Thank you for the question.
Just to quickly answer your first one, some would argue that a general election is the biggest way to consult farmers, but I do think the plebiscite is going to be a welcome consultation of farmers. I look forward to their participation in the new year.
I don't know how formal we should be here, but thank you, Mr. Easter, for your advance notice of this question. I know it's important to you.
I believe that some of the figures that are used by the Canadian Wheat Board are misleading on several fronts. For example, the Wheat Board interest earnings that they list as part of that difference is the spread between commercial rates that the CWB charges and the Government of Canada rate at which the CWB borrows. That has nothing to do with the Wheat Board monopoly; that's just government policy.
They also claim credit for access to producer cars, but again that's handled under the Canada Grain Act and really has nothing to do with the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
They also claim that the initial payment guarantee is something that goes with the Wheat Board monopoly, when in fact the federal government guarantees other initial payments for non-monopoly boards, such as the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board.
Of course, the Wheat Board claims that advocacy and lobbying are of great dollar-value benefit to farmers, and I think you'll get farmers on both sides of that. Many farmers say their jobs should be selling and marketing wheat, not lobbying and advocacy work. But in the end the Wheat Board is obviously going to put out something that buttresses their own argument. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
After you gave me the letter yesterday, I quickly dug up half a dozen independent reports--not from me or the Wheat Board--that show there's no cash advantage to having a monopoly position. I'm happy to table those with committee members, if they'd like to have them.