AGRI Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met at 3:15 p.m. this day, in Room 701, La Promenade Building, the Chair, James Bezan, presiding.

“On January 22, 2007 the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-food released the following questions with respect to a barley plebiscite:

• The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

• I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

• The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley. The second of the three questions implies that a "dual market" option is a viable alternative to the current monopoly role of the Canadian Wheat Board through its single desk selling feature.

On October 25, 2006 the Task Force appointed by the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-food released its report, "Marketing Choice - The Way Forward". At p. 10 of that report there is the following statement: "The latter term (dual marketing) implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible."

On January 22, 2007 the Minister of Agriculture confirmed that in order to assist "producers to make an informed decision" he had retained the services of three individuals, one of which is Dr. Murray Fulton of the University of Saskatchewan. The task of this group is to write a "short, objective description of each question" which will be provided to producers.

In November 2006, Dr. Fulton released a study entitled, "The Canadian Wheat Board in an Open Market: The Impact of Removing the single desk selling powers". On p. 11 of that study Dr. Fulton stated: "A dual marketing structure is not viable because of the incentives that are created as a consequence of the nature of the dual market. Interestingly, since a dual market is not viable, farmers will ultimately have no choice between marketing through a pool and marketing through the open market. Only the open market option will exist."

Therefore, given the fact that both the Minister's task force and Dr. Fulton, whom the Minister has retained to provide advice, concur on the lack of viability of the "dual market" option which is suggested as possible in the second of the three questions presented by the Minister:

this Committee recommends the following:

1. That the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-food immediately rescind the questions released on January 22, 2007 upon which barley producers in western Canada are expected to vote on their future relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board and

2. Immediately implement the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture & Agri-food, by placing before wheat and barley producers of western Canada who have a relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, the questions contained within that report.”

David Anderson resumed debate on his first amendment and then moved the following amendments be included with his first amendment and that the whole be treated as a single amendment

David Anderson moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the words “At p.10 of that report there is the following statement: “The latter term (dual marketing) implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible” with the words “The latter term the latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach a Marketing choice implies an open market in which CWB II, an entity operating in that open market, will be a vigorous participant through which producers could voluntarily choose to market their grain. To achieve this, the existing CWB will need to transform itself over a transition period into an environment where it will have to compete for business. One of our four focuses has been on creating the environment for a high probability of commercial success for CWB II”.

Debate arose thereon.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the motion be amended by adding after the word

(b) “Only the open market option will exist.”, the following: “Mr. Fulton’s comments reflect his opinion but are no more relevant than any other witness, several of whom told us that they need marketing choice in order to maximize their returns. Many of them have expressed a belief that there is a place for a viable voluntary CWB. In fact the direction of the whole Task Force Report is to give suggestions on how we can move towards a system under which a voluntary Wheat Board would operate. In a commentary published last summer, (‘Dual Market Denial’, July 26, 2006), Mr. Rolf Penner wrote: ‘The odds of successfully transitioning the CWB into an open market setting are extremely high”.

(c) by replacing the words “Therefore, given the fact that both the Minister's task force and Dr. Fulton, whom the Minister has retained to provide advice, concur on the lack of viability of the "dual market" option which is suggested as possible in the second of the three questions presented by the Minister:”, with the following: “While some growers have expressed concern over whether the CWB an survive as a voluntary barley marketing agency, they need not. The CWB has successfully done this before. In the summer of 1993, farmers were free to market their barley directly to the U.S. or through the CWB. The CWB made a number of changes and successfully participated in the market.”

(d) by replacing the words:

1. “That the Minister of Agriculture & Agri-food immediately rescind the questions released on January 22, 2007 upon which barley producers in western Canada are expected to vote on their future relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board and

2. Immediately implement the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture & Agri-food, by placing before wheat and barley producers of western Canada who have a relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, the questions contained within that report. within that report.” With the following: “That the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food be commended for his balanced choice of plebiscite question.” .

The question was put on the amendment as amended and it was negatived on division.

The question was put on the motion and it was adopted on division.

It was agreed, — That the Chair present the report with a dissenting opinion to the House.

At 3:39 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 3:41 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The witnesses made statements and answered questions.

At 5:26 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:27 p.m., the sitting resumed.

It was agreed, — That the Committee invite the Minister of Industry, the Hon. David Emerson to appear on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 on his views regarding supply management and, that the meeting on the Canadian Wheat Board originally scheduled for that day be moved to Thursday, March 1, 2007.

It was agreed, — That the Committee invite representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the appropriate provincial representatives responsible for the implementation of agreements in the tobacco industry and tobacco processors to appear on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 immediately following the appearance of Minister David Emerson.

It was agreed, — That the Committee invite the Ministers of Agriculture and their officials from the federal and provincial governments to discuss the agreements and funding of programs related to the implementation of the SRMs ban on Wednesday, February 28, 2007.

At 5:37 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.