Debates of June 19th, 1996

Supply

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in favour of the motion brought forward by my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Canadian farmers who are the most efficient and progressive and provide the highest quality food in the world are restricted from locating or accessing markets that are more lucrative than those provided by the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers would have liked to have had the opportunity to at least elect the wheat board commissioner so they would have more input into the Canadian Wheat Board.

A few minutes ago the minister of agriculture more or less intimated he had a lot of support and that there were articles written in favour of the issue he was addressing. I will also quote from the Western Producer :

Wheat board supporters have not used the time Goodale has given them to mobilize their own show of support. He looks isolated, leading up that phantom army of alleged Board true believers who do not appear to care enough to join the political battle.

That does not sound like very solid support.

Even inside his own government, Goodale likely has few enthusiastic allies.

I would like to go on record saying that the one strong ally Mr. Goodale has is the member for Malpeque.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Colleagues, only one of us can speak at a time here. Traditionally when the Speaker is standing you will find that your microphone will be turned off and respectfully, the Chair will have some preference.

I rise to simply remind the House that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. In other words, even though we are quoting from a document, we cannot name the member or the minister as so stated in the article one might be quoting from.

I know sometimes it is just a bit of a slip and this may be the case. But I do not want us to go down that road which could be somewhat treacherous by referring to each other by name and not in fact as the tradition the parliamentary debate wants us to maintain, by riding or portfolio.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the correction. I was reading from the article and I did not consider the minister's name was involved. I retract that and apologize for it.

A recent Toronto Globe and Mail article accurately identified the government's paradoxical approach to monopoly. On one hand the article states the government believes that a coven of oil companies are conspiring to defraud consumers through backroom deals creating a secret gasoline cartel''. The industry is now under investigation by the Bureau of Competition Policy.The message is monopolies are bad''. Or is the message that monopolies are good? Which way do we really want it?

Then we have the government's desperate attempt to defend the statutory Canadian Wheat Board monopoly on the export of western grain. When farmer David Sawatzky was acquitted on charges of illegally exporting his crop to the United States, the federal government moved swiftly to close this loophole in the Customs Act.

The minister of agriculture is working overtime to keep this monopoly intact. This time the message is monopolies are good. Which way do we really want it?

I will read from the wheat board act. This is what both judges and both court rulings stated: "In the case of a producer convicted of an offence relating to the delivery of grain-to a fine of an amount equal to one-third of his initial payment for the grain in relation to which the offence was committed, but the amount shall not be less than $50 or more than $350".

The minister and the people know very well that with that kind of penalty farmers will continue to cross the border with their grain because they make way more profits than $350 on each load.

After my election to Parliament I was approached by farmers who provided compelling evidence of serious irregularities in the marketing practices of the wheat board or grain companies. Since then I have endeavoured to secure a response to those allegations.

I embarked on the runaround of a lifetime. Every time I held a news conference and provided the documentations, I talked very honestly to the people. I told them I had sent the information to the ag minister, to the wheat board and to the grain companies telling them: "Here are documents farmers have provided me with. Would you refute them or would you at least determine whether they are legal and whether they are practical documents that were issued in the exportation or the selling of grain".

Initially I raised this issue with the solicitor general and the RCMP. They lost the file. On my insistence they retrieved the file but took no investigative action. They arbitrarily decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation. Interestingly this decision was made by the RCMP division that aggressively investigated Mr. Sawatzky.

It has now come to light that an officer of this division was so anxious to prosecute that he falsified information to mislead a provincial court judge in establishing a basis for issuance of a

search warrant to raid the Sawatzky home. Is this the way a justice system should work?

The time limitations of this debate prevent me from fully disclosing the extent of resistance I have faced from the government and the wheat board since attempting to have these farmers' allegations investigated.

Briefly, since contacting the RCMP I have requested assistance from the solicitor general, the minister of agriculture and the customs minister. Most recently I requested a judicial inquiry to be launched by the justice minister. This is due to the fact that the former assistant wheat board commissioner, Mr. Beswick, openly and quite fervently admitted and pointed out western barley producers lost at least $180 million last year because of the inefficiencies and inadequacies of the Canadian Wheat Board in its marketing policies.

I am wondering if this should go on. Should farmers really have to carry these losses when it is openly admitted they are there? When one looks at $180 million of losses to farmers, it means it takes about a billion dollars out of western Canada's economy.

During the three press conferences I sought information through the Access to Information Act. When I did not get any response from the ministers I tried the information act. What I did I get for my attempts to represent farmers? In the two and a half years since I have tried to secure some answers, I have been expelled from the House. My life has been threatened twice. The wheat board has tried to intimidate me through court actions, the intimidation of detractors being its modus operandi. It has threatened to sue me. It has threatened to do all kinds of other things, even to take legal action against the party and have me expelled.

That sounds to me like something is being covered up. Why is it so determined to shut me down? All I have done is provided documents which farmers have given to me. They are legal documents of grain transactions and grain sales. If these people are not willing to verify they are false, why would they put the pressure on me to quit bringing more evidence before the wheat board and probably before the ministers?

The minister always wants to say the western wheat marketing panel will solve the issues. The minister has tried to hide behind this bogus marketing panel. We have seen that the wheat board, together with the advisory board, has held secret in camera meetings half an hour before the marketing panel was to hold its hearings. It was trying to direct attention in some way to make it look like farmers were totally supportive of the panel and the CWB. Hansard records will verify the agriculture minister has answered every legitimate question posed by Reform members with deference to the western grain marketing panel. It is as if the minister has no idea what is going on in the agricultural industry until the Western Grain Marketing Panel tells him. The minister needs a wake-up call. The problems with the CWB and our western grain marketing industry are evident to everyone but him.

The marketing panel was asked by a presenter: "Whose grain are we talking about? Is it the farmers' grain, is it the grain companies' grain or is it the government's grain? Who owns it? Who should have title to it?" The panel's response was that is too political to answer. Why is it too political to answer who owns the produce farmers' grow?

In my book when somebody manufacturers a product, pays the expenses, has the product inspected and gets it ready for distribution, it is his product. Nobody in this free country of ours would accept what is being done by the Western Grain Marketing Panel which will not even identify who are the legal owners of the product. To me it is almost like heresy.

As an elected representative I have not only the right but the duty to put these irregularities before the government, before the wheat board and before law enforcement officers. When I am intimidated and when I get death threats I get very upset and I get very determined. I will make sure that sooner or later the people doing this will be brought to justice.

I would like to pause for a minute and put this question to the House. In the case of Sawatzky I have heard people say he was a criminal, that he did something wrong and broke the law. He probably broke the wheat board act but he never broke the Customs Act. When I saw the way the appeal read in the paper it really distressed me. The appeal claims that Judge Conner made several errors in law, including reopening the trial by calling an interpreter to translate the French version of the law. It was the wheat board solicitors who demanded they prosecute Mr. Sawatzky under the French version of the Customs Act.

In my experience in the House the law, whether it is in French or in English, is supposed to be the same. The interpretation is supposed to be the same. Now this wheat board solicitor is using that angle in an appeal. Bond says the appeal is necessary because order in council would not apply to anyone charged before the loophole was closed. There are a significant number of charges still out there, about 100 farmers.

Is that the way to treat western farmers who are doing their utmost to produce the best grain for the least cost to feed the most people? Is that the type of treatment and publicity they deserve?

The problems have become very serious and we have no leadership from the government. Farmers are being aggressively pursued and prosecuted by the government for attempting to freely market their own products. They have caused harm to nobody.

They have only brought extra dollars into the economy, which helps create jobs, which does not deter jobs.

These farmers have found an avenue to increase their revenue so they can hang on to their property and honestly make a living. If it is dishonest to sell grain for the best price available, I wish the government would come out openly and say so. There are a lot of other people in the country who are doing it and they have the right to do it. If the only ones who do not have the right are farmers, let us hear it from the government.

The Canadian Wheat Board is the last bastion of monopolistic control in a free enterprise country which holds something sacred, which holds competition sacred. We are used to that in a democracy. Competition is sacred. In socialist countries every monopolistic country has gone down the drain. Now we are trying to enforce that system. Why are the attempts to chip away at this protective wall met with such heavy artillery by the feds? One has to wonder what the government and the wheat board are trying so desperately to hide.

Yes, the time is long overdue for the Canadian Wheat Board to be opened up and held accountable to Canadian taxpayers. The agriculture minister must wake up and provide leadership.

The Canadian Wheat Board has long term debt of $6.8 billion and when we try to find out where that debt is, what the interest rates are or what is happening to it, who it is being written off to, we are stonewalled. Neither the auditor general nor the people from the estimates committee can fill us in on what is going on.

If democracy does not succeed in this issue, what will be next under attack? When governments find vehicles to pamper their ledgers, pamper their own pocketbooks, it becomes very dangerous.

If democracy loses, not only the Canadian farmers lose but the Canadian consumer loses and world customers lose, the world's people who are dependent on the supplies we as western grain producers produce. Producers have come to the point where they are becoming fewer and fewer because of government manipulation of practices of selling and marketing our grain and not bringing a true price to the farm community.

If the threats and intimidation continue, I firmly believe that we still have a justice system and that these people will eventually be caught and brought to justice. I sincerely hope the inaction of the government has not aided the individuals in their actions. The intimidation and threats I have received are some of the worse signs just before a democracy loses its power and influence over a country.

I appreciate these comments. I hope the government and the minister listen to farmers instead of to bureaucrats and take the interests of farmers first, not those of wheat board commissioners or bureaucrats who try to run it.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Lisgar-Marquette.

The debate today is about hundreds of thousands Canadian men and women who directly or indirectly depend upon the grain sector for their livelihood. Today's debate is not just about political politics and political party posturing. It is about a western organization that has built the country and has done a tremendous job in making the prairies a better place to live. It has built an economy that does not just stop in the prairies but goes on to grain shippers in Montreal and to bakers from Vancouver to Halifax. They all benefit from the system.

When I hear some of the comments being made I question if some Reform members really understand the implications and strengths of the Canadian Wheat Board and what it has done for the nation.

Experts make it very clear that the Canadian Wheat Board has been a vehicle by which we have become world renowned. We have become a very great nation, the bread basket of the world, as was quoted by the Reform Party earlier.

I see hundreds of thousands of Canadians who rely upon a very good system. As a matter of fact it is among the excellent of the world. I am concerned that for some cheap political points there are shots and attacks on the wheat board.

I do not believe for one minute that any of the claims made by the member a couple of moments ago have been substantiated. The RCMP looked at some of the questions he raised and has tried to investigate the claims that have been put forth. To my knowledge there has not been at any point during the investigation any concrete evidence of the claims that have been put forward.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a very important institution. It has served a great purpose. As we start debate on the wheat board or whether dual marketing is the direction to go, I do not believe we should at any time pre-empt a process that is in place.

The government has set a panel in place to listen the concerns of every group involved in the way the Canadian Wheat Board operates and in the way we market grains in the country, listening to all opposing and supporting points of view.

There is absolutely no question the panel is to make certain it hears from all sectors of the economy, every interested group, and reports back to the government. It is critical if we spend this much time listening to the people publicly on what the panel is attempt-

ing to achieve that we should allow the panel to report back to the minister and make certain all stakeholders are involved in the final decisions that are, made.

The minister will receive those comments from the panel at the end of this month.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I ask the parliamentary secretary either to choose to put a question or questions to the hon. member during the question or comment period or bring his comment to a close so that I might give an opportunity to the member from Lisgar-Marquette to respond.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that and would like him to respond to my question. I will pose it directly.

A panel was put in place that had 13 round table discussions across the country. Three hearings were formal and allowed all people in the industry to comment. Why do you come forward with a motion at this time just before that panel reports to the government? Why are you not waiting for the results of that panel to hear what the industry has to say?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member, I remind the House in terms of procedure-and I know we are winding down-that we are best to conduct our debates in a parliamentary fashion. As direct as questions may be, they still must be placed through the Chair.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary. He tries to be honest and objective.

I will address a few of the issues he raised. I have raised the issue a number of times that I do not think the marketing panel is that credible any more because of the in camera meetings that were held. Only a few representatives were invited to attend: certain grain companies and certain farmers who supported the wheat board. That is one reason, whether or not the decision is good, the marketing panel will not be as credible as it should be.

The parliamentary secretary raised another issue about political gain. During the last Conservative government there was a debate on whether we should have a dual marketing system or single debt. People who are familiar with it will know what I am talking about.

The Prime Minister and the wheat board critic before the election promised western farmers that there would be a plebiscite on the dual marketing issue of barley and that farmers would be given that choice. Farmers have now been stymied for three years not having that choice. Now there is supposed to be credence and credibility on a marketing panel that has heard the issues time and time again.

The marketing panel knows the issues. When it is not prepared to openly indicate whose grain is being marketed, I am very uneasy about the results of the marketing panel. When a farmer pays the bills, owns the land and produces the crop, it is his grain. He should have some type of input into how it is marketed.

I challenge the parliamentary secretary and the member for Malpeque to agree to have their operations run by people hired by somebody else, pay the bills, pay the pension plan and never squawk a minute about not having enough profit left over at the end of the year. I will put my farm up against theirs that they will not agree to that. It is an even bet.

When I have an operation, pay the price, own the property and do not have any input into how it is marketed, it is bogus. It does not belong in a democracy. It belongs in a communist country. It has been tried time and time again and it has failed. People have overthrown those systems. Sooner or later western farmers will overthrow that system if they are not given some input into how their grain is marketed. They will not continue to raise it year after year and take for profit whatever somebody else decides to give them. They want some input into it.

My bet is on against the Malpeque constituency and against the parliamentary secretary's assets that they will not agree to have their businesses run by somebody else and have no input into how stuff is marketed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Dear colleagues, earlier today, when we suspended the business of supply to go back to private members' business, the hon. member for Frontenac had about eight minutes left to speak. Therefore, we will resume at that point in the proceedings and then carry on as usual.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your good memory. Indeed, I had eight minutes left when we ended the debate at 5.30 p.m.

Since I delivered the essential part of my speech on the motion of the Reform Party member, I will take the few minutes I have left to discuss the creation of the CWB.

First, let us not forget that western Canada would be totally different had it not been for the Canadian Wheat Board. When the board was first set up in 1919, immediately after the first world war, agriculture in western Canada was going nowhere. All Canadians tightened their belts and the Canadian Wheat Board was established.

The board lasted barely a year, but it helped improve somewhat the sales of wheat and barley produced in western Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board was abolished immediately after that. In 1935, during the depression, again nothing was happening in western Canada. Wheat crops were burned in the fields.

It became vital to have an agency that would look after the sale and supply of grains. The Canadian Wheat Board was re-established. However, between 1935 and 1943, membership was optional. Farmers were free to join or leave the CWB. When the second world war broke out, in 1939, there was a shortage of supply and membership became compulsory for all farmers. The situation has remained the same since.

Mr. Speaker, I saw you react when, a moment ago, I talked about 1919, 1935 and 1943. You are still a very young man and you were not even born in 1943, but it must be said that the Canadian Wheat Board provided enormous services to all western farmers. In other words, everyone benefited from it.

However, for the benefit of our Quebec constituents, I would like to draw a comparison between supply management in the dairy, egg and poultry sectors, and the Canadian Wheat Board.

Take, for example, supply management of milk. In Quebec, as in Ontario or any other province, wherever a farm is located, the farmer receives the same amount for his milk as if he were right next to the town or the processing plant. It is the same, in the West, for grain producers.

In Quebec, we must respect our quota, just as my colleague from Prince Edward Island must respect his quota or pay the penalty. Obviously, a farmer who wants to be difficult could say that supply management is not good and that he would like 10 more cows, that he has a large farm, that he could buy out his neighbour and feed 10 more dairy cows, and thus substantially increase his net revenue. But if he does that, he will interfere with supply management. Since we are living in a society, we must play by the rules of the game.

If too much milk is produced, prices will drop and the market will be flooded-no pun intended. There must be self-discipline. A farmer could well say that it is more profitable to produce milk in the summer because the cows go to pasture and do not need as much feed as in the winter, and no supplement. It costs much less to produce milk in the summer, cows give the same in the summer as in the winter, so let us produce more milk in the summer and less in the winter and our net revenue will go up. But you drink milk in the winter as well as in the summer, so dairy producers must produce milk 12 months a year, 365 days a year.

The West is using the same principle that led to the creation of milk pools. You have the quality of the wheat and barley, the percentage of nutritional fibre, and so on. So, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Wheat Board, which would appear to be the equivalent of the Canadian Dairy Commission.

Supply management has the advantage of regularizing farmers' revenues, and the same is true for the Canadian Wheat Board in the West. What is good for all Canadians, consumers, producers and also processors is that a quality product is produced year round at a very competitive, very reasonable price.

What is offensive in all this is that today's debate focusses essentially on western grain producers. I would like to draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker, and to call on your objectivity. Quebec has 24 per cent of the population and represents 17 per cent of Canada's agricultural scene, which grows by 25 per cent if we take into account the value added in the processing of such things as milk into yogurt, butter and cheese. However, Quebecers paid and continue to pay the cost of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which varied between $560 million and $1 billion depending on the year. Quebec paid its share of 24 per cent.

When the WGTA was repealed in the west the government released $2.9 billion in compensation and adjustment allowances of all sorts. Quebec is paying 24 per cent of this generous subsidy. The department of agriculture, the Minister of Finance, are preparing to cut subsidies to milk producers in this country over five years. Quebec is home to 47.5 per cent of Canada's industrial milk producers. No compensation is being provided.

Do you realize that Quebec receives barely 8 per cent of the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, if we take away the $107 million in subsidies to industrial milk producers? The budget of the department of agriculture for Quebec-8 per cent. We produce 17 per cent, so it is less than 50 per cent, and if you include the value added, we top 24 per cent. So, we receive barely a third of what we should be getting.

This then is another example of the double standard that may be found very often in this country. I am taking this opportunity to criticize it before you, Mr. Speaker, knowing that this is the right time in this opposition day when we can talk about all agricultural matters.

In closing, as regards the Canadian Wheat Board, the subject today, the fact of people opting out temporarily for two years, is, in my humble opinion, twisted, even sick. Imagine a milk producer who wants to opt our for two years, test the waters, check things out elsewhere, and who realizes that it is not worth the effort and comes back to the pool with his colleagues. No.

Mr. Speaker, you are in good health. There is a group drug insurance plan that costs you $1,000. You say that in any given year you pay $50 for medications, because you are never sick. You are not in the group plan. After a year or two, you become terribly sick. You go and ask whether they will let you in so it will only cost you $1,000. It does not make sense.

I think this motion is not votable. If it were, the Bloc Quebecois would not support it because it lacks thought.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased earlier to hear the member for Frontenac talk about the objective of the Canadian Wheat Board which is to maximize the sale of Canadian wheat and the return to producers. It is good to hear one of the opposition parties talk in a positive way about a couple of the great institutions we have in this country: the Canadian What Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission and hear him put a proposal to build on those institutions rather than destroy them.

Earlier I raised a question with the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who would in essence destroy the wheat board with this motion and I could not seem to get through to him that the lowest seller sets the price.

I will put the question of the member for Frontenac. When one is selling products and people are competing against one another to bring down the price structure-the member for Frontenac is well aware of the beef industry and how sometimes prices are brought down in that industry by the fact that one producer wants to undermine another-and I wonder if he could tell us if the same thing might happen to wheat growers.

The ultimate impact of this motion would be that we could in essence have greater than 100,000 producers competing against each other and trying to undercut the price structure. The hon. member claims that would not happen. A producer might be in some financial difficulty-and I know the Reform Party does not seem to be concerned about that-who when the option is there for that producer to say to his banker that there will be a final payment in which returns are maximized under the Canadian Wheat Board, but now under this motion he would be forced to sell now and undermine the price structure.

I wonder if the member for Frontenac has any concerns that the negative competition being promoted by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster might undermine the price structure and force farmers into greater financial difficulty?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpèque, is right. All things considered, I must admit he is right. But I would like to remind him that the Canadian Wheat Board, like the Canadian Dairy Commission, is not without fault.

I would also like to remind my distinguished colleague that, because he plays a major role on the agriculture committee, he could suggest to his minister, to his government, improvements to the Canadian Wheat Board, because you cannot be unaware that the Canadian Wheat Board is criticized, reviled and hated by almost a third of western farmers.

So it must be admitted that there is a malaise, the initial malaise. Farmers have no role at all on the advisory board, the one that was created and on which 11 members sit. They are listened to out of politeness, when in fact they are the most directly concerned.

You know, when I see the chairman, even if his curriculum vitae is 12 pages long, if he has never driven a tractor, if he does not know what one is, even if he has gone to school for years and has two or three doctorates, he does not know anything about agriculture or growing grain, and he is going to fall on his face.

Those best qualified to manage are farmers. Why do co-ops work so well in Quebec? Because the president is a farmer in the co-op. In fish co-ops, the president is usually a fisherman. He is not the village doctor, he is a fisherman.

So, whether it is under the present government or the one before it, it does not matter. When I look at the appointments made in my riding to the joint committee to examine complaints regarding unemployment insurance, now known as employment insurance, I think political patronage is involved. When you look at the list of these appointments, I think it would be good if one of them had seen an unemployed person or had had to fill out a time sheet at least once in his life.

Take the issue of improving transportation. The hon. member for Malpèque feels that a little improvement in transportation is required. You know, Mr. Speaker, Canadian wheat and barley account for 23 per cent of all exports sold throughout the world. We are therefore important, because close to one quarter of the world's exports come from our country. We have a major role and we should be a little more aggressive on foreign markets and go after other parts of the market and eventually, as the member for Malpèque said so eloquently a few minutes ago, increase, maximize prices, with the result that farmers would get better prices.

I will conclude by saying that the government could improve the operating method of the Canadian Wheat Board, and thus satisfy, I am sure, a large number of the 120,000 western grain producers. Obviously, not everyone can be satisfied, but when close to a third of grain producers are unhappy and would like to opt out for two years, something is wrong.

Once again, in closing-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If you would not mind, I am trying to encourage debate during the period for questions and comments. As more than one member rose when I asked whether there were any questions or comments, I am going to give a member of another political party a chance to ask a question.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member for Frontenac. I know he is not extremely familiar with the Canadian Wheat Board since its jurisdiction is the west and the prairies, but he is very familiar with the dairy industry.

If the dairy industry were run the way the Canadian Wheat Board is run and affects western Canada, would he support having to market through a milk selling agency if the producers had no voice on how that milk marketing agency functioned, had no producer voice, no democratic process to choose the directors on that milk marketing board? Would he support that board if there was no public accounting for how it marketed what the profit was, how much it cost it to market the milk on the producers' behalf?

That is what western farmers have to cope with because of the secrecy and the unaccountability of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not believe that is in the dairy industry. Perhaps his attitude would change a little bit if the dairy industry was burdened with this undemocratic and secretive marketing agency.

The second question is an inspiration by the member for Malpeque who seems to think that the lowest bidder always gets the commodity. I would love to go to the member's auction sale if he ever has one because the lowest bidder is going to buy the items at his farm sale.

Do farmers in Quebec accept the lowest bid for their goods or do they accept the highest bid for their goods, the milk, the wheat or whatever they want to sell? What do they accept, the highest bid or the lowest bid?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would need about ten minutes to answer this question from my distinguished colleague, who is, moreover, the sponsor of today's motion.

The milk producers have disciplined themselves. I remember, for example, that ten years ago you would see four different milk tanker trucks on one concession road, picking up milk from the various farms, because there was competition between dairies at that time.

The dairy farmers got together and today there is one truck, just one. A bigger truck, of course, and it comes more often, so the milk is of better quality and this is the truck that will deliver the milk to the processors, according to their needs. If one needs three quarters of the tank, that is what will be delivered there. If another needs a quarter tank, that is what it gets, and so on. This has lowered production costs, therefore, and dairy producers have increased their incomes without increasing milk prices.

What I would like to say to my distinguished colleagues is that, in my region, when there is a sectorial meeting, 68, 72, or 75 of the 90 members will turn out. Dairy producers look after their own affairs, and if something is not working, they tell their sector president, and he passes the word higher up, and so on, until it reaches the top.

Are the western grain producers united? The 120,000 producers should form a basic union, because if they wanted to unite, these 120,000 or 125,000 farmers, they would have immense political and economic clout. That is worth nothing if they are not united.

I think that if they start to break apart-someone stays out for two years, another six months later, stays out for two years as well, so comes back six months after the first-fragmented like this, as my distinguished colleague from Malpèque has said so aptly-there would be competition between the producers themselves and no good would come of it for stabilizing prices and ensuring income stability for the producer. There would be no impact whatsoever.

Take the price of beef, for instance. I remember on the farm I sold feeder calves at the same price after ten years as I did when I started out farming. Beef prices have gone down. For the past 24 months, for example, they are practically giving beef away. The farmers listening to me today know very well that we get nothing at all for our cull cows and practically nothing for our butcher cattle.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Reform cows.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

My colleagues are making a pun about Reform cows, because the word in French for cull cow is vache de réforme , which means, as you know, Mr. Speaker, dairy cows who are no longer good producers.

The price of beef at this time is rock bottom, but if there were an organization similar to the Canadian Wheat Board, possibly the beef producers would have regular and stable prices.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Contrary to what some critics contend, the Canadian Wheat Board is not a monolithic dinosaur out of touch with Canadian producers. It is a viable, state of the art company that does an excellent job in marketing western Canadian wheat and barley for its customers, the men and women who work in the Canadian grain sector.

The board was set up in 1935 under pressure from farmers. It has become in the words of Dan Morgan in his study on trade,

"Merchants of Grain", the most powerful and prestigious marketing board in the world. The board has earned respect throughout the world for providing a quality product on time and as contracts specify. Its credibility in the world markets has been built over the years and it has delivered tremendous customer service.

The board is an example of an orderly marketing structure that best serves both Canadian farmers and Canadian grain customers. It markets all western Canadian wheat and barley products for export and domestically for human consumption. It costs the wheat board only 4.5 cents per bushel to market farmers' grain. All profits from the sales go to farmers. Because all western Canadian grain goes through a single desk, the Canadian Wheat Board can offer specific, consistent quality and supply to customers. As a result it can get the best price for western grain farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board, like all organizations, is changing with the times. In an effort to maintain its competitive edge the Canadian Wheat Board commissioned the consulting firm of Deloitte and Touche Management Consultants in 1992 to take an outside independent critical look at the Canadian Wheat Board and how it operates. The fact that the Canadian Wheat Board took the initiative to do an in depth independent study proves the importance it places on proper management and accountability and its desire to strive to serve all customers' needs and to continue to be more efficient.

The study noted a number of areas for potential improvement. I am pleased to say that the board has implemented all the major recommendations handed down to it in the study. For example, the consulting firm noticed that the board needed to improve its long term planning. The board responded by developing a corporate vision, mission and a set of goals and strategic objectives. It has also streamlined and made improvements to its budgeting, management, planning and reporting system and has introduced a new performance evaluation system.

The Canadian Wheat Board's efforts have not stopped there. It is continually striving to make improvements in planning, management and operational aspects of its business. To ensure it operates efficiently, the Canadian Wheat Board also conducts an ongoing department by department audit of expenditures.

The level of service provided by the Canadian Wheat Board has greatly improved over the years. The Canadian Wheat Board has responded to demands for more market information beyond the annual report by providing a number of services and initiatives to keep its client producers well informed.

The board now issues regular pool return outlooks which give producers a good indication of where markets are heading. It also holds annual grain days meetings across the prairies where its staff meet producers to bring them new ideas and information and to listen their concerns.

The board is also using the tools of technology to become even more accessible to farmers. It has a 1-800 number and an electronic bulletin board. These initiatives show that the board has become proactive in its efforts to respond to customers' needs.

The board has also established price forecasting, undertaken new market development initiatives and developed enhanced risk management tools.

To help farmers tap into one of the most promising foreign markets, the board has opened a new office in Beijing. It also has a branch office in Tokyo and an excellent information network worldwide. This information network goes well beyond the scope of information available to individual grain producers or individual grain companies.

For all these reasons, the wheat board has proven that it is adapting to changing times and that it is providing a valuable service to farmers. This is not to suggest that everything is perfect. Everyone agrees that some changes are needed to continue to improve the grain marketing system.

That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food set up the Western Grain Marketing Panel last summer. This panel will report very soon. The minister hopes to have legislation in place by the fall.

The panel worked hard for many months to provide a vast amount of very useful public information. It held 15 public town hall meetings across the prairies to provide information and to receive input and feedback from farmers and farm organizations.

The panel conducted three sets of formal hearings in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Regina. These hearings provided a formal opportunity for all those holding differing points of view to come forward with their best arguments, their best evidence to put the case for one system or another to be subject to examination and cross-examination to get all the facts on the table and a thorough analysis of all the pros and cons, all the benefits and all the consequences. The panel had that full, open, transparent hearing process so that everything could be examined in a calm, rational and intelligent way.

The panel is now in the final stages of finishing its report. We expect to have it at the beginning of July. Once we have that report from the panel, which consists of nine very well respected individuals that represent every shade of opinion on the subject, we will be in a much better position to make whatever decisions are necessary with respect to grain marketing.

I would encourage all members of this House to lend their support to that board. It is Canada's best marketing tool to help farmers compete in global markets and get the best prices for their products.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I could ask the parliamentary secretary for some guidance here. Am I to understand that the parliamentary secretary is sharing his time with a colleague?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Souris-Moose Mountain.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Then there will be five minutes of questions or comments for the parliamentary secretary.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding the wheat board. He spoke so eloquently of this board and all the things that were accomplished through it that I wonder if we are even talking about the same board that our supply motion refers to.

I would like to list some facts. The member stated clearly that the board could guarantee large scale delivery to all its customers. Then the member also pointed out that farmers would get the best possible prices through the board.

If the member recalls correctly, and he should since he is parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister, he would look at the first point here, the wheat board's ability to guarantee large scale delivery. I do not believe that is quite true.

Last fall the board had to apologize to Japan for its inability to deliver contracted barley. In April the wheat board then reneged on half of the future barley purchases promised to farmers. Without that sale to Japan, the grain was no longer needed. There was a slap in the face to the farmers as well as an inability to deliver to Japan.

Another inaccuracy from the parliamentary secretary is to deliver the best prices to farmers. Barley prices in the United States are American $4.85. The same barley through the board in Canada is $2.35. For durum the Canadian price offered stateside is $8.50 and the board is offering between $4 and $4.50.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to address those discrepancies as he points out that the board is delivering when in fact it is not.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is structured so that it takes all of the product from all of our industry here in Canada.

We should look closely at the size of that industry and where these products are sold. The industry sells some 30 million tonnes of wheat around the world to markets in Japan, Asia and throughout the United States.

Sales to the United States are in the area of about $2 million. What I am hearing from some spot pricing at very specific times is in fact that little market in the United States, which represents only 7 per cent of the sales of Canadian grain into the United States, may blip up from time to time.

When the price in the United States goes up the Canadian Wheat Board gets that price. There is absolutely no question that the board picks up that spot price in the United States. It also picks up all the prices throughout the rest of the world. Not only will that two million tonnes be sold in the United States for a higher price when the spot price is high, but also the other 28 million tonnes that is sold in other regions of the world. As a result every farmer that sells wheat to the wheat pool gets the benefit of that high price and the average of all the other prices put together. That is how a pool works.

When we are talking about how that pooling system operates, we are talking about selling in. Each person does not get one price from the United States, a different price from Japan, but an average or pooling price. As a result, they get the best price because the wheat board keeps no profit. All of the profits go back to the growers, the producers. Some grain is sold at higher prices and other grains are sold at lower prices. The average is what the Canadian Wheat Board pays.

When we talk about the delivery system and because we have a huge inventory of product, we have large growers co-operating with the wheat board, we know very clearly that their reputation throughout the world has been fabulous. It has the best reputation of any grain selling operation anywhere in the world.

As a result the board has a reputation for being able to supply. There may be niche markets where at one point it could not supply product, but in general it is recognized around the world that the wheat board has enough product to supply the markets to which it is selling. It has done a very good job and has a super reputation with the product it is selling. The Canadian product is above all others.

When we look at that operation it is very clear that producers do get the best average price and they do sell at a pretty secure market throughout the world.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a brief comment and a short question.

The comment is with regard to the Deloitte & Touche report to which the parliamentary secretary referred. He said that all the recommendations have been fulfilled. In fact that is incorrect. One of the recommendations dealt with the structure of the board and

the fact that it had five equal commissioners. Deloitte & Touche called it a 1930s structure that does not work in the 1990s. That is still in place and cannot be touched until the Canadian Wheat Board Act is amended.

My question is for the hon. member from Ontario. We have not had one prairie farmer from the Liberal side speak yet. I think they only have one farmer.

Ontario corn producers can sell their product to whomever they choose. They can sell it across the line. They can load their trucks, go across the border into the states and sell their corn, or sell it domestically or export it around the world. But barley growers who are producing an equivalent product in western Canada do not have that same privilege.

Does the hon. member think it is fair that corn producers can market to whomever they wish but prairie barley producers are not allowed to do that because of the Canadian Wheat Board Act?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party continually brings up this idea of the ability to sell and you can always get the highest price. That seems to be the question that they are really coming down on. How do you get the highest price?

I believe without question that there is a terrible difference between this idea of buying and selling. If one is a buyer and there is only one person selling a product and there are many buyers, then yes, the buyers will bid against each other. That is not the situation that we are talking about. It is just the opposite.

We are sellers and if we have many sellers they are going to be bidding against each other. What my hon. colleague suggested is that bidding process, one against another, will lower the price. Obviously everyone knows if we have 10 people selling and one person buying, the person who is buying is going to get the best deal. That is the difference between buy and sell.