Agriculture Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Go ahead, Bob.

[Bob Friesen]

First of all, I justify my position by the fact that the members told me what our position is. If I don't speak for the members accurately, you know what happens to people like that. That's why we discussed it at our board of directors meeting two weeks ago. That's why in my presentation I didn't talk about the pros and cons of the Wheat Board and what we should do with it. The members were very adamant that farmers needed to make the decision on marketing choice, and that included the president of the OFA on the board of directors as well.

That's fundamentally the CFA position. They don't go any deeper on what border eligibility should be, etc. They say it's important to put information out there, there's debate from both sides of the issue, they want a fair debate, and farmers should decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you, Mr. Friesen.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thanks, gentlemen. I'll try to be quick. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Hopefully I'll get an answer from all of you.

Bob, you mentioned in your opening statement that you welcome the idea that there is going to be a plebiscite on barley, but overall you and your organization believe there should be a vote for all people using the Wheat Board.

Is it your position that, as in the softwood deal, it's not the best deal but you'll go with it if there's a vote for only barley producers, or is the CFA stating clearly that we need a vote for both wheat and barley producers?

[Bob Friesen]

We've stated very clearly that we need a vote for both. The announcement on holding a plebiscite for barley is a signal that they realize farmers should be part of the decision-making process on the marketing structure. We're saying that needs to be done for wheat as well.

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

Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Lobdell, you clearly believe that without the Canadian Wheat Board as it currently exists, your railroad would not exist, and there would be other effects in the rural communities. Could you expand on that a little, please?

[Rob Lobdell]

For starters, I don't run a railway; I run a producer car loading facility. Of course, it's going to have a devastating effect on rural communities, because you'll be losing valuable infrastructure if you lose rail lines, delivery points, etc. I think our model, the West Central Road & Rail model, has demonstrated just how effective it is in creating competition in the system. The only way we can create that competition is with the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. In its absence, the market power of the other players, specifically railways and grain companies, would ensure that we simply could not exist.

I suggest to you that the Canadian Wheat Board, under the proposal by the task force, would be very much that same way. Essentially you're going to have a gagged and bound Wheat Board rendered unconscious and told to go out and compete without fiscal assets. It just isn't going to work.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Sahl, you've been around for a long time. You have lots of experience. Sometimes when we talk about trade unions we say they were really good years ago but we don't need them any more; times have changed. Yet we see that perhaps we need them more than ever because of privatization and global forces.

So the argument on the Wheat Board is that it was good when we got it going in the thirties, but times have changed. Today we need to change the way we do things. It's no longer relevant.

I'd like you to comment on that, please.

[Avery Sahl]

It's no secret from most of the producers I talk to that it just will not exist under the proposal, so I don't know if you need to say much more than that.

I was in the Canadian Grain Commission office inquiring about something, and the woman there had just had a phone call from a fellow who had moved from England and bought land in southern Saskatchewan. He wanted some information about a barley car. He said, “I can't believe it in Canada here. You guys have soldiers over in Afghanistan dying and fighting for democracy, yet the government in this country won't even acknowledge there is such thing as democracy.”

We want a vote. That's what we want.

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

In the previous panel we talked about winners and losers, and the report mentions that there will be winners and losers. Who will these losers be if we go with CWB II, which will in effect become another grain company that may go the way of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and all of that?

Could we start with Mr. Lobdell's comments on that?

[Rob Lobdell]

I heard Mr. Davies, who is a member of that same organization, say he was unconcerned, but because of the nature of my business, I've been in discussion with many of the ITAC members who own these independent inland terminals, port terminals, short-line railways, and the smaller grain companies, and overall I would say the biggest impact is going to be on producers. They are the losers you're going to see in this game.

I'm not suggesting there won't be any winners on the producer side. That would be very naive to say, because there will be. But sometimes what's best for the overall populace has to be taken into consideration.

It's no different from health care, frankly. If you take the health care model, I'm sure there are certain people who could do much better under a privatized system.

I'm just suggesting that in this case the Canadian Wheat Board serves producers and this industry very well.

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

Thank you.

Bob.

[Bob Friesen]

If the information is out there that there are going to be losers with the CWB II, they would be exactly the same farmers who were losers when they lost control of the western wheat pools we had, as a result of non-competitive policy with the U.S. So it would be the farmers who are members of a farmer-owned grain company, and that was the same thing that cost them when they were members of the wheat pools.

We need to see the economic analysis to determine whether there would be winners and losers and who they would be.

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

Mr. Sahl, somehow there is an implication in the report that the farmers have to adjust to the system. The implication is they're not as effective as they could be; they have to become more effective and efficient. Do you agree with that?

[Avery Sahl]

I do not.

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

Why?

[Avery Sahl]

I've seen that organization in operation for quite a few years. I've seen how they relate to the world, I know how they relate to farmers, and I certainly know the benefits they provide for farmers.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Gentlemen, thank you so much for appearing here today. It's an ongoing issue that we're delving into and working our way through, trying to come to some understanding as to how we empower farmers so everyone gains in this issue.

This meeting stands adjourned.