Evidence of meeting #21 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wheat Board
The first aspect is that we looked at the Gibson Capital company. It is true that Mr. Gibson did work for the Wheat Board back in the early nineties. He has been a consultant now for a long period of time and has extremely good credentials associated with risk management across a number of industries. We did not feel that was any conflict at all.
And from my own point of view—
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Can I just mention that some of the other folks who do work with him—
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could Mr. Anderson allow the witness to answer the question? Does he want the information, or is he just on a rant against the Wheat Board? I said earlier that it would be a witch hunt, and we're seeing that it's a witch hunt.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I have seven minutes here, and I don't have time to....
Again, it looks like Mr. Easter is working to cover something up here, because western Canadian farmers need to know what happened with that $340 million, and we're being told right now that the Wheat Board's not willing to release that.
I want to point out that it's not just Mr. Gibson who worked for the Canadian Wheat Board. His research director was employed by the Canadian Wheat Board—
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, are you going to allow the witness to answer the question, or is your bias going to show through today again?
And I'm serious, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, Mr. Easter, you don't have to protect the Wheat Board, I don't think. What we want here is simply for them to release a report that deals with their losses. I don't know why you would hide that from farmers.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I haven't asked the question yet, but the report has been done by former CWB insiders. So I think farmers need to see this report. I'm very concerned, actually, that this is being hidden from them.
This actually reminds me of the voters list and a lot of the irregularities there as well, and the fact that it should be made public. It has been very difficult for farmers even to access that list. We find out now that in the past election there were 84,000 permit book holders, 29,000 of whom did not even deliver grain last year, and yet those folks were voting. They were allowed to vote during that election. Another 12,700 didn't deliver one truckload of grain in western Canada last year. At least half of the producers or permit book holders who can be considered active producers, the 12,000 permit book holders who deliver 66% of the grain in western Canada, really have no say at all, when you take a look at the way this election list has been put together.
So Mr. Bender, and Mr. Rutter, are you satisfied with the explanation that's come out? We are told in the Wheat Board's report on the losses that “It appears that producers...are satisfied with the information with which they've been provided.” But for the most part, they haven't received any.
Do you concur with that statement that producers are satisfied with the information they've received about that $350 million loss?
President, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for the question.
The short answer is no. We alluded to that in my presentation, that we want a full review by the Auditor General, with her having the power to acquire the necessary information she needs to do a full review of their trading and other losses over the past year.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay, I have another question, then.
Are you satisfied with the way the voting list has been set up over the last several elections, and the situation we've had to deal with there?
President, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Again, in my presentation, we alluded to that, saying that we needed to clean that up a bit and build on what Mr. Phillips said. We would prefer that stakeholders are represented, that those who produce more grain have the greater say in the vote, just like in any corporation.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So you like tonnage limits, actual producer criteria in that? I'm asking the Wheat Board, would they support that as well? Do you support a tonnage limit and actual producer criteria on the voters list in order to clean up that list?
Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Wheat Board
Yes, we have. If you didn't get a ballot last year, you didn't make any deliveries. That's how the election was set up. Anyone with an interest could apply and get a ballot whether you grew more grains or not. Anyone with an interest in the major grains could apply for a ballot.
But certainly we are going to look at this. We supported the minimum tonnage that was in the panel review in 2005.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'd like to talk a little bit about prices, because we had some information about that earlier. After last year the Wheat Board talked about the $7 that all U.S. producers took for their durum, which everyone knows wasn't accurate. We actually had one of their directors on Agri-ville, I think, bragging about the fact that the Wheat Board was selling durum for $21 a bushel, and we ended up with $12.
DTN shows consistently over the last three years that the Wheat Board has been below the prices in the United States. Last year it showed the final price on No. 1 red spring was $1.70 per bushel below the United States average market.
So I'm asking the wheat grower folks this. Are you satisfied with the returns? This is directly affecting the competitiveness of western Canadian farmers. Does this system need to be changed to make western Canadian farmers more competitive?
President, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
I'll allow Blair to answer this one.
Executive Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Some farmers are, no doubt, very happy with the marketing service provided by the board, and pooling and the services they provide; for some farmers those are perfectly fine. The durum price ranged from $6 per bushel up to $22 per bushel, and yes, the Wheat Board came out with an average of $12 per bushel. For some farmers, that's a very good return. Others would have liked an opportunity to capture a higher return.
It is a question about preferences of farmers. Some find that pooling is perfectly acceptable, but as we've seen, for five of the last six years the Wheat Board return has not been greater than the open market and even the durum return of $12 per bushel is below the average price that was available throughout the year.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Just a point.
The organic buyers last year were able to buy back their grain for 9¢. This year that has been made 21¢ a bushel. The Wheat Board markets organic grain as well as regular grain. Why can't regular producers have the same options you've given to the organic producers?
