EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, March 21, 1997

.1300

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward - Hastings, Lib.)): We'll begin with a five-minute presentation from Mr. Dyck.

Will the members come to the table, please.

Mr. Dyck, I will indicate when four and a half minutes are up. I'm going to stick very strictly to the five minutes.

Mr. Norman Dyck (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset I want to leave my Wheat Board hat on because I support the Canadian Wheat Board in its present form and some modifications. But I feel if this present bill is enacted I wouldn't be able to honourably support the Wheat Board.

Thank you, committee members and our federal agriculture minister, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, for the opportunity to address my concerns on the proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

It is central in a democracy that those affected by policy changes must be afforded the right to shape those policies. At the outset I want it known that I am an avid supporter of the principles behind the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Regrettably I find most of the proposed amendments in Bill C-72 unfriendly to the spirit and integrity that most farmers saw in the historic shaping of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I believe the amendments, if implemented, will ultimately and I might add rather rapidly lead to the demise of a powerful risk management tool that Canadian farmers and their all-too-often reluctant governments have built.

Now to the specifics. With respect to cash purchasing, proposed section 39.1, this proposal will allow the board to cash buy at a price other than the initial price from any producer, person or entity. Once we allow the board to cash purchase from producers or the trade, the critical cornerstone of single-desk selling and price pooling is compromised.

If the 1994-95 Japanese situation were to recur, if the board chose to cash buy barley directly from farmers and if that cash price surpassed the pool return, few farmers would participate in a voluntary pool in subsequent years. Likewise, a premium price paid to the trade at port position to meet sales commitments would justifiably rankle those farmers who stayed within the pool.

I want to note at this point the Canadian Wheat Board's advisory committee that initially supported this proposal has, after closer examination, withdrawn their support for cash buying.

If the board were to enter into cash buying, the board's integrity and farmers' confidence in it would wither. It would justifiably be seen as just another grain company managing risk for its own sake and not operating in the best collective interests of farmers.

The board would be compromising on price equity. Additionally, farmers within the pool and those who cashed out would have lost the considerable risk management that single-desk selling provides during seasonal price volatility because of shortages or surpluses, real or perceived, caused at times by foreign government intervention or export subsidies. Pooling affords all farmers price stability and predictability.

With cash buying from the trade, there would be times, as pointed out by Brian Oleson of the Wheat Board, when the board would make cash purchases at port position. The board would find itself paying a premium for stocks it needed to meet vessel loading. This practice, as provided for in the new amendment, would justifiably anger those farmers in the country with grain in the bin. Board support in the country would wither rather rapidly.

Proposed section 45.1, exclusion from board jurisdiction, also reflects on the principle of price pooling. This proposed amendment, which allows for the exclusion of any kind, type, class, or grade of wheat, that being unregistered varieties, would undermine price pooling.

Examination of Bill C-72 seems to put more checks and balances around unregistered varieties requiring recommendation of the board, approval of the Canadian Grain Commission for identity preservation to prevent co-mingling, and a producer vote.

How would exempting unregistered wheat varieties negatively affect price pooling? Proposed section 45, if implemented, ends single-desk selling since it ends mandatory pooling. If unregistered wheat varieties are exempted, both unregistered and registered varieties, misrepresented as unregistered, will flow unrestricted across the Canada-U.S. border and overseas.

.1305

Grain companies offering an attractive price above board initial prices for unregistered varieties would tempt some producers. This volume of grain would find itself in similar markets to board grain, only now offered by multiple sellers and undercutting prices. Why risk the integrity of the pool with this exclusion provision?

Canada has a well-structured mechanism, via the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board development departments, to ensure that all wheats grown and marketed meet customer quality requirements. Again, why put at risk the pool and our quality assurance with this provision?

On a positive note, we have recent confirmation of the benefits of marketing under the current Wheat Board Act. A recently released study by Schmitz, Gray and Storey reported in the February 20, 1997 edition of The Western Producer confirms what most farmers knew all along. In barley marketing for the period 1980-81 to 1994-95, the study shows single-desk selling for malt barley has meant a price advantage of $42 per tonne for six-row and $34 per tonne for two-row.

Why not amend the Wheat Board Act to give the board the opportunity to market some of the non-board grains? There is no provision in Bill C-72 for this. Why not? It was requested at numerous Western Grain Marketing Panel meetings. Positive change that strengthened the farmers' marketing position would be welcomed, lending more price stability in the all-too-volatile unregulated international markets.

Thank you very much, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Dyck.

We'll go to Mr. Watson.

Mr. Allen Watson (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the standing committee for this opportunity for me as an individual to express some of my views regarding Bill C-72.

I couldn't help observe this morning the temperature change in this room. I'm wondering and it begs the question whether it had anything to do with presentations.

Five minutes certainly don't give one a lot of time to say much, certainly in no detail, so my comments will be fairly general. I did hand in six copies of my brief. I apologize for not having them translated into French for you. I went all around Dawson Creek looking for some capability and was told if I wanted to buy a $200 program it could happen. I didn't feel quite that devoted to the cause.

The Chairman: We'll get it translated and circulated. Don't worry.

Mr. Watson: Thank you very much.

While your request, Mr. Chairman, was for me to focus on specific amendments that I believe would improve the bill, certainly my approach will be what should or should not be amended to improve the Canadian Wheat Board. With that you can hit your time clock.

Bill C-72 proposes radical changes in administrative structure, the governance, price pooling, marketing and risk management tools to be used in the future grain marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board.

While I have concerns with the proposed amendments in all the categories, the focus of my submission will be on the risk management component. Any risk management has a cost. Under the status quo, that risk is managed by the federal government in various forms. The Governor in Council covers any losses where selling prices are lower than initial payments, adjustments to initial payments, or interim payments.

The federal government also guarantees loans in respect of the sale of grain on credit, as well as to cover initial payments. Traditionally, these risk costs have been minimal due to pooling.

Wheat is an important commodity in the realm of world trading and maintaining trade balances, which is of interest to all Canadians. Therefore, the costs are borne by every taxpayer, as it should be. Care must be taken to ensure risk management costs in the future and in the interests of all citizens are not shifted solely to the farmers.

The proposal to establish a contingency fund will in fact do just that. Add to that the fact the risk to the corporation will be greater under the purchase of grain at prices other than initial prices, one can see more of the financial risk costs being shifted to the farmers. This does not to me make a better functioning Canadian Wheat Board if it is going to cost more to do the same business.

Assume the fund will be amassed from the profits of selling grain and assume the target of the contingency fund has been met, those who made early commitments to the Canadian Wheat Board will contribute, while those who held out will not because the target may have been reached and there is no need for more money in the fund.

This is not an equitable way of building up the fund and a check-off system would be no different. Any system that collects money only to be refunded if it is not needed is in contradiction of the principle of reform that is supposed to get more money to the farmers more quickly.

The Canadian Wheat Board enjoys the lower cost of borrowing money because it is a crown corporation. Once the first director is elected to the Canadian Wheat Board, it is no longer a crown corporation. It will lose that benefit. Once again the farmer will have to pick up the tab for increased costs of doing business. Where is the stability I spoke of in my overview that you will get sometime and read? Farmers will have little cushion from the higher fluctuating interest costs.

.1310

So once again let's assume the fund has been built up to the determined level and there is a loss at either the initial payment, adjustment to the initial payment, or interim payment level, and the fund is used to make up the loss. What will this do to the participation level in the following year or years depending on the magnitude of the loss? If the participation level drops because farmers have lost faith in the system, the cost to replenish the contingency fund will be borne by fewer producers. The ripple effect will put more pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Currently farmers and grain buyers are using hedging as a risk management tool. Again there is a cost to this that must be recovered from the final selling price of the product. Hedging is traditionally done in small lots of grain, and there is no way the Canadian Wheat Board would be able to hedge the kinds of volumes it will have to in order to manage the risk of rapid reduction in commodity prices. Some commodity exchanges are looking at ways of handling larger lots, but currently that is not an option. When and if they do, again the farmer will pay for the service. Eliminating the government guarantees and transferring the cost of risk management entirely to the backs of farmers do s not in my view make an improved Canadian Wheat Board.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate my concern with the proposed approach to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is going to be impossible in the analysis to calculate the benefits or the cost of doing business after massive restructuring. Changes should be made in a systematic trial basis over a longer period of time so the results can be measured. Those that accomplish the desired results should be legislated and those that do not should not be legislated. There are too many unanswered questions to allow me to have any confidence whatsoever in most of the proposed changes. Much more studying of the consequences must be done before approving Bill C-72.

Mr. Chairman, in trying to think of an analogy to best describe my reservations towards the proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, let me use that of a bird of flight. Take the most proficient flying bird and begin to clip away at some of the wing feathers one at a time. By the time the analysis tells us we no longer have a fine flying creature it will be too late, because the bird will probably fall prey to a predator before the wing feathers grow back. Mr. Chairman, there are some predators out there who wish to see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, and if we keep clipping the wing feathers soon we'll have a crippled structure that cannot properly function and indeed will fall prey to those predators.

Thank you for this opportunity to hear my views on this very important issue.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.

We'll now go to Mr. Moskalyk.

Mr. Ralph Moskalyk (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank you also for letting me sit at the table here, for giving me five minutes. However, I don't think it will take me that long to say what I have to say.

This morning I'm not here representing any organization, nor am I using any money collected from a levy to state my views. I'm here to represent myself. That doesn't sound greedy, it's just that I am a wheat board supporter. It does seem strange that the Canadian Wheat Board came through the GATT untouched. There were some questions asked, but we came through it. The Canadian Wheat Board also has been challenged many times by the United States, and it has won on every account. Here at home we're going to make amendments that I think will in a very short time destroy the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it.

When we go to the World Trade talks in 1999, we've got to make it stronger somehow. I've listened to lots of studies pro and anti, but I myself still do not have the knowledge to make the changes that some people think have to be made to make it stronger. Recently, I heard two guest speakers, at a meeting I attended, speaking on change. One said to use creative destruction; another said to be careful what you ask for because you might just get it. The amendments before us fit both those phrases.

.1315

There are three amendments that bother me most. Changing the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board from a crown corporation to a mixed enterprise.... Could a mixed enterprise turn into something else to create revenues to build that fund up? Would we have to build facilities because we do not have any?

Creating this capital fund to guarantee adjustments to the initial price - I don't think we really need a capital or a contingency fund. There never has been a deficit in the adjustment payment. Why would the government back away from this guarantee? The danger I see with the capital or contingency fund, whichever you want to call it, is that it could grow into a sizeable amount. I think that's been stated here more than once.

Could this government back out of the control of the government backing on initial and export sales? Maybe not this government, but future governments might. We opened up the National Transportation Act a few years ago, which allowed the government to end the support we had there. I have an idea that maybe not this government but future governments could very easily do the same thing to the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to see if the federal government can change these guaranteed adjustment payments. Some say adjustment payments are too slow, but I'm sure they could be sped up by working with the agriculture and agri-food minister and the finance minister.

I would also like to see...accumulation of capital into a contingency fund be removed from Bill C-72. If a contingency fund has to be created because the board of directors will be elected, would there be a way around it? I don't know. Could a certain number of directors be elected and then the agriculture minister appoint a group out of that? I don't agree with having a CEO and president run the board, appointed by the government. He's got to be appointed by the directors of the board so he can be accountable to the farmers and to the taxpayers of Canada.

The Chairman: You only have one minute left, Mr. Moskalyk.

Mr. Moskalyk: Yes, it'll only take me...and you can be on your plane.

Cash purchases - I do not agree with that, and I think Mr. Dyck emphasized that quite clearly. We'd be selling in a high market and losing in a low market.

I thank you very much.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Breault.

Mr. Frank Breault (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm glad to see the make-up of the committee, and especially that we have our two MPs from the Peace River here. It's an important area that sometimes gets overlooked.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today before this committee. I have a short presentation of some of my concerns relating to the intended changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act as outlined in Bill C-72, and how it might affect my farm.

I am also here on my own, not representing any particular organization. I have no expenses that I can apply for...through any funds of a check-off or anything else.

The only career I have had is grain farming in the Peace River area of B.C., which is in the designated Wheat Board area. The experience of producing and selling my field crops over the years has given me a lot of confidence and faith in the Canadian Wheat Board method of marketing. To market this production the board is involved in seeking out buyers, developing markets, and serving customers - a job I would not have the time, the money, or the ability to do.

When I plant wheat or barley, I don't worry about how or where to sell it. That task is left to the Canadian Wheat Board. With this strong conviction, I would not want Bill C-72 to erode the strength of the Canadian Wheat Board, especially in the area of marketing.

To this end I would like Bill C-72 to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include canola in its jurisdiction, subject to a producer vote.

I believe Bill C-72 should not amend section 31 of the act to allow pool periods or pool closures during the Wheat Board crop year. In place of this I would suggest the new legislation provide the board with authority to offer a pool cash buy-out based on the estimated pool return for those farmers who do not wish to wait until the end of the normal pool period. This proposal was made in detail by the Canadian Wheat Board in its March 17 submission to this committee.

.1320

If the board is allowed to bid for grain from the trade, it could result in premiums being paid that would lower prices for that pool period. This would result in producers losing faith in the board if the final pooled price was less than that paid to the trade. Also, this would not be popular with domestic users of grain because it could push the non-board grain price up very quickly without warning.

If the board does a good job of estimating pool returns and they prove to be reliable, then producers would sign delivery contracts accordingly to prevent year-end shortfalls of board export grains. Historically, however, these shortfalls occur only once in ten years.

I would hope that the guarantee for initial, adjustment, and interim board grain payments be continued by the federal government. To create a contingency fund for this guarantee from a producer check-off or Canadian Wheat Board profits, as proposed in Bill C-72, would create additional hardships for all producers because it would add to our already escalating costs. The current guarantee is worth on average $60 million annually to the board and grain producers.

The intentions of Bill C-72 amendments are to make a more effective marketing organization and reduce government risk. I believe this bill will decrease returns to producers, and that is not a pleasant thought.

Aside from what I've read from, I do have a couple of other thoughts I'd like to throw out. One is about the cost of transportation to get our product into export position. I realize this is not part of the mandate here today, but I just want to touch on it because we're still not paying compensatory rates.

When we do pay compensatory rates, it's going to make almost any kind of production very questionable at least. Our costs are getting so high. The cost of fertilizer increases, the cost of doing business increases. What I don't think we've focused on enough is that surely ahead of us are higher freight rates. Whether you're then selling near the U.S. border or trying to sell grain out of this area, those higher freight rates to get it to an export position are going to be calculated in. That's one concern I have as a producer.

The other concern I have is the exclusion of any classes of wheat. I'd like to read from the legislative summary, LS281E, which was made available to anyone who asked for it. The second paragraph on page 9 refers to the matter of exclusion of classes of wheat. It states:

The Minister would be prohibited from making such a recommendation unless the exclusion was recommended by the proposed board of directors and unless a procedure approved by the Canada Grain Commission to preserve the identity of excluded grain was in place. Furthermore, where in the proposed board's opinion the kind, type, class or grade of wheat was significant, the Minister would not be permitted to make a recommendation without a favourable vote by the producers, conducted in a manner determined by the Minister.

I would hope that if this act is changed or if it ever becomes reality, this important part of it will be maintained and protected in the manner that's described here in the legislative summary. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Breault.

We'll go on to Mr. Hill, who I think is sharing his five minutes with Mr. Collins.

Mr. Jay Hill, MP (Prince George - Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the Peace country, as Charlie said. Obviously I'm going to have to be very brief if we have only five minutes between the two of us.

I'm here with Mr. Jim Collins, representing the B.C. Grain Producers Association. I'm here trying to represent the 124 grain farmers in the B.C. Peace who responded to a questionnaire I sent out in late January.

I had hoped to have time to go over the ten questions as they pertain specifically to Bill C-72 and the results as I tabulated them when they came into my office. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to do that. However, perhaps I will have time when the bill comes back before the House, and I'll have the opportunity others here today don't have, which is to have more time to present the views of farmers on this important piece of legislation.

.1325

Suffice it to say that I've tabled the results of that survey with the clerk of the committee. They will be translated and made available to all committee members.

I just want to make one other comment before I turn this over to Jim. As a member of Parliament, I was quite frankly appalled when I approached the Canadian Wheat Board to try to get it either to provide me with a mailing list of permit book holders in the B.C. Peace River district or to actually do the mailing for me.

I said I would provide them with the mail-ready envelopes and pay them out of my member's operating budget to print and affix the labels, so that I could reach the targeted group this bill applies to, the permit book holders of the B.C. Peace River district.

They refused to do it, and I find it quite appalling. I wanted that on the record.

The Chairman: Mr. Collins, proceed.

Mr. Jim Collins (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everybody.

I'm just representing the B.C. Grain Producers Association. I'd like to quickly comment on just a few points with regard to the legislation to amend the CWB.

In 1996 our area of the B.C Peace River district constituted about 350,000 acres of grain crops, plus other cash crops. We're relatively small, but we represent 90% of the B.C. grain production, so this is where the grain comes from for B.C.

We are in a somewhat isolated area. We're obviously closer to the coast than are some other areas of the prairies, but we're isolated, especially from the barley market, which is in the Lethbridge area. So we experience somewhat depressed prices on the open market, relative to the cost of freight to get it to market.

As a consequence, we're more reliant on the Canadian Wheat Board for our barley sales, and obviously for wheat. Canola, of course, works on its own on the open market.

As to the survey Mr. Hill commented on, I'd like to point out that about 10% of the producers said they just wanted no change to the Canadian Wheat Board and about 10% said they wanted it eliminated. The rest of us were in the middle and, in general, were supportive of the Wheat Board staying in place, but with amendments. They weren't totally happy with the existing situation.

In the past the grain producers have indicated that they supported most of the recommendations by the grain marketing panel. As a consequence, they were supportive of the amendments to the legislation.

Some would feel that it probably doesn't go far enough, and others feel that it's going too far. But as an average, you might say, we're supportive of some change.

The one area where there seems to be most concern is related to the concept of a contingency fund. The feeling is that if there is going to be a contingency fund paid for by producers, the board should be run by farmers. The CEO, the chairman, and all the directors should be elected and/or hired by the board, the corporation, or whatever it might be called.

However, if we're going to let the legislation be adopted as proposed, then the contingency fund should be paid for by the government, because if it's going to be a government agency, it should continue to be funded by the government.

Let me make a personal comment, and this is not representing any grain producers. Watching the confrontations taking place across western Canada with regard to the exporting of grains to the United States, I think it would make some sense to have an open border with our neighbours to the south.

Grain products are moving north and south. Basically they're coming north freely, but we can't ship them south freely. I think the time has come when we must address how we're going to deal with the Americans. We don't necessarily have to deal with the rest of the international market in the same way, but I feel we have to deal with the market immediately to the south.

.1330

A case in point is barley, where we sometimes look at a differential of at least a dollar higher in the Montana market versus Lethbridge, and we're a dollar less than Lethbridge. So there are problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Carter, I will allow you and those who are with you the same amount of time as a group. I'll allow you 15 minutes.

Mr. Darryl Carter (Individual Presentation): That isn't what you said before.

The Chairman: I just said what we're going to do. We're going to have 15 minutes. If we had put you on with a group earlier this morning, it would have been 15 minutes.

So if you allocate your time accordingly, we'll go 15 minutes. Then we'll go into a dialogue with the members and everybody at the table. If the rest of the people want to come and take part in that dialogue, we'll do that.

Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I spent a lot of years in the Northwest Territories, and I saw government officials fly into, maybe, Tuktoyaktuk. And there were more committees and politicians that would go into a place that size than have ever been to Grande Prairie. I don't even know if a committee like this has ever been to Grande Prairie.

But they would fly in and instruct the pilot: make sure you don't shut the engines down, because we're going to a meeting, but we have to get out of here real quick.

They fly back to Yellowknife, Ottawa, or wherever, and profess that they had learned everything there was to know about that area and that they were experts.

So I want to make it clear that if you catch this plane, and you haven't spent enough time to find out about the concerns of farmers in this area, at least you don't profess that you've done that.

The important thing is that you come here with an open mind. I was impressed by this gentleman here when he indicated that you need an open mind, and you need to take some time to learn. This is serious stuff. It's serious stuff for us, and we just ask you to treat it with that sort of respect.

Now, the other difficulty is that even when you believe you have an open mind, there's a difficulty when you have some prior assumptions. This gentleman, for example, talked about the pillars. Well, maybe you need an open mind to ask whether there is even such a thing as the pillars or whether they are crutches.

So we are going to talk about some basic issues. We're not going to talk about governance. I'll tell you why. These people, and people like them -

The Chairman: I don't want to interrupt you, because I haven't started your time yet.

Mr. Carter: That's why I'm doing this.

The Chairman: All right. So don't tell me I'm not trying to be as fair as I can. I want to tell you that we have come to the west with an open mind. This is a comment I was going to make at the end of the meeting. There is no question that it's indicated here. It's been indicated in every meeting that we have had. It's been indicated in Ottawa. It's in the papers every day.

The issue of grain marketing, transportation, handling, etc., in western Canada is very complex. And I'll say the same as I think I've said every day this week: there is a divergence of views on how and what should be done on the grain marketing issue. This is from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I can assure you that one thing I have known for a number of years - and it's emphasized even more after these five days spent in the west - is that if we were to close the doors of this room right now, I would guarantee you that it would be absolutely impossible to design or have a grain marketing system in western Canada that would satisfy everybody. There are those who want one type of system, there are those who want another type of system, and there are those who want a system in-between. And we're all entitled to those opinions.

The challenge before us in the industry - and we're all in the industry - is to deal with the changes, the challenges, and the opportunities in the industry we're all involved in. The challenge is to try to have an industry that can do as much for as many as it possibly can and to reap as much from the marketplace for the individuals at the farms, for them and their families.

Can there be a system? There are those, for example, who want a totally open-market system, and there are those who don't want a totally open-market system. There are those who want a totally single-desk selling system, and there are those who don't want a totally single-desk system. There are those who want a combination of the two, and there are those who don't want a combination of the two.

.1335

That's the challenge before us. Yes, we want to hear your views. If anybody in this room thinks any governance - and I say governance - or any organization for the marketing of grain in western Canada can satisfy everybody, then we all better get our heads out of the sand, because I think you would have to agree that even this morning we can't all agree.

We are here to hear what you have to say, and do the best possible thing we can, but knowing full well that we can't do everything for everybody. But let's hope that we can do more for more.

With that, Darryl - if you don't mind my calling you Darryl - I'll start the clock, and we'll go from there.

We have a good group of people.

We'll stay here just as long as we can, Darryl. Please respect that. I didn't mean that with any disrespect.

Yes, I'd like to stay here longer. But I haven't been home since last Saturday morning, either. Yes, my wife does know where I am, but I'd like to be with her a little on the weekend before we go to Ottawa again Sunday night.

Mr. Carter: Actually, I'm Doug Christie.

The Chairman: Pardon?

A voice: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: What did he say? I missed that one.

Mr. Carter: I said I'm actually Doug Christie.

A voice: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: No, no, you're not like Doug Christie at all - not yet. And if you get that way, I'll ask Mr. Hermanson to speak to you the same way he spoke to Doug Christie yesterday.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Carter: I guess you can see why none of these people at the table would want me to speak on their behalf.

Our reason for being here is that we've talked about these things over coffee, or whatever, and we've tried to do the right thing, not breaking any laws. We made a presentation to the marketing panel. In a minute, I'll start with Garry here, because he was one of the spokesmen there.

Our big concern is, what's happened to that report? I am as emotional and obstreperous as I am, because this governance thing is a ruse, okay?

We also had a meeting with Senator Hays. We talked about the marketing panel, and we could tell after that meeting.... Mr. Hays is a good man. I've known him for many years. He doesn't market his cattle through any state-trading enterprise.

The fix was on. This was not a concept of governance that was coming up from the grassroots. This was something the government was trying to convince people would solve all the problems, and answer this problem you have.

It hardly pleased everybody. I believe the government thought the only thing that could possibly please everybody would be governance. It's a red herring, and we're here to tell you our views.

I'll get everybody to introduce themselves.

The Chairman: That will be great. I'm going to keep it to a total of 15 minutes. Then we'll get into the dialogue.

Mr. Carter: Well, at least if those who could stay would at least listen.

The Chairman: That's what I'm going to do. I've asked the clerk to see how long we can stay here at the hotel, get a cab, and still get to the airport.

Mr. Carter: I'll start with Garry Scott. Garry was the one who made a presentation at the marketing panel.

The Chairman: Okay. Garry.

Mr. Garry Scott (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not pre-registering. I just heard from the newspaper that this standing committee was going to be in town today to hear the views of farmers, so I made up my mind at the time to come. I'm surprised that there aren't actually more farmers here wanting to talk today.

Anyway, thank you for coming to the Peace River. I had to travel only 100 miles to get here today, instead of 400 or 500 to go to the review panel last time, so I'm pleased with that.

I'm from the Dawson Creek area of the B.C. Peace district, and I guess I'm here today to express the need for a change. It goes back awhile. I've studied a little farm-business management. Generally speaking, there are three facets of that management: production, finance, and marketing.

Most businesses have to excel at all three in order to succeed, especially in the competitive world of the 1990s. Yet we, as farmers, are supposed to succeed by excelling at only two, and be Mr. Average at the marketing end. Somehow a state agency marketing our grain for us is going to do it for us.

Under this board I'm forced to be Mr. Average, and I don't want to be Mr. Average. I want to have the opportunity to either live or die by my own marketing decisions. And I would also submit that this Mr. Average is Mr. Low Average under a state marketing agency.

I don't want to destroy the board. I know a number of people in the room here, good friends of mine, who like the board system, and I think they should have the right to sell to that, if that's what they want. I just want my fundamental right to market my own production.

.1340

I hear all the time, too, that the Peace somehow is disadvantaged and that we need some sort of a board or somebody to protect us from the world marketplace. I don't believe that at all. I think Peace country farmers have the ability to market anywhere.

I have some friends outside the designated area, west of Dawson Creek in the B.C. area west of the mountains, who farm as many and more acres as I do. Some of them farm 3,000 to 4,000 acres of grain, and they're marketing their production and exporting it into the U.S. They consistently are receiving higher prices than I do through the board. I don't see any reason that farmers in Dawson Creek couldn't do the same thing. I'm just asking for the opportunity.

Again, don't underestimate the capabilities of the Peace country farmers. We don't need the board or some government agency to protect us. I think we're very well able to do it.

I would submit to you that we are subjected to the negatives of single-desk buying as opposed to the benefits of single-desk selling. Monopolies work both ways, and I'm not sure which one we have here. Is it a buying monopoly or a selling monopoly?

The Chairman: Brian Fast is next.

Mr. Brian Fast (Individual Presentation): Honourable chairman, it's a pleasure to be here today. My name is Brian Fast, and together with my wife and two children I own and operate a second-generation family farm 30 miles northwest of Grande Prairie.

Why am I here? Since the government made known its intention to investigate and probably change policy with regard to western grain marketing, I have followed the whole process with great interest. Like most farmers I know, I do not belong to any formal farm lobby organization. I felt the only way my voice could be heard was to speak for myself, and that's why I'm here today.

What am I asking for? On the way home after attending a small town meeting of the Western Grain Marketing Panel in Fairview, the farmer I was travelling with asked me what I thought about the meeting. I thought for a moment and I said to him that I thought it was a feel-good exercise. I would maybe leave feeling good because I thought my voice had been heard. I was very skeptical that the panel could pull out the key marketing concerns from all the different issues that had briefly been discussed that day. When the panel report came out, I was pleasantly surprised and I was quite optimistic that there could be real change in some of our marketing approaches for the future.

As Mr. Carter pointed out, a couple of months later we met with Senator Hays and I fully expected that at that time we would discuss marketing options. What we did discuss or listen to was governance issues. Mr. Calder, from my viewpoint and from the conversations I have with local area farmers, we don't discuss governance. In fact, an argument could be made that the board of directors as it is is the best form of directorship we should have for the Canadian Wheat Board.

When the minister tabled Bill C-72, my cynicism of government was reaffirmed. The government may ask people what they like and they may hear what the people say, but if they don't like what they hear they don't have to listen. The minister has refused to listen.

Why should I be given the right to choose to whom I market my grain? The government does not put controls on the price I pay for land, on the price I pay for a tractor, on the price of fertilizer, on the price of chemicals, yet they insist it's in my best interest that they control the marketing of barley and wheat on the international market. Let me decide what's in my best interest.

Do I have the skills to market wheat and barley for export? I grow canola. I market it. It's mostly sold to Japan. I grow peas, which I market. The export market for peas is mostly Asia and Europe. How is the marketing of wheat and barley any different?

.1345

Some may argue that an individual farmer does not have the technology or the information available to make smart and sound marketing choices. With today's modern technologies and the communication field, anyone, if they choose, can have all the information at their fingertips in their own home.

To remain competitive in an ever-changing and global marketplace, we need to move forward. We're not asking to be held back. I simply ask for the right to choose to whom I market my grain, all the grain I grow, including wheat and barley. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Terry Balisky is next.

Mr. Terry Balisky (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I too appreciate the opportunity to address this group. Not often do we have representation coming from Ottawa.

I too am an individual farmer and I represent myself. As a farmer, when I look at Bill C-72, I do not support the bill. I believe it's a smokescreen of the real problem. We are not addressing what the problem is in grain marketing in western Canada.

Second, it addresses very few of the recommendations that the Western Grain Marketing Panel has recommended, and that really bothers me. When we have a minister who has gone out and hand-selected a group to recommend what should be done with grain marketing in western Canada and then virtually ignores it, I have a problem with that. As a farmer I know that cost-effectively it's bad business.

Third, as I pointed out, Mr. Goodale's ignorance of the western panel is a travesty against western grain producers. I believe the board should be a voluntary organization, as was mentioned, and I do appreciate Mr. McKinnon, who suggested that he came with an open mind and is looking for a proposal on how it could be voluntary. I don't have the answers or the time to give them to you today, but I believe that is one area where we could really improve the dissatisfaction in western Canada.

As someone mentioned, there is a tremendous dissatisfaction among farmers right now in the way we are to market our grain. That would certainly improve that. I know it takes a lot of thought and there will be some recommendations coming on how it could be voluntary.

From a personal point of view, on my farm the crops I've grown that have made the best income have not been marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Over the past seven years I've kept a tally of my marketing between oats, canola, and the crops I have not marketed through the Wheat Board. I find that my return has been greater on those, and that speaks to me.

One example I'd like to leave you with is oats. Under the Canadian Wheat Board, oats was a crop that most of us grew for feed or just as a secondary crop. When it was taken from the Wheat Board, it all of a sudden became a major crop. What happened? The interesting thing is that we started getting value-added processing plants in western Canada. We don't get that under the Wheat Board because it's tied to export. I found that the plants at Westglen and Barrhead and Alberta Oats have turned oats into a major crop in the Peace River. What about farms? It now constitutes 30% of our production. That is a major influence on our farming, and it's a good crop to grow in the Peace River country.

.1350

Mr. Chairman, as a point of view, I'd like to encourage you to get the minister to go back and review the report of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. I know it's not perfect, but they spent a lot of time working on it, and it's my view he should revisit that and put most of those recommendations on the table.

The Chairman: Thank you, Terry. Who's next?

A voice: Harry, do you want to go next?

Mr. Harry Schudlo (Individual Presentation): Yes; welcome to the Peace. I'm glad to see you all here.

We're not here to voice our opinion to get rid of the Wheat Board, but we're definitely here to make the changes. I don't like living in a country where we have a Berlin Wall. I think we should let our neighbours go wherever they want to market their grain. We must listen to the majority of the producers who produce most of the grain.

You have to realize that in every type of commodity, 25% of the producers produce 80% of the product. To dissatisfy those producers, we may lose the Wheat Board sooner than we think.

We should address our concerns about Bill C-72 in the way the regulations are passed. As a producer, I wouldn't want someone in Ottawa to make a regulation that directly affects me without having any input, and that's presently what's happening. All regulations are passed with a moment's notice, if necessary.

We must currently redirect the wasteful dollars that we have within the Canadian Wheat Board structure. Why are we so desperate today to sell grain...and we have a transportation problem. Paying demurrage - where's this regulation? I never did see the writing of it. Why should we as farmers pay $2,200 per carload of grain to be shipped to Vancouver, and on top of that pay demurrage costs? I think if those demurrage costs were paid - and forced to be paid - by CN, they would have that grain at the point of delivery and probably gain some dispatch dollars on top of it.

The Chairman: Harry, we have about a couple of minutes left, okay?

Mr. Schudlo: Okay. I'll pass it on to the next speaker.

The Chairman: Cliff Richards.

Mr. Cliff Richards (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much for coming so far to see us. I'm glad to see you here.

I'm third generation - and my son is now farming so that's fourth generation - on our farm. The farm has grown in size dramatically in the last 10 years, and I think this is a wave you are going to see continue. To back up what Harry said, we have to address the fact that there are fewer producers producing larger amounts of grain.

I grow wheat, barley, canola, peas, oats, fescue, and hay. I raise cattle, and I hope to produce ethanol, grow hemp for pulp some day, finish steers - whatever else is possible as an option to make more profit per acre for my farm.

At the present time I'm tending to lean away from Canadian Wheat Board grains, and going to whatever the open market is allowing me. If we can expand that open market, I think all of a sudden we can start to answer a lot of things and bring the Canadian Wheat Board grains issues back into perspective.

If we continue on, we'll increase profitability, because we're entering a new era of lower stock use ratios. We're entering into 30-day supplies where they were once comfortable with 45, and before that they were comfortable with 60-day stock supplies.

This is creating market signals for higher price swings, but I don't have the ability to forward-contract properly the way the existing system works, through the Canadian Wheat Board and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. If I would like to capture the higher North American dollars, I'd have to take great risk financially at going straight into the Chicago Board of Trade, but I can't use my grains to deliver against that.

.1355

I feel it's possible that if Canadian grains were exchanged in the Chicago Board of Trade, the American market when it falls short could come to me and I could commit my grains to the American market via the Chicago Board of Trade. Then I can capture the higher prices that way.

I think it's a mechanism the Canadian Wheat Board could use too if they chose to put it into place. There are a lot of options, but my hands are financially tied and it's very hard to take advantage of that.

The acres in the Peace have been mentioned before as approximately equal to that of Manitoba. In the due process I hope these things are taken into consideration when it comes to discussions, getting further into how we're going to correct Bill C-72, the process of transportation and all the issues that are affecting grain production in western Canada so that equal opportunity is given.

Right now the open market is working quite well in canola, for example. The Japanese can come to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and offer a price and we can offer the product for that price. Other grains can also work that way if they're given the chance possibly.

The Chairman: Please be very brief and then I'm going to Charlie.

Mr. Richards: I bring in everything that's been said so far, but I guess there are other mechanisms we can look at to help us stay in business and keep this country rolling.

The Chairman: Okay, Charlie. We're going to Charlie and maybe that's 19 minutes. That's not counting your preamble, Darryl.

Mr. Charlie Penson, MP (Peace River, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. These are interesting presentations. I was particularly interested in the idea of being able to open up some local markets. Mr. Balisky talked about not necessarily shipping all our product outside the country, but starting to process. Of course, that means jobs being retained.

There was another issue I wanted to ask the panel about. As a farmer myself, I know there are a great many crops that are grown in the Peace River country that aren't necessarily marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. I'm thinking of fescue, flax, rye, canola, and pea. The list goes on and on.

I've heard many times in the discussions that the way this would have to work if you didn't have the Canadian Wheat Board is you'd have to find a buyer in China or the United States and arrange for the shipping, and all that. That's not my understanding.

I wonder if the panel would comment on how they market the products outside the board now, if it's working effectively, and therefore whether it would follow that if the board were a voluntary organization, it could continue to market wheat and barley in the same manner.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Okay, Garry.

Mr. Scott: We've been growing canola for I don't know how many years and just marketing into a system. It's one of the highest value crops on my farm and seems to be working very well. Oats, since it's come off the Wheat Board, has, as Terry mentioned, turned into a premium product. We're marketing huge quantities of oats to companies that have developed since it's come off the board and are adding value to that product and shipping it out.

I don't see why that wouldn't work with barley and wheat. I don't suspect I'll be directly selling to China myself, but there will be companies and individuals setting up to do exactly that. I fail to see any problems with that. Other countries in the world market that way. I personally don't understand the argument that somehow we would have to do it ourselves. There would be people there who would do it for us.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Wayne Easter): Okay, let's keep the answers as brief as we can, Terry, and then Mr. Fast and anyone else. Terry?

Mr. Balisky: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is the cooperative seed buying plant at Rycroft, which buys fescue and hard seeds from farmers, do their own marketing worldwide and have been very successful.

The Chairman: Mr. Fast.

.1400

Mr. Fast: With regard to peas, I have made total production contracts for peas before the date the peas have gone into the ground. Once the peas were off, we had delivery contracts that were met with a small buyer here in Alberta who arranged shipping and a buyer in India. The train was arranged. It picked up the peas within 14 days and the peas were trackside. We were paid for the peas when they were trackside in Vancouver. It was a very efficient system at which I just marvelled. I couldn't believe how quickly, efficiently, and profitably the system worked.

The Chairman: Norm.

Mr. Dyck: I'd like to pick up on the concept of the fescue at Rycroft. I'm a member of that organization.

The Chairman: What the hell's going on here?

Mr. Dyck: Fescue is a totally unregulated product. We have had historic patterns where there are no rules in the game, where major players in the game have traded product on paper without having product committed and who, as recently as last year, had driven the price down substantially. The trade is the winner in that kind of a game. If you happen to be on the inside track, I guess that's all right for that person.

I'd like to also make some comments regarding the climate of deregulation that we seem to be getting into in terms of world stocks to use. We agree they are historically low. Price volatility in the coming years is going to be the reality. I think we need to address this. This morning I heard Leo Meyer talk about this and the responsibility we have in terms of farmers producing quality food for a world that can afford to purchase that food.

We're living in a climate where neither Europe, with their intervention programs, nor the U.S., with their EEP bill still intact - and they're prepared to use it - could drive our export market prices down. We have no protection in that system. We do not have a large enough domestic market to consume what we produce.

We're now hit with the fact that we're paying all the transportation costs. We don't have a GRIP. We are more and more vulnerable to the vagaries of the volatile marketplace.

I think to sum it up, philosophically we may come from different points of view here, but we have an obligation to produce a product that can give us a return on our investment, our capital, and our labour. At the same time we have an obligation to international customers and buyers who can afford that product.

What I would fear, if we lost the Wheat Board Act as it presently is in place - and I stated earlier we actually would lose the Wheat Board - if we go into that scenario of the totally unregulated marketplace, it will be the big players, approximately five U.S. multinationals, that control the world grain trade. In that system we do have the board that operates on behalf of ours.

Mr. Charlie Penson: My question had to do with marketing, if you recall.

Mr. Dyck: Yes.

The Chairman: When you're done I'm going to Mr. Gunby so as to give everybody a chance.

Mr. Dyck: I just wanted to make the point that, playing off the fescue thing, it's a totally unregulated marketplace. We can't use that as an example of a good system because there are all kinds of market manipulations in that kind of a marketing system.

I have one last point and I'll stop. We had a case most recently, about four years ago, of canola that was heavily subsidized at European rates out of Europe. We know it was brought into eastern Canada by a cooperative of which I am a member through XCAN. It was brought into the Hamilton area to process canola for their mills there. It undercut and undermined the price of canola at my farm gate, and it seems to me the market system that was totally unregulated then eventually becomes the vehicle that supports the international grain companies involved in the trading. Now we produce at whatever they decide.

The Chairman: Mr. Gunby and then to Mr. Moskalyk.

.1405

Mr. Gerry Gunby (Individual Presentation): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Like most producers in the Peace River country, I grow many different commodities. Wheat, which I market through the Canadian Wheat Board, represents only 25% of my revenue, and that is probably typical with most farmers in the Peace. I'm marketing four or five other commodities: peas; fescue, which is a grass seed; and canola, of course; and then some other specialty products such as pedigreed seeds.

Of all the products I market, the one I have the most trouble with is the product I market through the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not have difficulty moving the other products, and I do not have difficulty generating good revenues from the other products. You might wonder why I even grow wheat. Well, this is a wheat-producing area. The land is very suited to wheat, and if the marketing were taken care of better we probably would grow more of it.

I'm not advocating getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think the Wheat Board is going to be with us for a long time. Many people are very strong supporters of the Wheat Board and I might say that I'm a supporter of it myself, but I certainly want a change. I want flexibility and I want openness and I want an elected board of directors who would hire a CEO. I think the financing will work itself out.

I think the Wheat Board and the more fanatical supporters of the Wheat Board are doing a terrible disservice to the western Canadian farmer by being so rigid and so afraid of change that they're putting us in a situation where somebody's going to come along and throw the Wheat Board out. I don't think that's what we want. I think the Wheat Board needs to be flexible and it needs to be open. By doing that, I think the Wheat Board can survive a dual market and be there to serve farmers for a long time.

The other thing about the Wheat Board, why we need good control and farmer control of the Wheat Board, is that the Wheat Board has such an influence on our transportation system. Our transportation system is a mess, and this affects non-Wheat Board commodities as well.

Thanks very much.

The Chairman: You won't get any argument from anybody that the transportation system is a mess.

Before I go to Ralph, I just want to raise a question. I'm not playing the devil's advocate here; I used to farm and I was very diversified, from grains to hogs to cash crops, fruits and vegetables, etc.

In some of your comments you say you've made a decision on your farm to go from what is a Wheat Board crop - in this case let's just refer to wheat - to another crop because the Wheat Board crop wasn't making you enough money. Is that decision based on the fact that the Wheat Board's single-desk selling doesn't make you enough, or does just growing wheat not make you enough?

I certainly changed the make-up of my crops; I knew very well that growing an acre of strawberries made me more money than 50 out of the 175 sows some years in the hog operation. I might have wanted to shift some of my make-up from Ontario winter wheat, which goes through a similar single-desk selling to western Canada - it's not the same but it's similar - over to corn or to soybeans because I liked the market and the projections that I saw I could make there.

I hear a number of people saying they're not growing Wheat Board crops any longer because they can't make as much money from them. Is that because of the Wheat Board, or is it because there just isn't any money in growing wheat any longer versus growing canola in its place?

.1410

I throw that out, and we're going to take as much time as we possibly can. So perhaps think about it, as you come back with some other comments.

Ralph.

Mr. Moskalyk: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I thought I came here this morning to hear a little more debate on a certain amendment. This actually turned into a grain panel discussion. We only had one in this area, and I think that might have been the difficulty to start with.

I think Charlie said you had to go to Edmonton. It was in Fairview, and it was stated here first that the the acreage of the Peace River country is as big as Manitoba put together.

Mr. Penson and Mr. Hermanson, I don't know if you have made a judgment here or not this morning on how to rule on these amendments. Are you just listening to how these people can market their grains so well, and will you make a judgment that the Wheat Board is no longer wanted?

I wonder how you see this. Are you going to vote on the amendments, or just on the performance of the Wheat Board?

The Chairman: Other comments? Brian.

Mr. Fast: You had a question about growing wheat and marketing wheat and making it profitable, and I want to go to the example of a year ago when we were faced with a real problem. It would be the crop of 1995.

Mr. Moskalyk: Mr. Chairman, I had a question here. When do I get that...?

The Chairman: I'll going to go back to Charlie to answer that. No problem.

Brian.

Mr. Fast: I had a real dilemma. I had too much good wheat. I had nowhere to put it. If I'm going to market it to the Wheat Board, I then have to worry about delivery dates. I looked at a storage problem. My only option, unless I decided to put this good wheat on the ground and store it for who knows how long - two months, four months, six months - was to seek another option.

I went out and found a non-board option to move my grain, to use future pricing for price security. I moved the grain today; I didn't have to store it; I had the cash in my hands. It was the most profitable sale I made in wheat that year.

The Chairman: Charlie, do you wish to address Ralph's comments?

Mr. Charlie Penson: He addressed two questions. In the first he pointed out that the Western Grain Marketing Panel actually had a hearing in Fairview. But my understanding of that hearing in Fairview was it had a Peat Marwick group facilitator, and there was no opportunity to talk directly to the panel themselves or make presentations to the panel. It was a group table discussion where everybody had input.

The Western Grain Marketing Panel that I attended was in Edmonton. I thought it was a lot more constructive in that people had a chance to make presentations directly to the panel and they had questions asked by the panel of their presentations, much as has happened here today.

In reference to your specific question, I haven't heard anybody here today say that they're happy with the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board. So therefore I'll be voting against them.

The other issue that you brought up was that there seems to be a lot of discussion about grain marketing. That's absolutely true, and the reason it's being brought up is that people feel they haven't been adequately listened to in the past on it. The fact that the Western Grain Marketing Panel's recommendations were not adopted speaks volumes, and that's why a lot of people here are raising that issue again.

So what I've heard a lot about this morning is not so much the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board, but there is a larger issue out there about grain marketing in general. In terms of the governance itself and the amendments that have been proposed, people are not in favour of them.

The Chairman: Elwin, do you want to respond? Then I'm going to go to Mr. Calder, because we want to give other people a chance.

Elwin, you're just responding to this question, because you're back on the list later.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster, Ref.): Right...and also Mr. Carter made a comment about the process and whether or not we were actually listening and what we're going to do.

In all fairness to you, Mr. Chairman, you have done your best to hear all points of view and you haven't tried to restrict, given our schedule, anybody's viewpoint being made. However, there was a concern that this was a bit of a charade. In fact, the decision had been made, and I have to concur that even from your own comments, Mr. Chairman, you suggested that the three pillars - single-desk selling, price pooling, and the government guarantees - are not on the table for discussion.

So I want everyone in the room, both pro that position and opposed to that position, to know that the government has said that's not negotiable. So then myself as an MP, and Charlie and Jay, in response to you, Ralph, what do we do?

.1415

We know we have an inferior bill here. We don't know whether the minister's motives are to put forward an inferior product so he doesn't have to make any decision, or whether he's coming with his minimum position so he can offer two or three things, perhaps in governance as Mr. Carter mentioned, and there's some truth to that. I don't think governance isn't an issue, but as Mr. Carter pointed out, it's not the only issue and maybe not the most important issue.

It's difficult for us as opposition MPs. We know there are lots of changes demanded in the board and we know we have an inferior product. We know people on both sides of the issue are opposed to Bill C-72 as it now stands. Some people say it can't be repaired, others say they have a bottom line. I've asked many witnesses what their bottom line is. What changes would have to be made to this bill for you to change from opposition to the bill to support for the bill?

At this point, my feeling is the changes that are required to garner support from both sides of the issue are not acceptable to the Liberal government, so I don't expect those changes to come forward if in fact this bill is ever debated in the House, and I expect I'm going to have to vote against it.

Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. I am a third-generation farmer, too. In fact, I talked to my wife last night and I'm going to be actively farming tomorrow. She's going shopping.

I raised the question to our previous presenters, and I want to raise the question with you too and get your comment on the election of the directors within the board: going to a proposal of 15 - 10 elected, 5 appointed; chairman elected; CEO appointed. But that's within the bill.

I'm going to step outside the bill and give another scenario, and maybe you could comment on that, too. We already have an elected body that works outside the Canadian Wheat Board, and that's the advisory committee. Increase the power of the advisory committee, and on their recommendations the advisory committee could appoint the five commissioners on the Wheat Board and maybe even put a term on those commissioners. It remains a crown corporation by doing that, too, by the way.

The Chairman: Does anybody wish to address that?

Mr. Garry Scott.

Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I submit that I think anything around this area is all just a smokescreen or whatever to the real issue. We're not getting anywhere near the real issue of accountability and some freedoms. All the rest of this stuff is window dressing. It's irrelevant. It's not getting to the issue. If you're serious about change, get to the real issue.

Mr. Dyck: I would prefer that scenario to the present bill, where it would remain a crown corporation.

I'd like to tie that in to the question Mr. Hermanson was talking about. It seems to me the pressure to change the Wheat Board Act...and I think we have to go back to the free trade bill in 1988, to the provisions on deregulation in international markets, about which the Americans said they would take into consideration Canada's export interests in terms of export subsidies. That's some years ago, and we saw considerable influence in our international markets where the Americans forgot about that promise.

This comes back to Charlie's point and your question, Mr. Chairman, to a lot of us as to why we aren't growing wheat. We can't see wheat in isolation from government intervention policies in that very basic foodstuff. Regardless of what political point of view you're coming from, it seems to me, marketing of grain is always going to be a political act and I think it should be. Ultimately, we are on the planet where the protection of quality food, and in quantities that are sufficient for human sustenance, are important. For us to sit here and talk about it in terms of if only I had freedom to market the way I want to, to me that is very short-sighted and naive. We have an obligation in a democratic country to take part in that system, our fair share in that system, and grow a product the world needs. And we're never going to isolate ourselves from government.

Thank you.

.1420

Mr. Bernie Maisonneuve (Individual Presentation): I'd like to respond to the question you had a few minutes ago about the pricing of the wheat. I think it's a simple question we can ask ourselves as farmers: what percentage of your wheat crop have you hurriedly contracted for next fall because of the great price we're looking at, compared with the other commodities on your farm?

I can reassure you that had it not been for the free-market system in the other commodities I produce on my farm, I wouldn't be farming today just growing wheat. And for those who wish to keep that scenario - I don't wish to repeat myself over everyone else - that's fine, and I do enjoy hearing of their happiness with the board and the way things are going. But for those of us who may wish to go the step further and market in the way I think will be beneficial for everyone, board and non-board, I think it's important that this opportunity be there for us.

That's about it.

The Chairman: Mr. Schudlo.

Mr. Schudlo: I always believed in a democratic process and, as government, I think government should listen to the majority of its producers. They're not listening. I think the marketing panel report has come out, and if there's any bill to be approved have those marketing suggestions in that bill and it'll be approved unanimously. I feel that Bill C-72 was just dropped on us to redirect us from that process.

The Chairman: Back to the comments I made earlier, I'm not taking sides, but I think I can assure you that in regard to the marketing panel, if all those amendments were put in, they would not be approved unanimously. There are a number of producers out there who agree with some and don't agree with others, just as there are a number of people who do agree with all of them. There are some who don't agree with any, and there are some who agree with all of them. And that is the whole conundrum we're in, as well.

Mr. Schudlo: Yes, but it's beginning to make the change.

The Chairman: Okay.

Frank.

Mr. Breault: Coming back to the - and I'm speaking again as a producer, as are all these fellows in this particular panel - matter of growing board or non-board grains, it's important we have a rotation. Our area is becoming more contaminated with disease and so on, plus there's a learning process going on. I first grew canola in 1972 and it wasn't very successful. And there were a number of years during which I didn't grow it. Canola does play an important part of our production, as do peas - and I guess I'm just getting used to growing those things - but when it comes to marketing, I don't get into the marketing in a sense that I'm more of a seller. When I grow a board grain, I'm happy to sell to the board, if it's a grain that's eligible to sell this way, and let the board do the marketing. The board does not set prices. The board simply looks after the marketing of my product. And in that aspect, I also like the price pooling.

We all forward-price probably, to some extent, in the non-board grains, and there are success stories and then there are other kinds of stories. We may hear from a panel like this that only the ones who successfully priced at a high enough price so that they didn't feel bad about it after.... Farmers have a peculiar way of telling how much money they've made, but not how much money they've lost. And there have definitely been times when I feel I've lost in the open-market scenario because I priced incorrectly.

The Chairman: Thanks, Frank.

I'll go to Brian, and then to Allen.

Mr. Fast: I would just make the point that I feel I've lost the marketing scenario using the Wheat Board alternative, and a perfect example would be this fall. When the PROs came out in September, they were significantly higher than they were in early December. I'm locked into a contract I cannot get out of without penalty. So the scenario works both ways: you can win and lose with the Wheat Board, as well.

.1425

The Chairman: Allen.

Mr. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A comment was made here a while ago that if we don't change it will mean the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, and that there are two ways it is going to happen, either slowly, one piece at a time as we seem to be trying to do right now, or with just a stroke of the pen and do away with it, period. Either way, if we don't think this thing out really carefully, it's going to be the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. It's something like being a little bit pregnant, single-desk selling, either you are or you aren't, either you have the benefits of single-desk selling or you don't, and some here are questioning the benefits of single-desk selling.

We don't have to go far back to remember when we were competing against a tremendous U.S. budget through the Export Enhancement Program, and because of the highly regulated system we have we still had customers coming to Canada, to the Canadian Wheat Board, wanting our quality product in spite of the fact they had to pay a little bit more than if they went through the Export Enhancement Program.

We're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here because we're not remembering those times. I heard just yesterday on the radio that, in spite of our highly regulated system, Con-Agra swindled some farmers. In spite of a highly regulated system, it happened. If we lose that highly regulated system and the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board with its regulations and everything else, I'm telling you, if you guys think you can stand up to those kinds of manipulations out there, I'd like to know what kind of tobacco you're smoking because I'm going to get some.

The Chairman: We're getting accused in Ottawa of tinkering with the tobacco.

Mr. Watson: I have one more point, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay, and then I'll go to Cliff.

Mr. Watson: I also want to point out that the emphasis here has been dependent on the U.S. market. Everybody is saying we should look to our neighbour to the south and, again, I want to know what kind of tobacco you're smoking, because if you think the American farmers are going to stand back and let all of that grain come in there, boy, you have another think coming. They'll shut you down. You think it's bad at the border now? You ain't seen nothing yet, when those American farmers get a little uptight about all of that grain coming in.

The Chairman: In that light, it will be interesting. The U.S. House committee on agriculture is coming this weekend and a number of us on the committee.... They've asked to meet with us, as we met with them last year, last May, when we were in the U.S. Needless to say, you can well imagine that the discussion will likely be very spirited, as we brought up some issues on which we had concerns. We will be having that meeting with them on Monday afternoon in Ottawa.

Cliff.

Mr. Richards: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To get back to the issue of Bill C-72, it doesn't seem to address, in the proper direction, what most people want. In other words, it's bad writing and probably is bad writing because the consultation process did not come back to the grassroots producers for a proper writing.

The Western Grain Marketing Panel could have done a far better job, and we could have had the lawyers do the legal work. I think maybe that's the process we have to allow to occur, putting politics aside and getting on to the betterment of what this country requires for its own financial benefit on a world-scale basis.

In other words, let's get our productivity rolling in this country, and let's look at a little different process of how we are going to make it happen. Maybe we can politely bow out of this. I don't know how far this bill has gone in the House of Commons. Has it hit first reading or not?

The Chairman: Let me explain that, and then I will go to Elwin.

Traditionally, in the House of Commons, bills are tabled at first reading. They're debated in principle at second reading and then referred to committee. The present government - and I'm proud to say, particularly in agriculture - has had a number of bills referred to the committee on agriculture after first reading, which does give a committee much more flexibility. In other words, if I could use a term we all use quite often, the bill isn't as ``carved in stone'' as it would be if it came after second reading. So this committee has far more flexibility when it comes before the committee after first reading. And that's where it is, it's after first reading.

.1430

We will go back to Ottawa. The next couple of weeks are recess over Easter from the sitting of the House itself. The week of April 7 this committee will have more hearings in Ottawa. I think there are a few groups that have asked to come before us.

The next step in the process is that the committee goes through the bill clause by clause. That's an opportunity for the committee to make amendments to the bill at that time. Naturally, those amendments are voted on and either passed or defeated.

Once that process is completed and the bill is completed at committee, the bill is reported by me back to the House, at which stage, report stage, there is an opportunity for further amendments to the bill to take place in the House. Those amendments cannot be the same amendments that were either passed or defeated at committee. They have to be different. Sometimes it's interpretation, and as my mother always says, sometimes you can say the same thing only say it differently. So there's that opportunity there.

That process goes through and it's voted on at that stage. When a bill is completed in the House, if it's passed at third reading, it goes to the Senate. There's the very same opportunity at the Senate: first reading, second reading, etc. They usually go first reading, second reading, and then to committee. At the Senate I don't think they go after first reading. I'm not aware if they've ever taken a bill after first reading.

The Senate, as they do with all bills, can decide whether they wish to have hearings on the bill or whatever. When the Senate is finished with it, if it's passed unamended at the Senate the bill then goes for royal assent. If they make amendments to a bill, that bill will be returned to the House as amended and dealt with in the House again, and the process continues. So it can be a long process.

I hope that gives everybody an outline on where we're at. We're into this process, gentlemen, far sooner than we have been. We did the same on at least two other bills in agriculture.

Elwin.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, if there's a June election we won't finish that process, as nothing will be passed. At least, it's very unlikely unless there's closure or something.

First of all, I want to make it clear that I don't smoke so I have a clear head here. I want to make a couple of comments. I say this as much for the Liberal MPs sitting around the table as for the audience, because you know this, being in the Peace River country.

There is a division on this issue, but Mr. Paszkowski, the agriculture minister in Alberta, was clearly re-elected here in the Peace River country. He's been an outspoken spokesperson for a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. I think that does speak volumes and has to be considered.

Second, the Government of Saskatchewan, which is very pro-status quo Wheat Board, did a survey of 800 farmers in Saskatchewan late in 1995. Not to its surprise, it found there was strong support for the board, but much to its surprise it found that 58% of those 800 farmers surveyed believe participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be voluntary. That shows you the kind of division and the interest there is in this issue right across the prairies.

I had a microcosm of this debate in a rec room in a house in Saskatchewan where I was supposed to speak. Before I could get started, we had two farmers, probably about the average age of you guys here, and they went at it over the Wheat Board before I could even get a word in. I let them go and they went for 15 minutes. They had the same argument you guys have had and nobody was prepared to back down. Then I had to follow that act and talk about our position.

What I suggested was that I didn't want to see this division and fighting amongst farmers carry on any longer. It's not the most productive thing we can be doing, holding hearings, having inquiries. Neighbours who should be friends and getting along with each other, going to hockey games together, are having it out over how we market our wheat and barley and other products. It's not healthy for our prairie economy. It's not healthy for our society.

I said that to these two fellows. I said this is what we propose, and I spoke then as ag critic for Reform. I said we don't propose the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board; in fact, we'd like to see it thrive and survive and be a strong marketing agency in the future. We think the only way you can do that and alleviate this rancour between farmers is to perhaps make the monopoly a little smaller. The way you make it smaller is to let those farmers out of it who don't want to market through the board. You don't let them cherry-pick back and forth. You don't let them market through the board one day and then decide to market on the open market the next day. I said once the board has allowed those farmers out of its jurisdiction, the board can very well decide when they come back. Once you have the freedom to leave, the board can say we don't ever want you to come back or they can say we want you to come back tomorrow. They have that right if you have that right to leave their jurisdiction.

.1435

Most farmers particularly in Saskatchewan will think very carefully before they leave the jurisdiction of the board if the conditions are too high, but there are many who want to leave, and they will leave. I don't think that will weaken the board; I think it will strengthen the board. What you will then have is the board being sharpened in its business operations by the open market. What you're going to have is the open market held more accountable because they have to compare their performance to the Canadian Wheat Board. I said that's a healthy environment in which both of you fellows can be satisfied and be happy.

It ended their argument and both sides said they could agree with my position. We can sit here and we can argue that this is not good enough, and we can fight for the next 10 years until the board's dust. I would throw out to you on both sides of this issue that if you don't think this is the best settlement, the best proposal to solve this issue...so we don't have to come back here in Peace River country and have this same argument in three or four years.

A voice: Is there any word on the barley vote results?

The Chairman: No, there hasn't been any indication on when that will be done. My understanding is that it's in the near future, but we haven't been told when it will come out. Who wishes to comment on Elwin's?

Norman, and then Darryl.

Mr. Dyck: Yes, Mr. Hermanson, I like that idea. There is one concern I have. If we allowed farmers voluntarily to go out, and there was a period of time where they couldn't come back in, how much cash do the international grain giants have to put out as premiums to entice farmers and to prove that orderly marketing can't work and it ultimately wouldn't be very long before we lost it anyway? That's the concern I have. The board operates in that environment where really the international grain giants have a vested interest to get rid of the board. Supply management isn't in their best interest, because you can't maximize the profit on margin. I don't think the board will last very long in that climate.

The Chairman: Darryl.

Mr. Carter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of the things that have been said in the last few minutes are extremely important because there's this idea that there's all this division amongst farmers. And I don't see it when I talk to my neighbours or we have coffee or whatever. As long as you aren't put into categories so that the people here don't say that all of the people here at the table with me are against the board.... We're not. That's why it's important we stress that. We're not against the board.

I blame Mr. Goodale here. You may remember when he wrote his open letter to all the newspapers, and he said all this divisiveness is caused by farmers between themselves, that it's not the government's involvement. It's not true.

I liked what I heard from Mr. Hermanson, because this happens when you say: You're a strong board supporter; you're probably never going to sell outside the board. Are you insisting that I have to sell to the board? Are you insisting that I be forced to do that by government regulation and all the threats of the criminal procedures and whatever? And they say no, not really. Mr. Dyck just said he could agree with what Mr. Hermanson said, but he had some conditions attached to it. Think about what's just been said here in the last little while. As long as you're not putting these categories of being pro and against, something can work.

There was a mention...this is just for the U.S. markets. When this panel is going back on the airplane, I want them to pull out those magazines that have the maps in them and to have a look again where the Peace River district is. Where is Grande Prairie? Where is Dobson Creek? Where is Fort St. John?

I've a blank map here and if I gave it to you and asked you to put it on there, I bet you wouldn't get it. Okay. We're further west than Creston, B.C. Now Bill C-72 is going to allow the farmers of Creston, B.C. out from the shackles of this monopoly. Let us do the same. If you want to come here and ask whether any of these guys talked about Bill C-72, then all right, I'm talking about Bill C-72. Take the section that says the Creston farmers can get out. Let the Peace River farmers out too.

.1440

First of all, how do you justify B.C. farmers in the Peace River country, but on the British Columbia side, being shackled by the monopoly, but not those in Creston? They're further west.

Our markets may not be to the U.S. They're offshore. Our proximity is to Prince Rupert, Vancouver, the Pacific Rim, China.

I have a bias, as I believe a lot of what my brother says. They asked: where are the markets? The Chinese market is not for top-quality Canadian wheat, yet this pillars business is really about crutches.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister appeared before your committee on March 6. The first point he made was that over a 60-year period, the board has developed a reputation for top quality. That's not in our interest to have this top quality uppermost in their minds. In this part of the world, we produce high-yielding varieties of wheat that can serve that Chinese market.

Yet this bureaucracy, this monolith in Winnipeg.... Look how far Winnipeg is from us. They're out there going to wherever they are trying to sell the top-quality Canadian stuff, but maybe that isn't where the markets are. That's the problem.

These extreme examples test the legitimacy of the monopoly. One example I think you probably heard about is organic wheat. How can you justify forcing those producers into the pool? That tests it.

Consider the Peace River country now. How can you force us into having our marketing decisions made in Winnipeg by this bureaucracy?

Do you know what the Manitoba government told you? I assume all of you were there. Whoever was there, the Manitoba government told you on Monday that a goal of maximizing net returns for producers in a region such as Manitoba may conflict with the mandate of the CWB to maximize returns for all prairie producers. The Manitoba government is telling you that their best interests may not be served by the bureaucracy on Main Street in Winnipeg. You heard that.

Well now, look at the map, and look where we are. Can you assure us that this bureaucracy in Winnipeg is always going to serve our best interests in the Peace River country? That's it. That's the issue. It doesn't apply in any other industry. Nobody else is forced to sell their commodities to this government bureaucracy. That's all we're saying.

I have a written brief that covers a lot of this, which I'll leave this with you.

The Chairman: Yes, please do.

Wayne.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Let's get one thing clear, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning. We're not talking about the pillars being crutches here; we're talking about the pillars being commitments.

A voice: Don't make a political statement.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm not making a political statement.

The Chairman: Darryl, you just made your statement. Now I'm going to let Wayne make his.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'd like to clear up some misinformation.

Mr. Carter: You're here to listen to us.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I'm going to listen, but I want you to be clear. The minister had made the commitments on the three pillars. What we need to find out under Bill C-72 is whether any of the conditions or clauses in Bill C-72 undermine those pillars. That's what we have to try to establish.

Mr. Carter: Well, you should have come with an open mind.

The Chairman: Darryl, you are interrupting.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I have an open mind. I admitted something up front to this committee. Although I'm a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board and always have been based on my experience in western Canada, I do admit that we had to make changes. We had to find ways for this bill to find flexibility.

As for your point about why we are forcing organic wheat into the pool, we're not.

I want to keep clearly in mind what is on the table here: the issue of governance. I know there have been statements made that the issue of governance is a ruse. I maintain that it's not. The issue of governance is to try to establish a board of directors that will have a process within the system to move to some of the points of flexibility that both sides are asking for without undermining those pillars that we talked about earlier.

.1445

Keep in mind what the bill really says. The difference of opinion on the CEO is a strong one - on who should appoint the CEO and who should appoint the chair of the board.

We are just a committee, but I think we might be able to gain that in terms of discussions with our colleagues in Ottawa - to get the chair appointed. But on the CEO I think we would lose the government guarantees in terms of borrowing, if we went that far.

Listen clearly what the bill says on the CEO:

The president is the chief executive officer of the Corporation and has, on behalf of the board,

- on behalf of the board -

responsibility for the direction and management of the business and day-to-day operations of the Corporation with authority to act, subject to resolution by the board...

That means the board is clearly in control of developing the corporate plan and the business agenda and the day-to-day operations. The appointment is a safeguard in terms of the government's involvement with the various guarantees.

But on the process - and I'm going to go down these points. The process to deal further with the flexibility issues as I see them are these. On the issue of making cash purchases we've heard strong opposition from both sides of the argument. On the barley question, there's a vote going on right now. It was one of the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

Manage adjustment payments during any crop year, terminate pool accounts, issue negotiable producer certificates - those are issues that the board, once elected, would discuss amongst itself and make recommendations on. The proposed legislation is enabling - it allows the board to do that.

My question basically is, first on the governance question: can we gain acceptance on that issue of process, given the fact that there is control by both government and board of the CEO? Is there enough manoeuvrability within the legislation to deal with these controversial issues by the board of directors further down the line?

The Chairman: Any comment?

Mr. Carter: Yes.

The Chairman: Darryl, and then Mr. Gunby.

Mr. Carter: There's no point in trying to make a point to Mr. Easter, because he's got his mind made up. When you use these buzzwords nobody can argue with, and you have the propaganda behind you, what are you going to do?

How do you argue with somebody who says, ``I'm in favour of the three pillars''? Are you going to say ``I'm against the three pillars''? Or if they say they're in favour of more control over decision-making of the board - you can't argue against that either. Empowerment - can't argue against that.

It's all a ruse. You people have to open your minds up and say, ``What are these guys here talking about? They're challenging me. They're saying to me that there's no such thing as any three pillars.''

I'm not going to stand here and argue against three pillars or motherhood or apple pie, but I'm going to question the person who has to rely on those kinds of buzzwords to find out if they've got a really good basis for their argument, and I don't think Mr. Easter has.

The Chairman: Mr. Gunby.

Mr. Gunby: On the matter of the composition of the board and who hires the CEO, I have sat on those types of boards, I've personal experience, where the CEO was appointed by the government and the part-time directors. In a situation like that, most of the power is with the CEO. You've got real strong directors if those directors don't go to meetings to plan the bus tour. I'm serious about that. That CEO has to be responsible to the board, or else you have no control at all. If that CEO doesn't answer to the board of directors, then you're not going to have any power in the hands of farmers - period. There's got to be another way to handle these guarantees, and I'm sure there is. But if want a board that will deal with the problems of farmers in western Canada and develop a good marketing system, we have to have that power in the hands of those board members.

.1450

The Chairman: Mr. Watson.

Mr. Watson: In the structure of the board, we currently have 11 representatives on our advisory committee right now. And believe me, people, that's bare-bones representation right now. We have to travel large distances just to communicate with our advisory committee people. To think we could further reduce that to 8 or 10 and still have any kind of grassroots connection there, I think, is probably pie in the sky, really, and I would like to speak in favour of taking our current advisory committee structure and giving them a little bit more clout. We do have representation there through election, but if we're going to cut that election factor down to 8 or 10, we're going in the wrong direction as far as trying to represent grassroots is concerned. And some people here will say it doesn't matter, it's a red herring, it's irrelevant to what the problems are out there.

All of what we talked about here this morning has sidetracked the issue, and that is there's not enough money to pay the bills when it comes to farming. And whether it's an inadequate transportation system, which was the buzzword here two or three years ago...and now we've lost that transportation system, and for two years in a row now, since it's been gone, we have had absolute chaos in the movement of grain in this country. We're going to have to table some sales to next year's crop because of our damn transportation system, which we deregulated. And the same thing will happen here. The same damn thing will happen here.

I think everybody should just give their head a shake.

The Chairman: Glen, do you have a comment? Then I think we're going to wind it up. I think we have a pretty good idea of what everybody's views are on things.

Glen, and then I'll go to Mr. Dyck.

Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon - Souris, Lib.): Democracy is hard work. It really is. As Mr. Watson has pointed out, to get that information from the board and then go back to the grassroots, or the other direction, is tough in western Canada. Some of these regions are bigger than our ridings. I know what I go through to try to get a feel for where people are at.

The other concern I have, which wasn't raised today, would be third-party interest in who your membership would be on any of these boards. I just leave that with you.

The Chairman: Norm.

Mr. Dyck: I have a little piece of information with reference to Darryl's comments in terms of quality and the monolithic institution that makes decisions about what we grow. I have a quotation here from the January 23rd issue of The Western Producer, and this has to do with American grain production and the kind of quality they have.

Mr. Smail of the American Institute of Baking, in the January 23 issue of the The Western Producer, indicated that U.S. quality control does not do a good job of providing the best export wheat available and that future grading and marketing system is going to have to focus on foreign customers' processing needs.

Some of us here - Allen Watson, myself, and others - have been to Winnipeg for a 10-day, two-week period, to see first-hand the excellent institution of the Canadian milling and baking industry, CIGI, along with the Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board, where international customers are brought in to attempt to meet their marketing, milling requirements. We have an excellent system. The Americans haven't caught onto that yet, and I don't think we want to jeopardize what we do have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for your contribution. But before we close just sit tight for a second.

I think many of you were in the audience earlier when there was a discussion with Mr. Meyer and the western wheat growers on a number that was quoted to Mr. Migie. Mr. Meyer and his association have gotten back to us. Apparently what happened is they were faxed the original transcripts from that March 6 meeting, and the wheat growers have told us what they read as 340 was a dollar sign and 40. So instead of $340 million.... If you want to see how the original transcripts come through, they're there. I appreciate Mr. Meyer bringing it to our attention.

.1455

It was a misreading through nobody's fault. It's just one of those things that happen. It was actually a dollar sign and 40, so the reference that Mr. Migie referred to.... I appreciate the wheat growers correcting that and clearing it up with us. It was $40 million.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for taking your time to come here today. It's our pleasure to be here. As I said earlier - some of you weren't in the room - this is my first trip to the Peace River district. It's not because Charlie and others haven't invited me here before. I'd like to stay longer, but I'll tell you when I'd rather stay longer: in the summer, because I'm a farm boy. I farmed for 25 years before I became a member in 1988. I want to come back and not only meet some of you - I'm speaking personally here and I'm sure on behalf of the rest of the committee - but see you out on the farm, because there's nothing I enjoy more.

Thank you for your contribution. We know there's a divergent view. We will do our very best to do as much for as many as we can, but I want to emphasize as well that we will never be able to do everything for everybody.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page