Agriculture Committee on Feb. 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. This is meeting number 64.

As per our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have the study of the agricultural and agrifood products supply chain, specifically grains and oilseeds.

Joining us here today are Kenneth A. Rosaasen, professor at the University of Saskatchewan, and, by video conference right now from Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Stewart Wells. Ian Robson will be joining us shortly, hopefully, from Brandon.

As you've been instructed, there will be opening comments. I'll ask Mr. Rosaasen to start. We'll then move to Mr. Wells and then to the committee for questions.

Please begin.

[Professor Kenneth A. Rosaasen, Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Canadian grain and oilseed supply chain.

Our grains and oilseeds sector is an important contributor to the Canadian economy in terms of jobs, exports, and a safe and reliable food supply for Canadian and global citizens.

Innovation is important along all sectors in the supply chain. Whether it is a plant breeder delivering a higher-yielding, more disease-resistant variety, a farmer adopting new technology, such as zero tillage or GPS guidance, or a processor who develops a new product or a lower-cost method of production for their current products, all of these contribute to gains within the supply chain.

Research has been an important component in achieving gains in the supply chain. Whether it was Charlie Saunders with Marquis wheat, Keith Downey with canola, or Al Slinkard with lentils, all of these gains have been important to the prairies and to the Canadian economy.

More important than just the gains is how the gains are distributed among the participants in the supply chain. Recent innovations are to be commended, with gains with GM and hybrid canola resulting in yield improvement, better weed control, and more canola acreage planted each year.

However, the control of the seed and the chemicals that link these traits to canola is in the hands of a few companies, which results in much higher seed costs as the companies seek to maximize profits. Years ago, canola was 30¢ to 40¢ a pound. Now it's $7 to $10 per pound.

The policy environment has created major profit centres for these firms. Yes, profits are needed to fund research, but these firms spend only a small portion of the revenue they gain each year in returning it to research. This can endanger the future of the Canadian supply chain. Large gains accrue when public research is done, yet despite these large gains, research in the public sphere is being cut back. Basic agronomic research has been cut across the prairies, and private companies typically do not invest in public research, as it just brings along free riders and they do not achieve benefits.

Another concern with less public research in the plant-breeding area is the sharing of genetic material. Adding one gene to the existing pool of good genetic material created these specialty canolas. In the long term, the ability to share or unwillingness to share may inhibit the rate of development. One cannot imagine that this could happen in something like the machinery market. If someone added a rake-up pickup to a combine and then said they owned the entire patent rights for the combine, we would be shocked.

Specific rights had evolved in the machinery industry, but not so with genetic innovation. With decades or centuries of historical plant breeding, the gains were captured when a new gene was added. This area, in my view, needs revisiting, as the innovations are largely resulting in returns to the companies rather than necessarily the farm community.

Another input along the supply chain is farmland itself. Settlers were attracted to the Canadian prairies when the Government of Canada offered free homesteads. How many of our forefathers would have come if the signs had said “Land for Rent” rather than “Land for Sale”? Indeed, land ownership by a farmer who farms it has been a relatively strongly held tradition of many farmers on the Canadian prairies. Recently, however, other investors have taken a strong interest in the ownership of farmland. High commodity prices, low interest rates, a disappointing stock market, and global financial uncertainty have been factors.

There's another factor that I consider extremely important: the current rules that allow investors to use RRSPs in purchasing farmland. Indeed, Agcapita seeks investors who will place money into an RRSP to purchase farmland. As a farmer, I am only allowed to purchase farmland with after-tax income. This creates an uneven playing field. If I am in a 50% tax bracket, federal and provincial taxes combined, then it costs me twice as much to buy land.

Farmland is important for farmers, as it has been a key source of security with their lenders.

The history with absentee landlords and tenants has not always been pretty. These policies may have evolved with RRSP eligibility from the lobby efforts of investors rather than as a specific policy for agriculture. I think it should be assessed closely from your perspective of interest in the agricultural and rural communities.

It is important that all links in the supply chain be able to achieve profits and to operate efficiently. The farm enterprise has been where the instabilities of world and local weather, trade disruptions, currency swings, pest and disease outbreaks have generated income problems and sometimes farm failures.

Indeed, the boom and bust of Canadian prairie agriculture is in the memory of many of the senior citizens who are still farming. Governments have recognized the cost of disruptions and adjustments and have sought policies to cushion the blow on families and communities. Historically, programs largely from the federal government were LIFT, western grain stabilization, crop insurance, the special Canada grains program, ADA, CFIP, CAIS, and more recently AgriStability and the other Agri programs. These have arisen from the recognition of the inherent instability within the export sector.

The recent reductions, however, in support of AgriStability may leave the sector with minimal support. The reference margin's decline to 70% and only covering eligible costs means that it does not cover total variable costs for a farmer, as all costs are not included. This puts the support level below what economists call the shutdown point. Our current program mix will not handle a major downturn in the farm economy.

Crop insurance is one of the programs that does share risks with producers and is an important component in our Canadian supply chain. Premiums adjust, as do coverage levels, based on historical individual performance.

However, the practices of some producers of growing canola on canola, or, as some say, canola snow canola, may be increasing the risks not only for themselves but for their neighbours and the industry. If the agronomics indicate that canola produced on the same field will yield say 15% less, then perhaps coverage levels should be adjusted on those individual bases. Undesirable agronomic practices can implicitly be encouraged if programs do not make the appropriate adjustments. Costs accrue to all participants in the canola system if no adjustments are made.

Another concern of the farm community is the competitiveness of other entities along the supply chain. We are seeing increased concentration of input suppliers and output handlers. Fertilizer companies are large and important players. The U.S. recently sued our potash firms in Canada for price fixing, and a settlement was paid. It was done out of court. Our nitrogen fertilizer, which is a major input, is very high, and the cost of natural gas, the major input, is very low. It appears the price of fertilizer follows the price of corn, wheat, and canola, and the farmer's ability to pay rather than cost. This is exactly what you would predict with few firms that exercise their market power.

Monitoring farm input prices is one mechanism that could foster improved competition. Another mechanism is to strengthen competition policy in Canada as competitive markets improve the welfare of the society.

Sometimes similar criticisms are offered for fuel, chemical, and other suppliers where farmers allege that market power is being used and excess profits are being achieved.

The recent termination of the Canadian Wheat Board single desk may create a need for regulation for the sharing of terminal space at port, as has happened in Australia.

Published prices and export sales reports may also be needed. Canada has gone from one of the most regulated grain export environments to one of the least monitored. What happens if we don't monitor them is we can have almost a great grain robbery, similar to what the U.S. experienced relative to the U.S.S.R.

I could talk a little bit more about rail, profit centres, the importance of futures markets, and the ability to hedge because risk is high. Right now, only the ICE canola futures have sufficient volume for trade to be an effective risk-handling mechanism. I could also talk about the importance of the grain commission as an efficient dispute settlement mechanism, and a number of other issues.

What I would say is there needs to be public research into positive outcomes for the entire sector. I would say any chain is as strong as its weakest link. Legislative changes over the last number of decades have often moved the profit centres to people or enterprises on both sides of the farm. Therefore, it has made the farm the weakest link in the chain. I think the farm component is extremely important and it needs your full attention.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wells.

[Stewart Wells, Farmer, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I'd like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to be here this morning. I know that Ken is a farmer as well, so a lot of the things I'm going to speak about, Ken has already touched on. But I think that's a good thing.

Our farm is located in southwestern Saskatchewan, not far from Swift Current. My grandparents homesteaded here just over 100 years ago. Right now my partner, Terry Toews, and I currently own and operate the farm.

Until the mid-eighties it was a mixed cattle and grain farm, and since that time we've been strictly in grain production. I've been working on or co-managing the farm for 41 consecutive years. During that time I've seen many ups and downs in the farm economy, and I’ve had the time to think about how federal farm policy has affected our farm and how it has affected our neighbours across the country.

In terms of successful value chains from the farmer point of view, I’d like to bring forward three topics for the consideration of the committee: risk management, market power, and vertical integration. Risk management and market power are key considerations if there is to be long-term value at the farmer link of the value chain. Vertical integration is a term currently being used by the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the plight of Canadian hog farmers.

Risk management includes plans like AgriStability, AgriInvest, the PFRA, plant research and seed development, the community pasture program, the agroforestry program, crop insurance, the single-desk selling of hogs and grain, supply management, and regulated rail freight rates.

In almost all of the risk management areas, the government is moving to weaken or altogether end these programs. For instance, without any consultation, the government recently enacted changes to the AgriStability program that will seriously weaken our farm. In the event of a complete crop failure, our AgriStability coverage used to amount to about three times our allowable expenses under the program. In other words, our AgriStability coverage would probably have paid for about two years' worth of our farming expenses. From what I can find out so far, in the future we'll be covered for less than one year’s worth of farming expenses. This will have a serious negative impact on our farm, and I'm awaiting an analysis from Meyers Norris Penny as to whether or not we should even participate in AgriStability going forward, as we have paid a lot of attention to the cost structure on our farm; we've been trying to be efficient and keep our expenses as low as possible.

Let’s talk about plant research for a moment. Farm production relies on climate, and our climate is changing and becoming much more volatile and erratic. And now, at the very time that atmospheric CO₂ levels are much higher than at any time over the past 800,000 years—and that's nine complete ice ages—the government is seriously weakening public plant research and giving private companies much more control over our seed and production systems. More restrictive plant breeders' rights, like UPOV 91 and other seed control systems are counterproductive and weaken the farmer link of the value chain.

Let’s turn to market power. A hundred years ago farmers needed to maximize their returns from the marketplace. There were no risk management programs like crop insurance or AgriStability. If farmers could not get enough money from the marketplace, they literally starved and were forced off the land.

These farmers quickly understood that they needed to build institutions like the Canadian Grain Commission, the Wheat Board, single-desk selling of hogs, and supply management—farmer-friendly institutions that could exert market power and increase returns to farmers from the marketplace. Institutions like these both limited risk and exerted market power at the same time.

Lastly, the committee should dedicate substantial time to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that vertical integration is the answer to the hog farmers’ problems. The minister is saying that the solution is for hog processors and/or retailers to own the whole production chain, including the actual raising of the hogs. With this statement the minister marginalizes the contributions of individual farmers over the years. When you think about that more deeply, you realize the minister is blaming the victims, in fact, the hog farmers themselves. The minister is saying that hog farmers are the problem, not the solution, and we should just remove them from the chain. If this position is not reconsidered, there is nothing to stop this mentality from spreading to all sectors of agricultural production.

Compared to post-single-desk selling of hogs, hog production that included single-desk selling was a very stable enterprise. It was the processors that convinced governments to destroy single-desk selling of hogs, which in turn greatly increased the risk and decreased the market power of hog farmers, which has now led the minister to say that industry-centred vertical integration is the answer. As odd as it may seem on the surface, I'm going to agree with the minister that vertical integration can be the answer for better values down on the farm. But that can only happen when the elements of the vertical integration are controlled by the farmers or are mandated to put the farmers' interests first.

This brings us back to supply management, the single-desk selling of hogs, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, the public research system, and regulated rail freight rates. All of these institutions were, in one way or the other, elements of farmer-centred vertical integration. All of these institutions gave the farmers more market power and risk management, and they integrated the farm production system in a way that was directly beneficial to the farmers.

The Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board were textbook examples of how to integrate plant breeding, production by farmers, grain trade mechanics, and consumers. Fragmenting the system, taking control and information out of the hands of farmers and farmer-friendly institutions, will weaken the farmer link of the value chain. In the worst case scenario it will lead other political leaders to say that industry-led vertical integration is the answer.

That's where I'm going to stop on the written remarks.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We've heard our first two witnesses, so I'll ask you to make your opening comments and then we'll move to questions.

Please begin, Mr. Robson.

[Ian Robson, Farmer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

First I want to thank the committee for inviting me to talk about the grains and oilseeds supply chain and how it affects farmers.

My name is Ian Robson. I farm 900 acres in Deleau, Manitoba. I grow oilseeds and grains, and I run some cattle. I am a medium-sized farmer who believes strongly in government policies that support a sustainable and biodiverse farming sector.

As I read through the previous transcripts from the committee sessions, there was little mention of farmers except in passing. When we are mentioned, it is because we are beneficiaries of money, efficiencies, markets. The question for me is, what will those benefits cost my neighbours and me?

Farmers talk about the land. We mean its wholeness, the air, water, insects, birds and other animals that share a particular location, the plants, microbes, soil, and topography. A first nations person would speak of the earth and an environmentalist the environment. The land is whole to us, a living whole. We farmers are part of that living wholeness, and so are the communities we live and work in.

The current model of industrial agriculture is something akin to bottom trawling. This fishing system rakes bare the bottom of the ocean and destroys the habitats for countless fish, corals, and invertebrates. A similar thing happens when a 60-foot air seeder or 120-foot sprayer roars through miles of open fields. The land looks all the same. It is treated largely the same. It is a resource that, with a GPS system guiding precision application of fertilizer and chemical treatments, will yield the highest return.

There is surprisingly little reference to farmers' quality of life in the submissions that I read. The assumption seems to be that if your farm makes money, your life will be of the highest quality. For some, perhaps it will be. For many of us, though, the price we pay for making that money is our neighbours, our communities, access to health care, diversity both in the biosphere and in our neighbourhoods. We spend hours driving somewhere for something in a landscape increasingly bare of people. It's not my idea of quality of life.

I'd like to read a quote from the 1969 report of the Federal Task Force on Agriculture entitled “Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies”, which advised that it was:

...desirable to end farming by the individual farmer and to shift to capitalist farming.... In sketching out this kind of model for agriculture circa 1990, we are of course rejecting the ‘Public utility’ or socialized concept of agriculture.

The task force also emphasized the realignment of the Canadian agricultural economy to that of our primary trading partner, the United States.

We seem to be well on the way in that direction. Canada's economy continues to align with that of the U.S., and we are moving to harmonize regulation environments. Free trade has increased exports and farmers are producing more. We have signed numerous free trade agreements, and more are coming, although negotiated in total secrecy without broad-based public consultation. Our supply chain is efficient and provides economic benefit. Everyone wins, except we farmers don't, not really. Let me offer some proof.

Figure 1...I have submitted this paper for your perusal later. It shows farm income, debt, imports, and exports from 1970 to 2011. Exports have risen from $5 billion in 1970 to just short of $70 billion in 2011. However, realized net farm income has been and remains stagnant since 1970, never rising above $5 billion. On the other hand, farm debt has increased by 1,400%, from $5 billion in 1970 to $66 billion in 2011.

Between 1970 and 2011, $65 billion was generated by export. Where did that money go? It went into the pockets of seed and chemical companies, machinery companies, investors. Those gains were generated on the backs of farmers, and our backs are breaking.

For more proof of corporate profit-taking, look at the seed costs per acre. The costs of commercial seed per acre among four crops—wheat, barley, conventional canola, and GM canola—are almost equal until about 2000, when the price of canola seed began to rise faster than the price of wheat and barley seed. Conventional and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified canola seed prices rose pretty much in tandem until 2007, when the cost for that herbicide-tolerant canola seed took off and rose quickly.

Canadian farmers' total cost of purchased seed has risen from about 2.5% of expenses in 1970 to a high of just over 4.6% in 2011.

We've landed here because government policies have converged on a single vision of how economies should be organized. Legislative and regulatory environments increasingly favour economic activities conducted on a global scale. National sovereignty is trumped by corporate interests looking for and getting rights to sue government for activities that reduce their profitability.

There are fewer corporations in the supply chain: Bayer, Syngenta, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Glencore, Monsanto, DuPont, etc. The list goes on but is shorter each year as consolidations continue. Corporate concentration and big business may favour competitiveness, but in the process, true competition is greatly reduced.

Omnibus budget bills contain the seeds of destruction, de-funding, reorganizing, and changing mandates. Farmer-friendly agencies like the former CWB and the Canadian Grain Commission are being systematically dismantled after being developed decades ago to give farmers some parity with and protection from large exploitive grain companies.

The Canadian Wheat Board, a single-desk seller of wheat and barley, collected and returned to farmers every cent, less cost, that could be captured along the supply chain.

We see grain prices vary significantly among elevators now. Grain that is bought low at the elevator sells high at port. That benefit used to accrue to farmers, but now it goes to the grain companies. In a “back to the future” scenario, the situation has regressed.

A vision of Canadian farmers and food systems that balances the interests of farmers and corporations would give rise to much different policies, regulations, and legislation, a few of which I will offer. Nothing I say will be new to you; it's all been said before. But I will continue to advocate for a more fairly balanced food and farm supply chain because I believe that in the end Canadians will continue to care for and about each other.

First, be transparent about international trade and industry-regulated agreements throughout negotiation. Seek broad-based public discussion of opportunities and challenges afforded by each agreement.

Two, do not allow international agreements, trade or otherwise, to trump the rights of a democratically elected government to protect the interests of its citizens. Corporations should not be allowed to sue national governments acting in the best interests of their citizens.

Three, legislation, regulations, and policy directions must effectively balance the rights of players with vastly different resources and power. The Canadian Grain Commission and the former Canadian Wheat Board are excellent examples of how this might work.

Four, the public interest, whether in health, wheat, rivers, or oil, must be protected. Invest in fundamental research to protect the public interest. To ensure that present and future public interests are protected from harm, citizens and their governments, not corporations, must control genetic engineering.

Five, investigate and quantify potential effects of policies, regulations, and legislation, whether social, economic, or environmental. The balance should always tip in favour of citizens' needs rather than corporate needs.

Six, regulate genetically modified technologies so that organic and non-GMO production systems are not threatened by potential GM contamination. Neither co-existence nor tolerance of low-level presence should be permitted.

Seven, productive resources—for example, land, seed, and machinery—should be owned and controlled by the primary producer. Land grabbing, whether by foreign or domestic corporations, should be prevented. UPOV 91 should be avoided, as it will give global corporations rights that even governments do not have.

Eight, enact processes to ensure that farmers receive a fair share of the consumer food dollar.

Nine, implement legislation, regulation, and policies to support the development and operation of local food systems.

My Canada protects the rights and benefits that have come to define Canada. Give us the policies and the funding to enable healthy people and healthy communities.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I would be very happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth, you have a point of order.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you. It's maybe just a point of clarification.

Mr. Robson gave a very detailed list. Could we perhaps get that tabled for the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes. We've sent it for translation, and because there are some diagrams, we need to do the full translation.

Go ahead, Ms. Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'd like to thank you all for making your presentations and sharing your experience with us at the committee. I think it's really important to talk with people who have different points of views, and it's nice to talk with you.

It seems to be a common thread. It was mentioned a few times that the farm is getting to be a weak link in the chain. I know when I've met with farmers and hung out in their kitchens, they talked about the changes to AgriStability and how they were worried that there was no consultation. It's something I hear a lot in my riding and when I visit farmers elsewhere too. It's something we hear more and more often. It's something that kind of makes me nervous.

We're here, and in a few years, 40 years, we're going to have a massive population to feed, and we have to be very responsible in how we do it. I think this conversation is very pertinent.

I have a question. Transport is something we're studying and debating now in the House. I was wondering if you can comment on Bill C-52. Do you have any comments or suggestions on that, Mr. Rosaasen?

[Prof. Kenneth A. Rosaasen]

Rail transportation is a vital link for the prairie economy. We've seen the system centralized. We've seen major cost savings. Branch lines were abandoned. But there was always talk about sharing the gains from these transitions.

There is a service review in place, but the rail costing review badly needs to be done.

Let's take a look at how the railways strategically abandoned lines. For a while when the federal government was paying the full cost, after closing a small section they would route grain backwards going east for maybe 80 miles before they dropped south and went west. Why? Because governments would pay the bill.

Railways have a lot of market power. There was always talk about sharing those gains. There was talk about a limit on the charge railways could put in as a percent of the value of grain, trying to put in a regulatory framework. They are such effective lobbyists that those things get forgotten.

There was talk about spending more money on investment. Those likewise didn't meet the inflation expectations they had.

So I would say there is great need for a full costing review. I think the amount farmers pay to move their grain to port is very large, and we do need rail capacity, no question. There's more potash and more oil now moving by train. We may hit capacity constraints as well, but it's a vital link to the grains and oilseeds supply chain.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Wells, do you have any comments on C-52?

[Stewart Wells]

I think the point was really made by a study that was commissioned by farm organizations and the Canadian Wheat Board a couple of years ago. A fellow named John Edsforth did a very comprehensive report. That report was released in late 2010, I believe, and showed that the railways are currently overcharging farmers by at least $200 million per year.

There was some agitation to have a full costing review at that time. That costing review is long overdue, and it needs to be done as soon as possible.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Robson, can you speak on transport of grains?

[Ian Robson]

I would agree with what Mr. Wells just said. We need a costing review. We're paying quite a bit for our rail service. Railways have been pulling up their rail lines and abandoning producer car loading sites, and that's making it more difficult for farmers to access producer cars, which is their right. It was a big battle for farmers to win that right, but if the railways unilaterally pull out sidings and reduce the rail service, a right becomes less usable in that event. It's important that we have a good management system to deliver grains to ports.

In some of the previous hearings, people were calling for recording systems on grain sales, and we're missing out on any kind of a system that can track what's going on in grain marketing through the rail system and through the sale system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

Thanks for coming today, Kenneth—and thanks to the others for showing up through video conferencing.

I have a few questions, but first I'll introduce myself. I'm Bob Zimmer, and Prince George—Peace River is my riding. We have the prairies in British Columbia, the only section; we carry on the Alberta prairies up by my neck of the woods. We have a lot of grain and canola and those sorts of crops, and a lot of cattle as well.

I've heard a few comments, but first I have a question for Ken.

You mentioned something about being the least regulated as being a negative. Now, from a governmental perspective, usually less regulation is better.

Perhaps you could just qualify what you said.

[Prof. Kenneth A. Rosaasen]

We like regulations to be efficient, but not necessarily no regulations. Let's face it, if you run a futures market, there are regulations about how prices are reported. There are regulations that you have to have a margin deposit, both buyer and seller. Regulations are needed to make an efficient market operate.

The Canadian Grain Commission has had a very effective mechanism for dispute resolution in the past. When I've visited the U.S., I've seen them get into protracted legal suits when there's a disagreement amongst grades, because they don't have the efficiency of an arbitrator who settles it.

So regulations can be cumbersome, but they can also make markets work very effectively. It's sort of like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: if you have a nice legal framework, it can really foster efficiency.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Since this is a grains and oilseeds study, I have a question with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. On August 1, 2012, we saw a dramatic change where marketing freedom came to western Canadian farmers. Certainly in my riding I've heard lots of positives. Farmers have had a good year. But I want to ask some of you about this as well, because you're farmers too.

First, Stewart and Ian, I would ask if you were pro open-market or dual-desk prior to August 1; and second, I would ask what your experience has been as of August 1 and beyond.

We'll start with Ian, if we could.

[Ian Robson]

Thank you.

Since August 1 we've had major market confusion as opposed to market freedom.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Can you state what position you had before? Were you pro Canadian Wheat Board single-desk or dual-desk?

[Ian Robson]

Well, I stand with the majority of my neighbours, who supported the Canadian Wheat Board. It was directed by farmers, and we now have a Canadian Wheat Board that's.... We don't know who it's directed by. We don't know if the current version of the Canadian Wheat Board is directed in farmers' interests.

When I go to the elevator, it's very difficult to find on a day-to-day basis what the price is. I have to subtract a basis, and the basis can vary from one day to the next. The price can vary from one day to the next. I have to go to five elevators to find out what the value of my grain is on a particular day. Then I have to decide what day I should decide to sell my grain on.

As you can see, you've introduced massive confusion onto the backs of farmers. We had a Wheat Board that was accessing markets—for me—in 70 countries around the world each day of the year. It was maximizing the value added on my farm. First I'm interested in value added as the price of my product leaves my farm, and the agency of my farmer-directed Canadian Wheat Board was able to maximize that by in the neighbourhood of $10 to $20 an acre.

So the actions of your government have removed $10 to $20 an acre from every farmer's fields.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay. Thanks for that.

How about you, Stewart?

[Stewart Wells]

Thanks.

I was—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Again, can you state—I think you were going to do this, but I just wanted to remind you—whether you were a single-desk or dual-desk proponent, and then state what your position is now in terms of your experience?