Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the beginning, Mr. Chair, we believe it's important certainly to review the Canadian Wheat Board and establish the facts. There is no problem there.
But Mr. Hoback's motion is I think questionable in its factual interpretation in and of itself when it says, “substantial losses in commodity trades over the last two years, despite windfall crop prices”.
Mr. Chair, I would like to go to the Wheat Board report, because I think we need to look at both sides of this issue. This sums it up in its entirety, Mr. Chair. The Melfort Journal had an editorial in it that really deals with this issue, and it starts off with, “Ritz fails to be objective on CWB”. This is a serious matter. Mr. Ritz, the minister, is minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the parliamentary secretary is David Anderson. This is what the article says, and I quote:
Last year, the CWB registered $7.2 billion in returns for Western producers, a year that saw nearly a 50-per-cent increase in wheat revenues and nearly a 100-per-cent increase in barley and durum revenues from the previous year.
Simply put, the board outperformed its international competitors, an outstanding performance that should be recognized even by the board’s most strident critics.
Mr. Chair, I think it's important to note that.
When you go to the financial records, which are in the Canadian Wheat Board, and the minister has these.... I'm certain the parliamentary secretary has these. I would think that the members opposite have these. When you go to the Canadian Wheat Board financial statements--not their annual report, but the financial statements--and turn to the auditor's report here, I would refer committee members to page--