Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure for me to be here.
You do have a very short brief of the presentation I'm going to be making. I won't read that brief. I will relegate my comments to just simply verbal comments.
I would like to start out by applauding the minister and the government for taking a partial step in the right direction by announcing a plebiscite on barley. I would encourage the government and the minister to continue along that road of leadership and include wheat in the plebiscite as well. That's basically what I want to talk about today.
I'm not going to talk about the pros and cons of the Canadian Wheat Board. I'm going to talk about the importance of a plebiscite. Certainly, two weeks ago, CFA members from across Canada supported the call for a plebiscite because the principle of a plebiscite is very important to them. Also, there's the fact that in Ontario it was the producers who decided to eliminate the Wheat Board for wheat. In Quebec, they just recently decided on single-desk selling for wheat by producers as well, following what they've done in the hog industry, as well as in the maple syrup industry. My understanding is that they have it for rabbits now as well. But certainly CFA members called for a plebiscite.
I also want to talk about the importance of a debate on both sides of the issue, with adequate information to be dispensed. People can then look at this information, discuss the information, and then make a decision.
Why a plebiscite? I have several reasons why CFA members say it's very important to hold a plebiscite. Number one, of course, is that it's written in the act. CFA members feel that if it's written in the act, no other means should be taken or should be used to circumvent what is called for in the act. Let's simply do what the act defines we should do and ask farmers what they think should be done.
Secondly, there's a lot of talk about farmer empowerment and empowering farmers in the marketplace, but farmer empowerment is more than just that. Farmer empowerment, we believe, also entails allowing farmers to decide on what marketing system they want to use and what marketing system is best for the collective interest of agriculture.
Thirdly, many farmers have grown to depend on the Wheat Board as a tool that has empowered them in the marketplace. Given the fact that a decision on the Wheat Board, if it was deregulated, would be irreversible, we feel that's another reason these farmers need to be in on the decision that is made.
Fourthly, arbitrarily deregulating a marketing structure, we believe, sets a very important precedent for any other marketing structures that we have in Canada. I know the marketing structures themselves are very different, but the question is the same. Whether it's a provincial government or a federal government that deregulates a marketing structure, it does set an important precedent. Certainly, if a marketing structure is deregulated, that brings us much closer to either level of government deregulating other marketing structures arbitrarily as well.
Fifthly, it's all about partnership. I believe Minister Strahl said it best in his press release yesterday when he said that a plebiscite is a very important part of consultation, especially when you dispense all the information needed to make an intelligent decision. This is all about partnership, and, again, a plebiscite is an important way to consult with farmers.
But it does depend, then, on whether there's appropriate economic analyses and information out there. My second and last point deals with why we need that information out there.
First of all—and I believe it was Mr. Migie who it said earlier—there is a lot of information out there as to what benefits the Canadian Wheat Board accrues back to the primary production sector. There are all kinds of numbers out there. We believe it's important that farmers see all these economic analyses that show how much is accrued back to the farm gate, so that they can look at the numbers and determine exactly what the value is of the marketing structure they have had in the past and then weigh that value with value-added.
We've also heard a lot about value-added. We've heard people say that the Canadian Wheat Board is impeding value-added. CFA members would tell you that when you compare us with the U.S., the bigger impediment to value-added in Canada is our lack of competitive policy with the U.S., which we're currently working on, as you know. But certainly it has more to do with the lack of competitive policy than with any marketing structure we have in place.
But I believe it's very important to put that information out there as well. Last week when we had the three agricultural ministers here from western Canada, there was quite a discussion on value-added. Some of them had numbers to say that value-added has increased more in Canada than it has in, say, the states just across the border. But whatever information is right or wrong, that information needs to be put out there as well so that farmers can have a look at it. We then need to weigh the economic benefits of the value-added of whatever the Wheat Board accrues back to the primary production sector and have farmers have a look at it to again make sure they can make an intelligent decision.
The other point is that there has been a lot of talk that the Canadian Wheat Board could survive in a dual marketing system. This is where I'm going to be certainly not critical of the minister, but critical of the task force report. I believe the task force report had very little to do with the Canadian Wheat Board under a dual marketing system; it had more to do with how to start a new grain company. On that, I believe they were very long on rhetoric and very short on economic analysis.
This is about starting a new grain company. If I may be frank, Mr. Chair, it barely passes the laugh test. The fact is that we have just recently looked at what used to be three very rich wheat pools in western Canada. Because of a lack of competitive policy, they have either gone public or they have gone to partial foreign ownership. Basically, in terms of the control of these wheat pools by farmers, that control has been taken out of their hands.
To be able to say we could start a new grain company just like that to compete against other multinationals or even the large grain companies that we have in Canada, and the suggestion that $100 million should do it.... When you look at something like Agricore United, which has over $1 billion in capital assets, or something like the Wheat Pool, which has up to something like $300 million in capital assets, I believe there needs to be a heck of a lot more analysis and a much tougher look taken at the idea of starting a new grain company and saying it can be successful. That's true especially when you think that these farmers who are broke are supposed to start this new grain company.
To conclude my comments, Mr. Chair, those are the two points I want to make. Yes, there are arguments on both sides of the issue. Let's put all the adequate information and economic analyses out there that we can possibly get, have farmers look at the information, and then have farmers make the decision. We know there are good arguments on both sides, but the importance here is the information out there. Dispense the information and let farmers decide on a marketing structure, so that farmers across Canada who are involved in other marketing structures don't have the fear that they might wake up some morning and have their marketing structures deregulated as well.
Thank you very much.