopoly system. The Progressive Conservative Party is suggesting that producers should be allowed to make that decision themselves. They should be given the right to vote. They should be asked an honest, specific question and allowed to have the opportunity to make the choice themselves. They should be allowed out of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly situation they are currently in. As a matter of fact the Progressive Conservative Party is stating:

A Progressive Conservative government would make membership in the Canadian Wheat Board a matter of discretion of the producer subject to the conduct of a free vote of all current members of the CWB to determine the powers of the CWB for the ensuing five years.

The development of the question or questions to be posed to members of the Canadian Wheat Board would be carried out by an independent party. We heard the member for Palliser say that when it was anticipated that barley would be taken away from the board 63% of producers wanted to retain it. The question was a bit ambiguous. There were no options with respect to having the board remain and having the opportunity of a free market and a board market.

[An hon. member]

We should have a clarity act.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

In fact there was one. It was a lot similar to the referendum held in 1995.

An honest question should be asked so that producers could decide if they want the option of a choice. That is what we are saying now.

I agree with the member for Yorkton--Melville. I think producers, given the proper information and the proper opportunity, would go for a dual market system with the wheat board being able to provide some of the necessary services which some people would like to accept.

This is a rather simple issue. When the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before the committee recently we were talking about another issue which I will not get involved in right now to any degree: genetically modified wheat. I asked a question of the Canadian Wheat Board which said specifically that it could not market that wheat because there was no market available.

If in fact it was genetically modified wheat and because it had already said it could not market it, I then asked if it would allow it to be marketed outside the wheat board. The board's answer was no. Even though it cannot sell it, cannot market it, does not want to try to market it and cannot in its own words develop markets, it will not allow anyone to produce wheat outside the Canadian Wheat Board. That is totally ridiculous.

If people want to develop alternate products like GM wheat, organic wheat or products that are now encompassed under the board's domain which cannot be sold through the board, it is ridiculous to maintain that control. We are saying the Canadian Wheat Board should let them loose and allow producers another choice with respect to their own wishes.

I thank the member for bringing the issue back. It is not finished. It will be back on the floor of the House. I said that Bill C-4 would not last, and it will not. Bill C-4 will be back in another form. Even when the government does not understand there are producers out there who want some choice, eventually that choice will be given. I am sorry it will not be done by this government, but a government in the future will allow that to happen.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Yorkton--Melville for bringing an important issue before us, it addresses two items: first, whether the Canadian Wheat Board should continue in the orderly manner in which it has until now or whether it should maximize returns for farmers and, second, the ability to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We heard the member for Timiskaming--Cochrane speak about applying the Canadian Wheat Board to people other than the ones in his riding. He may not understand that from its inception the wheat board was not a mandatory marketing agency. The government at the time was forced to make it into a voluntary marketing system. In those days the Liberals had some sort of sense and supported a voluntary marketing agency.

It was only during wartime when cheap food was needed in Europe that the board was made mandatory in 1943 and ever since farmers have paid the price for forced mandatory marketing.

I am glad to see the motion come forward for discussion. The objective of the board is to market wheat in an orderly manner. That means a few things. The goal of the wheat board is to market orderly, not necessarily efficiently. There is a big difference between those two things.

There is little willingness to get top dollar if the main focus is on orderliness. There is little demand for accountability which in particular leads to a lack of openness. The board has been notorious over the years for not being open. Farmers have not been able to look into the books to see what is going on there.

That worked okay for decades until farmers began to realize that the board was not always acting in their best interests. I can think of a couple of examples, particularly in the early 1990s when there was a lot of feed wheat. Farmers tried to market it into the United States. The board took that market away and refused to give farmers a buyback. The board actually delivered wheat into the United States at almost a dollar a bushel less than the farmers had arranged themselves. That was a wake up call for many farmers.

Farmers also began to realize that they did not need the board. They were capable of marketing their own wheat and began to chafe under the mandatory regulations.

The lack of openness showed up in a couple of other ways over the years. Sometimes the Canadian Wheat Board attempted to deal with that. Presently it is conducting an audit. It is interesting that the audit is being conducted under its terms and it will be able to release whatever parts it chooses to release. It is hardly the open audit we might expect and interestingly farmers are paying the bill for the audit.

Another interesting attempt to limit openness is the rule that was passed by the board of directors limiting its ability to criticize the board. As farmers begin to elect more pro-choice board members the board clamps down on them and does not give them a voice in public. If the directors cannot speak out, how in the world will farmers be able to speak out?

Another problem with focusing on orderliness rather than on effectiveness and maximizing returns is that we begin to see that image becomes far more important than effectiveness.

The communications budget for the Canadian Wheat Board over the last three years has gone up 300%. It is now spending well over $2 million of farmers' money each year just to convince farmers that the board is doing a good job. I would consider that to be a conflict of interest, as would any open minded person.

The board's training and development has gone up 300% in two years. That primarily goes to customer relations people who are in the community trying to convince farmers that the board is doing a good job. We have no way of checking on the effectiveness of it, but it is sure trying to convince us that it is doing the job.

The most objectionable aspect of mandatory marketing is that it continues to reflect old time socialist thinking. When Karl Marx wrote his works some people apparently were under the impression that it was non-fiction. It has been proven many times since that it was fiction.

That thinking continues to hold people back in western Canada. Being from Saskatchewan I often wonder about socialism where the main objective appears to be to keep people back rather than to give everyone an equal opportunity.

It punishes innovation. Farmers who want to move ahead, who want to begin to process their products, have absolutely no opportunity to do so. It also causes people to live in fear.

I was appointed critic of the wheat board last summer. We brought out a number of news releases. On virtually every one of the news releases the wheat board reacted with paranoia for some particular reason rather than address the issues that were brought out. It tried to portray us as confused and unsure of what we were saying when the issues were clear. It refused to address the issues and it just reacted in fear. That comes out of its monopoly thinking.

It was a pleasure to hear the member for Yorkton--Melville bring forth the suggestion that we change the objective of the Wheat Board Act to maximize returns because that would have some immediate impact. Effectiveness would become a number one priority as we would move away from public relations into actually doing a good job for farmers.

Accountability and openness would take place within the organization. It would be the beginning of free enterprise. Maximizing returns for farmers would give them the opportunity to do something with their own money. There would definitely be more money in the pockets of farmers.

The key to the motion is the ability to opt out. Presently we have no choice. We find ourselves in situations where the Americans continually issue trade challenges to us because the wheat board is not transparent. We do not know what the selling price for wheat is and it challenges that.

We see no accountability, especially at the producer level. As a producer there is no way that I can hold the board accountable for what it sells grain for. Therefore I have no way of knowing whether or not it will be maximizing returns.

There are secrets everywhere. I talked about the paranoia within the board. Often big companies get special deals that producers cannot possibly get. They get accredited exportation licences, which individual farmers are not allowed to have, and then they cut their deals with the wheat board.

The end result is that farmers cannot tell whether or not they are doing well. There is just no way of checking on that. Government members stopped the motion from becoming votable this morning. There would be some interesting results if it were to pass.

First, we would see some competition which would be good for several reasons. It would bring accountability to the whole process. As farmers go out and market their grain they will go to the coffee shops and talk about how well they have done and what they have done with their product. The wheat board would also have to be accountable to be able to do the same types of things with the product or it would lose the business. The Canadian Wheat Board would have to perform or die. It would not continue to get a free ride on farmer paid public relations.

If the motion were to pass it would bring in a few other things as well. It would give freedom to farmers that they have never had. This is a time in the farming community where people are moving toward identity preserved grains. They see opportunities in things like our marketed high protein wheat by making contacts with different companies and unique marketing opportunities. If we could open this up and allow people to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board and its restrictive system, it would give them all these opportunities.

It would give opportunities to local communities to thrive and succeed. As I travel throughout my community I see people trying very hard to look for opportunities. If we could only process the product that we grow then most us would have a chance to succeed. We are not allowed to do that as it presently stands. In fact 70% of Saskatchewan's agriculture production is exported in a raw form. We can do nothing with it.

Communities in rural western Canada would have a chance to stand on their own. The government wants to get out of supporting farmers and here is an ideal opportunity. The government does not want to give support but it also does not want to give any freedom either. This is an opportunity to change that.

The Canadian Wheat Board is never mentioned during all this talk of increasing profitability on the Canadian prairies. It is because it is not an opportunity. It is an impediment and not a help to economic growth in western Canada.

It reminds me of some of the countries in the world where cattle are sacred. The wheat board is like that. It is sacred. It is worshipped but it is of absolutely no use to the people around it.

It has become marginalized and increasingly irrelevant. I think this would be an excellent time and an excellent motion for the government to learn from and to begin to use to address the problems in Canadian agriculture.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I say to members on both sides of the House that a fundamental change will come about as a result of this private member's bill.

We have the Canada Health Act which is for all Canadians. We have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which is for western Canada. We have the Canadian Wheat Board Act but it is not for all of Canada. The government can call it the western Canadian wheat board act, the western wheat act or whatever but it is not, was never intended to be and will never be a Canadian act because it does not include all of Canada . In the commodities being sold it omits some people. It only applies to the three prairie provinces and a part of British Columbia. Therefore the change in that private member's bill is coming.

Mr. Speaker, if I were to ask you today to think back to 70 years ago, what was the third largest province in Canada? Saskatchewan was the third largest province with one million people and that is where it has remained.

Saskatchewan alone has about 48% to 49% of all the agricultural land in Canada. However the average revenue per acre is always the lowest in Canada. There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture. I will explain.

When Saskatchewan was formed and when the Canadian Wheat Board Act was enacted it had a burden to carry and it is still carrying that same burden. From 1929 to 1931 Saskatchewan was the third largest province. The people of Saskatchewan came through the depression, through the war years and then they came to a limited factor which did not encourage growth. We must not produce in Saskatchewan any of our own product.

I want to get back to organics, the fastest growing crop in western Canada. The wheat board will not market it. The wheat board will not find buyers for it. Each farmer on his or her own must find a market for his or her product.

I know many people watching will not believe this. On a farm close to where I farm, a young man recently sold a truckload of organically grown durum. Does anyone know where it was going? It was going all the way to Idaho. Before he could load that into the semi and send it, he had to buy some of it back from the wheat board. He had to pay some of the transportation. The grain never got within 50 miles of the grain buying point. He had to pay part of the elevator; another 50 miles. He took a chance, grew it and away it went. Yet he had to dish it out of his pocket, cut down on the profit to pay the Canadian--sorry--the western wheat board. This is wrong. I defy anyone on any side of the House or anyone across Canada to say that is right and that it is logical to do that.

The one province in Canada that has had the lowest land prices in five of the last ten years has been Saskatchewan. The reason is that we have to sell our raw material without expanding and with no development locally.

Saskatchewan has been saved because there is a growing number of farmers every year who absolutely refuse to sell anything that will be in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We now have a new industry, organic grain, which costs young farmers a lot of money to get into. If the Canadian Wheat Board were truly Canadian it would be over in Europe finding a market for this grain at double the price of ordinary grain because not one country in Europe can grow wheat organically. We could have a roaring business but the wheat board does not do that. That is why more and more people do not make use of the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is going on is wrong. It may just be the exact opposite. How do we know that if 10% of the people opted out of the Canadian Wheat Board it would not strengthen the wheat board? How do we know that we could not operate without one single selling agency? How do we know that would not strengthen the wheat board?

We should make it fair across Canada. When my private member's bill comes forth, we will make it votable. We will change the name of the wheat board to the western wheat board.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear to those people watching television who cannot see the Liberal members here that the Liberal Ontario MPs denied consent to make this item votable. If it is so great, why is Ontario not governed by it?

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member will know that the procedure and House affairs committee is currently under an order of the House to review the votability of private members' business. His continued attempts to politicize this process are not helpful.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, smoke and mirrors will not obliterate what is happening here. If this is so great, let Ontario be governed by it.

When the Ontario member replied to my proposal with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, he was awfully careless with the truth. The majority of farmers in my riding and across the prairies support what I have brought forth. For the member to stand up and say that he cannot allow it to be votable because of some procedure in the procedure House affairs committee that denies it, is a crock. We can at this point right now allow this item to be votable.

Another thing the Liberal member across the way did not make clear is that the board of directors cannot change the legislation governing the Canadian Wheat Board. No matter how many directors farmers elect, they cannot change the mandate and the structure of the board.

Most Canadians have the perception that farmers are always looking for handouts. That is absolutely false. Farmers want the government to get its hands out of their pockets, and I suppose most Canadians feel the same way. What most Canadians get back from the government in goods and services is much less than what they pay to Ottawa in taxes and the same principle applies to farmers. Most farmers have to compete in the international marketplace so Canadian taxes hurt them.

My home province of Saskatchewan could be one of the wealthiest provinces and the third most populace, as my colleague has pointed out, if it were not for the disincentives government puts in front of entrepreneurs who want to forge ahead. That is the whole purpose of my motion. Some people feel government does not make a difference but it makes a huge difference. Socialist systems do not work, which is the difference between the U.S. and Russia and which partially explains the difference between provinces in Canada. The government not only forces the wheat board on farmers but it forces the grain handling and transportation system upon them, as well as an inspection grading system in which they cannot control costs. Farmers must pay a tax on fuel, on fertilizer and on chemicals. They must pay property taxes which have a much higher educational component than city dwellers and the list goes on. Through the wheat board, farmers must pay for transportation charges they never use and inspection fees they never benefit from. It does not make sense.

Let me get back to the basics. What do non-farmers, those who have taken the time to investigate this issue, say about this? This is a property rights issue. I will quote from an editorial in the National Post of June 16, 1999. It states:

For different reasons, many Canadian farmers dislike the then Wheat Board. The single-desk selling system represents a massive confiscation of their property rights, robbing farmers of the right to control and contract their own product. The few plucky farmers who have tried to truck their own durum and barley into the U.S. have been arrested for their efforts.

The Wheat Board represents one of the biggest obstacles to farmer prosperity on the Prairies. But the Canadian taxpayer is equally ill-served by this secretive institution, which has racked up $6-billion in unpaid, over-due or re-scheduled receivables, all back-stopped by Ottawa.

Many non-farmers are also asking questions.

I would again like to do something that may be very futile. I have asked for a vote on this issue in the House and Liberal MPs have denied me that democratic right. They have been given their marching orders from the Prime Minister and have been told to just say no. If we had a vote on this, backbench Liberals and NDP MPs would have to engage their brains. They would have to think through the unfairness that has been foisted on western Canadians. They would have to be personally accountable. They would have to answer right now.

I respectfully request that the House refer the motion to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food so the committee can hear from the producers who have been negatively impacted by the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. Surely we can have that much in the House.