Debates of June 19th, 1996

Supply

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward today by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster appears reasonable on the face of it. Indeed, it sounds reasonable that for a two-year period the Canadian Wheat Board could allow farmers, if they choose to do so, to sell their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the board, if they thought it was a good idea at that particular time.

Let me point out that this motion represents a piecemeal and a cavalier approach to the serious business of marketing Canadian grains around the world, and the serious business of one of the top four or five sectors in the Canadian economy, agriculture and food.

There is a lot of good news in agriculture and food these days. First, prices for wheat and barley are higher than they have been for some time. After years of low prices, competing with the treasuries of the United States and the European Union which used massive amounts of export subsidies to keep the price of wheat down, prairie grain farmers are reaping the long overdue rewards of good prices.

Prairie grain farmers are reaping these rewards and that is good news for all Canadians. The world stocks of wheat are low, lower than they have been for a long time. Compounding this situation is a less than average winter wheat crop in the United States. That means low inventories and strong prices.

For the coming crop year which begins August 1, 1966, we are forecasting the price of a tonne of spring wheat at more than $260. That compares with just $134 a tonne in 1991-92 and $157 a tonne in the 1992-93 crop year.

Barley prices too are near record highs. The average price of feed barley for the three years between 1991 and 1994 was about $100 a tonne. For this coming crop year we are predicting the price to range from $135 to $155. Those good prices are benefiting all grain farmers, not just those who live along the 49th parallel. Perhaps it is the bonanza atmosphere after so many years in the doldrums that is fueling some of this short term, quick response from the other side.

Second, there have been many important and dramatic changes in agriculture over the last few years: a new world trading agreement and major policies changes within Canada, such as the end of the western grain transportation benefit. High grain prices, coupled with these changes and others are creating a real sense of optimism for grain farmers.

In fact, there is a groundswell of optimism throughout the agriculture and food sector as a whole. Between 600 and 700 who live, work and influence the agriculture sector will be gathering in Winnipeg next week to celebrate the excellence of Canadian agri-food and to collectively work on a business plan that focuses on maximizing the opportunities that abound for Canadian producers and companies at home and abroad. Good prices and good times do not necessarily last very long and now is a fortuitous time to work on those long term plans.

Turning specifically to grain marketing, any changes in the Canadian grain marketing system should be thoughtful and carefully reasoned with an eye on the long term prosperity of grain farmers, the prairie economy and to the overall benefit of all Canadians.

My colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has taken a thoughtful approach in pursuing through the establishment of the western grain marketing panel an exclusive process

that has given all farmers a chance to put forward their views on the marketing of grains. It will be a thoughtful approach that will consider the benefits for that economy across the prairies, not just for those in a particular backyard when it comes to making changes in the marketing system that has served prairie farmers very well for more than half a century.

We are not squandering good times by making rash choices about the future. We are carefully exploring all points of view, all of the relevant facts, before proposing changes to the marketing of Canadian wheat and barley. No change will be made in an isolated, vague way which responds to the issues of the moment or the issues of one set of lobbyists.

It is a curious time for the opposition to bring this matter to the floor of the House of Commons when the western grain marketing panel is so close to completing its task.

The minister expects the panel to deliver its report in the next couple of weeks. He is eagerly awaiting the panel's report and will respond in his usual judicious and thoughtful manner. I urge members to defeat this motion.

As I travel throughout my riding, a rural agricultural riding in Saskatchewan, I do not get the response that some of the members from the third party suggest, that the Canadian Wheat Board should be destroyed. That is absolute nonsense.

A gentleman from Minnesota talked about one concern which he wrote about in a letter to the Western Producer . He said: ``I sure would keep the Canadian Wheat Board if I were a Canadian. I have been on the Minnesota Wheat Growers Board for the last three years. Not one board member was in favour of working for a fair price for wheat in Washington. Your farmers in Canada should work together to protect your own interests. By the way I don't like those Canadian farmers hauling their wheat across the border in violation of your laws''.

It seems passing strange that our American counterparts who have tremendous opposition to the Canadian Wheat Board are now finding solace in our friends in the third party. If it were such a poor system, do you think they would be complaining? In objecting to our Canadian Wheat Board, I doubt it very much.

I know the leader of the third party was in the United States. He suggested they should remove the irritant, the Canadian Wheat Board. However, when he returned home he suggested that a party based in the prairie provinces would not side with U.S. grain growers. I wonder how our friends in the third party are going to set the record straight. Either they are in favour of the American system and Canada abandoning our excellent wheat board or they are suggesting that we wait until the minister comes through with the report and he will take the appropriate action.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member's comments even though they are absolute nonsense.

This member is saying that the third party, the Reform Party, is out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board which is absolute nonsense. We are getting sick and tired of trying to initiate a sensible, realistic debate on this subject only to be subjected to that kind of nonsense. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever farmed in his life but I have farmed most of my life. I am not as young as I once was but I can remember very low barley prices.

To hear the hon. member talk of an average price of $100 a tonne for barley and suggest as he did that it is a bonanza price, I would like him to tell farmers that. The bit of profit on $100 per tonne barley does not go very far toward paying for a $200,000 tractor or combine. The hon. member should know that when he represents an agricultural riding.

The hon. member is saying that the average pooling price should be good enough. Studies have been done. Al Dooley of the Alberta Grain Commission, analysis branch, has done a 15-year study of the barley price f.o.b. Vancouver, shipped from Great Falls, Montana, as compared to Lethbridge, Alberta. It was a fair comparison. He found over the 15-year period that the American price was $23 to $30 per tonne more.

How can the member stand in his place and say that Canadian farmers are getting a good deal from the Canadian Wheat Board when that is the reality of a 15-year study?

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is likely that he wanted to report on Tom Dooley rather than Al Dooley. The hon. member made a reference to studies. We told him that three independent people took at look at the Canadian Wheat Board. One was from his province of Alberta, one from Manitoba and one from Saskatchewan. They said the Canadian Wheat Board was doing an excellent job and gave the facts. They do not want to listen. Talk about nonsense. He certainly captured that event very well.

If he does not know Al Dooley he should check with Tom Dooley because they are likely in the same boat. I am suggesting the Canadian Wheat Board is a very capable and honourable approach to marketing.

When the committee comes forward with its report we will make changes to move into the 21st century. The minister said he would. If we are patient and listen to the proposals, we will see some positive, constructive changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate since it began today. Four glaring questions remain unanswered by the government which I would like to pose at this time. I would prefer to do them one at a

time but I will probably have only one chance to rise. I hope the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain has a pencil handy.

Is it fair that corn producers can sell their corn in Ontario wherever they wish? Is it fair that Quebec farmers can sell their wheat for $9.50 a bushel to the mills in Ontario but a Saskatchewan farmer cannot access that? Saskatchewan cannot sell their wheat in Ontario but other people can. Does the hon. member think that is fair?

Is it fair that farmers cannot have a direct say in what happens to their product? The Liberal government promised a plebiscite in the last election on barley marketing and never carried through with it. Farmers have had no direct say in this question. Is it fair that they are not allowed a direct say in this question?

I have a third question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With the greatest of respect, I have time restrictions. I ask the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville to hold questions three and four in reserve. I will go to the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain on the first two.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me say something about the marketing system. They can sell into Ontario but they will go through the Canadian Wheat Board. They can go through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the system set in place.

If the members wants to set up a new system as he is suggesting, it will not happen while we are around. We support the Canadian Wheat Board. If the hon. member does not like it, it is too bad.

I likely travel more than most of them. That is not unique. I go about my riding. I can assure the House that the vast majority of farmers, and my son-in-law is a large scale farmer, support the Canadian Wheat Board and single desk selling.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Actually it is not what I feel at all. It is not pleasure that I feel to be speaking and to be in the House today. As I listened to the agriculture minister give his presentation I felt frustration. He really has not learned a thing over the past many years.

He was involved as parliamentary secretary to the wheat board minister in the early eighties when a plebiscite was held on whether canola should go under wheat board jurisdiction. He lost that plebiscite. Farmers did not want that to happen. I thank God that it did not happen. The canola industry has been a saviour in my part of the country without a doubt.

I felt frustration as I listened to the agriculture minister demonstrate that he really has not learned anything in that regard over the years. I felt sadness when I came to realize that as long as the government is in place the wheat board will not be changed in any meaningful way. The member for Souris-Moose Mountain has confirmed it. For that I feel sadness.

For me it has been many years of struggling. In my own farming career of 20 years, my father's before me and my grandfather's before him, we struggled to change the system to give farmers control over marketing. It is sad to see that it will not happen under the government. However it sure as heck will under Reform when we get into power.

I will speak today about what the motion is about and what it is not about. Then I will speak about what the wheat board is. I will not get technical. I will just explain what it is. Then I will give a bit of selective history because I do not have the time to go into the full history of the wheat board. The history will start in 1935 and go up to the present. Then I will speak briefly about what is likely to happen in the future.

My colleague reminded me that I only have 20 minutes. Probably I will not get through half of what I want to speak about but I will give it a good try.

The motion is about giving farmers the choice in marketing their grain. It seems sad that we need to have debate on giving farmers the choice to market their own product. What other business persons in the country allow government to market their products for them? Why has this archaic idea hung around so long? I do not know the answer but the motion is about giving farmers a choice over marketing their grain.

The motion is not about destroying the wheat board. It has nothing to do with that. It is not about making a list over here of what is good about the board and a list over there about what is not so good about the board. That is not what it is about. We do not want to get into that debate.

Farmers can debate those issues in the debate leading up to the plebiscite on the wheat board. That is the time for that debate. It has certainly taken place over the last many years and should continue, but that is not what this debate is about.

I will read the motion so there is no doubt:

That this House urge the government to amend the Canadian What Board Act to include a special 2 year opting out provision permitting those prairie producers who believe they are missing market opportunities the flexibility and choice to market their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

That is what the debate is about. It is an honest debate. Every Reformer debating the issue is doing it in all seriousness from the heart and from an immense pool of knowledge on the issue. Many of us have lived under this system of marketing grain for a long time.

It is certainly not about pinning labels on people, as the member for Souris-Moose Mountain is doing to deflect the debate. It is about giving farmers a choice and that is what it should be about.

Earlier the Minister of Agriculture read very selectively about a commissioner in an article from the Western Producer . I will respond by reading from a more recent article in the Western Producer written by Barry Wilson. When referring to the Minister of Agriculture he wrote:

-strategy of defending the Canadian Wheat Board from its critics by stalling for time has one underlying, and perhaps fatal, flaw.

Again referring to the minister he continued:

Wheat board supporters have not used the time-given them to mobilize their own show of support.

He looks isolated, leading a phantom army of alleged Board true-believers who do appear to care enough to join the political battle.

Barry Wilson covers agricultural issues in the House and in committees continually. He is saying that perhaps the following is not there. Later on in my presentation I will demonstrate that is absolutely the case.

I want to talk a bit about the wheat board. I have heard some discussion about the subject. The wheat board is not a selling monopoly. There have been arguments that because the wheat board has monopoly power as a seller it will get a better price for farmers. That is not what it is. It sells into the world market. Literally dozens and dozens of major sellers sell competitive commodities into the market. It is not a monopoly seller; it does not have monopoly powers on the sell side.

Let us make no mistake that the wheat board has monopoly power on the buy side. I want the same people who talk about the benefit of monopoly power to answer why on earth they would want our farmers kept under the monopoly on the buy side. There is only one buyer to whom we can sell our wheat and barley for export and our wheat for domestic use. That is where the monopoly is on the buy side. That is to the disadvantage of farmers and there is no doubt about that.

The wheat board is also an organization which has proven to be unaccountable to farmers who pay the bills. The wheat board is totally funded by farmers from proceeds from the sale of their grain. Why on earth can farmers not see what goes on inside the organization? Why did it take a leaked document to show there was a severance package for commissioners of $290,000? It is nonsense. It is a closed organization and that has to end. It has to become accountable.

I will give a bit of history. I am not going back to 1917 when it was first put in place or to 1920 when it was put in place again. I will go back to 1935. My grandfather had been farming in Lloydminister for 15 years when it was reinstated in 1935. At that time a dual marketing system was in place. Farmers had a choice. They could either sell through the board, on their own or through a grain company. That is the way the board was set up in 1935. My grandfather said the wheat board was a saviour for him at that time. He was right.

I will talk a bit about the situation at that time. When my grandfather hauled his grain on a wagon, maybe 50 or 60 bushels at a time, to an elevator it was a haul of seven miles. At times he had longer hauls. He never knew what the elevator agent would do. He never had good market information. He lived a long way from a community where he could find out what the market was doing. Even then the information was very localized. There was not good market information. There was a cumbersome transportation system.

The wheat board was a saviour for my grandfather, but he lived and he farmed long enough to curse the wheat board because of its monopoly powers. There is no argument. It was an excellent organization. It had great value to farmers when it was put in place. It probably still does. However, that is not what this debate is about.

Then we go to 1943. During the war the Canadian government was concerned that wheat prices were going up dramatically and it wanted to get the grain cheaper for the war effort in Canada and in Britain. The government put the monopoly power in place through an order in council. That is something we would expect from this government. It was never debated and put through the House. It was established by order in council during the war in order to get cheap grain. As soon as it was put in place the prices dropped dramatically.

I have some prices for comparison between Canadian towns in the prairies and U.S. towns across the border. The comparison shows consistently that wheat was 70 cents a bushel higher in the United States than it was in Canada under the wheat board monopoly. That is $1.80 compared with $1.10. We are looking at a price difference of more than 40 per cent.

The government told Canadian farmers to accept it because it was for the war effort. Farmers are and always have been loyal citizens. They were willing to help the war effort. They were promised the difference would be paid back later, but they never saw a penny.

That is when the wheat board got its monopoly. The monopoly ended later and then returned in 1948 or 1949. We have to ask why. The only reason a government would want a monopoly in an organization such as this is so it can buy grain cheap because it has the monopoly on the buy side.

Then we get to 1980-81. The wheat is still being sold under the monopoly of the wheat board. The current minister of agriculture tried to have canola put under the board and he failed in the

plebiscite. I believe that is why the minister is so shy about holding a plebiscite now. He knows he will lose it this time as well.

I move now to the last four years. In 1993 Charlie Mayer, the minister responsible for the wheat board at the time, decided barley should be sold on the continental market. That meant farmers would have a choice to either sell through the board or directly, through a grain company or by themselves, to the United States. I would like to read a few things members of the Liberal Party said at that time.

I will read from an agriculture committee transcript of April 1993. A motion was put before the committee: "In view of the concerns that have been expressed by barley producers across the prairies with the government's plan to establish a continental barley market, the Standing Committee on Agriculture calls on the Minister of Agriculture to have a plebiscite of producers before the government takes any actions to establish a continental barley market and remove the exclusive marketing of barley exports from the Canadian Wheat Board". The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, who sits in this government, argued there should have been a plebiscite on giving farmers the choice in marketing power.

The Conservative government, which was no more democratic than this government, refused to have a plebiscite. It wanted to ram the change through. That was not right. There should have been a plebiscite at that time.

A little later in that year, leading up to an election campaign, the Prime Minister promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice. The agriculture minister promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice. Many Liberal members promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice in marketing their own grain.

It is interesting how the Liberal position has changed from the time they were in opposition and how democratic they were then to now and how undemocratic they are now.

I want to get even a little closer to the present. I want to talk about what the farmers and the Government of Alberta have done about this Liberal broken promise to hold a plebiscite on the dual marketing of barley, the exact motion we are talking about, except we are saying we should try it for a two year period.

In the fall of 1995 the Alberta government held a plebiscite on dual marketing, on giving farmers the choice to market their grain in any way they saw fit, either through the wheat board or on their own. The result of that plebiscite was that 66 per cent were in favour of giving farmers a choice in barley marketing and 62 per cent in wheat. The results were clear.

I have heard the minister of agriculture and others saying it was not a fair plebiscite. To heck it was not a fair plebiscite. I voted in that plebiscite. I took part in the debate on that plebiscite. The only thing that was not fair about it was that my money, the money I paid to keep the wheat board operating with every bushel of grain I sell, although I sell very little through the board anymore because I do not find it profitable, and all the money spent by farmers on the board, what did the wheat board do? It sent all of its best sales people out to the meetings to tell farmers that change was not good for them, that mama government should control marketing their grain. It sent its best sales people, and they were good, top notch sales people. I was at some of those meetings. However, they failed. Farmers clearly want the right to sell their grain.

As far as I am concerned, the issue has been decided in Alberta. The farmers have spoken and the Alberta government has spoken. The issue is over and done. We still have to decide in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as to whether farmers should be given the choice and freedom to market their grain as they see fit.

That is what this motion would do. It would give farmers right across the country the freedom to market their own grain, the product they put their money and sweat into. This motion will give them that choice.

[An hon. member]

Like the Prime Minister promised.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Like the Prime Minister promised and like the agriculture minister promised.

That is where we are today. Alberta has decided the issue, case closed. What will come out of this committee? Nothing. I could have told members that. As soon as the minister said he was to hold this committee on grain marketing, I wrote down what the results were to be. I will be right and there will not be substantial changes. It will be just enough, they hope, to placate farmers. It is tinkering and it is typical Liberal law making.

He is the minister of procrastination, as he is called in my part of the country. I do not call him that, although maybe from time to time, but other farmers call him the minister of procrastination, and that is earned. He has not done a thing on this issue which is so important to Canadian farmers.

Where to from here? The government, and this has been backed up by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain, goes nowhere on this issue. Nothing substantial is to happen. We keep this anomaly of farmers' not being given control over marketing their own products. No other businessman would accept that, but that is what it will be under the Liberals.

However, I can absolutely guarantee the change will happen. The farmers will be given the choice. It will only happen under this government if it has a change of heart. I would not put the probability very high on that. However, after the next election it will change when the Reform Party forms the government, as I

believe we will. It will change and it will change fast. It will be done in a short time and that is a pledge I make to farmers right across western Canada. The farmers will have a say.

A plebiscite will be held and I am very confident the results of the plebiscite will be that farmers will choose to have the freedom to market the grain as they see fit and finally be given equality with the rest of Canadians.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Vegreville. In some respects he seems to be an expert on plebiscites. He seems to be an expert on systems. I would like him to answer a couple of direct questions. What is the system he is proposing? I would like him to define how that system would actually work, if he is actually saving the wheat board while bringing forward his new system.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and I am very pleased to see the member takes this debate seriously.

Farmers will decide what question is asked. Farmers will decide what they want to choose from in a plebiscite. Then farmers will vote and that is the system they will operate under. That is a straight answer and I thank him for the question.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Vegreville's comments concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. In my former life I also farmed, admittedly in Ontario. I also grew wheat and I also shipped it and was quite happy to ship it to the Ontario wheat marketing board.

I listened with great interest to the member talking about the need for flexibility. I live in an agricultural community. Most of my farmers are involved with the marketing board. They are all happy. They fought long and hard to establish those boards. There was one basic reason. Generally speaking in agriculture there are many producers and there are very few buyers.

The member talked endlessly about the international market and so forth. The reality is that with 125,000 producers there will not be that many buyers. Invariably what happens when that situation occurs is buyers start to conglomerate and pick off these producers. That has actually been the history of prairie grain farmers and farmers throughout the country. That is why so many farmers, whether out west or in Ontario or Quebec or whatever, have formed producer organized marketing systems.

It seems the member wants to go back in history and create a free market economy where there really is none. There is none because we do not have the same number of buyers as we have producers. All the profits from the Canadian Wheat Board go back to the farmers. It is obvious to me and I do not know why it is not obvious to the member. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a pool marketing system on the one hand and also have a whole bunch of other farmers outside of it.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. On his statement that there are so many sellers, 125,000 farmers, and so few buyers, under the system we are operating right now in the Canadian Wheat Board area and in Ontario there is only one buyer. That is true under the system we are under.

However, if we give farmers a choice there are many buyers. There are buyers around the world. The problem in the past and the reason we have had a build-up of wheat in the past is that the market signals are not getting through this Canadian Wheat Board bureaucracy and its secretive behaviour and operations to the farmers.

Farmers were not getting the signals as to how much grain they should be growing. For years they grew too much wheat for the market. As a result anywhere between two thirds and a third of the wheat they grew was being dumped on the world market, dumped below the cost of production and dumped at a price lower than the selling price in Canada. That is what happened because of the lack of market signals due to the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is part of what we are asking to change. Open it up, give farmers the signals and let farmers find their own markets because they will have the signals then. They will know what they should be producing.

Farmers are very flexible now. They can go from wheat to other grains. They have shown that. They have done it. In our area they grow specialty crops, canola, lentils, peas, hemp, and I am not talking about cannabis; I am talking about the legal stuff. They will grow whatever they can that is legal to make a living. That is part of the answer.

In Ontario they are still unfortunately affected by the Canadian Wheat Board. The Ontario Wheat Board however has elected people running the board. Elected directors run the board. That is one of the things I think farmers would ask for with the Canadian Wheat Board. Let us fix the Canadian Wheat Board by giving farmers control over their own organization as they have in Ontario.

I have been down to southern Ontario quite a few times over the past couple of years. I have found a revolt in southern Ontario against the monopoly of the Ontario Wheat Board. It is just as strong there as it is in the west. The problem is their democratic system is not working very well but they are going to make it work. They are replacing one by one the old directors with some new directors who really want to open up the market which is exactly what we are asking for in this motion.

I think farmers in Ontario want exactly what farmers in the west want. I think we are speaking for farmers in Ontario as well farmers in the west.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have such a knowledgeable audience in the House this evening. I will attempt to meet their expectations and then some.

Let me comment first on the material I was able to obtain on the Canadian Wheat Board. There are three basic pillars of the wheat board marketing system: single desk selling, there is a power in marketing in this particular approach which I have not heard discussed in comparison to a dual marketing process; price pooling; and a farmer-government relationship which, as the previous speaker mentioned, has served since back in the teens but became much more supported by western farmers from the 1930s on.

Also we need to mention the fact that there is a feeling by members opposite that the committee that has been put in place is lacking in credibility, is lacking in honesty in terms of how it has conducted its hearings and its processes. I wish to comment on that point.

The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette mentioned that he took exception to the fact that there were closed sessions and that this therefore jeopardized the entire process. I do not feel that way whatsoever. One of the strengths of the wheat board has been that it will be coming forward with a report. The report will include information from those sessions which some of the presenters wished to present in private.

I will focus to some extent on the committee itself and will discuss very quickly, briefly and succinctly the fact that this panel is blue chip. It comes to the problem of marketing with impressive credentials. I support this assembly of people.

The panel is comprised of a chairman and eight individuals who represent virtually every perspective on grain marketing from one end of the spectrum to the other. Two of the panellists were drawn from the ranks of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. I know members opposite and some on our side have read some of the articles which have been put forward from associations which they represent. Four of the panellists are active farmers and one works in the milling industry. Three are from Saskatchewan, three from Alberta, two from Manitoba and one from Quebec.

The minister took great care in appointing this panel to ensure that the members represented a broad cross-section of backgrounds. If I may, I would like to review their qualifications for the House. I am sure members will agree they are well qualified for the job.

The chief panellist, Mr. Thomas Malloy of Saskatoon, distinguished himself prior to this appointment as chief negotiator for the Government of Canada in land claim negotiations with the Inuit of northern Quebec and for the First Nations of British Columbia. He was also legal counsel for western Canada to the Royal Commission on the Marketing of Beef in Canada.

Mr. Bill Duke is a former president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. He farms 2,000 acres near Redvers, Saskatchewan, just across the line from where I live, an area which is well represented by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain. He has served on the Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade and has participated on the Producer Payment Panel and the 1990 Canadian Wheat Board review panel.

Mr. Jack Gorr of Three Hills, Alberta is vice-president of the WCWGA, a former member of the Alberta Grain Commission and a former member of the Alberta Wheat pool. He participated on the Gilson Task Force on Transportation some years ago.

Mr. James Leibfried of Winnipeg is a former commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board and has extensive experience in the grains and oilseeds industry. He negotiated numerous long term agreements and sales contracts in his career.

Mr. Wally Madill of Calgary is a former CEO of the Alberta Wheat Pool. In addition to his distinguished career with the pool, he has served with numerous companies and associations in the agriculture and energy industries. He has served as chairperson for several agriculture committees, including the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and the Western Grain Elevator Association.

Mr. John Neufeld of Dollard des Ormeaux, Quebec is director of Canadian operations for Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Milling Company and has extensive experience in the agri-processing industry, including flour milling, wheat starch manufacturing, canola crushing and brewing. He is vice-chairman of the Canadian National Millers Association and a member of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange.

Mr. John Pearson of Calgary is first vice-president of the Alberta Wheat Pool as well as vice-chairman of Prairie Pools Inc. and Western Co-operative Fertilizers. He is also a director of Prairie Sun Grains and Pool Insurance. He operates a 1,700 acre grain farm at Donalda, Alberta.

Mr. Avery Sahl of Mossbank, Saskatchewan has been active in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and represents numerous organizations including the Grain Standards Committee, XCAN Grain and Prairie Pools. Mr. Sahl also served on the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee for 15 years as its chairman.

Mr. Owen McAuley of McAuley, Manitoba, served on the executive of the Keystone Agricultural Producers and is a member of the Grains and Oilseeds Safety Net Committee which worked to

develop the gross revenue insurance plan and the net income stabilization account.

These nine panellists have handled the entire process and have done so with integrity. I sat in on one of their hearings in Brandon. I thought it was conducted in an open and honest fashion.

Since January the panel has conducted a number of hearings across the country. The hearings took place in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Regina. There were 80 submissions from a wide variety of farm groups. Submissions from these groups will show that there is a common consensus, a willingness to come forward with, hopefully, a unanimous report. If it is not, it will have some integrity on why there are some dissenting comments.

I hope that the report with its observations and conclusions will be based on the views of the producers. The grain companies and other stakeholders of course will have an important voice as well. We look forward to constructive suggestions on how to move forward.

The wheat board has served us well. As any man-made organization, it is not beyond or above approach. I am sensing that the minister will take the recommendations and put them in place as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my comrade from Brandon-Souris. I know he has his heart in the right place and he likes to look at things objectively.

I have read a lot of the presentations made to the Western Grain Marketing Panel. I still have not heard one of those presentations state that it wanted to have the wheat board stay status quo. I wonder if the hon. member could identify one of those presentations which stated it wanted to keep the wheat board the way it is. I have not found one yet.

There is another question I want to ask the hon. member. I agree pooling is a nice way of doing things and getting good and equal prices. However, what would he do with farmers who are in a position of having land which is overtaxed and overpriced and who have to pay five times as much for their property tax as some of their neighbours? Should the cost not also be pooled so these farmers can continue to operate?

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not and I tried not to leave the impression that any of the organizations that were making presentations wanted the status quo to necessarily remain. As I said earlier, they are not totally above reproach. A lot of the organizations will be coming forward with some administrative or operational suggestions.

In all sincerity to my hon. colleague, if one is paying higher taxes in a building on Main Street, then one goes to another area where the taxes are lower. Farmers are doing that. I know a farmer from my area who decided that his taxes or operating costs were too high and he was keeping cattle so he went to another area where he could carry on his operations.

I do not think we can answer this question in terms of apples and oranges, because that is the comparison the member is alleging.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am anticipating questions three and four from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, finally I get to ask three and four. They will be from a different member, but if you do not get answers, I guess it does not matter who does not give you the answers.

Whose wheat is it? Does the wheat belong to the government, to the Canadian Wheat Board or to the farmer? The reason I ask that is why not let farmers control their own affairs? Why do we need to have the government intervene in their affairs and have this heavy-handed way of controlling absolutely everything that is happening in the wheat marketing situations?

In my third question, I would first like to know whose grain is it?

The last question I am going to ask comes because of the glaring contradiction in what the members are saying about the grain marketing panel and what they are saying about the Canadian Wheat Board. They are vehemently defending the Canadian Wheat Board and then say they have this open and accountable grain marketing panel that is going to deal with this situation. That is obviously a contradiction.

They cannot extol the virtues and say that everything has to be kept the way it is and only tinker a little bit and then say that it is a completely open and accountable process in the grain marketing panel. They cannot be impartial if they have already entrenched our position and appointed the people with no input from Reform as to who is going to sit on that panel and have input into that. Those are the two questions I would like to see answered.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will be working on questions five and six for later.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be doing three and four for my hon. colleague.

Whose wheat is it? At the present time, as I understand the process, the farmer takes it from the combine, to the truck, to an agency which sells it or markets it. At that point he then loses control. It is his grain until such time as he markets it. Then it becomes the property of the person to whom he has sold it. It may be a feeder, it may be an elevator company.

In terms of the second issue on-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and speak to the pivotal role of the Canadian Wheat Board and the role it plays in prairie agriculture.

It is important to remind members opposite that the Canadian Wheat Board came into being through a grassroots movement by Canadian farmers. They lobbied the federal government to put in place a marketing agency to help them access export markets. The Canadian Wheat Board exists because prairie farmers demanded it.

The Canadian Wheat Board continues to exist because by far the majority of farmers support it. This is very important for members to keep in mind. Farmers are in essence the board's shareholders. The mandate of the board is to get the best possible returns for Canadian prairie farmers.

As the farmer's marketing agency, the Canadian Wheat Board returns all sales revenues after the costs of marketing to the wheat and barley farmers of western Canada. Farmers do not have to split sales revenues with other shareholders. It is all divided among them based on deliveries and grades.

It is no secret that I have long been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. As a farmer I know what the board means for the bottom line of our farms. The board provides me and farmers like me with consistently higher prices than we could get by marketing on our own. This was proven in an external performance appraisal conducted by three well known and well respected agricultural economists from the prairies.

The evaluation clearly stated that if single desk selling were ended prairie farmers would lose $13.35 per tonne, which would amount to a total loss to prairie farmers of $365 million per year. Is this what Reformers want? Do they want to take $365 million out of farmers pockets every year? Farmers will not stand for it and neither will I. These are the facts. I do not know one farmer who would be willing to give up over $13 per tonne.

The board's mandate is to make money for Canadian farmers, period. That is what the board has been doing very well for the past 60 years.

It is interesting that when we ask supporters of dual marketing for their facts, all they can provide are vague references to one time only limited niche markets, and the rhetoric goes on and on. They have never provided one shred of evidence that farmers would be better off financially in the long term with dual marketing.

The board is able to provide prairie farmers with high returns because it operates from a position of strength. It uses its considerable resources, its information on markets, crop and weather surveillance, and combines that with excellent customer service to create stable, long term markets for quality wheat and barley for farmers in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and for farmers right across the prairies.

Members might not realize the Canadian Wheat Board is one of Canada's largest exporters, with annual sales revenues approaching $5 billion. The board is constantly looking for new markets for new products farmers can grow to satisfy export market demands. AC Karma is an excellent example of this. The board is working hard to expand markets in countries throughout the world, including the Pacific rim.

There are plenty of reasons the wheat board is one of the most well respected grain marketers in the world and why the same customers come back year after year. The board's reputation for products of excellent and reliable quality is commonly recognized as Canada's trump card on international grain markets. Buyers from around the world ignore cheap grain to buy Canadian.

Why would they do this? They know it is consistent from year to year, load to load. Our export partners know they get the best quality wheat and barley in the world from the Canadian Wheat Board, and they come back year after year.

It is also important for members to know the Canadian Wheat Board is being responsive to farmers' needs and that it is being flexible. For example, improvements have been made to the delivery system, with extensive input from farmers and elevator companies, to address the delivery needs of farmers.

The board is also recommending a number of legislative changes which will put money into farmers' hands faster by changing payment structures. It will provide increased information to farmers to help them with their management decisions.

The Liberal government recognizes the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board to western Canadian farmers and it wants the board to be the best it can be. For that reason I commend the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for establishing the grain marketing panel. He has pulled together panel members who represent a cross-section of the industry to look at our grain marketing system. One of the focuses has been the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Through the grain marketing panel we are consulting with farmers. Farmers are telling us how the system can be improved to serve them better. The minister has indicated that changes may be made. These changes will be to the benefit of prairie farmers.

I attended meetings of the grain marketing panel in Brandon and in my home town of Grandview. The clear message farmers from my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and from across Manitoba

were sending was they wanted the Canadian Wheat Board to remain the single desk seller for Canadian wheat and barley.

The Canadian Wheat Board is an important and highly effective marketing agency, and the majority of western Canadian farmers are anxious to strengthen the board, rather than weaken it. Every day my office receives calls from farmers in support of the board and single desk selling. They tell me the board and single desk selling are crucial to their survival.

The results of the election to the Canadian Wheat Board's advisory committee, in which 10 of 11 farmer representatives chosen were strong wheat board supporters, are proof that grain farmers from across the prairies firmly support the board. The evidence is clear. Farmers want the Canadian Wheat Board. They want single desk selling.

This motion is yet another example of shortsighted, ill conceived policy by the Reform Party that will hurt farmers. If the Reform Party is so interested in agriculture, I wonder why agriculture policy was not even on the agenda at its recent conference. That speaks volumes about where agriculture is on the Reform Party's priority list. It is nowhere on the list.

I can tell the House, for the record, that a strong Canadian Wheat Board is on the top of my priority list for the following reasons.

The Canadian Wheat Board, with its single desk selling, works with other players in order to achieve major objectives which would be difficult to accomplish in any other way. One, it maximizes returns to producers. Two, it ensures unparalleled quality control. Three, it provides ongoing customer service in the international marketplace.

The farmers of Dauphin-Swan River and many of the grassroots farmers from across western Canada want a strong Canadian Wheat Board and I support them wholeheartedly.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is becoming so lively that a whole raft of my colleagues would like to have the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question.

Finally we have a western farmer making a presentation from the other side of the House. I congratulate the member for making her presentation this evening despite the late hour. I listened attentively.

When my hon. colleague for Yorkton-Melville asked the member from across the House who the wheat belongs to, the hon. member for Halifax stuck her head in the Chamber and heckled and said the wheat belongs to God. Perhaps as their leader would say it will take an act of God before we ever see any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is the answer they are proposing? We are proposing to give farmers some freedom, to give farmers the choice. We are not proposing to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Far from it. We are saying give farmers the choice. Their answer is to defend section 745 of the Criminal Code, let first degree murderers out on early parole, at the same time as they throw farmers in jail. It is absolutely ludicrous.

What is their answer to the present dilemma facing grain farmers in western Canada where we see farmers being arrested, their equipment, their combines, their trucks being impounded at the border and the farmers being hauled before the courts? Is that their idea of settling this issue?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like what I am about to do but in order to answer the hon. member's question I will have to crawl to the depths of the Reform Party, to its rhetoric.

The rhetoric in the House in the last three or four hours is appalling. We have asked Reform Party members on several occasions what they mean about dual marketing. The Liberal government has provided them with the facts of what the Canadian Wheat Board is about, that we are listening to farmers. It is about time we heard some facts about where they would like the government to go with respect to dual marketing and Canadian farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member who seems to know a bit about Reform policy. She should know if she listened to my speech that I did give a definition of what dual marketing was and I gave examples of how dual marketing had worked, but obviously she did not listen.

In resolutions passed at our recent assembly in Vancouver, 91 per cent of our voting delegates voted in favour of marketing choice, in others words dual marketing.

As well, there was overwhelming support for a resolution calling for final offer arbitration in settling these labour disputes that effect the movement of grain to port. The member is not paying a whole lot of attention and is not coming with the facts into this debate.

She said Canadians demanded that the Canadian Wheat Board be established and thought that was wonderful, but she neglected to note that Alberta producers democratically demanded the right to market outside of the board and she ignored the wishes of those farmers.

She referred to the Kraft report as being some wonderful and reliable document when in fact it was funded by the Canadian Wheat Board and based on a private, secret information provided to that study group by the board. It does not have a whole lot of credibility.

She said her constituents are supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board. I wonder what kind of response she received from her constituents regarding the commissioner's high salary, which was recently released, and the immoral severance package, well over $250,000 over two years should they resign or retire from the board. Do her constituents support that? Does she think that if farmers want to market outside an agency that provides those kinds of exorbitant severance package to their commissioners, those benefits, they should have the right?