[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1207 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward - Hastings, Lib.)): Come to the table, please. I'll just read off the names of the individual presenters, and hopefully I have everybody: George Hickie, Bill Rees, Henry and Joyce Neufeld, Fred Harrison, Norm Colhoun, Kyle Korneychuk, John Burton. Curtis Kuchinka has a card, so he must have registered.
Just so that everyone is aware of how we are going to conduct this, in fairness to everyone, as you have been told, you have five minutes. I'll let you know when you've got about half a minute left. We will listen to everyone before we go to questions and comments.
The first group we're going to hear this afternoon is at 1:30 p.m., so we can stretch a little bit past 12 p.m. and still allow the committee members to have lunch. We feel that when we have the opportunity to have some dialogue back and forth with individuals, as opposed to groups, it's very worth while as well.
First of all, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much for coming before the us today. We look forward to your comments addressing Bill C-72 - the amendments in that bill to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I'm not going to go in any particular order other than the pile of papers I have in front of me, so we will begin with Mr. Hickie.
.1210
Mr. George Hickie (Individual Presentation): My name is George Hickie. I'm a grain/beef producer from the Waldron area, about 100 miles east of here. I will begin my presentation by stating why I support the Wheat Board, since Bill C-72 is strictly about the Wheat Board.
I support the Canadian Wheat Board because it is my marketing agency. Any profit it makes on my grain, it returns to me. As a single-desk seller of my grain through the years, it has given me a financial advantage at the marketplace. The Canadian Wheat Board is respected and trusted around the world. Our customers know that when they make a deal with the Canadian Wheat Board they will receive precisely what they contracted for. This has resulted in slightly better prices for us and extra volume sold.
Through the Canadian Wheat Board, each grain producer receives an equal price of grain of equal quality. Delivery opportunities are allotted in a fair and just manner. Operating a grain and livestock farm is very demanding. During the six summer months, my workday starts at the break of dawn and rarely ends before nightfall, very often exceeding beyond that point. Much stress is generated. I do not have the time or energy left to arrange the marketing of my grain abroad. I am only too happy to leave that to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Concerning Bill C-72, the pooling period should remain as it is, August 1 to July 31, one complete crop year. Semi-annual or quarterly pooling would be costly and inefficient. It would also destroy one of the main purposes of pooling, that is, to give farmers an equal price for a product of equal value for the period of one year.
Cash purchase of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board from farmers or anyone else would seriously undermine the pooling/sharing concept of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would foster and bring about inequality among grain producers. If this is what we want, we already have the open market for most of the grain that we grow.
There was some consideration being given to allow a farmer to sell a certain percentage of his or her export wheat or barley at a cash price at a time of his or her choosing. I'm very concerned about this. It would allow speculation within the Canadian Wheat Board marketing process and would undermine the very reason for the pooling process.
I see this as an attempt to cater to the small minority of farmers who would like to change the Canadian Wheat Board to a point where it would be little different from the open market and almost powerless. I see no valid reason to cater to them. After all, they already have many choices. Canola, flax, oats, rye, lentils, peas and domestically consumed feed barley; all these grains are sold exclusively on the open market.
Those of us who are in the majority and prefer to market our grain through the Canadian Wheat Board have only export barley and milling wheat. We do not have the choice of marketing other grains through the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not enhance the cause of justice when the wishes of a small minority are forced on a large majority.
There was much discussion and consideration given to the subject of dual marketing. I strongly agree with Mr. Goodale that dual marketing is not a realistic choice. Under a dual marketing system, the Canadian Wheat Board would lose its power and ability to sell grain for us at a premium price as it has in the past. It would become just another grain trader among many others. It would be greatly handicapped, because it does not have its own grain gathering system. It also would be subject to exploitation by those who have the time and money to speculate. Dual marketing would be the surest way to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
In closing, I would like to state that I would prefer to market my canola and oats through the Canadian Wheat Board. Presently I do not have that choice.
.1215
I'd like to make one last comment and it's something like this. Every bushel of Canadian grain sold into the U.S.A. is indirectly subsidized by the American taxpayers, and I greatly fear this because sooner or later the taxpayers will begin to understand that the U.S. taxpayers...we're facing problems if we continue to ship grain, run it across the borders. We cannot afford this, and I'm hoping we stay strictly with the Wheat Board on all sales that are made out of this country.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hickie. We'll go to Mr. Rees.
Mr. Bill Rees (Individual Presentation): I'm an organic grain producer. I live at Stockholm, Saskatchewan. In addition to that I'm a director of OCIA, chapter number 6. My comments will be very brief.
I don't believe that as an organic grain grower I require the benefit, if there is one, of the Canadian Wheat Board. As I see it, the organic producers of Saskatchewan have realized their current circumstance, which I believe to be a positive one and a good one, without the assistance of any federal or provincial government support or assistance. I'm not suggesting it is a bad thing for other producers, but I talk singularly on behalf of the organic producers.
In my opinion, the recommendation that was made by the panel to exempt organic producers and organic wheat and barley from the board and its regulation should be endorsed. I believe that to be a good decision.
I realize there are some people who would be contrary to this notion, and that's fine, it's their privilege to have that opinion. However, in conclusion, I would say that the organic growers of Saskatchewan are not many in number, they're easily accessed, and if you want to realize the democratic method of decision, then simply communicate with the presidents and the directors of these different chapters and realize either an affirmative or a negative as per my recommendation. I would accept that. If it's a positive one, then I would recommend again that organic production be exempted and that the subsequent Order in Council be realized to manifest this.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rees.
Next are Henry and Joyce Neufeld.
Mr. Henry Neufeld (Individual Presentation): Thank you. Joyce and I are active farmers in the Swift Current area and we appreciate the few minutes we have to make some comments on these proposed changes to the Wheat Board. We picked a few points that we thought we could talk about, but they sure will not be in any great depth.
Joyce will read the few points we made and then in the end I have a few closing comments.
Ms Joyce Neufeld (Individual Presentation): We welcome the opportunity to present to you some of our concerns regarding Bill C-72. While the time allotted will not allow us to address all of our concerns about this bill, we will try to cover a few of them.
In terms of the governance, whether the Canadian Wheat Board and its current governance structure lacks accountability is debatable. Further, if accountability is a problem, it is unlikely that an elected board of directors will solve that problem. Citizens often call elected politicians unaccountable.
We do not support the creation of a partially elected board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board as a way to enhance its accountability to farmers. This clause effectively gives the final word on all policy matters to the minister. He has the power to select the chairperson of the board from among its members, not all of whom are elected by farmers, and appoint the president. The Governor in Council may, by order of the minister, direct the board with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under the act shall be conducted, exercised or performed.
Depending on your point of view, the elected board proposed by Bill C-72 may be the worst of all worlds. It has the illusion of control and will undoubtedly be blamed for all that befalls the board. Meanwhile the minister, who maintains the real power, can manipulate the Canadian Wheat Board from behind the scenes.
.1220
I am sure that former Agriculture Minister Charlie Mayer would have been ecstatic to have had Bill C-72 in its present form in place during his reign of terror. We believe that the current structure where farmers can hold the government accountable for the Canadian Wheat Board is much preferable. We would, however, prefer to see more powers be granted to the producer-elected Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee.
Proposed section 31, whereby the pool period, which presently means the crop year, has changed to ``such period or periods, not exceeding one year, as the Corporation may order'', is also of great concern. This would allow for pooling periods of any length so long as they do not exceed one year. In our opinion, this would encourage producers who are financially able to withhold grains hoping for a higher price in a later pool. It would, however, place many farmers in the position of selling into a lower-priced pool at a time when funds are needed to pay bills. We feel that the problem of shortages could be addressed through contract closures rather than pool closures.
Proposed section 45: While this proposed section allows for grains to be removed from the board on recommendation of the minister, it leaves no avenue for producers to add more grains or oilseeds to the Canadian Wheat Board. As producers of both oats and rye, we find it highly offensive that we have no opportunity to place these grains under the single-desk selling powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, but grains can be removed from the board's jurisdiction very easily. We are certain that there are many other producers of other grains and oilseeds who would like to have the opportunity to market these products through the Canadian Wheat Board. We therefore recommend that this proposed section be amended to allow inclusion of additional grains and oilseeds also on the recommendation of the minister.
Mr. Neufeld: Thank you, Joyce. In our closing comments I think it is appropriate to comment as to why we are here and why these changes are being proposed in Bill C-72.
The minister would have us believe these changes express the views of western farmers as documented at the Western Grain Marketing Panel meetings. As one of over 300 farmers in attendance at the Western Grain Marketing Panel meeting in Swift Current, let me set the record straight.
At the conclusion of the meeting a recorded vote was called for when the question was posed as to who supported the present single-desk selling monopoly with expanded powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Only five voted against, two abstained, and the rest voted in support. Let me state very clearly that the Western Grain Marketing Panel report completely misrepresented what took place in Swift Current. The official report is so much at variance with the truth that I am moved to say the panel members in attendance at Swift Current were either asleep or the meetings in western Canada were nothing more than a deliberately planned fraud.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Joyce and Henry, for your presentation. We'll move on to Mr. Fred Harrison.
Mr. Fred Harrison (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife's a pastor in Melville and I'm a farmer. I rent my farm out because she's a pastor. I'm still interested in farming and I've supported the Wheat Board all my life.
Federal legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act weakens the board and should be changed or withdrawn. Bill C-72 undermines price pooling, single-desk selling, and government financial guarantees and provides farmers with no opportunity to expand the board's powers. This legislation, therefore, is clearly unacceptable and must be taken back to the drawing board or scrapped all together.
.1225
The draft of Bill C-72 has been written to adopt proposals encompassed within the report of the joint Canada-U.S. Blue Ribbon Commission panel and the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The rules of the game plan are determined within the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA and GATT. The trend toward privatization and the total deregulation of world trade, began under the reign of the Tory government of Brian Mulroney, has been adopted and further promoted by the present Liberal government of Jean Chrétien.
The changes proposed in this bill are designed to fit us into the terms and conditions of international trade. We've been integrated to be slaves of the transnational grain companies that are being moulded to fit into the U.S. foreign trade policy. The appearance of large multinational companies within Canada further substantiates this claim.
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz is quoted as saying that hungry men listen to those with a piece of bread. Control of food in the world is power.
The deregulation of Canada's rail transportation system is another part of the plan. The present practice being used by the railroads in the non-movement of grain to export is further proof my analysis is correct.
I toured the grain terminals at the port of Vancouver last week and observed that terminal elevators are still short of grain to unload, as approximately 40 boats were waiting to load grain. I just heard on the radio this morning that they're running 800 cars short of the commitments weekly. The Canadian Wheat Board is unfairly receiving criticism for its slow movement, but it is clear that the railways are at fault.
Upon return to the prairies I observed many hundreds of rail cars sitting idly. There are numerous reports of rail company inefficiencies - for example, four locomotives hauling seven rail cars, engines parked and idling within stations for four to six days. The railway companies are attempting to blackmail us to gain increased freight revenue. It's the same tactic they used to get rid of the Crow rate.
Transport Minister Anderson recently told the media that we should proceed with deregulation and thus ensure the performance of rail companies. However, past experience indicates this will not happen. The Parliament of Canada has allowed your committee to venture west in an attempt to hear presentations regarding Bill C-72. Unfortunately, there appears to be little time for meaningful input from producers. We feel like animals being herded through a chute to be stung at the conclusion of the procedures. I do not apologize for being somewhat cynical about the value of hearings such as this. A blueprint of privatization and deregulation, which I have identified, turns us into slaves who are helpless to influence the pre-planned process.
The reason why I'm cynical is because I've appeared before the Western Grain Marketing Panel and a whole number of other panels. It seems when it's decided in Ottawa that it's pre-planned, there is little we can do.
To correct the problems you've identified requires a strong politically willed government that will support farmers rather than the corporate interest. There is a need to renew a direct link between farmers and government. At present, a group of 50 - most of them Conservative appointees of former Agriculture Minister Charlie Mayer - are determining the direction of government policy. Most of these people have been around for at least 25 years. They are defunct of any new ideas and they are following a complete corporate agenda. Unfortunately, the present government is relying totally on their instructions. To make matters worse, resolutions being developed by farmers are not being delivered to the government by farm organizations, thus contributing to the bankruptcy that exists in government in regard to farmers' ideas.
The challenge facing this committee is to recognize that Bill C-72 does not address or resolve any fundamental issues regarding grain marketing. Among other things, marketing is a process that involves handling grain, transporting grain and selling that grain. Bill C-72 deals with handling, not marketing. Because the bill is unable to address the issue, it cannot resolve the problems. It only delays the need to resolve the fundamental questions, and the questions are many.
From the government's point of view, who receives the political support to take control of the Canadian grain industry? Is it the will of this government to work towards the goal of taking control of the grain industry, or will control of the grain industry in this country lie in the hands of transnational corporations or in the hands of Canadian-owned business interests?
Does this committee agree with the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Goodale, that the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and the kind of marketing system that has to be used is an issue for farmers that should be solved only by farmers? Farmers, as it was in the past and should be in the future, need to take control of their own destinies as the corporations will further seize that control. Your committee must put into place a democratic mechanism that will put the whole issue in the hands of farmers for a resolution. The Canadian Wheat Board cannot survive in isolation from the total system.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
We'll now go to Norm Colhoun.
.1230
Mr. Norm Colhoun (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a producer here in Regina. I'm an opponent of the Canadian Wheat Board in a compulsory form. If it were a voluntary organization, I would be one of its strongest proponents.
I'm opposed to Bill C-72 in any form because it continues to treat western Canadian farmers as second-class citizens, while 70% of the farmers in the rest of Canada are free to sell the products and the fruits of their labours to the highest bidder.
I'm particularly opposed to the lack of farmer control that Bill C-72 will not give farmers in western Canada, and I'm strenuously opposed to proposed sections 3.93 and 3.94 of that. Andy McMechan and Bill Cairns served time in jail for finding a better market and a higher price for waxy barley. This is a product the Canadian Wheat Board said they did not have a market for. Proposed sections 3.93 and 3.94 will have the fines and penalties of Canadian Wheat Board employees who are found guilty of not serving the best interests of the farmers paid for by farmers like Andy McMechan and Bill Cairns.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Colhoun.
Kyle Korneychuk.
Mr. Kyle Korneychuk (Individual Presentation): Good morning, committee members. Thank you for allowing me the time to make this presentation to you. Along with my wife and two children, I farm in the Pelly area, which is in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan.
Before starting my presentation, I would like to clearly state that I support the principle of the Canadian Wheat Board. Quite simply, the Canadian Wheat Board allows western Canadian farmers the ability to tackle the world market together. This seems a preferable option to western Canadian farmers opposed to competing against themselves, first, in terms of delivery opportunity, price, and then within export markets in hopes of achieving a reasonable price.
If the agriculture industry in Canada is to survive - and by that I mean farmers, fertilizer dealers, chemical companies, fuel dealers - then farmers must receive a reasonable return for their work. Working the farm to support the dealers and then working off the farm to support your own family is not sustainable for farmers in the long run.
I see the changes intended for the Canadian Wheat Board as the first steps in privatizing the Canadian Wheat Board and allowing its demise to occur. Quite simply, the majority of changes will weaken the board. It will ensure that the true marketing power for farmers is reduced, while the real power is transferred to the grain trade. In case some people are not aware, the grain trade is in the business of buying and selling grain for profit. Please remember profit comes directly out of my pocket.
When you're hearing presenters today, please consider the following: Are they farmers? Will the changes they are suggesting benefit farmers or another group? Do they represent the interests of farmers or are they a group funded by non-farmers who are only interested in profit margins, usually to be made on the backs of farmers?
I ask you to consider these points carefully so that family farms can exist in the future. Otherwise, our next social issue may be just a question of what we can do with all these ex-farmers.
I'd like to address seven specific points within the proposed changes. Hopefully, I'll have enough time to get through them all.
The first point is that the proposed amendments only guarantee one or more positions on the board to be filled through producer election. I feel this is an insult to the intelligence of farmers. If an elected board of directors is to fulfil the accountability needs of the Canadian Wheat Board, which I don't think it will, at least the board of directors must, however, be a majority of farmers. If there is to be representation on the board from the Canadian Wheat Board and the government, presuming three positions in total, and with the board comprising between 11 and 15 members, then the legislation should reflect this and specifically outline three non-farmer positions and the remainder being elected by producers.
Number two, the chairman as well as the president of the board of directors should not be appointed by the Governor in Council but should rather be elected by producers from the director group, or alternatively, the directors themselves could elect from amongst their own positions. If the Governor in Council controls these two positions, the Canadian Wheat Board will not be viewed as farmer controlled.
Number three, with the present amendment the government appears to be backing away from guarantees on adjustment prices. This is unacceptable. Uncertainty in future payments and the delay in adjustments until potential shortages are fully protected will delay potential price increases in adjustment prices. This will create future cashflow problems for farmers. Government guarantees for both initial and price adjustment payments must be maintained. As well, the contingency fund that was mentioned must be maintained. This will take further money out of the farmers' pockets. By not guaranteeing adjustment prices, the government has increased the cost to farmers and gained nothing for itself.
.1235
Number four, the proposed amendments change the Canadian Wheat Board from a crown corporation to a mixed enterprise, the rationale being that since elected representatives were on the board this disqualified the Canadian Wheat Board from being a crown corporation. There is an easy remedy for this. This could be accomplished by having the farmers elect a group of farmers to be their representatives and then have the Minister of Agriculture appoint directors from within this group. This would verify the minister was concerned with farmer input and interested in saving farmers money by ensuring the Canadian Wheat Board remains a crown corporation and enjoys preferential lending rates. This is a win-win situation for all parties.
Number five, other changes include the provision for cash buying for the Canadian Wheat Board, in proposed section 39, from any producer, any other person, any entity, at any time or any place. This provision is unacceptable as it allows the grain trade...again, one is to profit at the expense of the farmer. This provision has the ability to remove potential profits from farmers. Why would the grain trade sell to the Canadian Wheat Board? Most likely, the reason would be that the price offered by the board would be higher than what the grain trade had paid for the grain. This profit, the grain trade realizes, would have actually come from the farmers.
If cash purchasing is to be implemented, it must be restricted to purchases from farmers. I would prefer that cash purchasing not be included in the amendments as this will severely undermine the price pooling principle.
Number six, as the changes are now intended, the advisory group will not exist in the future. This is a major mistake. The advisory committee should be expanded in number and provide input into the decision-making process at the board of directors level. It is not logical to assume that the board members will both be able to play a major role in the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board and maintain close contact with its grassroots members, the farmers. If there is any one thing the board could have been criticized for over the past years, it is perhaps that it has not communicated with farmers as much as it should have. Dissolving the advisory committee will only further complicate this problem, not alleviate it.
Number seven, we only have the ability to take things as a Canadian Wheat Board. I think the ability to add grains has already been mentioned. That's a good point.
We're now living in a period of change and globalization...and the idea that change will bring prosperity. Let's think about what the change and globalization has produced for the western Canadian agriculture recently.
First, we have no effective coordinated transportation policy to move our grain to export position. What we have is a system where the railways call the shots, yet whine for further deregulation in order to increase competition in their own monopoly situation.
Second, we now have Americans owning portions of Canadian railway lines that lead to port facilities.
Third, we'll most likely have a Canadian port owned and operated by an American company.
Fourth, we have politicians who appear to be more interested in serving the agri-industry than they're willing to assist farmers.
For this legislation to be of any benefit to farmers it must be changed. The legislation, as it now stands, does not reflect the public statement the Minister of Agriculture made in regards to the permissive nature of the legislation.
If it truly was permissive, it would provide mechanisms for the addition of grains and oilseeds to the board's jurisdiction. If it truly was permissive, it would allow farmers to decide whether or not payments should continue to be guaranteed. Lastly, if it was truly permissive, it would allow farmers to decide what type of control and leadership was necessary to ensure the marketing of the board was stronger.
The legislation now before us is a very blunt instrument that will sever the social contract that now exists between farmers and the Parliament of Canada. This contract will be replaced by a regime where there is more influence directly from the minister's office and the grain trade. From a farmer's point of view, this is a negative step.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Kyle.
We'll go to John Burton.
Mr. John Burton (Individual Presentation): The Canadian Wheat Board is a pillar of the western Canadian economy. Any erosion of its powers or its ability to act effectively on behalf of western Canadian agriculture will cost farmers and the entire economy heavily. There has been a steady erosion of the board's powers for some time. This has to stop. The time to do it is now; your committee can do the job by recommending that the bill not proceed further, as it is now drafted. It is critical that all wheat and barley now within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board remain there.
I am hopeful that the barley plebiscite will decide in favour of orderly marketing. My only concern about the outcome is that the government decided that feeders who grow barley but don't market it should have a say, while non-barley producers holding a permit book will have no say. Questions of inclusion are the business of all permit book-holders.
.1240
Mr. Goodale cleverly loaded the dice against orderly marketing. I find it puzzling that the future of barley marketing should be placed in doubt, while no consideration is given to placing oats marketing back under the board. The Wheat Board did a good job of marketing oats, much better than the private trade, but there is no sign of any change now. Why?
Similarly, there's been considerable pressure to place rye in the Wheat Board system. Again, it is not being considered now. Why? Possibly there are other crops where the Canadian Wheat Board could do an effective job of marketing.
Under the new structure, the Canadian Wheat Board will no longer be considered a crown corporation. This change, along with other elements of the bill, will undermine the principle of orderly marketing, which has brought more stability and financial benefits to western farmers than any alternative could possibly hope to achieve.
It is apparent that the government has succumbed to the siren's song that suggests a regular corporate structure, with a board of directors, a president, and other executive management, will run things better and give farmers a greater voice. The fallacy in this argument is that it mixes together management issues and issues of communication and other interaction with the farm community.
The management of the Wheat Board has been sound. On the other hand, until recent years there were problems in the way the board interacted with farmers. They have done a lot to overcome those problems in recent years.
My proposal is that the present structure be retained, which involves the appointment of an appropriate number of commissioners to the Canadian Wheat Board, thus continuing the legislated alliance between the federal government and prairie farmers.
A change that would overcome problems, real or perceived, would be to enhance the role of the advisory committee. The bill provides for the demise of the committee. This is a mistake. I suggest instead that the role of the advisory committee be strengthened by requiring the committee - or it should maybe be an advisory board then - to approve the appointment of new commissioners and by giving the members the resources to enable them to do an adequate job of maintaining effective communications between the board and the farm community.
It also galls me to see the clause in the bill that ensures that the Canadian Wheat Board in the future will have to submit to the overriding rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I find this clause particularly offensive, because United States Department of Agriculture senior officials have made it clear they want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. This clearly indicates the board is doing an effective job. It seems some circles in the United States think so-called free enterprise is fine until somebody starts doing better than them. Why does this clause have to be included in the bill? I don't see why it is needed.
Transportation problems have been a major problem this winter for the Canadian Wheat Board and prairie farmers. The railways have not performed adequately. The situation is a disgrace. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Goodale, had to convene a meeting to try to sort problems out. After the meeting, he wrung his hands before the cameras and said it is going to take some time to sort things out. Of course it is going to take time to sort things out once they get out of control. The solution is to manage the system in the first place.
By and large the Grain Transportation Agency did an adequate job of managing the system while it was in existence. Now it is gone, and we live in the wonderful world of deregulation and the free market. As soon as they had the chance, the railways let down the farmer.
I urge the committee either to insert a clause giving the Canadian Wheat Board necessary powers over grain movement or to recommend that other legislation be introduced to regulate and manage grain movement properly.
I have one final observation. This is a strange bill. While the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer to be a crown corporation or an agent of Her Majesty, there are all sorts of provisions in the bill requiring government or ministerial action. Considerable governmental control is maintained over operations. The new board will be neither fish nor fowl in many respects.
What does concern me is that many of these provisions will provide opponents of orderly marketing with new grounds for complaints and reasons for requests to remove governmental constraints from the board. The government will be under continual pressure. The end result will be an ongoing and continuing erosion of an orderly marketing system.
.1245
I have observed and participated in events involving the well-being of agriculture for many years. I've worked as a farmer, as a professional agrologist, and as a member of Parliament. I am aware of the struggle to develop orderly marketing institutions. I have observed the counter-attack by vested interests trying to undermine and destroy these institutions for their own selfish purposes. I say this has to stop now.
I am a 100% Canadian Wheat Board supporter. The government and the Minister of Agriculture have demonstrated in Bill C-72 that they are prepared to facilitate the continuing and ongoing erosion of orderly marketing that can only lead to the eventual destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Even the minister said that once the system is gone, it cannot be resurrected. If the changes in Bill C-72 are enacted, I wonder if it would be possible to return to the former system - the one we have now.
Members of this committee have a golden opportunity to say enough is enough. Your decisions on this bill will demonstrate which side of the fence you are on. You can't be on both sides and you can't straddle it.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon - Souris, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.
I'll now call on Curtis Kuchinka.
Mr. Curtis Kuchinka (Individual Presentation): Before I start my presentation this morning, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Curtis Kuchinka. I represent a small organic farm in the southeast corner of the province. I'll address some of my concerns regarding the bill. Before I do, though, I'd like to say I've heard quite a few comments this morning, many of which I agreed with, and others not.
The two major grain companies in this province - this morning I observed that they are representing high-volume products, and I'm representing more of an environmentally conscious system. It's probably a very rapidly growing sector here on the prairies and throughout the world these days.
Organic agriculture and the trade of certified organic products is global in scale. The viability of organic production is proven. In my opinion, the integrity and effectiveness of the self-regulated certification and audit control systems governing organic grain production are well established. I encourage this committee to recommend that organic grains be considered unique and thus exempted from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Under clause 22 of Bill C-72, organic wheat could be excluded from proposed subsection 45(2) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. To paraphrase, on the recommendation of the minister, the Governor in Council could exclude any kind, type, or grade of wheat from the provisions of this act.
Further stipulations also indicate that unique grains must have a mechanism for identity preservation. Organic grains have this mechanism.
I remind the committee that strict audit control systems are in place by organic certification bodies. The Canadian Grain Commission could play a role in the identity preservation of these grains by further enforcing these audit control systems. The CGC could be a credible tool in the eyes of foreign buyers and local producers alike.
Another concern: I'm sure you are aware of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board, known as COAB, and the fact that there are no national production standards in place at this time. The level of difficulty in uniting Canadian organic farmers with diverse commodities and cultures could be compared to that of the federal government's debate over national unity. Legislators keep saying that COAB must have national standards in place before they will consider exempting us from the Canadian Wheat Board.
It seems to me that since the Canadian Wheat Board only has jurisdiction over primarily three prairie provinces, a partial organic advisory board should suffice in getting prairie grains exempted. Hypothetically, if COAB did have standards in place tomorrow, would government then be ready to exempt organic grains from the Canadian Wheat Board?
Again, I encourage this committee to recommend to the Minister of Agriculture that certified organic wheat and barley be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister's own Western Grain Marketing Panel recommended that organic grains be exempted. It is my belief that the majority of organic producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would agree their grains are unique and should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
.1250
I'd like to thank this committee for their time and I would appreciate any questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Thank you very much, Curtis.
We'll start off questioning from Murray, followed by Elwin.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome.
I'd like to clarify a point. I am a farmer from Ontario. I'm involved in supply management as a poultry grower. Our family has been involved in poultry since before supply management came in and we're very strong supporters of it.
One of the things I want to go into is dual marketing versus single-desk selling. Yesterday I heard a number of comments, and I'd like to reiterate some of them and get your comments on them.
Under a dual marketing system, the Canadian Wheat Board would be just another grain company. George alluded to that and we heard that yesterday. Price pool would be smaller and diluted and we'd be working towards a similar U.S. system of ``buy low and sell high'', and that's in the best interests of the grain companies. Canada's reputation as a reliable world supplier would be jeopardized. Government guarantees would be difficult, if possible. Canadian quality and consistency would be difficult.
The question I would like to put to anybody who wants to comment about this is how much should we compromise ourselves and our global position in trying to get more of the U.S. market, working with the idea too that obviously there will be U.S. grain farmers who will be very sensitive to us trying to capture more U.S. market?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): If you wish to respond, just raise your hand and I'll respect you.
Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison: It involves the sellers of my grain. If I go to buy a tractor, I try to beat the price down between multiple sellers. That's good for the buyer, but not for the seller. If I market my grain, I like a monopoly, and most companies in the world are trying to create monopolies so they then control the price.
As for going to the U.S., they're one of the biggest exporters of grain in the world, so I don't think there's any long-term market in there. The market is overseas.
The whole game in the U.S. was the export enhancement program. Grain companies were able to get some sort of benefit from shipping as much grain out of the country as they could. Naturally if I were a grain trader, I'd ship as much out as I could. So they actually shorted their own domestic market; it drove the price up in their domestic market. That's only a blip in the market.
As for the border thing, if we try to ship too much in there, they will close the border. The Wheat Board has been very selective in moving grain in there. It went direct to the end user and the farmers didn't see it going in there, so there was no big hassle. The hassle was when these people, for their own self-interest, started moving across the border and then blew that they were moving across the border. They were getting $8 a bushel or whatever the figure would be, but I said produce me a grain ticket. To this point nobody has ever produced to me a grain ticket to prove it was correct.
As for the whole idea of this competition thing, again, on the dual system, if I were a grain company, I'd buy all the grain I could and ship it out, because it would be returned to my bottom line. That's bad for me as a farmer. If you deliver it to the Wheat Board, at least you know you're getting a fair price over the year in return to me. I don't have to try to outguess my neighbour.
Canola is a prime example. In 1993-94 I took a survey of the canola market - and it's on the open market - and found that 45% of the stuff was priced from August to the end of October, because farmers have their deferred inputs. You can defer your inputs until 31 October, and if you don't pay for them then, you charge interest back until they pick them up. So farmers naturally produce sale grain in that period of time. They were selling canola and 45% of the stuff was so overpriced in that period of time that they averaged $6 a bushel. If you could afford to wait until the next June period, in that period it was $9 a bushel and 12% of the stuff was priced.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Thank you, Fred. There are other people who might wish to respond.
I'd like to tell you that for each of these questions Murray has asked, we hope to be less than 10 minutes, but it will be a maximum of 10 minutes. So please understand we're trying to give other questioners a chance to interact.
Mr. Neufeld.
.1255
Mr. Neufeld: As a former grain buyer, I think this concept of a dual market is not workable.
First, the Wheat Board has no facilities. They don't have elevators and they would have to rely on the agent who is hired and who has a duty to work for another company. I just can't see that it would work.
As a former grain buyer, I know some of the tricks in how you would get your grain, if it's my company I'm working for or the Wheat Board. It's no secret to anybody in the room. You overgrade; you give a break on dockage. Now they have companies running out to the farmers and saying that if they take it to them they'll truck it for them at a really cheap rate or sometimes for nothing.
I think under that scenario the Wheat Board would get almost no grain. I'm just very fearful that my grain business would never work under that kind of system.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Thank you very much.
Okay, Kyle. I won't try your last name.
Mr. Korneychuk: I appreciate that. To try to answer your question quite briefly, I'll use two tactics - economically and politically. Economically, we export less than 10% of the grain to the States. That's not really a big figure. Politically, if you start taking the grain there, do you think American farmers are going to continue to stand by and watch Canadian trucks go in?
I think politically there's an unknown, but even economically it's not a large proportion. The problem is that since [Inaudible - Editor] is so close, you know, it's a quick flip. You buy for $3 a bushel and sell for $3.50. You can make a quick flip. That's the problem with being so close to a major country. It's a problem or benefit, depending on whichever side of the argument you're on.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Thank you. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm old enough to remember when my father marketed grain through the Wheat Board during the time when it was a voluntary board in the period 1936 to 1943. He did it because he believed in the Wheat Board. He found that it did not work satisfactorily. There were no benefits through having the voluntary board. He didn't really do any better through the open market either at that time, but the voluntary board simply did not work.
And I think the point you make is quite valid, sir, that Canada's grain standards are an important selling point for our export markets.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Go ahead, Mr. Hickie.
Mr. Hickie: To go just a little further, I mentioned in my brief that the Wheat Board could not possibly survive under a dual marketing system. One of the main reasons is that they do not have a grain gathering system.
Could you imagine what it would be like? They would have to depend on the grain companies out there to handle the grain and conduct their business for them, and yet each one of these grain companies is in direct competition with the Wheat Board under a dual marketing system. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that this could never work.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Glen McKinnon): Go ahead, Mr. Colhoun.
Mr. Colhoun: I have a couple of points. First of all, Australia now has a voluntary system and it seems to work quite fine. It survives. In years past Kansas has always grown more grain than western Canada and they've done that with multiple buyers and multiple sellers, and they always seemed to realize more dollars per bushel to the farmer than the Canadian Wheat Board has.
The Chairman: I think I'll go to Elwin because we are getting into lunch. If we get a chance to come back, we will.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank each presenter.
I'll comment on four presenters, and they may wish to respond, or others may wish to respond as well.
Mr. Harrison talked about the Wheat Board appointments and was concerned about what would happen to the Canadian Wheat Board if a minister like Mr. Mayer was making these appointments. I share some of those concerns.
The problem with the Tories was that they had a propensity to do things illegally and that's what Mr. Mayer did. He instituted a continental volume market but he didn't do it through Parliament. He did it through Order in Council, which is a lot of what's proposed in this new bill, and that created a lot of problems. Actually the continental volume market was working quite well.
Mr. Colhoun mentioned that the Canadian Wheat Board refused to even market the product that was grown by a farmer and was only prepared to sell it as something else. I think that's a concern that hasn't been addressed in Bill C-72.
.1300
Mr. Burton said that producers of oats were better off when oats were under the board than they are currently now that it is an off-board grain. Of course, the evidence actually shows the opposite, that the oat industry has grown immensely since oats were taken off the board. We have access markets that the Wheat board just wasn't able to find. Acreage has increased and returns to the farmer have increased.
He blasted NAFTA, yet it seems that where we have trading agreements with other countries, that's where we have our most fruitful trade. Even the Liberals have changed their position on NAFTA. They were opposed to NAFTA going into the last election and they have since supported NAFTA. It's where we have these trade agreements that we have some protection, where we have dispute settlement mechanisms and where we can have some type of fairer trade. It's where you have no agreement that you can be stepped on all over by the Americans.
Mr. Kuchinka asked that organic grains be exempted from the Canadian Wheat Board. I understand what he's saying, because the Wheat Board has never been excellent at accessing niche markets. It's a bit like taking a 50-foot swather and trying to mow your lawn with it. I think what he's asking for is the ability to access these specialty markets through the expertise that is available for the smaller producer or smaller producer group, to actually go out and find the buyers who are prepared to work with containers rather than with 100-car train units.
I make the comments on those four points.
The question I offer to anyone who wants to respond is this. Over the past number of years farmers have been moving away from Wheat Board grains. We see an increase in canola production, lentils, peas, mustard, you name it. For anything that's not on the board, the acreage is increasing; anything that's been under the board has been under duress.
Some of the lowest grain prices I have received as a producer in constant dollars have been on my board grains, lower than the depression prices when wheat wasn't under the board. If you take 1929 or 1930 dollars and translate them into 1979 or the mid-1980s, I did far worse under the board than my grandfather and father did under a non-board situation. So the board's not magic. The board provides a useful service, but it's not magic, and I'd like to know how these producers respond to those facts.
Mr. Harrison: If you look at what's happened under wheat and barley, the NAFTA export program and what not had a detrimental effect on barley. When the U.S. was subsidizing barley and wheat at $60 and $70 a tonne, the Canadian Wheat Board had to meet that commitment through no fault of their own.
If you'd had the same amount of subsidy on soybeans out of the United States, do you not think the canola market would have gone down? It's a fact of life that we were subsidized until the U.S. had a bottomless treasury on those grains. It had no comparison to the market in canola. We were marketing canola because there was no subsidy in the U.S. market in soybeans and there was a direct connection to soybeans.
This simplistic idea that you get more money in the open market means you mustn't have listened to my comment on the canola market. There was a spread between the high and the low that year of $160 a tonne that came out of the farmers' pockets. If you're forced to sell your grain in the fall, you miss that opportunity.
The economists looked at this. Maybe you disregard economists, but I put some faith in them. They have studied this whole marketing system. Farmers gained a lot more by central-desk selling. If you look at a company with a monopoly, they can extract more out of the market. It's a simple fact. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to understand that.
Mr. Hickie: I would like to answer Mr. Hermanson's question. It's unfair to blame the Wheat Board. The problem is that our cost of production has been continuously escalating. As an example, when my grandfather started farming, for every grain dollar he got he was able to put about 85¢ into his pocket. About 25 years ago, for every grain dollar I received I was able to put 37¢ in my pocket for myself. Now for every grain dollar I receive, all I can put in my pocket for myself is 9¢. It's the cost of production that's gone out of control; it's not the problem of the Wheat Board.
.1305
Mr. Elwin Hermanson: If I may respond very briefly to that, I agree with you. I think that's a real problem. I suggest that big government has been a great contributor to those high input costs.
Mr. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think the evidence is very clear that from the time whenMr. Mayer unilaterally removed oats from under the Wheat Board, the Wheat Board was getting a much better price than the private trade did for the farmer for oats that were marketed. Yes, oats markets are growing and I submit that the Wheat Board would do a much better job of dealing with the growing oats market than the private trade will do, at least as far as the farmer is concerned. I think that is the important point.
In my presentation I objected to the clause in the bill that places the Canadian Wheat Board clearly under the wing of NAFTA. I saw no reason for that clause. I found it offensive because of quite a number of concerns.
I think this committee needs to be concerned that the United States Department of Agriculture - and that means the United States government - is doing everything in its power to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
I had experience when I was working for the Government of Saskatchewan where we were dealing with sensitive matters that were of interest to the United States government. At that time, some years ago, the Canadian external affairs department very properly defended the right of Canadians to do things the way they wanted to do them and to protect Canadian interests, regardless of whether the federal government agreed with what was being done or not.
Some of that appears to be gone now, and I think this is a matter that should be of some concern to the committee. We in Canada want to manage our own affairs and manage them in a way that is appropriate for Canada. Of course, we work with other nations and we need to have trading agreements in the future, leaving aside many issues concerning NAFTA, but we need to be masters in our own house.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter, you wanted a point of clarification, and then I'll go toMr. Kuchinka.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I think, John, one has to be careful not to interpret wrongly what clause 24 is referring to in terms of NAFTA. The new clause is really put in the bill because the Canadian Wheat Board no longer would be a crown corporation and therefore wouldn't be subject to the Financial Administrations Act. As a result, an explicit provision has to be put in the bill to ensure that it does comply with NAFTA provisions, which is already there in the Financial Administrations Act. It's basically a technicality. It doesn't take away from what currently exists, it just makes it explicit in this bill because you're moving from a crown corporation.
Mr. Burton: So I take it, Mr. Easter, that if my proposal were adopted to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board as, in effect, a crown corporation, then there would be no need for this clause at all.
Mr. Wayne Easter: You're absolutely correct.
The Chairman: Mr. Kuchinka.
Mr. Kuchinka: I believe any government of any day should be supporting organic agriculture to a bigger degree. It was mentioned that we're dealing with a niche market and it's obvious we're dealing with a very high-value market. Farmers are realizing anywhere from 25% to 150% premiums. Not only are farmers realizing a premium, but I believe what's being put on store shelves and what not is really representing the true cost of production. There are many organic farmers who aren't even in favour of such things as government programs, crop insurance, GRIP, or whatever. I think they're showing the real cost of foods.
I think consumers are showing support for that, and for us to be regulated by the Canadian Wheat Board...I don't see where we can show support for that at all.
The Chairman: Mr. Neufeld.
Mr. Neufeld: If I understand the gist of Mr. Hermanson's question, he asked why I wasn't growing lentils, peas or something like that 40 years ago. The simple answer is that they weren't available. There wasn't such a thing. I think it's really a red herring that you're implying that if lentils were under the board and I marketed them through the board, they would do worse than through the open market. It just isn't so. I think to ask why I didn't grow them 40 years ago is just like asking, since I was growing hair 40 years ago, why I'm not growing it now.
.1310
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Neufeld: I think the question has about that much merit.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson: I'd like to respond briefly - and I'm not going to lose any hair or sleep over this.
The Chairman: Elwin had a full head when he came to Ottawa.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson: Yes, the Liberals just drive you crazy, I'll tell you.
Oats were grown 40 years ago. So that's not entirely an inaccurate argument.
The other thing I would mention is that somebody talked about the trade wars being most brutal on wheat and barley. I believe the trade wars were focused mostly on wheat and barley because they tend to be the commodities most traded by state trading enterprises. In fact, if you move away from state trading enterprises, you get away from some of the ammunition for trading wars.
The EEP program is directed at wheat, and our programs in the past under the Conservatives were focused mostly on wheat. Canola and some of these other grains haven't been the subject of trade wars simply because they haven't been primarily marketed by state trading enterprises. That's something you folks should consider.
The Chairman: Ms Neufeld.
Ms Neufeld: Thank you. I just want to respond to Mr. Hermanson.
Maybe the committee should get him a new calculator, to be honest, because when oats were under the board, they were in the neighbourhood of $2.95 to $3 a bushel. Within two months of being removed from the board, farmers were considered lucky if they could lock it in for $1.70 a bushel. It doesn't take a great deal of arithmetic to figure out who was losing in that end.
The Chairman: I had recognized Kyle, so we'll go to Kyle for a brief comment and then to Rose-Marie Ur.
Mr. Korneychuk: I'd like to address Mr. Hermanson on the issue of canola and some of the other crops. I don't think it's a fair statement to make comparisons to the board because the board never had the opportunity to market those.
I think the real issue is - and we're trying to talk about analogy and facts and conclusions. I won't argue that your facts are wrong, but maybe the conclusions are wrong. As a group of politicians, how do you get your point across? The analogy I'm trying to make is: farmers, how do we get the best price, by my going out and trying to beat everybody else and your going into Parliament and trying to get your views across, or do you do it through a group? That's really what the Canadian Wheat Board is about.
The Chairman: Mrs. Ur.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton - Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too want to clarify that. Although I'm a politician, I am also a farmer.
A voice: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I've worked under both systems, the marketing board and free marketing. I could certainly sleep better at night when I was under the marketing board system.
My question is to the organic presenters this morning because they are the first group to present to us. As to the volume and acreage compared to non-organic, what are the numbers? Do you have those kinds of numbers available in organic wheat?
Mr. Kuchinka: In terms of volumes and numbers of producers within Saskatchewan, there are probably 500 to 600 farmer producer members.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: And the acreage?
Mr. Kuchinka: For acreage, I really have no idea. Without having some statistics I couldn't answer that question.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Compared to non-organic production, volume per acre?
Mr. Kuchinka: Volume per acre?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, like bushels per acre.
Mr. Kuchinka: A reduction?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: No, production numbers. What do you produce per acre compared to non-organic? What's your yield?
Mr. Kuchinka: From everything I've seen, I would say organic production is no more than 5% to 10% lower than conventionally grown products.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I wouldn't mind if you were able to submit information to the chair as to the acreage. If you have those statistics available, it might be important to us down the road.
Mr. Kuchinka: Okay.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: My other question is to the rest of the group. Are you in favour of adding inclusion of additional commodities to the Canadian Wheat Board? What is your position on cash buying?
Mr. Kuchinka: Who was that directed to?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Anyone who wishes to respond.
Mr. Colhoun: Is that on a compulsory or a voluntary basis, Rose-Marie?
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: The cash buying?
Mr. Colhoun: Adding new products to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: On the compulsory.
Mr. Colhoun: Then I'd have to stand opposed.
Mr. Harrison: If you try to accommodate cash buying within the Wheat Board, you're only trying to accommodate the open market system and the Wheat Board. We reject the open market. So why do we want cash markets within the Wheat Board? It's a non-flyer.
A voice: I agree with that.
.1315
Mr. Hickie: I would certainly support having canola under the Wheat Board. Oats or anything else I grow - as you said yourself, I would sleep much better at night than I do under this crazy gambling business, trying to outguess the system. No, I'd like to see canola under the Wheat Board.
Mr. Korneychuk: I'd like to see more crops under the board.
I'd also like to direct a comment to Mr. Hermanson. It's something I forgot earlier. If farmers feel they're not getting the best price from the board or they think they can do better, play the open market system, the options, your puts and your calls. You can make all kinds of money there if you think the board isn't doing a good enough job.
Mr. Burton: My presentation identified oats and rye specifically and also raised the possibility of other crops for investigation. I think there are some real concerns about cash buying. There was a particular situation the Wheat Board had to deal with here a year ago and they put some proposals forward themselves. But I think this has to be handled very carefully in order to avoid other problems.
Mr. Harrison: On canola marketing, just for your interest, last week at the Saskwheat annual meeting over 80% of the delegates supported canola and requested it be moved under the board. I think a long-standing policy has been for all grains under the board...
The Chairman: The way the bill is written at the present time, that is its only exclusion, but that exclusion would be after a vote by producers. I think the question Rose-Marie Ur is probably mentioning is whether there should be inclusion. Are you saying, Rose-Marie, based on the same thing, after a vote or upon a vote, as a result of? So you're wanting to know whether exclusion and inclusion should be on the same basis.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.
Mr. Kuchinka: It's obvious to the fund in front of you...opposed to wheat and barley being on the Canadian Wheat Board, then there's no doubt I'm not going to be in favour of any additions to it. I think many other organic farmers as well, to stress this point, have left many grains or have given up the production of on-board grains just because of those reasons.
The Chairman: We're moving along on time and we do have to stop for lunch. I'm going to go to Mr. Taylor for a very brief round and then we'll conclude with that.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake, NDP): I have a brief comment and a very brief question, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Colhoun made reference to Andy McMechan in Manitoba. Although I know the committee is well aware why the Manitoba farmer went to jail, I'm not sure everybody else is. Andy did not go to jail because he found another market. Lots of people have found markets and haven't been to jail. Andy went to jail because he did not complete the paperwork and he stole back a tractor that had been legally seized. The judgment on that should be required reading for everyone. He went to jail because he didn't want to play the pool, and we should all be aware of that.
My question is related to the organic producers. As a New Democrat and one who believes in sustainable agriculture, I'm very supportive of the organic industry but I'm also supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board. I'd like to know, as organics and sustainable agriculture - I know there are differences but there are similarities as well - as agriculture becomes more sustainable and more producers recognize the benefit of organics, whether there's any way in which you would accept a relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board to market organic products. What would we have to do to build a bridge between the position you're holding today and a Canadian Wheat Board marketing of organic products?
Mr. Kuchinka: Three words: make it voluntary. Make our involvement in the Canadian Wheat Board up to us, as organic producers.
Mr. Colhoun: I'd like to respond about Andy McMechan. Even Judge Coppleman said no permit was required. Andy was convicted of a scheme. That's why it's under appeal now with both the support of the Canadian Farmers for Justice and the National Citizens' Coalition.
.1320
The Chairman: Bill.
Mr. Rees: In conclusion, with regard to the offerings by the organic group, you can see that there is no variance, and I expect that you're going to find the same thing this afternoon when you hear other people represent our organic growers. By virtue of that fact, if it remains that way, I would surely recommend and suggest and hope that there would be initiative taken forthwith to do something about the matter of exempting us from the board.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, lady and gentlemen, for your brief and concise presentations and your cooperation, and to the committee members as well.
There is no question that in the industry we're all involved in, one way or the other we are going through a time of change and challenge. But more importantly, we're going through a time when we have out there unlimited opportunity. The challenge to all of us is to meet the changes and beat the challenges, and take advantage of the opportunity for the benefit of producers as individuals, as well as all of the stakeholders in the industry. We thank you for your contribution to that discussion.
The process - so that you're all clear and understand it - is that when the House goes back after the Easter break, on April 7, we will continue to have some more hearings in Ottawa. It doesn't appear as though there are going to be many, since we were able to meet so many people out here this week. Then it goes through a clause-by-clause consideration in committee, is reported back to the House to where further amendments can be suggested, and then is voted on in the House and goes to the Senate.
We thank you for your contribution. We'll adjourn now. This afternoon we will have four groups, and maybe one individual who apparently was driving five hours to get here today. We will accommodate that individual this afternoon.
We will reconvene as a committee at 1:30 p.m. sharp. Thank you.