Respectfully, I disagree with those comments, and I would like an opportunity to respond to each one of them.
We do do it differently from the competition. We do provide better service and better technical support. I hear it from customers on a regular basis. It's not something I'm making up, it's the feedback we're getting from customers. They like what they're getting from Canada. They like the products that farmers are producing.
I agree with you that farmers have been very disciplined in producing the products that customers want. But part of our role is to ensure that the feedback goes back to farmers and that they understand what products are asked for.
We provide technical support both before and after the sales service. They don't get that from other buyers, and they appreciate that.
We show them how to use the products in their marketplace. We show them how to get value from those products. They appreciate that.
So I don't agree that the other systems can provide this, or that this will be there under the new system, because it's not there in the other systems today.
You say that we can't control price. I agree that we can't control the overall international general price or the futures market. The U.S. is the largest exporter on the wheat side. But we are able to extract premiums in a number of marketplaces. We can offer our wheat at a price higher than the U.S. wheat is being offered at, and return that to farmers. That's very important. It's what the single desk allows you to do. We don't sell one price to everybody. We differentiate prices. We differentiate based on the quality, based on the customer, and based on the circumstances in that marketplace to try to maximize that value for farmers.
So it is different, and we do have some control over that premium. We just don't have control over the overall international price on wheat.
It is different with malting barley and durum. We are a very large player in the marketplace on those two. If we're aggressive in that international marketplace, it could have a serious impact on the price. I think if you open it up and allow four million tonnes of Canadian durum to find its way onto that international marketplace, it will have a serious impact on those prices.
We have chosen to use accredited exporters as part of our marketing mandate. You indicated it's about 50%. It does vary each year, but that's a reasonable number. We do about half of it direct. We do about half of it through accredited exporters. In all cases, we control the pricing of the product. We ensure that the farmers get maximum value back to them in that sales transaction.
It is very difficult--and this is very important when you talk about the open market environment--to have offices around the world. It costs us somewhere between $600,000 and $900,000 to have an office an Tokyo and an office in Beijing. If we had offices in every country around the world, as some of the large multinational companies do who are dealing with a lot of different products and a lot of different areas, that would be very expensive. We have chosen a route that has some of the grain marketed through accredited exporters, some marketed direct. We think it's a very cost-effective way to do it.
This also helps us to manage risk. There is in certain markets tremendous political influence--I would say that perhaps Iraq is one of those markets--where we have to be careful how we approach that marketplace from the Canadian perspective. We use accredited exporters in that case because we're not comfortable taking on the risk that goes with that.
On Churchill, I have said--you can even quote me on this--that I think the future with regard to Churchill is going to be very difficult without the Canadian Wheat Board. I say that because we have to direct grain to Churchill. Companies do not want to ship grain to Churchill. The larger companies own terminals at Thunder Bay, at Vancouver, and in the St. Lawrence, and they would like grain flowing through their terminals. You are not subsidizing anything that goes to Churchill. We do it because it's the best economic return for farmers when we ship through Churchill. If we're not in control and not able to direct that grain through Churchill, the number one priority in those companies will be to flow it through their own terminals, which we see on non-CWB crops. We are 80% of that Port of Churchill usage.