I'm sorry about that.
We have put in place a plebiscite with three clear questions. Farmers understand these questions, because they're virtually the same questions that the wheat board uses on their own surveys. Those questions are the following. Do you want to have the Wheat Board marketing all your barley? Do you want a system where you have choice in marketing, with the Wheat Board as one of those choices? Do you want a system where the Wheat Board is not permitted to market barley? We've sent those out, and people are returning them already. It's clear that they have an interest in participating in this plebiscite.
I should point out that the Canadian Wheat Board is a government entity. It exists because of government legislation. We were reminded of that a couple of weeks ago when Mr. McCallum in the House asked a question and referred to the Wheat Board as a government entity, so I think it's pretty clear that even the Liberals understand that.
Farmers and others know the Wheat Board exists because of government legislation, which is the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Some of the good news that farmers have coming is that on April 1, the access-to-information provisions are going to apply to the Canadian Wheat Board. I know there are a lot of people who are looking forward to that day, because they'll be able in some areas finally to discover what's been going on behind what they would see as a veil.
It's been our position that the Wheat Board must be focused on selling grain, not politicking, and we hope this is what they will do and expect it is what they will do in the future.
We have a discussion today about Algeria, and I want to talk about that a little, because Mr. Arason didn't tell quite the whole story. The U.S. Wheat Associates were not the ones who basically brought this forward. The whole discussion about Algerian grain prices came out of a December 17, 2006, article in an Algerian newspaper called La Liberté. I can make copies of it available to you. This is the one that's from the Canadian Wheat Board site; it's their translation. I just want to read from it.
According to the general director, Mohamed Kacem, of the OAIC, the bureau's choice of Canada as sole supplier is based on a number of objective factors that mean, and this is a quote:
Algeria gains a lot in every respect from this time-tested relationship that is built on confidence. It’s the Canadian government that guarantees the quality of the product, since it carries out the quality controls, emphasizing that selling prices in Algeria are carefully studied, since our country receives preferential prices, which save Algeria tens of dollars per tonne purchased. And quality monitoring allows Algeria to save over a dollar per tonne processed.
Further down it says:
However, the benefits of doing business with Canada do not end there: according to Kacem, Canada also provides technical assistance in the form of training for executives from the OAIC and the agricultural sector. In addition, the Canadian supplier pays the loading costs, and facilitations are offered with regard to the method of payment.
And this is a direct quote from him: “No other country offers us these advantages.” Clearly the Algerians are getting some sort of special deal.
We need to recognize four things, I think: first of all, that Algeria is getting a special dea--that's what was clear in the article; secondly, this special deal saves them apparently “tens of dollars per tonne purchased”; three, on top of the special pricing they get, the Wheat Board pays Algeria's loading costs; and fourth, they don't get the same deal from any other country but Canada.
I think farmers need to be aware of that. It's a good deal, apparently, for Algeria, but it may not be as good a deal for prairie farmers. But prairie farmers have no way of finding that out. Because these figures are hidden, there's no way we can determine whether it's a good deal or not.
I was struck by the fact that the Wheat Board had a number of their foreign customers line up to support the system. And when we see things like this, I guess it isn't a surprise that foreign customers would be happy to say we need to keep the system the way it is. In my estimation, as a western Canadian producer, this is just one more reason to give farmers choice in whether they want to deal with this system or not.
I'll think I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, and I'll be glad to answer questions.