Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Terry Boehm]

Thank you for that question.

Farmers are feeling particularly under pressure, and have been for some time. Monsieur Roy--or perhaps it was Alex--raised the issue of transparency. We're being confronted with transparency, accountability, competition, and deregulation constantly. Elevation tariffs and rail freight rates have risen drastically. Farmers have had to shoulder that burden--ultimately it comes back to them--while at the same time there are declining prices.

We have an agency like the CWB that brings premiums to us, and is under some threat. The Canadian Grain Commission has a mandate to act in the interests of producers, and that mandate is under some threat. So producers are under extreme pressure. We're worried that the economic wisdom of today, which we think is extremely illogical, is putting the idea in the minds of legislators and the public that there are no alternatives, that deregulation and slavish adherence to free market economics is the answer and there is no other option.

But these mechanisms were put in place to alleviate the ill effects of those without any kind of market power at the bottom end--to give them a living wage, a decent return. They're as valuable today as they ever were.

[Cam Dahl]

I think Dr. Winn has very accurately portrayed the reasons for the changes to the commission. These changes are absolutely necessary in order to allow Canada to be competitive in a rapidly changing market. Those changes are independent of other changes that might happen to the marketing system. They need to be made in order to allow the Canadian grain industry to be competitive. I don't believe they should be considered as deregulation; they're modernization of the institution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

On our efforts to eliminate monopoly power, an American trade magazine said that's what the Americans have been trying to do for decades, and now we are going to do it to ourselves.

From the WGA, how does that impact on inspection, delivery, and marketing?

[Wade Sobkowich]

From the WGA's perspective, we view these as being independent. We would like to proceed with changes to the Canada Grain Act, independent of any changes that may be coming forward on the Canadian Wheat Board. We don't really see a strong connection. These are the charges that need to be made, regardless of what happens to the Canadian Wheat Board.

If there are some implications, or some connections are found in the future, those can be adjusted. But sometimes if you bite off more than you can chew, you don't get to swallow anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.

Mr. Bellavance.

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

I believe that a conservative ideology is beginning to emerge. It’s been happening, in the case of the Canadian Wheat board, even if we don’t want to see it and it’s obvious in what we’re doing with the Canadian Wheat Board, privatization and deregulation. We know that the Conservative Party has always put forward this type of policy.

I’m talking to the National Farms Union. When COMPAS appeared before us, I didn’t really have an answer concerning the scope of the consultation, that is whether the producers had really been consulted and how many of them had been consulted. I mentioned the list that we were given. The names that appear on the list are the names of people whose opinion was sought. It’s not quite clear. I hear you and I am not convinced that the general direction of the report reflects the changes that these producers want us to put in place.

We all know that the commission’s situation must be reviewed, but for you, was it important that so many changes be brought? If so, what changes would you like that aren’t mentioned in the report?

[Terry Boehm]

First, in regard to the consultation, I would say I did have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Winn and Mr. Halpenny. I also attended the public forum that was held in Saskatoon. Our president, Stuart Wells, attended a public forum in Regina. We had other NFU members attend other public forum meetings.

Although it was recognized at the beginning of the report that the National Farmers Union was consulted, we were puzzled that listing of any particular individual involved with the National Farmers Union was excluded; yet those people who were invited to comment but didn't were included. Barring that, in reference to the consultations, I was very troubled by Mr. Winn's comments that he didn't hear positive things about the Grain Commission per se. That is paraphrasing his language and it is probably not exactly right.

I was at that forum, and I have reasonable cause to be confident in the information about some of the other forums, where producers, one after the other after the other, got up and said, leave the Canadian Grain Commission alone; it works. It works for producers. The assistant commissioners work for us. We don't want any substantive changes made to the Canadian Grain Commission, in particular to its mandate. Yet we see that key point being deleted from the first sentence in the mandate, and that changes everything for us.

There were numerous examples in the meeting I attended in Saskatoon of producers having very positive experiences with the Canadian Grain Commission.

In terms of changes to the commission per se, there's a recommendation from COMPAS, for example, suggesting that samples need to be maintained for at least 24 hours after the producer or his agent unloads his grain at an elevator. Well, I really think that should be extended until settlement, because oftentimes a producer is confronted with a situation where he loads up a semi-trailer with his grain, it's delivered, and it's graded by the agent at that point, and he doesn't find out what happens until settlement time and he gets his cheque. If there's a dispute, a sample hasn't been retained. In my own experience, I've been told, well, we dumped it in the pit and that's too bad. So I think the recommendation COMPAS makes for 24 hours is in recognition of this problem that farmers are not delivering directly themselves any more but there are agents doing it for them. It's positive, but it does not go anywhere near far enough; those samples should be mandatory and should be official samples and should be retained until settlement is made. And give the producer the opportunity to exercise his rights under the act.

Another thing that I think is positive in the COMPAS report is they suggest that at the bottom of all contracts and whatnot that a producer signs, there should be a footer specifying what the producer's rights are underneath the act. That's positive; it should be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.

Mr. Anderson.

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

I'm going to suggest that as Alex had a round of questions, in lieu, we'll defer ours till after, in the interest of getting done here on time. If he wants to ask his questions, he can have the five minutes remaining.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Atamanenko, you're up, for five minutes, please.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much, honourable colleague.

I have a couple, and the first one I'll fire out.

I think I have your answer in regard to contracting out, and I understand what you're saying, Mr. Dahl. My experience with contracting out, specifically in the highway sector in British Columbia, is that it has been a disaster in the area of quality, even going as far as safety is concerned.

I'd like to hear what you have to say, Terry and Colleen, in regard to that—and maybe you could pick up on this also. Do you see the quality of the work of the inspectors suffering if part of the work is being contracted out? If it shouldn't be contracted out, obviously there are budgetary implications. Then do we need more funding from the federal government for this? That's the first question.

[Terry Boehm]

To answer the tail end of that, we've been on the public record for some time asking that the Government of Canada backfill the deficits the Canadian Grain Commission experiences in operating and fulfilling their mandate. So we would agree that this would be necessary.

The issue of contracting out is quite disconcerting for us, because quality issues are paramount, of course. Contractors come and go. Public service inspectors, under a clear mandate from the commission, perform something in the public service, and I think this is important; this is fundamental to the issue.

Private contractors perform as defined by the terms of the contract. Who would be specifying those terms? Would it be the commission itself?

If the commission has a new mandate, what kinds of things would influence the commission in the structure of those contract requirements?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Very quickly.

[Wade Sobkowich]

I can comment on that.

Just to clarify, first of all, the report envisions that the CGC is still going to have oversight and it's still going to set the standards for what service is going to be provided. The other point to note is with the removal of mandatory inward weighing and inspection there should be theoretically less demand for their services, so there would be less requirement for it.

Just to speak to a situation that we have out there today, we have the CGC, which provides official weighing and inspection--and you have to have it--and due to lack of funding they are closing down service centres. So they are requiring that you use the service, but they're not prepared to provide it. It causes a huge gap out there.

We're saying if you're not prepared to provide the service, at least open it up so we can use other people, who are underneath your umbrella, to provide that particular service. What that will do is introduce an element of competition out there, because you have more than one game in town offering their services at a fair price. So there's a competition component on the price. There's also a competition component on the service, because we've criticized the CGC in the past for providing inconsistencies in grading, and if we introduce other agencies, the use will gravitate to those that can consistently provide excellent service.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

What's your reaction to that, Terry?

[Terry Boehm]

My reaction would be that if you use other agencies and use will gravitate to those that can provide excellent service, you end up with concentration in the end, and you end up with probably one service provider. Then the idea of competition and quality disappears. We've experienced and watched that happen in numerous instances. So I would worry about that. I think it's fairly specific work, and you would have to have extreme definition as to responsibilities and whatnot.

I would just say that I feel these services are important enough, and actually, in terms of the balance of payment to the economy of Canada as a whole, it would be wise for the Government of Canada to look after those additional expenses to address the issues that the elevator companies find in service, fulfilling that requirement for inspection and having those people there--the CGC people--to provide it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Alex. Your time has expired.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your presentations here today. I'm sorry we ran out of time. It's a tremendous topic that needs a lot of work done.

Ms. Ross, thank you. Mr. Boehm, Mr. Dahl, and Mr. Sobkowich, thanks again.

Gentlemen, before we move right into Mr. Easter's motion, I'll remind you that our Tuesday meeting of next week is from nine until eleven, not eleven to one, due to the CCA luncheon, of course.

We also need a motion from the floor to allow us to have those extra Wednesday meetings to catch up. Mr. Easter makes that motion; the clerk has written one out. We will put it into the record.

Do you want to read it? Can we combine the two?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Lafleur]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay.

He has it written as two separate motions and we'll combine it.

Go ahead.

[The Clerk]

It reads:

That, the Committee hold a meeting to study the situation of the Golden Nematode on Wednesday, October the 4th, 2006, and hold a meeting on Wednesday, October the 18th, 2006, to study the Canada-United States trade relationship and the Milk Protein Concentrates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay.

We have rooms tentatively booked; they're not really ours. We have 253-D and 237-C in Centre Block at this point. Hopefully we won't get bumped, because they would be right close and handy after question period.

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I have just a quick point of order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we could ask the chairman of the committee that meets previous to ours to try to respect his time schedule, so that we don't have to start 10 or 15 minutes late and then not have time to hear our witnesses properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Excellent point. Thank you for bringing that up.

Our clerk will talk to their clerk. They'll have lunch and sort it out.

From a housekeeping perspective, we need a motion on the record that we will be doing Grain Commission meetings next Tuesday and Thursday, October 3 and October 5.

With a nod of the head, so moved by Mr. Bezan.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Easter.