Were the Liberals not in power in 2002?
Did they deal with this?
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/371/agri/reports/rp1032157/AGRIRP5-e.htm
_______________________________________
B. Canadian Wheat Board
The Standing Committee cannot travel to consult Canadians without triggering discussions on the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) as those for and against a mandatory CWB appear to share hearing time and each make valid arguments, it is often difficult to determine exactly whether one group is more right than the other.
It is still striking, however, that this debate has gone on so long. There is no other example of this kind of situation in the field of Canadian agricultural policy. Some producers who benefit from supply management may have different views on the orientations of their marketing system, but their arguments never take on the scope of those concerning the CWB.
When visiting Ontario and Quebec, the Committee observed that the grain producers of those two provinces enjoy increasing flexibility in the marketing of their wheat and barley. Although it must be acknowledged that the volumes produced by those provinces bear no relation to those in Western Canada, there is nevertheless a lack of uniformity, which does nothing to resolve the debate on the CWB’s future role.
We can only observe that it is not healthy for the grain sector to have devoted so much energy for so long to a debate which invariably comes to a dead end. However, one emerging factor is a concern. As a result of the current transition characterized by low grain prices and producers’ loss of influence over pricing, one of the ways that could be adapted to restore more power over markets to farmers would be to increase on-farm economic activities. This path is moreover that concerned by certain recommendations made in this report. It is also part of the new vision for agriculture (see box).
Witnesses again informed the Committee that the producer direct sales process (better known as the buy-back policy) established by the CWB is not flexible enough and that it does not encourage local processing activities. The voices of organic wheat producers were also part of this debate. Organic production is considered a niche market and a good way for certain young farmers to start out in agriculture, particularly because of low production costs. However, the terms and conditions imposed on organic production are often perceived as a deterrent. Changes made over the years to improve the buy-back policy have not always put an end to criticism, which, on the contrary, is now on the increase.
In the Committee’s view, the Agricultural Policy Framework affords interested parties an excellent opportunity to innovate and experiment with new avenues. Consequently:
RECOMMENDATION 14
Whereas additional on-farm activities and local value-added processing are an excellent way to give farmers more influence in pricing, the Committee recommends that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board authorize, on a trial basis, a free market for the sale of wheat and barley, and that it report to this Committee on the subject.
Comment by Dick Proctor, NDP MP, Palliser, on recommendation 14:
I object strongly to any suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board be asked to authorize use of an open market for the sale of wheat and barley, even on a trial basis. This would undermine the Board’s effectiveness as a single desk seller, it would reduce returns to farmers, and eventually it would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
_______________________________________
Charles Hubbard, M.P. Miramichi, New Brunswick
VICE-CHAIRS
Murray Calder, M.P. Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Ontario
Howard Hilstrom, M.P. Selkirk—Interlake, Manitoba
MEMBERS
David L. Anderson, M.P. Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Saskatchewan
Rick Borotsik, M.P. Brandon—Souris, Manitoba
Garry Breitkreuz, M.P. Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan
Claude Duplain, M.P. Portneuf, Quebec
Mark Eyking, M.P. Sydney—Victoria, Nova Scotia
Marcel Gagnon, M.P. Champlain, Quebec
Rick Laliberte, M.P. Churchill River, Saskatchewan
Larry McCormick, M.P. Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Ontario
Dick Proctor, M.P. Palliser, Saskatchewan
Bob Speller, M.P. Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Ontario
Paul Steckle, M.P. Huron—Bruce, Ontario
Suzanne Tremblay, M.P. Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, Quebec
Rose-Marie Ur, M.P. Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Ontario
OTHER MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED
Rick Casson, M.P. Lethbridge, Alberta
Odina Desrochers, M.P. Lotbinière—L’Érable, Quebec
Wayne Easter, M.P. Malpeque, Prince Edward Island
Betty Hinton, M.P. Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, British Columbia
Werner Schmidt, M.P. Kelowna, British Columbia
Larry Spencer, M.P. Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Saskatchewan
Myron Thompson, M.P. Wild Rose, Alberta
Lynne Yelich, M.P. Blackstrap, Saskatchewan
CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
Suzanne Verville
FROM THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal
Frédéric Forge, Analyst
Did they deal with this?
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/371/agri/reports/rp1032157/AGRIRP5-e.htm
_______________________________________
B. Canadian Wheat Board
The Standing Committee cannot travel to consult Canadians without triggering discussions on the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) as those for and against a mandatory CWB appear to share hearing time and each make valid arguments, it is often difficult to determine exactly whether one group is more right than the other.
It is still striking, however, that this debate has gone on so long. There is no other example of this kind of situation in the field of Canadian agricultural policy. Some producers who benefit from supply management may have different views on the orientations of their marketing system, but their arguments never take on the scope of those concerning the CWB.
When visiting Ontario and Quebec, the Committee observed that the grain producers of those two provinces enjoy increasing flexibility in the marketing of their wheat and barley. Although it must be acknowledged that the volumes produced by those provinces bear no relation to those in Western Canada, there is nevertheless a lack of uniformity, which does nothing to resolve the debate on the CWB’s future role.
We can only observe that it is not healthy for the grain sector to have devoted so much energy for so long to a debate which invariably comes to a dead end. However, one emerging factor is a concern. As a result of the current transition characterized by low grain prices and producers’ loss of influence over pricing, one of the ways that could be adapted to restore more power over markets to farmers would be to increase on-farm economic activities. This path is moreover that concerned by certain recommendations made in this report. It is also part of the new vision for agriculture (see box).
Witnesses again informed the Committee that the producer direct sales process (better known as the buy-back policy) established by the CWB is not flexible enough and that it does not encourage local processing activities. The voices of organic wheat producers were also part of this debate. Organic production is considered a niche market and a good way for certain young farmers to start out in agriculture, particularly because of low production costs. However, the terms and conditions imposed on organic production are often perceived as a deterrent. Changes made over the years to improve the buy-back policy have not always put an end to criticism, which, on the contrary, is now on the increase.
In the Committee’s view, the Agricultural Policy Framework affords interested parties an excellent opportunity to innovate and experiment with new avenues. Consequently:
RECOMMENDATION 14
Whereas additional on-farm activities and local value-added processing are an excellent way to give farmers more influence in pricing, the Committee recommends that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board authorize, on a trial basis, a free market for the sale of wheat and barley, and that it report to this Committee on the subject.
Comment by Dick Proctor, NDP MP, Palliser, on recommendation 14:
I object strongly to any suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board be asked to authorize use of an open market for the sale of wheat and barley, even on a trial basis. This would undermine the Board’s effectiveness as a single desk seller, it would reduce returns to farmers, and eventually it would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
_______________________________________
Charles Hubbard, M.P. Miramichi, New Brunswick
VICE-CHAIRS
Murray Calder, M.P. Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Ontario
Howard Hilstrom, M.P. Selkirk—Interlake, Manitoba
MEMBERS
David L. Anderson, M.P. Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Saskatchewan
Rick Borotsik, M.P. Brandon—Souris, Manitoba
Garry Breitkreuz, M.P. Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan
Claude Duplain, M.P. Portneuf, Quebec
Mark Eyking, M.P. Sydney—Victoria, Nova Scotia
Marcel Gagnon, M.P. Champlain, Quebec
Rick Laliberte, M.P. Churchill River, Saskatchewan
Larry McCormick, M.P. Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Ontario
Dick Proctor, M.P. Palliser, Saskatchewan
Bob Speller, M.P. Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Ontario
Paul Steckle, M.P. Huron—Bruce, Ontario
Suzanne Tremblay, M.P. Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, Quebec
Rose-Marie Ur, M.P. Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Ontario
OTHER MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED
Rick Casson, M.P. Lethbridge, Alberta
Odina Desrochers, M.P. Lotbinière—L’Érable, Quebec
Wayne Easter, M.P. Malpeque, Prince Edward Island
Betty Hinton, M.P. Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, British Columbia
Werner Schmidt, M.P. Kelowna, British Columbia
Larry Spencer, M.P. Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Saskatchewan
Myron Thompson, M.P. Wild Rose, Alberta
Lynne Yelich, M.P. Blackstrap, Saskatchewan
CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
Suzanne Verville
FROM THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Jean-Denis Fréchette, Principal
Frédéric Forge, Analyst
Comment