Debates of Nov. 6th, 2002

Supply

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we discussed this problem within the Bloc Quebecois caucus, there was a unanimous position, the one I have just defended.

It is very clear that the positions we have taken were not reached without consultation with Quebec grain growers. We consulted the executive of the UPA by telephone and in person. The purpose of our position is to support the position taken by our producers.

I am speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois members of this House, since we have reached a consensus with Quebec grain growers to defend supply management and marketing bodies. I repeat, they continue to be concerned that doing anything to the Canadian Wheat Board at a time when the Americans are challenging it might be seen as an abdication, a backward step. It might be interpreted by the international tribunals as an acknowledgment by the growers themselves, or by the government, that this board is a kind of subsidy in disguise, whereas in the nine inquiries carried out by the Americans it was very clear that all complaints were thrown out because this marketing board works very well within international standards.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is aware but in Alberta one member, Mark Hlady, has introduced Bill 207 that when passed will give Alberta grain producers the option of selling their wheat independently or of using the Wheat Board as a broker for a 10-year trial period. It is scheduled to be passed by December 10. If the federal government attempts to override the bill, the province is prepared to launch a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada by introducing Bill 201 which would then amend Bill 202.

His party has strong feelings about provincial rights. Does the member feel that the Canadian Wheat Board extending its reach into Quebec, which it is now beginning to do and actively looking to do I believe, is going to impinge on Quebec provincial rights and its ability to make decisions within its province?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that Quebec producers have always managed to get their point of view across. They have always had a collective vision when it comes to the development of agriculture in Quebec. True, there is a movement in the prairies, mostly in Alberta, to reject such collective management in favour of a more individual approach.

However, I believe that what led to the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board was precisely this free for all, this fact that agricultural development was taking place without any structured government support, and without any temporary buying and selling power, to resell when the economic situation improved. It is important to remember that this also guaranteed farmers payment at seeding time. I do not understand why we would question these principles that were developed over the past 30 years and return to an individual enterprise. This is a copy of the American system, which is exactly what the Americans want, for us to bend to their ways so that they can flood our country—or rather, our two countries—with their production.

We will never manage to compete with American producers unless we stand together, with an effective marketing system and supply managed planning. It is impossible to compete in North America without this. These marketing agencies must meet international standards. For this reason, we cannot change them overnight, without it having repercussions internationally.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member speaks as though the marketing agencies and government run marketing agencies like the Wheat Board are benevolent for the people.

The minister earlier talked about the fact that we should be leaving it up to producers. I just want to make the point that I have been a producer. For 25 years. I have been a grain farmer. I have watched my small community suffer because people have not had the opportunity to value add and develop the industries in their area.

Interestingly enough, in the last 10 years we have moved into other crops like peas, lentils and chickpeas throughout Saskatchewan. I have done a bit of work and it is fascinating to find out that out of 700 small rural communities in Saskatchewan, 128 of them have specialty crop processing plants and facilities. They employ on average about eight people, so we have about 1,200 people working.That contributes well over $100 million to the Saskatchewan economy. That contrasts with the flour milling industry which is currently less in Canada than it was in 1987. The majority of the plants are large and they are owned by American companies.

I have a great concern that western Canadians are being prevented from processing and value adding in their communities. They are prevented from allowing their communities to survive and thrive.

If he is going to insist that central marketing boards exist and they control everyone's lives, what solutions would he have for the small communities in western Canada that have struggled so hard because they are not allowed to process or to value add to the product of which they grow the most, which is wheat?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, in agriculture, it is not true that private enterprise, the kind of capitalism the member is talking about, will help small businesses, small producers. On the contrary, the big ones will benefit the most and crush the competition.

This is why it is much better to have a marketing board, and the current system that protects supply management plans and protects marketing boards, to give a chance to all the small producers as well as to the big ones.

The return to individual production or, as the hon. member suggested, to producer value for the sake of value adding will not be better served by individual management than by marketing boards promoting collective management.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that right now the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system forces farmers to the wrong side of the equation.

The member talked about supply management. Under the supply management system farmers have the opportunity to sell their product as well as process it. Under the Canadian Wheat Board system farmers are forced to sell their product to the board. There is no opportunity to do anything further with it. If farmers want to do anything further with it, they have to buy the product back at a rate that makes it completely uneconomical for them to do anything with it. That is the frustration that they face.

The member talked about co-operative enterprises. Groups of people have tried to form new generation co-operatives or companies that could market their grain, make pasta, put pasta plants in place and develop our industries in western Canada, but the government stopped that.

The government's buyback program only applies to farmers in western Canada, in the prairie provinces. People have to sell their wheat to the board and then buy it back at a higher price before they can do anything with it. When we travelled in Ontario people said that they did not have that buyback. They were excited about the opportunities and the chances they had to develop their industry.

Would the member have any comments about the inequity and inequality that is shown when the government forces prairie farmers to buy back their grain at a higher price than they sold it, while farmers in other parts of the country, including his own province, are allowed to be free of that?

If the government will not make a voluntary marketing agency, we insist that farmers have the opportunity to have a no cost buyback; be able to get their wheat back and be able to do something with their friends and neighbours, like forming companies that could help small communities thrive.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Madam Speaker, no system is perfect. As I said earlier, the marketing system can be improved, but it cannot be dismantled. The hon. member talks about the pros and cons but, sometimes, the dairy or poultry producers who are subject to supply management would like to produce more. Their quota system does not allow it. This can be a disadvantage.

However, if we weigh the pros and cons, there are great benefits to preserving the current system, exercising self-discipline and managing our production using a management plan or a marketing board. Leaving management up to everyone individually, allowing a veritable free-for-all to ensue, will never result in a system as equitable as the one we have now.

That is why I say that the Canadian Wheat Board could possibly be improved, but not by deciding today to all but dismantle it. We must take into account the benefits of this board while trying to make it better, but definitely not by making it sound like it does no good.

When western producers are compared to eastern producers, I remind hon. members that western producers also received substantial assistance in the past 15 to 20 years. They have received tens of billions of dollars in special assistance, and this is great because they were struggling.

The system also works for milk producers who share some $300 million every five years to support their management plan. Western producers however, organized into a well structured board, also received substantial assistance from the government in terms of special subsidies.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by reading the motion that we are talking about today.

That, in the opinion of this House, all Canadians are to be treated equally and fairly, and since Prairie wheat and barley producers are discriminated against solely because of their location and occupation, this House call on the government to take immediate action to end this discrimination and give Prairie farmers the same marketing choices that are available in the rest of Canada.

I read the motion into the record because the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, in a comment to the Bloc Quebecois member who just finished his remarks, indicated a few moments ago that the Canadian Wheat Board was moving into Quebec. I am wondering how it is that a motion that is directed because it solely discriminates against people in western Canada, all of a sudden this board now has duties and responsibilities which are clearly outside western Canada in the province of Quebec.

Fortunately, Madam Speaker, you do not have to rule on that because this is a non-votable motion that, from our perspective, wants to force the board to move to a dual marketing system rather than a single desk selling system that has worked in this country since the 1930s.

I agree with others who have spoken before that the motion is out of place. We should not be debating it because the Canadian Wheat Board has become a farmer-run organization with two-thirds of the board now elected directly by farmers. Surely it is up to the farmers themselves and the farmer directors that they elect to decide what the board should do and what it should become, and not the purview of politicians.

The motion today, put forward by members of the Canadian Alliance, is really part of a well orchestrated, and I would add well oiled, campaign to influence elections for Wheat Board directors, elections that are occurring later this month.

On the basis of the vote in 1997 and on direct elections of Wheat Board directors in recent years, a majority of prairie farmers have demonstrated at the ballot box that they do support the Wheat Board as the single desk seller for wheat and barley, despite the fact that a few draw headlines by being flagrantly opposed.

These headline hunting farmers, who were referenced earlier this afternoon, deliberately chose to break the law and, rather than pay a fine, they deliberately chose to go to jail. That is their right. That is their vehicle of choice for grabbing publicity. I do not object to that but let us not, for heaven's sake, fall into the trap of making freedom fighters out of lawbreakers who knowingly and with forethought did what they chose to do.

As I indicated, I believe that a majority of prairie farmers do support the Canadian Wheat Board. I reference the 1997 referendum where 63% of feed barley growers voted to retain the board as a single desk seller for their product despite an aggressive campaign by opponents of the board at the time.

In 1998, and I was here, we debated Bill C-4 which resulted in elections to the board of directors, and in the ensuing elections that occurred following the passage of Bill C-4, 8 out of the 10 members elected by farmers were supporters of the Wheat Board's single desk selling of wheat and barley. These Wheat Board directors were elected despite an aggressive campaign by third party intervenors to shovel money from agri-business corporations to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

As I indicated, we are in an election period this fall for five more directors, or regions up for election or re-election, and again, third parties are busy at work funnelling money from corporations to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

We know that it is the American dominated, multinational agri-businesses that would benefit from the demise of the board. The American government has launched trade actions against the Wheat Board on eight previous occasions and all of them have failed. It is now in its ninth attempt to destroy the board. I believe that the eight previous attempts have failed because the Wheat Board has not been proven to be doing anything illegal according to international trading rules.

The board's sin, I think, and the one that raises the ire of the Americans, is that it is doing a reasonably good job of marketing Canadian grain, something the American government and American based multinationals have trouble accepting.

The motion today has been carefully timed to coincide with elections of Wheat Board directors which are occurring this month. The motion is part of a broader strategy by the board's enemies, of whom there are many, to attack the board and discredit its reputation among farmers.

We have to legitimately ask why the Canadian Alliance is working as a fifth column in Canada to assist the Americans in destroying something that has worked well for Canadian farmers for many decades and, I submit, continues to work well.

The latest tool in the arsenal of the opponents of the board and the Alliance in particular is to hammer the fact that the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board has recently changed direction. In 1999 the Ontario board moved to a dual market where farmers could sell a portion of their crop on the open market. Of course, that was not sustainable. It was widely predicted at the time that it would not be sustainable, and that was proven to be accurate. This year the Ontario board has decided to basically legislate itself out of existence.

The lesson here is that we either have single desk selling, as we have at the moment through the Canadian Wheat Board, or we have an open market. A dual market simply does not work.

The point was made clearly by Justice Muldoon in Alberta some years ago in a charter challenge to the Wheat Board's single desk selling authority. Judge Muldoon at the time threw the case out of court, saying that a dual marketing system would simply be a rapid transition to an open market.

I do not believe western farmers want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board but that is exactly what would follow if the Ontario model were to be adhered to. Let the Ontario wheat board put itself out of existence if it chooses to do so, but that is not necessarily a model for western farmers who sell primarily into an export market, which the Ontario producers do not.

In terms of good marketing, several independent economic studies have proven that the Wheat Board does do a good job of marketing on behalf of western farmers.

In the most recent study, Dr. Richard Grey, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan, found that in 2001 farmers received approximately $10 more per tonne under single desk selling than would have been the case otherwise.

Similarly, in 1997 a Kraft-Furtan-Tyrchniewicz study showed a benefit of slightly over $250,000 a year as a result of single desk selling. An even earlier study by agricultural economist Dr. Andy Schmitz showed that marketing through the Wheat Board increased the returns of barley producers by $72 million a year.

Opponents of the Wheat Board do not accept the findings of these reports but they have never bothered or been able to refute them in any factual way.

At the time we were debating Bill C-4 there were wild allegations about the Wheat Board's governance being secretive and possibly corrupt. Since then Canada's Auditor General has conducted a thorough study of the board and reported in February 2002. She basically gave the Wheat Board a passing grade and said that it was doing a reasonably good job of managing its operation and, further, that the board has a solid reputation as a strong and capable marketer of quality grains.

It was not a perfect report. The Auditor General, in fairness it should be pointed out, indicated that there were areas where the Wheat Board could improve itself, but by and large it certainly did not agree with the allegations that had been alleged prior to the study by the Auditor General.

I said earlier that today's motion is carefully orchestrated as part of a larger strategy to attack and undermine the board. There are elections occurring at this moment for five of the Wheat Board's directors. In the 2000 election for five other directors, a group called CARE funnelled money and other advantages to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

CARE was clearly a third party intervener and as a third party intervener should have identified itself in any advertising it undertook and reported its activities following the election. In the 2000 election campaign the CARE group chose to thumb its nose at these election regulations, even though it had been independently documented that it took money from at least one grain company, UGG, and passed it on to anti-Wheat Board candidates.

This same third party group is at it again in these elections, again refusing to come clean about the sources of its support and is refusing to register as a third party.

I would ask this of colleagues in the Canadian Alliance who are so worried about alleged secrecy in the operation of the Wheat Board. Do they not care about the secrecy being practised by their friends in that group? Do the members of the Alliance, who are normally so interested in law and order, condone this flagrant disregard of the law by the CARE group?

I would also direct this question to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does he continues to allow the law to be ignored in this manner?

As far as we are concerned, the motion is an attack on the board and part of a broader strategy by enemies of the board, many of them big players in the multinational agri-business, to destroy the Wheat Board. Unfortunately, I think the Alliance is a willing collaborator in this campaign and is prepared to condone and even encourage people who oppose the Wheat Board to break the laws of the land. The Alliance is attempting to use the experience of the Ontario Wheat Board and apply it to that of the Canadian Wheat Board, even though such an application does not hold up.

If adhered to, the motion would destroy the board, one of the few remaining methods that farmers have to retain some power in the agricultural marketplace, a marketplace that is being increasingly diminished as a result of multinational corporations that seemingly run everything.

The motion I believe is out of place. It ought to be up to the farmers to elect the board of directors and see in which direction they want to take the board. That would be the proper outcome. This is not a decision that should or will be made by politicians. It should and can be made by farmers.

Just before I take my chair, I was admonished by the leader of the Alliance when I asked him a question about the need to listen to what was being said by people who were actually farming under the Wheat Board. I want to make reference to a letter that was sent to members of the standing committee on agriculture from Mr. George Calvin, who resides in New Norway, Alberta, on August 29 of this year. I will not read the whole letter, but there are several salient points.

Mr. Calvin writes:

I am a central Alberta farmer who has been well served over the years by the C.W.B. single desk selling. I am opposed to ending the C.W.B. sales monopoly for a trial period. The main thrust for this no doubt comes from the Canadian Alliance members on your committee. It is common knowledge that the C.A. Party wishes to destroy the C.W.B.

Of course their intentions are also being promoted by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Barley Growers Associations, and the Alberta Barley Commission. The Government of Alberta has financed these groups over time to push for the--

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure that it is parliamentary for the member to mislead the House. We are not trying to destroy the Wheat Board. We are in favour of a voluntary wheat board. I would ask him to retract his statement about that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

That is more a point of debate. Using the word “mislead” can be misleading for the Chair also.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Calvin goes on. In reference to the current leader of the Alliance Party, he says:

It should be noted that when [this gentleman] was president of the National Citizens Coalition they tried to break the C.W.B. election process by breaking the rules that were put in place to run a fair and democratic election.

Even the agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance does not escape in this letter, because it states:

It should also be noted that the C.A. is not a democratic party. Agricultural critic...said that even if all 10 elected directors want the C.W.B. to remain the single desk seller of wheat and barley, the Alliance would move to change the Board into a so-called voluntary marketing agency.

Mr. Calvin ends up by saying:

Because of the foreign control of our grain companies, a strong C.W.B. is more important than ever. Individual farmers would have very little power against the grain giants, therefore, I strongly suggest that the committee rescind this recommendation about C.W.B. marketing powers.

I want to also make reference to a letter that came in on the same subject from Elmer Laird, who farms in central Saskatchewan, because it is relevant to the dual marketing notion that has been put forward by the Canadian Alliance. This is something that I am not aware of, and maybe others are not as well, but is important to note that according to Mr. Laird:

It is true that when the Canadian Wheat Board was established it was in the form of dual marketing but the government of the day established a floor price for wheat of 52 1/2 cents a bushel at Davidson.

Mr. Laird goes on to say:

It couldn't have functioned without the floor price. However, a compulsory wheat board was established in either 1942 or 1943 which gave the Canadian Wheat Board total control of “board grains” in the market place. The board was then able to estimate the volume of product it would have for sale and develop long term contracts in some instances nation to nation.

In terms of the dual marketing, we have been there, we have done that. Apparently it did not work. It certainly will not work in the future. It will either be single desk selling or it will be open market; there is no in between.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board would be operating in an open market system because it would be a voluntary cooperative, accessing grain through contracts and selling at the same as anybody else in a free enterprise system.

The Canadian Alliance policy since 1989 very clearly has been to have a voluntary marketing system in all agriculture commodities, including wheat and barley. Farmers never did vote to have a monopoly. That was imposed upon them by politicians.

The member from the NDP talks about philosophies and policies. The NDP is strong on human rights. Why is a farmer denied the human right to sell the fruits of his own labour after doing all the investment? Do the human rights of an individual farmer to do the best for himself not override a group of farmers who want to impose something on him that is negative to his economic well-being?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board put that question into proper context by saying that there is a genuine debate among farmers, some of them on one side of this issue on single desk and others for an open market or a dual market. The position of this party is that it should be up to the farmers to decide.

As I indicated, the board is having elections this month and five of the positions are up for election. If farmers so choose to elect people who believe in dual marketing or open marketing, then that is what they will receive.

It is not up to the members of the House of Commons or any political party therein to decide the future of this. This is a complex issue. Farmers know best in this situation and we should leave it up to them, rather than dictate to them what their future will be.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. member sat on the committee that travelled through Alberta when this issue was brought up. I believe he was there in Vulcan, Alberta. I attended that meeting, as well as some of my colleagues.

At that meeting, farmer after farmer, the majority of whom I might add were from my riding of Wild Rose, constantly came before the committee. I want to ensure that the government understands that not once have I heard any farmer in my riding say that they want the Canadian Wheat Board demolished or destroyed. That has never been the statement of farmers. That should be made perfectly clear. This came out of that member's mouth a number of times, about farmers wanting to destroy and demolish the wheat board. That just simply is not true and he knows it. He knows what he heard at that meeting.

They were talking about wanting to market their own goods, if they chose to do so, in a different manner through searching out niche markets or whatever means they wanted. They also talked about wanting to enter into value added processing and how the wheat board was interfering with that constantly.

I know what I heard. He knows what he heard. Would he care to stand today and correct some of the statements he made, which are completely out of whack?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not going to correct anything I have said. While it is true that in Vulcan, Alberta speaker after speaker did oppose the single desk selling and had other ideas about it, the hon. member for Wild Rose was not at the other meetings that we held in western Canada where other people just as vehemently got to their feet to defend the Canadian Wheat Board. That was the point I was trying to make in the earlier answer.

There is some very significant debate taking place on the Prairies about the future of the board and it ought to take place with the farmers and farmer organizations, and not MPs and political parties deciding this in the House of Commons.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, was the hon. member at the meeting in Davidson, Saskatchewan where the organic farmers and other speakers spoke out against the Canadian Wheat Board. Also, does he hold a Canadian Wheat Board permit book and how much land does he farm?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I was in Davidson on Tuesday, February 19, along with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. No, I am not a farmer. I grew up on a farm but not in Saskatchewan.

The more important point that the hon. member raises is about the organic farmers. In the letter I referenced earlier from Elmer Laird, he said:

I have been an organic farmer for over 30 years. In order to market my wheat and barley I have to sell my grain to the Canadian Wheat Board and then buy it back to do my own marketing. Over the years I have known many certified organic farmers who have lost huge sums of money on sales because they didn't sell to a grain buyer who was bonded by the Canadian Grain Commission. Once his product was on the truck and out of sight, the producer lost control.

On the question raised by the member about how difficult it is for organic farmers, by no means is it evident that the solution she and her party propose would have any better effect or result for organic farmers.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, was the member also with the committee at Grand Prairie where farmer after farmer spoke against the wheat board?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was at Grand Prairie and I am glad the hon. member mentioned that. I was also in Grand Prairie in 1999 when the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was present. That was a very obstreperous meeting and a completely different meeting than the one in February, 2002.

I do not recall the member being at the meeting in Grand Prairie, but my memory may be failing. I certainly remember the meetings and they were two entirely different meetings with very significant views that did not reflect the position of the Canadian Alliance on this issue today.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick comment. I was at the Grand Prairie meeting as well. The member said I was at only one, in Vulcan. I was at Grand Prairie. I know what I heard. He knows what I heard.

He never answered my question about the value added idea that people have tried to pursue and are unable to because of the Wheat Board. Could he please explain to the House why it is just not possible to enter into value added producing because of the situation as it is?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it there are two competing priorities on value added. I think it is fair to say that all politicians in the House, regardless of party, would like to see more value added, especially in the Canadian Prairies. It is one of the things that we were told was going to be a benefit of free trade and it has been pretty doggone slow in coming.

As I understand it, the difficulty with the situation in terms of pasta plants and the like is that the concept of single desk selling is price pooling, that is, everyone gets the same price for it. The problem is that if someone is then hiving off some especially top quality durum to go to a pasta plant, and if it does not seem to be viable for the company and the company says it has to have an incentive to buy the product, that seems to take away from the concept of price pooling. Therein lies the conundrum.

The Wheat Board says that it is continuing to work with these pasta plants and others who would like to do value added. Certainly this party would like to see that. It has not been resolved, but I do not think it is for lack of effort. I think there are a couple of competing principles. Maybe they can work it out. I do not know.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get my full 20 minutes with only 10 minutes left, but if possible I would like to split what little time I have with my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River who has been sitting here patiently, as have I. Therefore I am going to take as little time as possible.

It was said earlier by the leader of the official opposition that perhaps we should pander to the producers and maybe we can get more votes in those areas. I simply would like to say that this is not an issue about votes. This is an issue about principle. It is an issue about the opportunity to have choice and to do what one wants to do. As a producer and a farmer in my area, I represent those producers and farmers. Some agree with the Canadian Wheat Board and some disagree. There is no unanimity. As the minister responsible said, if we put farmers in a room there would be a number of different positions taken with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, I firmly believe that the reason we are wearing these poppies today is that people fought to give us the opportunity to have choice in our own lives. That choice in producers' lives is to have the opportunity to market.

I am going to talk about a couple of issues. First, members talked about the value added. The fact of the matter is that there is value added processing on the Prairies. Unfortunately, it is value added processing in those commodities that are totally off board. In my area we have a substantial number of canola crushers. The reason we have canola crushers is that canola is a non-board commodity. Industry has access to those commodities and industry has set those plants in my area because it makes sense and it is profitable. That is not there for wheat and the durum plants and the pasta plants. The member for Selkirk--Interlake talked about the oat processing plant, CanOat. CanOat uses a non-board commodity. That plant was built there because that industry has access to a commodity it needs to continue its operations. Therefore, value added has happened on the Prairies, and it happens to be with, unfortunately, the non-board grains.

Let me say this about non-board grains. I take a lot of pride in saying that oats were originally a board grain. Oats were taken outside of the board by a gentleman for whom I have an awful lot of respect, a gentleman who was the minister of agriculture in this House, a gentleman by the name of Charlie Mayer. He took oats out of the board because he felt it was the best thing to do.

Members of the House must recognize that the Canadian Wheat Board was brought in as an institution in 1919. In 1935 it was officially enacted through legislation. It was voluntary then. In 1943 it was made mandatory. The reason I mention those dates is that 1919, 1935 and 1943 were a long time ago. A lot of things have changed in our country and in this world since 1919. Charlie Mayer recognized that and moved oats out of the board because he knew that producers could then market their own commodity without the help of the board. In fact it has been a huge success.

That same minister of agriculture, Charlie Mayer, was just about there with barley. He took it out of the board, but as was mentioned earlier unfortunately he did not have the opportunity of taking it to the full degree and having it totally taken out of the board. Unfortunately it was put back in the board when another government came into play. The reason I mention this is that some of my producers would fight to the death to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board, while others would do the opposite, but a decision must be made by those same producers on which way they want to market.

Those producers are not silly people. They are business people. Farming today is a business. It is not something one does as a hobby. Those same producers now grow commodities that they can market themselves. They are growing non-board commodities because they can market better and make more money. What is happening right now is that the yield of wheat is dropping dramatically, not just because of a drought but because producers do not want to grow something they have to sell to a board when they do not want to.

What will happen? Eventually there will not be any wheat. As soon as the producers can get a crop that can go into rotation and they can do away with wheat, the Canadian Wheat Board will no longer be a factor in this whole equation because it is not going to exist.

I want to now turn my time over to my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River who will carry on with this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would tend to agree with the hon. member, but I need the unanimous consent of the House not to proceed with questions and comments. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.