Government Bills and Orders Third Reading
Bill 207
Alberta Wheat and Barley Test Market Act
December 4, 2002
THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View.
MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a great privilege for me to
rise today and begin debate on Bill 207 in third
reading. It was also very humbling to be in Lethbridge a few weeks ago
and see the passion and conviction of our Alberta farmers and their
families as they went to jail fighting for what they believed in.
Mr. Speaker, this past fall, in response to increased American
efforts to force change in the Canadian wheat and barley market, the
chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Ken Ritter, said quite
emphatically that only Canadian farmers will dictate how their grain is
marketed. I can only assume that Mr. Ritter was also referring to the 15
Alberta farmers who had the gall to take their own grain across the
border into Montana in 1996 to sell to a local Montana 4- H club. One of
those farmers is, in fact, a director of the Canadian Wheat Board. What
did these producers get for their efforts to dictate how their grain was
to be marketed? Each producer received a fine in the thousands of
dollars and, for some, countless court appearances to explain their
actions. What happened to those producers who refused to pay the fines,
who were driven to action by a set of principles that all Albertans
would be able to identify with? Last month each farmer received jail
time for daring to defy the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Speaker, while our farmers were put in jail, farmers in eastern
Canada were able to drive across the border to sell their grain as they
wished. It is also believed but can't be proven, because you can't get
any information out of the Canadian Wheat Board, that eastern farmers
sell their grain across the border for their best price and then turn
around and buy western grain at bargain prices to feed their own
livestock, another example of the west subsidizing the east.
Clearly, our producers are, in the words of one of those jailed
farmers, guilty of taking our own property and selling it to the highest
bidder, just like absolutely everyone else in the free world is able to.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Did I forget to say that I'd like to move third
reading of Bill 207? No?
THE SPEAKER: You're still on your feet, hon. member.
MR. HLADY: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Legislature to send a signal to
Ottawa that this is not only unacceptable in this province but is also
abhorrent to the very core principles that we as Albertans hold dear.
This is not just a rural issue. This is an Alberta issue, one that every
citizen of this great province, regardless of locality, should be deeply
concerned about. This is one issue attacking freedom of choice, just
like Kyoto, choosing an elected Senate, gun control, trying to control
health care funding as it is a provincial responsibility. This is the
same.
Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of the implicit unfairness of
the system that Bill 207 and most Albertans are
trying to change. It
seems to me that there is a problem when we have a system that stifles
and chokes out innovation and productivity rather than encouraging it.
It seems to me that there is a problem when the federal government's own
agriculture standing committee recommends a free market for the sale of
wheat and barley on a trial basis and all the Canadian Wheat Board can
do for a response is to say how they know better than everyone else. It
seems to me that there is a problem when the very same people that this
board is trying to serve are being imprisoned for exercising the
fundamental rights inherent in the ownership of property. If this
current federal Liberal government won't respect our farmers, I look
forward to a change of that government so I can request an absolute
discharge or a full pardon of these charges for our farmers.
Many hon. members have carefully laid out the multitude of reasons to
proceed with Bill 207, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes
speaking with passion about their own personal experiences, and I
sincerely thank all of them for speaking to this. I hope that all
members have come to the same conclusion: that it is time for us to act.
It is time for this province to stand with producers and provide them
with the freedom of choice that they are entitled to. Quite simply, in
the words of one of our national papers: it is time for this province to
help set western farmers free.
While Bill 207 will not create an open market
immediately, it does represent another step in the fight to restore the
inherent rights of Alberta producers to have control over their own
product. I would hope that all members of this Assembly would support
this process and vote for Bill 207.
Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.
2:50
MR. MacDONALD: Yes. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct
a question to the hon. member, please.
THE SPEAKER: Standing Order 29(2) does not apply at third reading of
private members' bills. Does the hon. member want to participate in the
debate?
MR. MacDONALD: No. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.
MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to rise
today and add some final comments in third reading on Bill 207,
the Alberta Wheat and Barley Test Market Act. This bill calls for a 10-
year test market giving Alberta producers the ability to engage in
unrestricted trade of their product. Currently, of course, the product
categories and sale of wheat and barley are managed and restricted by a
monopolistic entity, the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board came into existence in 1919, born out of
World War I conditions. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the
agricultural economy of today is vastly different than it was back in
1919. The economy of today demands increased openness, competitiveness,
and innovation, none of which the Canadian Wheat Board facilitates.
Today I'll go beyond suggesting that the Wheat Board is irrelevant, and
I'll go beyond showing how the Wheat Board does more harm than good for
Alberta farmers. We've heard these discussed by other hon. members.
Instead, I'd like to talk about how the case against the Canadian Wheat
Board monopoly has been made time and time again by our own federal
government. For decades Canada has hailed the virtues of free trade and
stood in opposition to its obstruction. I'll argue that in doing so, the
federal government proves its own case against the Canadian Wheat
Board's continued existence.
Looking at the big picture, it seems ridiculous to defend the
Canadian Wheat Board, yet the federal government persists despite
mountains of evidence showing that the free marketing of tradable
products is more efficient, increases quality, and ultimately benefits
consumers. Internationally Canada has long been an advocate of
eliminating barriers to trade. Indeed, we've entered into many
unilateral agreements protecting and encouraging free trade. The General
Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade, the establishment of the World Trade
Organization, and the North American free trade agreement are only a few
of the significant international trade agreements aimed at fostering an
atmosphere for fair and free trade.
Without fail, Canada's aim was, as prescribed in the 1947 text of
GATT, the substantial reduction of barriers to trade and the elimination
of discriminatory treatment in international commerce. Given Canada's
support of free trade, I argue that it's hypocritical and wrong to
defend and continue the Canadian Wheat Board's clearly restrictive and
monopolistic practices.
Let me take a moment to describe specifically what our federal
government stands for. On January 1, 1995, Canada became a founding
member of the WTO, or World Trade Organization. This new organization
effectively replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or
GATT, and was born out of the 1986 to 1994 Uruguay round of
negotiations. Along with the commitment to reduce tariffs, the round's
agreements included greatly expanding export opportunities for
agricultural products by limiting restrictions to trade such as quotas,
subsidies, and other obstructive domestic policies and regulations. The
Uruguay round called for consistent standards across all member
countries. Specifically, the round produced agriculture agreements with
the objective of reforming trade by making policies more market
oriented. This, it was agreed, would improve predictability and security
for importing and exporting countries alike.
It's important to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the round also brought
about new rules and commitments applying to market access and domestic
support, including eliminating programs that raise or guarantee farm
gate prices and farmers' incomes. Of course, to the 144 member countries
of the WTO the Canadian Wheat Board claims that it does none of these.
Western farmers, however, get a very different story. The Canadian Wheat
Board assures farmers: "Farmers get an initial or partial payment
upon delivery of their grain and the Canadian government guarantees this
payment." Of course, that's only a partial payment. Farmers have to
wait over a year to find out what the final price is going to be, and
whether that's the best price or not is totally up for speculation.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's commitment to the WTO's founding principles has
been questioned numerous times. Foreign producers understand that the
Canadian Wheat Board operates contrary to fundamental free trade
principles. Why, then, doesn't our own federal government understand?
The Canadian Wheat Board has been challenged and examined for years by
government bodies, independent auditors, and international panels. Of
course, as monopolies do, the secrets of the Wheat Board's operation are
kept under lock and key. This makes proving these charges or any charges
very difficult. The federal government's response to these international
complaints, which I'll discuss a little later, is proof that the
Canadian Wheat Board is unnecessary, irrelevant, and nothing but harmful
to Alberta farmers.
I'd like to offer a second case. On October 23, 2000, the office of
the United States Trade Representative initiated a 16-month
investigation of the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. It
was concluded that the Canadian Wheat Board subsidizes and isolates its
domestic markets . The report concluded, and I quote: the Canadian Wheat
Board undermines the integrity of a competitive trading system. Alberta
farmers are upset with these same abuses. Frankly, it shocks and
disturbs me to know that our farmers' interests are being better
supported by a foreign agency than by our own federal government.
Further, the United States Department of Commerce announced on
October 24 that it will proceed with an investigation in response to
antidumping and countervailing duty petitions filed by the North Dakota
Wheat Commission on September 13 of this year. According to Canadian
Wheat Board estimates this latest U.S. trade challenge will cost western
Canadian farmers an additional $8 million to $10 million just to defend
it . While the farming community is dealing with the huge financial
strain of drought conditions, I argue that spending millions of dollars
defending an indefensible institution is reckless behaviour.
Since 1990 there have been at least nine different high-level
investigations into the Wheat Board's unfair business practices. In
addition, there have been countless formal complaints. So, Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is facing continued and ongoing pressure from the
international community claiming that the Wheat Board engages in unfair
trading practices. The federal government is also facing pressure from
its own western farmers claiming that the Wheat Board hurts their
product and their competitiveness.
In responding to international charges, the federal government
continues to argue that the Canadian Wheat Board does not give unfair
advantages to Canadian farmers. The Wheat Board, they claim, simply does
not influence the price or quality of Canadian wheat and barley. So, Mr.
Speaker, my question is a simple one. If the Wheat Board does not give
unfair advantage to Canadian farmers, then why aren't Canadian farmers
allowed to choose whether they participate in the Wheat Board or not? It
seems obvious that the Wheat Board infringes on our farmers' freedom of
market exploration. Our farmers' hands are tied, and for what gain?
According to the federal government the Wheat Board does not manipulate
price or quality of wheat and barley sales. The market's hand, we are
told, is free to decide both. However, the Wheat Board claims on their
web site:
Instead of competing against one another for sales, Western Canada's
85,000 wheat and barley farmers sell as one through the [Wheat Board]
and can therefore command a higher return for their grain.
So if the Wheat Board does not affect prices, restrict or dump the
product in the U.S., this is absolutely impossible. It's clear that the
Wheat Board is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Mr. Speaker, our farmers are not asking for unreasonable changes to
be made. Simply, our farmers want the ability to sell into whichever
markets they choose and to establish their own prices and product
specifications. In fact, Alberta farmers are only asking for fair
provincial treatment. You see, Ontario and Quebec are not bound by the
Canadian Wheat Board constraints. This is another example of favoritism
amongst provinces.
Bill 207 aims to eliminate any special treatment.
Bill 207 would establish a 10-year test market to study
the effects of individually marketed wheat alongside the existing
Canadian Wheat Board. I'd like to urge all the members to stand up for
the Alberta farmers and to stand up for fair treatment along with the
provinces and to stand up for the free trade market principles Canadians
have championed again and again and for the success Alberta's farmers
have shown in marketing their non Wheat Board grains, such as feed
grains, peas, and canola, and they've been very successful at that.
So, again, I'd urge everyone in this House to support this bill, and
thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.
3:00
THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert.
MR. HORNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and
speak today on Bill 207 , the Alberta Wheat and
Barley Test Market Act. I would like to begin this afternoon by thanking
the hon. Member for Calgary- Mountain View for bringing forward this
bill and for his continued efforts to see change brought to the Alberta
wheat and barley industry.
The era of globalization is now in full swing and will only increase
in the years to come. As a member of NAFTA, the WTO, and the upcoming
FTAA Canada has become a leader in pushing for trade liberalization.
However, Alberta's wheat and barley producers have been held back in
this global phenomenon. The federal government's maintenance of the
Canadian Wheat Board as the only marketing agency for western producers
has severely restricted the great entrepreneurial spirit of Alberta's
wheat and barley producers. Bill 207 would give the
wheat and barley farmers of this province professional choice. It's my
belief that farmers should have the right to choose what they can bring
to market and determine their own price. Currently, these choices are
not available to them under the Canadian Wheat Board, options which I
believe are essential for a fully functioning, competitive, and
efficient marketplace.
Bill 207 would allow a free and flexible test
market to be established in Alberta. The results of this would be
closely monitored and certain stipulations maintained for a period of 10
years. Carefully monitored developments under a free system would allow
enough time for prosperous growth to occur, and a realistic picture of
what Alberta can do in a free market system could be determined. Bill
207 would allow Alberta's farmers to keep pace with global
buyers' demands for specialty crops which exist for organic grains,
hull-less barley, waxy barley, and specialty wheats. Various contract
arrangements are emerging that require direct dealing between grower and
end-user.
It cannot be overstated that wheat and barley are the only two crops
made to follow such repressive marketing rules. Crops which leave the
farmers free to choose marketing practices have steadily increased in
production and processing while growth for wheat and barley controlled
by the CWB has been stagnant. The domestic processing of oats has
increased 12-fold since it was removed from the Canadian Wheat Board in
1989. During the same period domestic crush of canola has increased 125
percent and, as a percentage of annual production, from 25 percent in
1989 to 35 percent last year. Canola oil and meal shipments have doubled
over the five-year period from '93-94 to '97-98.
Bill 207 would also have the result of increasing the
processing capacity in the province. By eliminating the middleman,
processors would see the incentives of setting up local industries where
they would be closer to their producers. It's sad to see that even
though western Canada produces 95 percent of Canada's wheat, it only has
31 percent of the flour milling capacity. Eastern Canada does the vast
majority of wheat processing. We can also directly compare Alberta and
Ontario manufacturing shipments for grain and oilseed milling. In 1999
alone Canada had total grain and oilseed milling manufacturing shipments
of over $ 5 billion. Of that, Alberta constituted approximately $863
million. Ontario, on the other hand, represented nearly $3 billion of
those shipments.
Compared to our American competitors, the processing numbers are
equally depressing. There are two to three times more wheat milled in
the northern tier U.S. states compared to the Canadian prairies. The
volume of durum processed in the U.S. northern tier is also higher than
here on the prairies. Canada's share of world flour production has
decreased by 9 percent over the last 10 years. Over the same period the
quantity of U.S. wheat milled has increased approximately 30 percent.
One has to wonder why the United States processed more than twice as
much malt barley as Canada, yet they have only about half the barley
production relative to Canada.
It is clear that Alberta is losing out due to the restrictive
regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board. When, Mr. Speaker, will we
unshackle the repressive federal chains which hold back the
entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of our agriculture industry? The
Canadian Wheat Board only includes wheat and barley producers from
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Why are farmers from Ontario and
the rest of eastern Canada free from the board's control? The answer the
federal government would give is that western Canada is the breadbasket
of the country, and the Canadian Wheat Board was created to maintain
stable prices in times of crisis.
[The Deputy Speaker in the chair]
The reality is that the times of crisis, the Great Depression and
World War II, in which the Canadian Wheat Board was created are half a
century behind us. It seems that the main function of the Canadian Wheat
Board today is to remind westerners that the federal government is in
control of their livelihoods. The Canadian Wheat Board is one main
factor creating sentiments of western alienation among rural Albertans.
When one farmer cannot sell his crop to his neighbour without going
through a federal agency, you know that something is seriously wrong
with the system . Currently, the only thing the Canadian Wheat Board
seems to be providing Alberta farmers is additional costs. In fact, the
Canadian Wheat Board's general and administration expenses have
increased by 45 percent over the last five years and have doubled over
the last 10, while export numbers have fallen.
Mr. Speaker, Alberta wheat and barley farmers need a more efficient
mechanism to market, transport, and manage their product. The time has
come for alternative methods of getting grain to domestic and
international markets. Clearly, the Canadian Wheat Board can no longer
provide Alberta farmers with a cost-efficient and competitive solution
to achieve this goal.
In recent years western farmers have begun to voice their concerns
about the Canadian Wheat Board. Bill 207 reflects
the desires of Alberta's farmers. In a poll conducted in 2000 and
released by the Alberta Barley Commission, almost 11,000 prairie farmers
were surveyed and 75 percent indicated that they wanted the ability to
sell their grain to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, in
domestic and export markets. In Alberta, Mr. Speaker, 81 percent wanted
that choice.
Alberta's farmers are also seeking change by working within the
Canadian Wheat Board system. Jim Chatney, a well-known advocate of a
free market economy for farmers, serves as Alberta's voice on the board
of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. He has been elected twice in
district 2, which stretches from south of Edmonton to the U.S. border.
In the last election he got 69.5 percent of the vote, which is the
highest margin of victory any elected board member has received. It is
clear that Alberta's farmers want a choice in how they market their
products.
If Alberta's farmers are going to see their desire for freedom of
choice, people like Jim are going to need our help. The antimono poly
sentiment is so strong in Alberta that Alberta's farmers are willing to
go to jail for the cause. On October 31 of this year, as was mentioned,
13 Alberta farmers were jailed for selling their grain independently. My
heart goes out to each of these farmers and their families, and my
support is fully behind them for their fight to change the system.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to allow Alberta wheat and barley
producers to enter the global era of free trade. Bill 207
does not call
to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board but simply allows alternatives to
operate next to it. Value-added industries will naturally increase in
Alberta because of competition introduced into the marketing
process. Bill 207 will reward the
entrepreneurial and innovative qualities of Alberta's wheat and barley
farmers, and it's time we provide Alberta farmers with the freedom
necessary to effectively deliver their products to the world markets so
that their industries can prosper.
I strongly support Bill 207 , and I urge all of
my colleagues, especially my rural colleagues on both sides of this
House, to support this important piece of legislation as well. Thank
you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul.
MR. DANYLUK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to
have the opportunity to join my colleagues in support of Bill 207,
the Alberta Wheat and Barley Test Market Act. I'd also like to stress
that this is not a southern Alberta issue. This is an Alberta issue in
its completeness because it affects northern Alberta as it does southern
Alberta.
I believe that the bill is extremely important for our province and
our wheat and barley farmers, who have waited a long time to see some
changes in the way that their products are being marketed. The issue at
hand, Mr. Speaker, is the Canadian Wheat Board, which for decades has
enjoyed the status of being the only body allowed to market wheat and
barley grown in western Canada. Over the past decade the issue of
whether the Canadian Wheat Board has outlived its purpose has been
debated over and over. It is a topic which deeply concerns all Albertans
- and I stress again: all Albertans - and especially the farmers who
live with the current marketing arrangements outlined in the federal
Canadian Wheat Board Act.
3:10
As mentioned previously by my colleagues, the events that took place
in late October of this year, when the 13 Alberta farmers were
incarcerated for choosing to bypass the Canadian Wheat Board and
marketing their products on their own, just illustrated how unpopular
and unjust the board's rules and regulations really are. Those Albertans
were fighting for fairness, equality, and marketing freedom. They ended
up with prison sentences and records to show their commitment and
devotion to what they believe is right and fair.
The event of October 31 clearly illustrated that there is something
seriously wrong with current wheat and barley marketing and that it is
time for some change. Change is precisely what Bill 207
is designed to bring. The bill will give wheat and barley farmers
exactly what they have been fighting for: marketing their products
independently of the Canadian Wheat Board. For the first time since 1943
Alberta farmers would have the opportunity to take the initiative to
develop markets and seek out customers on their own. This bill will
finally enable western producers to enjoy the same opportunities that
their counterparts in eastern Canada and the United States have enjoyed
for years. It gives our farmers various marketing alternatives, which
also include the option of staying with the Canadian Wheat Board.
In simple terms, Mr. Speaker, this bill gives Alberta farmers choice.
Presently, the farmers do not have choice. The Canadian Wheat Board Act
forces farmers from western Canada to sell their wheat and barley only
to the Canadian Wheat Board. They have no power over how and to whom
their grain is sold. The Canadian Wheat Board acts as the sole price
setter, the marketer, the transporter of all wheat and barley. Wheat and
barley farmers complain that this lack of control over their product -
and I stress: their product - is costing them thousands if not tens of
thousands of dollars in potential profits.
Producers point out that the Canadian Wheat Board's grain price is
routinely lower than the value for the same product south of the border,
and as an example they cite that in 1996 the board was offering farmers
$3. 40 a bushel for wheat while the price of wheat in the United States
was $8. 50. That means that if farmers were allowed to market their
wheat independently of the Canadian Wheat Board, they could have earned
$5.10 per bushel more. This, Mr. Speaker, is just one of the many
examples of disadvantages that our farmers face when they deal with the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I believe that this is unfair. Farmers should not have to forfeit
potential profit while farmers in other parts of North America can sell
their products freely on the market and get the best possible price. The
Canadian Wheat Board's inability and unwillingness to adapt to modern
times has not only shortchanged western wheat and barley farmers but
also the economics of western Canada. The board's outdated rules and
regulations have continuously discouraged individuals from investing in
the value-added grain processing sector of the Alberta economy.
According to a 2002 study prepared by the George Morris Centre, the
biggest problem that the potential investors face is the Canadian Wheat
Board's monopolistic stranglehold over the wheat and barley market. The
study indicates that the Canadian Wheat Board charges the various
domestic processors an inflated premium price for unprocessed wheat and
barley. This unfortunately creates a disincentive for individuals
looking to invest into the value-added sector due to the fact that high
prices of unprocessed wheat and barley compromise potential profits. The
same study argues that if the individual farmers were free to sell their
product directly to processors, the price of their product would
depreciate, as it would represent the real market value of their grain.
This, in turn, would create greater incentives for individuals to invest
into value-added sectors of the Alberta economy.
The reason why I'm mentioning this, Mr. Speaker, is because had
western Canada's value-added industry grown at the same rate as
Ontario's during the 1990s, it could have been a difference of between
$300 million and $1 billion to the economy of this country.
AN HON. MEMBER: How much?
MR. DANYLUK: Between $300 million and a billion.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, the only way the western Canadian farmers can
market wheat and barley on their own is to sell it first to the Canadian
Wheat Board and, I stress, at a lower price specified by the Canadian
Wheat Board and then buy it back from the board at a
higher price. This scheme not only prevents our farmers from independent
marketing, but it also prevents them from being able to compete with the
rest of North American wheat and barley farmers. While our producers
must accept the Canadian Wheat Board prices, their counterparts in other
regions are free to obtain the best possible price for their product.
Mr. Speaker, wheat and barley farmers in eastern Canada are not bound
by the same rules as the farmers in western Canada. As I've stated
before, unlike their counterparts in the west, Ontario producers have
the opportunity to market their products freely. Granted they still have
to acquire export permits for their wheat from the Canadian Wheat Board,
but they have the choice of selling their grain to any purchaser of
their choice, including the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board.
While the OWPMB performs a similar function as the Canadian Wheat Board,
it serves as an optimal marketing body, not as a mandatory one. So why
is it that the farmers in the east have alternatives and the farmers in
the west do not?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow.
MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise again
to make a few additional comments at third reading, after I had the
pleasure of speaking at second reading. I want to start off, first, by
again thanking on behalf of a lot of my constituents the Member for
Calgary- Mountain View, who's brought forward Bill 207
. I wanted to thank the Premier and the Deputy Premier for taking part
in showing support for the farmers who were incarcerated on October 31.
I wanted to ask a question that many of the farmers in our area
especially have asked me over a number of years, and maybe it's obvious:
why is the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board the
same federal minister who's been responsible for the wheat board through
many federal cabinet shuffles? How does that federal minister in this
day and age go back to his home riding in Saskatchewan and continue to
support without question a Canadian Wheat Board that basically has not
changed at all since farmers sent a message loud and clear on October
31?
3:20
Many of the farmers that I've also had the pleasure to represent have
wanted to know: why is it that the Canadian millers seem so supportive
of the Canadian Wheat Board? Is it because of the special deal that they
receive in terms of freight rates that they pay for the importation of
their durum from the Canadian Wheat Board? As I recall the comments that
I'd made at second reading, I tried to outline what it would cost the
average farmer in our constituency to freight grain out to Vancouver. I
believe the number at that time that I quoted for durum wheat was $24.91
a tonne. How was it that we had to pay that freight for grain that never
went to Vancouver but in fact went down to a milling plant in Lethbridge
and could have been done for $8 a tonne compared to $24.91? The farmers
then said: well, if that's what we're paying, how much are the millers
paying to bring back the grain, that we as farmers could have sent to
the mill, hypothetically, from Vancouver, when they know darn well that
a lot of it came in for the same $8 a tonne trucking charge? Although I
can't pin down a number, it would appear that perhaps the millers have
had special favour with the Canadian Wheat Board, because it may appear
that they, in fact, only pay $12, on paper, for the same grain that
comes back from Vancouver that I paid $24.91 for.
I want to move ahead to those that I have a great deal of respect
for, those 13 farmers who voluntarily chose not to pay a fine, which,
again, is another question, Mr. Speaker, that I don't truly understand.
How is it that these farmers weren't charged for not having a federal
export licence for grain but in fact were charged under a customs
regulation for improper removal of a vehicle? Three of the 13 were from
our constituency. Two of these young farmers had children at home, still
had crops out in the field, still had cattle out on their pastures, and
chose to make a very strong statement and serve some time. I'm
especially pleased with the response that neighbours and farmers showed
to particularly two of my constituents who spent considerable amounts of
time in jail. As a matter of fact, I went down to the jail to visit one
of these fellows the weekend after they had been incarcerated. Really,
what an experience. To see somebody sitting in a jail alongside somebody
who's actually committed something that may have been quite a serious
crime is not something, I think, that a lot of people could imagine.
I guess in terms of a retail businessperson, can you imagine if you
had a clothing store, Mr. Speaker, and that same small business in
eastern Canada could sell at their own whim, at their own discretion, at
their own markup? Can you imagine what you would feel like if you had
that men's clothing store, a ladies' clothing store, and you were told
that you could only sell a portion of your clothes during this time of
the year because there's only a quota available and that you maybe, in
fact, could only sell it at a certain price? Now, if you didn't comply
with that, you would go to jail. Would you be very happy? I don't think
so.
To those people who don't really want to stand up and debate the
merit of this bill but would rather hide in the corner and say:
"Well, they broke the law. What do they expect?" I would say,
"Well, if you really feel that way, why do you not support some
change?" The majority of farmers at least in Alberta and I'm quite
sure throughout western Canada right now have indicated that they want
to see change enacted. To those of you who would only argue that the
individuals deserve what they got, that they broke the law, I'd like to
finish, Mr. Speaker, by quoting from a fellow by the name of Martin
Luther King Jr. It came from a constituent who summed up his feelings by
saying:
An individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse
the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality
expressing the highest respect for the law.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to stand up
and make a few more comments about this bill. Once again, thank you to
the sponsor from Calgary-Mountain View and especially to the farmers who
had the jam to do what they did.
Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley- Calmar.
REV. ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Picking up where the hon. Member
for Lac La Biche-St. Paul left off and in the light of his intelligent
comments, one must ask the question: why is it that the farmers in the
east can have alternatives and the farmers in the west cannot?
The federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Minister Goodale, would have us believe that the western farmers do not
oppose but actually endorse the current CWB regulations. He recently
stated that according to a plebiscite held a few years ago, the board
received support from about two-thirds or 75 percent of farmers, yet
according to a survey conducted by the Alberta Barley Commission in
November of 2000, 75 percent of prairie farmers
supported voluntary marketing. The same survey indicated that 81.2
percent of Alberta farmers, 75.8 percent of Saskatchewan farmers, and
69. 25 percent of Manitoba farmers voted for the establishment of a
voluntary grain marketing system. These numbers represent clear evidence
of growing dissatisfaction among prairie farmers with the current CWB
regulations.
One can also cite the CWB's own statistics, which indicate that
farmers in Alberta are increasingly choosing not to obtain Wheat Board
permits and are, instead, pursuing other crops such as canola and dry
peas, which are not regulated by the CWB. As a result, in 1990-91 the
board had about 44,230 permit holders. However, in '99-2000 this number
fell to 27, 066 holders. That is a 48 percent loss in the number of
permit holders. Such figures only underline the unpopularity of the CWB
and indicate that prairie farmers are ready for change, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 207 symbolizes this change, and it also serves to
remedy the injustice that the farmers of western Canada have had to
endure for over half a century. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when
the Canadian Wheat Board served a purpose, but that was over 50 years
ago. The present regulations are hopelessly out of touch with reality.
The board was created in 1918 as a result of the Great War, a conflict
which did much damage to the economies of the western world. The board
was quickly disbanded in 1920 as the Canadian government decided that it
served no purpose during times of peace and economic stability. The CWB
was brought back in 1929, the year when the Great Depression hit. The
CWB played an important function during the Second World War. At the
time, the board played a leading role in keeping inflation down and
preventing grain prices from rising too high.
However, Mr. Speaker, the days of extreme economic hardship and
devastating global conflicts are long gone. Since then our country and
the vast majority of the world have embraced market economy and free
trade . In 1994 Canada signed a free trade agreement with our neighbour
and our biggest trading partner, the United States of America. Our wheat
and barley farmers have been left out of this agreement and continue to
be at the mercy of the CWB. Clearly, we must allow them to become a part
of the modern free trade system so they can enjoy the fruits of their
labour as much as thousands of other Canadians have.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time to give our farmers the tools that
they need in order to succeed in the modern world. Bill 207
gives our farmers these tools, and this is why I hope all of the members
of the Legislature will join me today in voting in support of Bill
207 .
Thank you very much.
3:30
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View.
MS HALEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm very, very grateful
to have this opportunity to just make a couple of concluding comments
about this bill and how incredibly proud I am of my colleague the Member
for Calgary-Mountain View for having done all of this work and brought
this forward. It's incredible not just for the fact that I've worked
with him for a long time but that he's an urban MLA, as well, who
clearly understands our issues in rural Alberta. I'm just incredibly
proud of him for all the work that he's done on this.
I was given a news clip, Mr. Speaker, that was a letter that was
written to the Calgary Herald by the owner of Big Rock Brewery, Mr. Ed
McNally. It's a two-page letter, and I just want to read two little
paragraphs to quote from this, from his perspective as somebody who had
been a farmer and a rancher, later on went on to a different business,
using barley in a whole other way. He said that the Wheat Board from his
perspective - we just heard the history on when it was established,
unestablished, re-established - when it was re-established again in
about 1933, was intended to help prairie farmers market, store, and
transport their grain.
It was established only for farmers who wanted or needed help, most
of whom were based in the remote northern areas of Alberta and
Saskatchewan, and it was voluntary, not compulsory. Producers had a
choice and in normal years, most could do better selling into the free
market, which was really a cash market that operated through the
elevator companies, the major railways and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
Indeed, it was not until the Second World War, under the War Measures
Act, that the federal government brought an end to "dual
marketing," which is to say marketing either through the Canadian
Wheat Board or on the open market. The same legislation [at that time]
closed the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, created price controls, and
effectively put a lid on the rising price of grains.
The really dirty part of this move did not appear until after the war
was won. Then, it became [apparent] that the effects of the federal
government's action had been to cap the price of postwar grain shipments
because it had entered into a long-term contract with the [United
Kingdom] at a price well below the market.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that my involvement through the
Wheat Board over the last 30 years has been that they consistently and
repeatedly entered into contracts with Russia or China or other
countries around the world and never had to disclose the price. We've
never been able to see into their financial affairs. It was my belief
and it still is today that the federal government has used the Wheat
Board as their tool for foreign relations. It had very little to do with
selling or marketing our grain, and it had everything to do with their
foreign policy . What always has offended me so greatly about this is
that you can't even find out how much they sold us out as taxpayers, as
Canadians, how many billions of dollars have never, ever been recaptured
from countries that chose not to pay those bills, how many of them were
written off over the years because that was the foreign policy of that
day. Kyoto in another form. We live with this endlessly. If they want to
give away all of our resources, maybe they could just tell us what
they're doing once in awhile. Then as Canadians we could make our minds
whether or not we supported it. Don't play games. The Wheat Board is one
game; Kyoto is another. I know that it must seem like a reach to tie
them together, but in my mind just about everything with the federal
government is bad, you know, and it just goes downhill from there.
My experience when we were trying to establish our own grain company
in this province is that we had nothing but support from our provincial
government. They encouraged us always to continue to look at new and
viable ways to help our farmers that wanted an alternative, and our
farmers responded so incredibly well on wanting to try to grow a niche
crop rather than just the standard Wheat Board crops. We tried to
provide a full service to our clients, so we spent four years, Mr.
Speaker, trying to get a permit so that we could handle Wheat Board
grains, four years, a gazillion trips to Winnipeg so that you could do
enough ring kissing in order to, you know, make them believe that it was
possible that you might actually be able to handle the board grain for
them.
The real one we were trying to deal with was oats, and they didn't
even want to sell oats. They had control of it; they didn't care about
it . We had a market in Venezuela for 50-pound bags or 100-pound bags of
oats for all of the racehorse industry down there, but they weren't
mechanized, and they couldn't handle huge shipments at a time. They
needed something that an unmechanized society could
handle and deal with, but they wanted the world's best oats, and those
are the ones grown right here in Alberta. It took us four years.
Finally, years later they delisted it because everybody in Alberta had
pretty much quit growing oats by then. They drove us into the ground
because they wouldn't market it. Now we've got oats again, Mr. Speaker,
and it just shows that wherever the Wheat Board is, you end up with
people pulling back, pulling out of the traditional markets. If we're
such a great breadbasket, you know, why can't we sell our own wheat? Why
are we growing so much canola? Why are we growing lentils and peas and
mustard? We're growing canary seed now. We're doing all of these things
in any effort at all to try and raise revenues on farms and get away
from the Wheat Board, who consistently never tells you what your product
is really going to be worth or as a taxpayer, on the other hand, how
much money you are going to lose because we're subsidizing some other
country on the other side of the world without everybody even knowing
what we've done.
Mr. Speaker, like I say, I'm incredibly proud of my colleague for
bringing this forward. I'm incredibly proud that my colleagues are going
to support this bill, and I just hope that as we go through this and
into next spring, we can make a difference and give our farmers the
right to make the choice on which system they want to market their own
produce in and that never again will one of our farmers go to jail for
something as ludicrous as giving a bushel of grain over to a 4-H club on
the other side of the border.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona.
DR. PANNU: May I have the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker, on the
bill?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to speak on Bill 207
 .
DR. PANNU: On Bill 207 , Mr. Speaker. Thank you for
recognizing me. I
want to take this opportunity - I've spoken on this bill a few
times, Bill , the Alberta Wheat
and Barley Test Market Act. This bill is raising all kinds of questions
in the minds of Albertans, and I thought it would be useful to share
with the hon. members of this Assembly a letter that I received from a
concerned Albertan, Billy Dobson of Paradise Valley. He has a point, I
think, in what he says, so I thought I'd share it with the House. I
start right away, time being limited, to make sure that Mr. Dobson's
points get recorded. The letter is addressed to the Premier. Mr. Dobson
says:
I sure am relieved to see you gettin' involved in this here Canadian
Wheat Board stuff. You've just opened up a whole new world of
possibilities for me now that you are onside.
I got my first brainwave the other night at the hockey game. I went
up to the counter to get myself a beer. I know you don't drink those
real beers any more but I'm sure that you still remember how good one
seems to taste at those Oilers and Flames games. I looked at the price
and I couldn't believe my eyes - $6.50 for a beer. I figured no problem.
I'll just go down the hall and get a cheaper one . Be darned if the next
place was $6.50 too. Then I realized the same outfit was sellin' all the
beer. This was when I figured out that I was dealin' with one of those
single desk sellers I've been hearin' so much about. They were chargin'
way too much for that beer and there was only one place to get the darn
stuff.
That's when it came to me a real perfect plan. I'm just goin' to sell
some beer of my own at the next hockey game. I got a $50 ticket and a
truckload of beer bought so I figure I'm pretty well in business. I'm a
bit of a marketer myself so I calculated that if I sell the beer for
$3.00 a glass I'll still be doublin' my money. I'm sure that I'll sell
lots because it's way cheaper than those hoodlums are chargin'. I reckon
I should be able to sell about 5000 glasses pretty easy at a profit of
$1.50 per glass, $7500 for an easy night's work.
Now some people are tellin' me that I could have some trouble with
the law over this but I'm not too worried 'cause I know you'll be there
for me Ralph. Other people in Canada are sellin' beer for $ 3.00 a glass
so I should be able to also.
REV. ABBOTT: Isn't this a breach of FOIP? He's reading somebody
else's letter.
3:40
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the point of order should be on you.
You've interrupted a number of times. You had your opportunity to speak.
This hon. member did not interrupt you. So why don't we let him in the
minute or so that he has left.
DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the advice for the member.
If the cops confuskate my beer, I'll just take it back 'cause I know
that's okay too. You'll help with those court costs won't you?
I'm really lookin' forward to workin' with ya [Mr. Premier].
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt you, but
under our Standing Orders the time for discussion on this item has now
reached the point where we call upon the hon. Member for
Calgary-Mountain View to close debate.
MR. HLADY: After hearing the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, it's
nice to know that we on the Conservative side are still very safe and
probably the only ones in this House who understand the market
principles.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to let the Legislature understand
that I will send an open letter to Minister Goodale in regard to asking
him that he do the right thing and listen to his own committee, which
said that we should have a test market, and also respond to our
legislation that we're passing here today in this Legislature asking for
that free open test market in Alberta. If they will not, then I believe
our government will explore all options in regard to a constitutional
challenge and use whatever means necessary to get freedom for our
farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have been able to move third reading of Bill
today, and I'd like to call the question.
[The voice vote indicated that the motion for third reading carried]
[Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was
rung at 3:43 p.m.]
[Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided]
[The Speaker in the chair]
For the motion:
Abbott
Haley
McFarland
Ady
Herard
Melchi
Broda
Hlady
Nelson
Cao
Horner
O'Neill
Cardinal
Jacobs
Ouellette
Cenaiko
Jonson
Renner
Coutts
Knight
Snelgrove
Danyluk
Lord
Stelmach
DeLong
Lougheed
Stevens
Dunford
Lukaszuk
Strang
Evans
Lund
Tannas
Forsyth
Marz
Taylor
Friedel
Masyk
VanderBurg
Goudreau
McClellan
Vandermeer
Graydon
McClelland
Zwozdesky
Against the motion:
Bonner
Mason
Massey
MacDonald
Totals: For - 45 Against - 4
[Motion carried; Bill 207
read a third time] |
