CONTENTS
Thursday, October 26, 2006

CANADA
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, October 26, 2006
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
* * *
The Chair (Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)):
I'll call this meeting to order.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for
appearing before us
today at our ongoing hearings on the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Thank you all for coming.
Since we're starting 15 minutes late,
we'll stretch into
the second hour a little bit. We'll try to hold things as tight as we
can.
I'm going to be very, very stringent with
the time. We're
going to hold you to ten minutes. I'll give you a one-minute warning,
and then we'll have to shut you down. So give me your best shot in the
first ten minutes, or shorter, if at all possible, to allow a full
round of questioning in this hour as well. We will stretch into the
second hour, because we're late getting going. The environment
committee went a little longer than it should have.
The clerk has distributed a calender to
the members of the
committee. This is what was discussed at the standing committee the
other day. Have a look at it. If there is any discussion, take that up
with the clerk at the end of the meeting. I'll attend that as well.
So without any further ado, we have
William Van Tassel and
Benoit Legault, with the Quebec producers; Wendy Holm, professional
agrologist, as an individual; Stewart Wells, president of the National
Farmers Union; and David Rolfe, president of Keystone Agricultural
Producers.
Welcome again.
Who's wanting to lead off? According to my
list, we have the Quebec producers up first. Mr. Van Tassel.
Mr. William Van Tassel
(First Vice-President, Fédération des producteurs de
cultures commerciales du Québec):
Bonjour.
I will do my presentation in French, but I
am ready for questions in French and English--no problem.
[Translation]
On behalf of the 11,000 family farms of
Quebec producing
grain and represented by the Fédération des producteurs
de cultures
commerciales du Québec, I thank you for your invitation.
More than ever, considering the very
serious income crisis
facing the grain producers in Quebec and Canada, we want to be involved
in any issue having an impact on farm incomes. Therefore, you will
understand that the changes proposed to the present powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board are a matter of great interest to our organization.
One of the basic principles that is very
dear to Quebec
grain producers is the right of the majority of farmers to decide what
marketing system they want in order to ensure the efficient marketing
of their production and to get the best possible fair prices for
everyone. We believe that the Canadian Wheat Board exists and works on
the basis of this principle.
Our Federation has received from a
majority of farmers who
produce wheat for human consumption the responsibility to ensure the
marketing of their product. From the very first crop year, we
understood how important it is for grain producers to take their place
collectively in the marketing chain.
For example, the pooled marketing of wheat
in Quebec has
allowed us to sell more than 70 % of the wheat produced in Quebec
on
the market for human consumption, which is more lucrative, compared to
less than 50 % in the past. This collective marketing gives
obvious
benefits to our producers.
Furthermore, at a time of increased
concentration of
buyers and intermediaries and of disappearance of the information
required for the good operation of our markets, it becomes absolutely
necessary to offer or, at the very least, to maintain the legal and
regulatory tools required to obtain some negotiating power.
The weakening of the balance of power and
the growing
vulnerability of producers can also be observed in the US where the
United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, is more than ever being
called upon to ensure the good operation of the markets as well as the
implementation of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act, a situation
made even worse by the existence of farm production boards which have
decided, through regulation, to impose the collective negotiation of
prices and terms of sale.
Political decency implies at the very
least that the
Government of Canada let democracy operate. In Quebec, the
implementation of a system of pooled marketing was not done without a
clear and rigorous democratic process. All the producers of wheat for
human consumption were consulted and 70 % of them spoke on the
proposal
to set up a system of pooled marketing. Out of those, two thirds have
voted in favor of the proposal. We believe that the government has at a
minimum the ultimate moral responsibility to respect the most basic
rules of democracy.
For now, we think that the Government of
Canada should
invest all its time and efforts in helping the grain industry to come
out of the crisis and not to exacerbate its difficulties and to divide
farm communities that are already in great trouble.
Let me remind you that our industry
generates annual
revenues of 8.6 billion dollars, which represents more than 23.5 %
of
the value of our whole national farm industry, and that it provides
jobs to more than 25 % of all our farm families. Our importance is
in
fact much more than that of a provider of a commodity since we are also
a vital component of the farm economy and of the many companies
involved in food production. In the end, the farming sector supports a
long and complex value chain.
The grain producers of Canada are also
very productive. In
Eastern Canada, the average yield for corn is quite comparable to that
of 50 % of the farms in the US. As for soybeans, the productivity
of
Canadian farmers is on average equal to that of two thirds of American
farms.
The grain market suffers much more today
from the increase
of oil prices and from the spending policies of the US government. The
other two factors that are detrimental to our industry are the higher
value of our dollar and the weakening of our prices. Finally, the
strength of the oil market and the economic growth of several very big
countries in full development also have a direct impact on the prices
of our inputs, which should have a direct impact on grain prices.
Unfortunately, the US Treasury, with its
investments in
farm subsidies, prevents the market from reaching its normal
equilibrium. The crisis in the grain industry is very serious and has
been deepening over the past 25 years with the various Farm Bills
passed in the US and with the increasing supports provided by the
American government to its industry.
Nowadays, the Government of Canada seems
more concerned by
the freedom of choice being demanded by a minority of producers as well
as by the Canadian agrifood sector than by the dramatic life being
forced upon grain producing families.
This situation has been generated by the
subsidies
provided in the US and Europe which distort the world grain markets. We
refer here to the global impact of the 1.3 billion dollars of subsidies
paid in the year 2000, and everything leads us to believe that the
amount has even been much higher in the past few years. This is only
one aspect of the problem where recurring subsidies disrupt the grain
industry in Quebec and in the whole of Canada, and not only at the
level of the markets.
Canadian farms are becoming less
competitive, their debt
increases and their net income is dropping much faster than in the
country that is in their main competitor. Added to this is a growing
lag in investment in new technologies and, obviously, in the protection
of the environment. The impact on productivity is already being felt.
We believe it will be impossible to
compete with the
producers of a country whose government has made national security a
priority. Everything leads us to believe that US politicians will
ultimately make an additional priority of food security. Therefore,
Canadian farm producers can expect a continuation of the massive
investments in the farming sector in the US, which is all the more an
issue in the context of the recent failure of negotiations at the World
Trade Organization.
Obviously, we will not be able to face
such developments
on our own. Canada does not have the luxury to implement a policy that
would be very different from that of its neighbor as far as sectoral
priorities are concerned. Each year, the United States invest massively
in the grain sector, and nearly exclusively in that sector.
The Canadian government is now recognizing
that its
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, CAIS, is not
meeting the needs of the grains sector. Despite that, its latest
initiatives have been characterized by continuity. This has to be added
to the elimination of the Market Revenue Insurance Program in Ontario
and to the reduced support capacity of provincial programs such as the
Programme d'assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles, ASRA, in
Quebec.
It's quite clear that the grain sector has
different needs
than other sectors covered by CAIS. Consequently, risk management in
the grain sector requires two different types of action: short-term
support and long-term planning. The extraordinary situation facing the
sector at the present time means that special attention and a specific
plan of action are required from the government. Our objective should
remain to provide adequate support to the industry.
In the short term, our plan should be
aimed at resolving
the problems and limits of CAIS for grain producers through the use of
a more realistic measure of yields and prices and through ensuiring
enough flexibility to take account of the specifics of the various
regions and various products. Our objective should remain to provide
adequate support to the industry.
Transition measures should be implemented
rapidly until
the 2008 review of the agricultural strategic framework while
introducing a new program and improving CAIS in older to compensate for
the past, present and future damages -- indebtedness -- caused by US
subsidies. This help should be provided with the flexibility required
by the provinces which are better able to share the resources between
their farmers.
In the long run, our government should
implement in 2008 a
new competitive farm policy that will allow us to face the perverse
effects of the US Farm Bill. The levels of support should be adjusted
according to the level of reduction of the international subsidies
following from the commitments made by the various member countries of
the WTO.
In conclusion, since time flies, we
recognize that the
Board may not be a perfect tool but nobody will be able to convince us
that we should not take the responsibility, in the collective and
democratic manner, of the marketing of our farm products.
We're also extremely disappointed and
frustrated by the
fact that this issue has become more important than the income crisis.
Let us not forget that, if we don't react, we won't survive. Farm
organizations, MPs, ministers and politicians of all parties have been
involved in the development of a farm industry that has eliminated
family farms, has sapped the energy of farm communities and,
especially, has been detrimental to our food sovereignty.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Van Tassel.
Ms. Holm, please, for ten minutes.
Ms. Wendy Holm (Professional
Agrologist, As an Individual):
Good morning. My name is Wendy Holm. I'm a
Canadian agrologist, resource economist, and farm journalist.
I want to say at the outset I have
absolutely no partisan
interest in this issue. My concerns are those of an agrologist, and to
say I'm alarmed is an understatement. This is why I'm here today, and I
thank this committee for the opportunity to speak.
First my credentials. I'm an agrologist
with over 30 years
of professional standing in Canada. I'm past president of the B.C.
Institute of Agrologists, former director of the Agricultural Institute
of Canada, B.C. agrologist of the year 2000, and recipient of two
Queen's medals in 1993 and 2002. As a resource economist, I have
expertise in economics, competition policy, trade policy, industrial
organization, and the effects of regulation on private sector
performance.
As a farm journalist, I have 12 years of
published columns
under my belt, monthly columns. Because of this, I feel I am qualified
to give a professional opinion of the policy implications of the recent
actions by Canada's new government to destroy the central selling desk
authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, the only entity that stands
between farmers and the interests of concentrated market players.
Other witnesses before this committee have
documented in
length the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board to prairie
agriculture. I myself have devoted four columns to this subject since
February. One, “Dual Desk is Code for Disaster” just won the Frank
Jacobs bronze award for press columns at the Canadian Farm Writers' and
Broadcasters' Awards in Winnipeg.
Dual desk selling will destroy the power
of producers in
the marketplace. With the Canadian Wheat Board gone, an estimated $800
million in benefits to western grain producers are rising directly from
the Canadian Wheat Board single desk selling authority will flow from
the pockets of producers in the western Canadian communities they
support to the coffers of the large grain buyers and their
shareholders. The real question is why is this government flying in the
face of logic and politics to deliver a campaign promise to destroy the
Canadian Wheat Board? When in doubt, follow the money.
The large multinational grain companies
have had it in for
the Canadian Wheat Board since the mid-1980s. Understandably so, since
the Wheat Board confers over $800 million in benefits to farmers,
benefits that would accrue to the companies themselves. The Americans
have been pestering Canada to get rid of the board too, for similar
reasons. They want to high-grade their lower-quality grains with
quality Canadian product and have access to our freight systems.
In April 2002, following a meeting with
top U.S. trade
officials, North Dakota Wheat Commission chair Maynard Satrom assured
growers the common objective of both the U.S. government and U.S. wheat
producers is the ultimate reform of the monopolistic Canadian Wheat
Board. Two weeks later, in Senate testimony, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers
gave “unfair advantage” to Canadian Wheat board farmers, adding that
American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for
Canadian rail shipments. Complaining that the practices of the Canadian
Wheat Board restrict U.S. access to our market and make U.S. producers
less competitive on world markets, the USDA called for “fundamental
reform” of organizations such as the Canadian Wheat Board to
permanently assure that U.S. producers are treated fairly in the world
market.
In March 2003 an unsuccessful WTO
challenge was launched,
and again in May it was appealed and again was unsuccessful. It argued
that the Canadian Wheat Board has a longstanding history of creating
and developing a competitive advantage for Canadian farmers in wheat
markets around the world. What is wrong with that? Exactly what they
should be doing is giving farmers a comparative advantage. According to
the Canadian Business Resource, their status as the only seller
of western Canadian wheat and barley positions the Canadian Wheat Board
to earn premium prices for farmers on annual sales of over two million
tonnes of grain to more than 70 countries. All revenue, less marketing
costs, is returned to about 85,000 prairie farmers. The Canadian Wheat
Board has a proud reputation for high-quality products, reliable supply
and delivery, and unparalleled customer support. A privately held
member cooperative, the Canadian Wheat Board ranked number 95 in this
year’s list of the Financial Post’s FP 500 companies, just behind
SNC-Lavalin, Saputo Inc., and Canfor.
For the Canadian Wheat Board, dual desk
selling is a
whistle stop away from gone. Multinational competitors with deep
pockets will bid away grain in the short term, and the Canadian Wheat
Board will starve to death. Once gone, grower premiums of $30 to $45
per tonne that farm economists attribute to the Wheat Board will
disappear forever. But the damage will not stop there. The collapse of
the Wheat Board will have a domino effect on the rest of the prairie
grain economy. Without the Canadian Wheat Board, the producer car
system will disappear, as short-line railways that rely on producer car
shipments will also disappear. Independent grain handling facilities
that are today supported by the Wheat Board's overseas marketing
connections will quickly disappear in a market dominated by
transnationals. Highways will further deteriorate, as farmers have no
option but to haul grain longer and longer distances to larger and
larger elevators. Canadian grain will become generic and be mixed with
the grain of other countries, lowering prices to western Canadian grain
farmers.
With the top four firms controlling 73% of
world grain
markets and the top five controlling an 80% share, with six major North
American rail companies controlling freight rates and car access, this
is not the time to weaken the power of farmers in the marketplace.
In response to this threat, the vast
majority of western
Canada grain farmers, together with Canada's major general farm
organizations, have stepped forward.
On the one hand we have the Americans, the
multinational
grain companies, and the Harper government trying to dismantle the
Canadian Wheat Board, and on the other hand we have Canadian farmers,
farm organizations, and the Canadian public trying to stop them. Harper
knows that if farmers voted in a plebiscite, as required under section
47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the single desk authority of the
Wheat Board would remain intact.
The publicity on this issue has, I
suspect, forced Harper
to overplay his hand. Muzzling the directors of the Canadian Wheat
Board so that they cannot defend farmers' rights under section 47.1 and
changing voter rules mid-election in an attempt to influence the
outcome in the government's favour would raise concern even in a third
world country. Perhaps the new government doesn't know this, but such
tactics are not acceptable in Canada.
I'd like to close today with a story that
I think illustrates much of what I have said here.
As an agrologist, I went to Saskatoon on
July 27 to stand
with Canada's farmers in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. I felt
that they were right, and that professionals should come forward and
say so. When I had my two-minute turn at the mike in the Vimy bandshell
in the park, I encouraged other agrologists to come forward in support
of the Canadian Wheat Board and the right of Canada's farmers to make
this decision. I saw it as a professional responsibility
That afternoon I sat in a packed room and
listened to farm
leaders from across Canada defend the Wheat Board and the clout it
gives to farmers. Later that afternoon, Chuck Strahl emerged from the
invitation-only meetings he had been having across the street--with
those who agreed with the Harper government's views on the Canadian
Wheat Board--to hold a press conference.
I attended as a freelance columnist with
the Western Producer,
and asked the minister whether his government was prepared to implement
dual marketing without a supporting vote of producers and in violation
of section 47.1 of the act. I then returned to B.C. to write my column.
That Monday, I was about to file my August
Western Producer
column when I received a phone call from my editor, Barb Glen, who
seemed shaken. She said they'd received a call from Chuck Strahl's
office--and from one other person--suggesting that my presence at the
rally indicated bias on the part of Western Producer. My
monthly column, which had appeared on the op-ed page the second issue
of every month for the past 12 years....
A voice: [Inaudible--Editor].
Ms. Wendy Holm: What?
I still have time. I have three minutes.
My column was dropped permanently the next
morning. It was cancelled.
What would cause the paper to fire a
prize-winning, very
popular op-ed page columnist with four national awards for press column
and press editorial in three years?
Again, follow the money.
I refer the committee to the handout “Who
Owns the Farm
Media in Western Canada?”--if we could please have that circulated--in
which I list the directors and their affiliations. Note in particular
the name of Brian Hayward, CEO for Agricore, Canada's largest grain
handler and feed manufacturer.
In an October 3 letter to a farmer, Chuck
Strahl's office said that Western Producer is owned and
operated by a private company, Western Producer Publications, in
Saskatoon. In fact, Western Producer
is owned and operated by a conglomerate, Glacier Ventures
International. One of the directors of that company is Brian Hayward,
the CEO of Agricore.
The loss of my column in the Western
Producer after
one phone call from Strahl's office is not about me. It is, most
importantly, about the rights of farmers to have an open and honest
discussion on farm issues and to have knowledgeable and articulate
advocates like me speak out strongly on their behalf. Instead, I too
have been muzzled.
Because I was called to give evidence
before this
committee only a few days ago, I do not have copies of my handout in
French. Since, properly, unilingual material cannot be distributed to
the committee, I have instead posted it on a special website that I
feel should be of interest to this committee. It contains, among other
material, an expanded discussion of farm media ownership, an interview
that Barb Glen and I had on CBC Radio One in Regina, and the column
that was dropped by Western Producer. The website is
www.theholmteam.ca. Any baseball fan will recognize the root, root,
root for the “holmteam” and all that.
Economists know that when capital
concentrates,
communities suffer. There's no better example than the agrifood sector.
Farmers face this problem all the time. The CWB is critical to offset
multinational power and to return equity to farmers and their
communities. The Harper government, in lockstep with the interests of
American grain farmers and transnational corporations, sees prairie
agriculture as just another sector ripe for takeover. Farmers will turn
from decision-makers to price-takers. Strong and viable family grain
farms will be replaced by mega-farms with farm managers in
double-wides.
If Ottawa can override section 47.1 of the
Canadian Wheat
Board Act, it can just as easily undermine the legal framework under
which other farm commodities operate. It is up to all members of
Parliament to put a stop to this nonsense--now.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms. Holm.
We'll move to Stewart Wells, president of
the NFU. Ten minutes, please, Stewart.
Mr. Stewart Wells (President,
National Farmers Union):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Farmers Union thanks the
committee for the opportunity to be here today to speak with the
standing committee.
I have two recommendations that I'd like
to put before the
committee, and then another point I'd like to make if time allows.
The first recommendation we would put
forward is that the
standing committee use all means available to investigate the events
that led to changes being announced by the Minister of Agriculture to
the Canadian Wheat Board director elections halfway through the
election process.
The second recommendation is that the
standing committee
find a way to force the federal government to reimburse the Canadian
Wheat Board's direct costs, as well as the individual farmers' extra
cost, resulting from the government changing the Canadian Wheat Board
director election rules halfway through the election process.
As background to the first recommendation,
last week the
MInister of Agriculture stood in the House and announced changes to the
way this year's Canadian Wheat Board director elections would be run.
This process had started in the first week of September, and so the
election process was roughly halfway finished, or halfway through, when
the minister announced these changes.
In his announcement of the changes, he
said that he had
made a suggestion to the Wheat Board to make these changes and that the
Wheat Board had agreed and said it was a pretty good idea. That was
last Tuesday.
On Monday of this week, the Canadian Wheat
Board published
on its website a statement of its own, where it actually said it was
not a suggestion by the minister, but rather it was a direction by the
minister. They also said that they were not given the opportunity to
say whether it was a good idea or not. So the Wheat Board has directly
contradicted the statements by the minister. That bulletin is available
on the Canadian Wheat Board website.
As well, I would bring to your attention,
when we're
talking about websites, that there is other information on that
Canadian Wheat Board website that I'm hoping members have a chance to
review. There's a piece that I would like to enter, if I'm able to, as
evidence for the committee. The presentation that the Canadian Wheat
Board has made to the Minister of Agriculture's ongoing task force work
is also posted on the website, and I would like to bring that before
the committee, as well, as evidence.
So on Monday the Canadian Wheat Board
contradicted the
statement by the minister, and that moves us up to yesterday.
Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture produced another statement
regarding the changes to the election. In his statement he has again
tried to implicate the Canadian Wheat Board as being part of this
change, and he referenced the Canadian Wheat Board election review
panel results. There was an election review panel, which reported
almost a year ago--November 2005. The minister has referenced that
report, but the changes the minister has introduced are not one of the
recommendations in the report. The changes are completely different
from the panel recommendations that came forward in November 2005.
Inside of eight days, we've had two
different rationales
put forward on behalf of the minister in regard to these changes, and
both of the statements he has produced are wrong. We're asking that the
committee take this into its own hands. Go back and start at the time
that the election review panel was tabled, in November 2005, eleven
months ago, and from then, come through to the present and try to find
out why these changes were made during the election process.
People who I trust and who have no reason
to lie to me on
this issue say that the minister was informed about the review panel,
about the recommendations that were in the review panel, and was
actually told as early as February that if any changes were going to be
made along the lines of the review panel, they had to be implemented
before the election process started. Well, that hasn't happened. So
what we've seen are changes in the middle of an election process. The
National Farmers Union is very upset about changes during the election
process. This is Canada, and we don't do those kinds of things in this
country.
That leads to the second recommendation, which
is about
the increased costs. Farmers in this country, farmers in the Wheat
Board region, pay all of the election expenses related to these
director elections for the Canadian Wheat Board, but the changes that
the minister has introduced in the middle of the election period are
leading to extra costs. The original information, the original
advertising that was done by the election coordinator, Meyers Norris
Penney, now has to be contradicted. There have to be new direct
mailings to the 36% of the farmers who have been arbitrarily kicked off
of the list, and that's going to be an extra expense, which the Wheat
Board, at present, and farmers through the Wheat Board, have to pick
up. So there's a direct expense to the Canadian Wheat Board.
There's also an indirect expense to the
farmers involved
who go through the declaration process. Thousands of legitimate voters
have been kicked off this list. There were the people in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, and in Alberta in Peace River, who experienced the
incredible frost in the summer of 2004 and who produced only feed
grains. Many of those same people in the next crop year were flooded
out and produced only feed grains. If they haven't hauled yet this
year--and we're only three months into the delivery period--they are
kicked off this list.
Now, at a minimum, those people, when they
fill out their
declarations, have to find a notary public or a commissioner of oaths
to verify those declarations. There are farmers now who are going to be
25, 50, or 100 miles away potentially from a commissioner of oaths.
Granted, it might be a small cost--$10, $15, $20, or $50--for a person
to get in their car, drive to find a commissioner of oaths and make
that change, but it's a direct cost imposed on the farmers of western
Canada by the Minister of Agriculture.
We've all been talking for the last number
of years about
the poor financial condition of farmers in western Canada. So, again,
with the second recommendation we're asking that the standing committee
find a way to force the Minister of Agriculture to reimburse the
Canadian Wheat Board for these costs and farmers for any of their
incidental costs.
The last point that I'll make is just to
demonstrate a
different way of thinking about the Canadian Wheat Board. We've heard a
lot of the arguments, and there's lots of discussion to be had, but one
way of thinking about the Wheat Board is as a legislated marketing
instrument that's there for the benefit of western Canadian farmers,
which is very similar to a legislated marketing instrument called
“patent protection”. Patent protection is legislated by governments of
countries in order to allow companies that are developing products to
have a monopoly, a single-desk selling, if you will, of that particular
product, so that they can maximize their returns from the marketplace.
The Canadian Wheat Board works in a very
similar fashion.
It's designed to help farmers maximize their returns from the
marketplace so that we don't have to come back to taxpayers each and
every year to try to get tax dollars to put farmers on life support.
So I just make that analogy to the patent
system, which is
a legislated system. Monsanto, John Deere, and every other company
involved in the business benefit greatly from a legislated marketing
instrument like patent protection, and the farmers should not be held
up to some sort of double standard and denied use of the same
legislated tools.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Wells.
Mr. Rolfe, could we have your
presentation, please?
Mr. David Rolfe (President,
Keystone Agricultural Producers):
Good morning.
It is certainly my pleasure to be before
the committee
this morning to present Keystone Agricultural Producers' position on
the Canadian Wheat Board.
Keystone Agricultural Producers is
Manitoba's largest
general farm policy organization. It is our job to represent and
promote the interests of our province's farm families. Keystone
Agricultural Producers represents approximately 7,000 farmers and farm
families across Manitoba. It is from our role as the voice of Manitoba
farmers that I am here today. I am pleased to present our position on
the Canadian Wheat Board and the issues around a single desk.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the
changes to the
Canadian Wheat Board as currently proposed by government will be the
beginning of a fundamental change in agriculture in western Canada. I
will address some of the issues in a moment, but first let me be clear
about this: we cannot underestimate the impacts that a move from single
desk will have. Western Canadian farmers must have the opportunity to
get the facts on what's at stake and what the implications will be.
Ultimately it has to be the farmers' right
to decide. It
is apparent that a plebiscite is absolutely necessary. Point one:
legislation requires it--it is in section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat
Board Act.
Point two: government was not elected in
western Canada on a single issue, and it was not just a farm vote.
Point three: farmers have a direct
interest in the Canadian Wheat Board through the director elections.
Point four: from a business perspective
the CWB is run by
farmers, and farmers must have the opportunity to decide their future.
Since GATT was formed in 1984, our policy
has been in
support of the single desk; however, we have also supported changes
made by the CWB to be more responsive to the changing needs of farmers.
Today our call for a plebiscite has
nothing to do with
being for or against the single desk; it has everything to do with the
farmers' right to make this decision for themselves. It is critical
that farmers and government take time to consider the consequences and
the implications of any unilateral decision. We need to consider the
fate of the issues that follow.
One issue is farmer empowerment. The
Canadian Wheat Board
is the only grain marketing structure that returns all proceeds from
grain sales directly back to the farmers themselves. No other structure
in Canada does that. We have seen the demise of the pools that were
farmer-empowerment tools over the last number of years until none of
those cooperative pools is left. They are now commercial entities
amalgamated with other major and multinational companies, and they are
answerable only to their shareholders on Bay Street.
Certainly there is increased industry
concentration. We've
seen the number of grain companies reduced significantly over the last
number of years, and that has a huge impact not only on who you sell
your grain to, but also on who you buy your imports from.
We have principles of cooperative
marketing in place in
the Canadian Wheat Board. It can't be either-or; there is no middle
ground. In a cooperative system, the majority rules, and we see those
examples in the supply-managed industry as well: producers under supply
management work together to gain a better price for everyone.
There are trade implications with loss of
the single desk.
Certainly we've seen a number of challenges from the U.S. for grain
moving across the border to the south; the Wheat Board, every time, has
funded the fight on those challenges. If the single desk is lost, the
Wheat Board no longer will speak for all farmers in western Canada. One
single organization will not be there to take on that responsibility.
There will be no agency there to fight those trade challenges, and the
trade challenges will be inevitable; there are no two ways about that.
We've seen the actions of the U.S. farmers in the past. We've seen the
actions of the North Dakota Wheat Commission and others who don't
hesitate to put countervail on our attempt to put anti-dumping
challenges or trade issues in front of the U.S. government in the trade
process.
A third issue is the effect on
transportation. It is
certainly not a stretch to imagine that the railways will begin to
challenge their obligation to move western Canadian grain at the
current freight rates. I expect they would move to try to gain parity
with the U.S. freight rates, which are significantly higher than we
experience in Canada. That in itself will lead to further chain
reactions within our industry.
Another issue, one we've seen in the past, is
service
challenges. Who will be there to fight those services challenges, to
complain against the railways' lack of service? In the past, the Wheat
Board has taken on that challenge on behalf of all western Canadian
grain farmers. If the single desk is no longer there and the Wheat
Board doesn't speak for everyone, who will take on those challenges
against the railways for service complaints?
The future of short-line railways in
western Canada is
certainly in doubt if we lose the single desk, as is the future of the
producers' opportunity to move grain through the producer car system,
which effectively bypasses the handling and elevator charges that most
producers experience.
Also, a direct impact on Manitoba will be
whether the use
of the port of Churchill will continue at the current rate, or whether
it will just disappear off the map, and all those jobs and implications
along with it.
Regarding branding Canada, I don't think
there's one other
organization in Canada that plays such an important role for western
Canadian farmers as the Canadian Wheat Board when it comes to branding
Canadian wheat and barley. If we move away from single desk, will this
continue, or will the wheat and barley that's sold out of Canada simply
become a product of Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Agricore United, and so on?
Will we lose that branding Canada? This will have a significant impact
on the international marketplace.
Will the influence of the Canadian Grain
Commission be
lost? If the multinationals take over the role and responsibility of
making international grain sales, will they need the Canadian Grain
Commission? Will they assume responsibility for quality assurance
between buyer and seller? Will the Canadian Grain Commission lose
influence in its role in disputes between farmers and with the
multinationals?
Who will fund the Canadian International
Grains Institute?
That's an important tool in research, market development, and
relationships with international buyers and customers.
The Western Grains Research Foundation is
a research tool
for western Canadian farmers that's funded directly from the final
payment system to the Canadian Wheat Board. All western grain farmers
who market grain through the Canadian Wheat Board fund that program,
and it's invaluable in the amount of research it does for new products
and new grain lines in Canada. Who will fund the Western Grains
Research Foundation?
In closing, the move by this government
has created a
level of uncertainty in the international marketplace, as far as who
will be marketing Canadian grain in the future. It has created
uncertainty within the farming community at a time when we certainly
don't need any more uncertainty than we have. We're already challenged
as far as farm incomes and many other issues go. We don't need an added
level of uncertainty.
There is no such thing as a dual market; a
dual market
does not exist. There is single desk, or there's a completely open
market system. There is no in-between.
Government needs to respect the farmers'
right to choose
the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The choice will not be simple.
We will have to consider all of the issues I've just mentioned and many
others besides.
Farmers must have the opportunity to make
their voices
known through a clear and neutral question on the future of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It's not only the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board; it's the future of the family farm in western Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Rolfe.
That draws the presentations to a close.
We'll move to the questioning round.
We have one bit of housekeeping. We have a
security guard
posted at that door. He'll keep everybody in until you change your
positions. No, that's not true. He's actually here to remind us that
the Mexican president-elect is using the hallway outside for some
protocol systems.
The door back there is accessible for us
to leave, if need
be, until about 12:20 or so. The coat rack has been moved around to
that side. Hopefully you'll get a better coat than you wore coming in.
So use that door if you have to leave in the meantime.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, we're really running behind
schedule. Can we limit the round to five minutes, rather than seven?
All right.
Mr. Easter, for five minutes, please.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's kind of ironic the Mexican president
is outside,
because if it were the president of Cuba, it would be more democratic
than this Prime Minister on this issue.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair:
It's your five minutes--
Hon. Wayne Easter:
That's right. But it's true.
The Chair:
—so time's burning.
Hon. Wayne Easter:
Mr. Van Tassel, my question's
really to you. You indicated your disappointment that there's not
enough time spent on farm income. And yes, we're disappointed too, but
we felt that we had no other choice but to make the Canadian Wheat
Board an urgent matter because of the way the government is moving on
the Canadian Wheat Board. They seem really intent on taking that
marketing institution, which empowers farmers against basically the
multinational grain trade, and undercutting that power. And they'll go
to any lengths to get their way.
We've seen the gag orders. We've seen the
changed voters list. And first is the Canadian Wheat Board.
You have single-desk selling in Quebec, as
well. If
they're willing to take away single-desk selling in western Canada,
there's no question in my mind that that's an object for undermining as
well, because if the economic powers that be out there want to
disadvantage farmers, then this government seems to be on their side
and not on the armers' side.
So my question, really, is on the farm
income side, given
the WTO and the new reality. And the new reality is that we're not
going to get an agreement; all policy is geared towards decoupling farm
income, really. What do we really have to do if farmers in Canada are
going to survive? In my own view, we have to match the Americans dollar
for dollar, whatever we have to do to do it, or our farmers aren't
going to survive on this side of the border, and the advantage will go
to them.
We had good presentations from the
Canadian Federation of
Agriculture in that regard, and I want to thank all witnesses for their
presentations today. But start with that question, because at the end
of the day, farm income is the bottom line. The Wheat Board helps in
maximizing returns back to producers. How does the Government of Canada
meet the Americans dollar for dollar?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
That's why we put out our presentation,
because we find
that the number one issue, if we want to have viability of the family
farm, is farm income.
What we're asking for in the short term is
a companion
program with the provincial flexibility to send it back to the grain
farmers where it's needed, so it can cost less to do more work. And in
the long term, we want to have a program that takes into account the
needs of the grains and oilseeds. As I was saying, we need to have a
certain flexibility, and like in Quebec, we could work with a certain
program. We believe it would cost a lot less to the federal government.
The way it would work is that of course we
would take into
account the costs to producers of the United States Farm Bill and also
of the European programs.
Hon. Wayne Easter:
This is really to the other three witnesses.
David, you outlined quite a number of
areas where there's
really a lot of potential risk should we lose the Canadian Wheat Board,
and you made the point, and this goes to all three of you, that there's
no such thing as a dual market. Individuals and government certainly
believe that there is. I certainly don't believe that there is. You
either have single-desk selling, or you have an open market. It's that
simple. But there are some who believe that you could actually take
away single-desk selling and that the wheat boards could survive. Do
any of the three of you really believe that?
Ms. Wendy Holm:
Absolutely not.
Mr. Stewart Wells:
I agree that the answer is no.
It's on the official record. If we look back in history to the central
selling agency, to the voluntary wheat boards that have gone before,
human nature being what it is, people will deliver to the board when
they see the price falling, and they will try to go outside the board
and sell to some other market when they see the price rising. And under
that scenario, it cannot be a viable operation.
When those agencies failed in the last
century, they were
spectacular bankruptcies. At the time, they were some of the largest
bankruptcies in this country, and farmers and all Canadians came
running to provincial and federal governments to clean up the mess.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
Mr. Van Tassel--
Ms. Wendy Holm:
Can I make just one supplementary
comment on that? It's sort of a reverse Wal-Mart scenario. You know,
large companies come in, and they drop the price to put out the
competitors. We have oligopolies here where companies can determine
where they're going to compete and where they aren't. They have a
common interest to try to draw product away from the Wheat Board in the
short term, and they can raise that price and starve the Wheat Board.
That's just what happens with concentrated sectors, and that's the
reason economists don't like them.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms. Holm.
Back to my point, Mr. Van Tassel, Mr.
Easter's talking
about the ultimate control and return of a single desk. If that is so,
why do we then have three in Canada? Instead of reinventing the wheel
in Quebec, why would you not just join the Canadian Wheat Board?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Well, I don't know how the laws of the Wheat
Board work; if it's the law for western Canada, but—
The Chair:
It is the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Yes, it could very well
be, but we looked at the way it was working there and how things work
in Quebec. It's a single desk, where it goes all through our.... We
don't really buy the grain; our organization sells it, but it belongs
to the farmers.
Why didn't we try to join the Wheat Board?
Well, heck, to tell you the truth, maybe Benoit could answer that.
Mr. Benoit Legault (Director General, Fédération
de producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec):
We haven't thought about it, like—
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Yes, probably it's more that.
Mr. Benoit Legault:
We know that it's impossible. The act says that
it's only a couple of provinces, but—
The Chair:
It actually designates any area that can be
added.
Thank you.
Mr. Bellavance, five minutes, please.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):
Mr.
Chairman, Quebec is a distinct society, even in the agricultural
sector, but that doesn't mean that it can't work, obviously.
Mr. Van Tassel, your comparison with the
priorities of the
government is interesting. One of the priorities or one of the
commitments of the Conservative government was to set up a mixed market
for Western producers. Another was to replace the farm income
stabilization program which has never been effective in your case
during the past five years. Whether under the previous government or
the new, you've never been able to collect the amounts provided by this
program.
Today, you've come up with concrete
solutions. Immediately
after my election, people from your organization came to see me. Why do
you think this government which claims to be new and to be acting for
you is concentrating all its efforts to making changes to the Canadian
Wheat Board while forgetting completely your situation?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
We're here to try to
change things and to convince the government that something has to be
done to ensure the security of farm incomes. In Quebec, CAIS provides
less for grain than supply management provides for milk, for example,
even though the need is very high. In fact, for decreasing reference
levels applicable to grain, CAIS doesn't work.
Provincial flexibility which allows to
target those sectors with higher need might be much less costly for the
government.
We're here today to tell you about the
urgent needs of our grain producers.
Mr. André Bellavance:
How many members are there in the
Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales in
Quebec?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
In Quebec, there are 11,000 grain producers. We
also work a lot with Ontario where there are about 28,000 producers.
Mr. André Bellavance:
Do these people have the right to vote?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Normally, yes.
Mr. André Bellavance:
You have used various means
to publicize your situation in my region, Trois-Rivières, and in
other
regions of Quebec. You have started to spill grain in the streets and
Jean-Yves has told me that you've also spilled grain in front of some
federal buildings.
After using those rather dramatic pressure
tactics, did
you get in touch with the government? You're at the end of the rope:
farmers are going bankrupt, some have to sell their equipment and land
and others can't even buy groceries. Did any member of the new
government try to get in touch with you to see how they could help?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
We've met with Mr. Strahl
after our first demonstration. Producers don't want to waste their
grain but they're at the end of the rope. It's a way for them to try to
call attention to their plight but it also demonstrates their despair.
We've met with Mr. Strahl, the Minister of Agriculture and
Agrifood.
We've explained our position but I don't think anything came of it.
Benoit may have more to say about this.
Mr. Benoit Legault:
For the time being, we don't
have any information allowing us to believe that a program would be set
up specifically for the grain sector. We continue hearing about a
general program for all producers, and that's been confirmed in the
press. That's what we were told at our last meeting.
The US Farm Bill is mainly aimed at the
grain sector
whereas in Canada we want to try and support the incomes of all
producers, which is a problem. There's something wrong in this strategy
which doesn't seem to change. We have the feeding that nothing moves.
Mr. André Bellavance:
Has the minister told you directly that he
won't do anything for you?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
No, that's not what he
said. At this time, this issue is not on the agenda of the federal and
provincial ministers' meeting of November 13 and 14.
Mr. André Bellavance:
The minister will be here
on October 31st. You can be sure that the Bloc Quebecois will more than
communicate your message, we will ask very specific questions about
this issue.
Over the past five years, 11,000 producers
in Quebec have
not had access to income support. How is the morale of your troops? How
do your people cope? If you're at the stage now where you're spilling
grain in the streets, it means that it's of no value to you anymore.
[English]
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Bellavance.
Short response.
[Translation]
Mr. William Van Tassel:
We see during our
meetings that the morale is very bad. At this time of year, farmers
should be getting their crops in. If they take the time to demonstrate
in the streets, it shows you that the problem is very serious.
Farm indebtedness has never been this high
and morale has never been this low.
[English]
The Chair:
Thank you, André.
Monsieur Gourde, five minutes, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Gourde
(Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC):
I have many questions and I would like to have
brief answers. They are for the panel from Quebec.
At this time in Quebec, there's a double
marketing system:
individual and collective. The marketing of wheat for human consumption
is collective whereas the marketing of other grains is individual.
Is that true?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
Yes. The regulation applies only to wheat.
Pooled marketing only applies to wheat.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
In other words, farmers can
sell all their other grains, whether it be corn, barley or whatever, to
any broker in Quebec or anywhere in the world?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
At this time, the regulation does not apply to
those grains.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
All right.
Have the producers chosen this method
through a vote
during an annual general meeting of the Fédération des
producteurs de
cultures commerciales du Quebec?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
Yes. There were consultations
during the annual meeting of the Federation, exclusively on wheat, and
then there was a referendum separate from the annual general meeting.
The referendum was held with all the wheat producers.
For the time being, producers have only
decided for wheat
and that's why this file has moved forward. As far as other grains are
concerned, the producers do not seem to want to have a collective
marketing system.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
All right.
I used to be a grain producer. Do you
think that the
Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du
Quebec gives
adequate protection to its farmers?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
Could you repeat your question?
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
Do you think that the
Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du
Quebec gives
adequate protection to its farmers?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Several hundred producers
attend the annual general meetings of the Federation. If they were not
well represented, I'm sure they would be very quickly out the door.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
As a previous member of the Federation, I may
tell that you do provide good representation to your members.
Do you believe that other grain producers'
organizations could do the same thing in the other provinces?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
The producers of the region
have to want to make that decision and to have the regulatory tools to
do so. Most of the provinces have passed legislation on the marketing
of farm products and can implement marketing regulations. In some
cases, they have limited power.
I know that Ontario has the power to do so
and that it has
used this power to bring changes to the wheat sector. Other provinces
could do the same according to their enabling legislation.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
My next question is for all the witnesses.
Quebec producers have a flexible and
effective tool: a
mixed marketing system. Couldn't the western provinces have the same
tool?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
Once the majority has decided
to take charge of the marketing of its product, the others can't do as
they wish anymore. Once the profession has taken a majority decision,
there's no flexibility anymore.
If I can make a link with the Canadian
Wheat Board, from
what I understand, it's only responsible for the marketing of wheat and
barley. The same thing could have been done with other grains but it
was decided to limit that to those two commodities.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
Is the Quebec system effective at this time?
Mr. Benoit Legault:
Yes, it's very effective. The
bargaining power of our producers has increased significantly. It's
never perfect and we have to deal with very powerful buyers that are
very concentrated, which means that we must improve our tools. Our
producers are convinced that those tools allow them to obtain fair
prices both for wheat and for other commodities, such as pork, as well
as good terms of sale.
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
Quebec producers are willing to accept change.
[English]
The Chair:
Mr. Gourde, Mr. Wells wanted in on that
response as well.
Mr. Stewart Wells:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I understand your question, or your
proposition, you're
sort of leading down the path of provincially run collective marketing
agencies on behalf of the producers, and what you're doing is starting
to go down that continuum of more and more and more sellers. Rather
than having only one seller, say, in the Wheat Board region, you might
have three or four if you include B.C. and Peace River. You'd have one
in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan, a different one in Alberta, a
different one in Peace River and B.C. So now you've split the market up
so you have four sellers all competing against one another instead of
only one.
I would suggest that probably the creators
of the Wheat
Board and the original farmers who pushed to have this thought about
that and recognized it wouldn't be as good as having one region in
western Canada.
The Chair:
Mr. Gourde, final point.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Gourde:
Since the creation of the
Canadian Wheat Board, in the thirties, volumes, needs and markets have
changed, as well as Canadian farming.
Should the Board make changes now in order
to improve the
incomes of Canadian producers, perhaps in establishing a more
appropriate marketing system for the various types of grains?
[English]
The Chair:
You wanted a point of clarification or...?
Mr. Stewart Wells:
No, I didn't know who the
question was to. But if I can respond, I don't actually think the
conditions have changed very much. We produce so much grain in western
Canada that most of it always has to be exported offshore. That was the
case in the early 1900s, in the 1920s. A lot of our production then
went to Great Britain, but it still went overseas. We're in the
position now where some 80% of that grain still has to be marketed
outside the country. That's a very big difference, say, between the
Quebec situation and the Ontario situation and the western Canadian
situation. We have to export so much of that grain.
I actually don't think conditions have
changed. Farmers
are still looking at four or five multinational grain companies that
control that business. That has not changed since 1900, since the Wheat
Board was invented.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Gourde.
Mr. Atamanenko, five minutes, please.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):
Thank you very much for being here.
One item that we haven't talked about a
lot in these
hearings is value-added processing. We touched upon it, and the
impression I think all of us are left with is that we need to have some
flexibility and we need to change our system in order to get better
value-added processing.
I'm going to throw some facts at you and
I'd like your comments. I'll try to be as brief as possible.
It's my understanding that the value-added
wheat and
barley processing in Canada has grown significantly. Over the past few
years, the domestic market has become our number one customer. In
2001-2002, approximately two out of every ten bushels of grain were
processed domestically, compared with one in ten a decade ago. Canadian
wheat and durum milling has increased 31%. In other words, the capacity
has grown from 7,700 tonnes per day to about 10,300 tonnes.
Milling & Baking News, an
internationally
respected publication, says that flour production among the leading
milling nations since 1990 shows that Canada's mills enjoyed the
sharpest increase of any country, including the EU, the U.S.,
Argentina, and Australia. About 32% of this milling takes place in
western Canada, in comparison to 15% in the western U.S.
Three new mills have been built in western
Canada in five
years alone. Per capita, wheat processing is greater in Canada than in
the U.S. There are new mills being planned and built, one in Chilliwack
that apparently has just started operation.
The picture I'm getting from reading this
information is
that the value-added industry is flourishing and that the Wheat Board
is not hindering the value-added industry. In fact, in comparison with
our competitors, we're doing very well.
I would like some clarification and your
opinion on this, if you would, please.
The Chair:
I believe we'll start with Mr. Rolfe.
Mr. David Rolfe:
Certainly there has been
additional processing growth in western Canada. However, I think one of
the limiting factors to the growth has not been the Canadian Wheat
Board but lack of an adequate trade deal at WTO for Canada to export
the processed products. There are a number of items that we could
certainly produce in Canada. However, we've never been able to manage
to negotiate a trade deal that will encourage our processing industry
to further add value.
Mr. Stewart Wells:
The information I've seen
presented at meetings is that there is more value added in the
grain-growing region in western Canada than in the midwestern United
States, for instance. Comparatively, value added is doing better there.
I will mention specific programs that the
Wheat Board
itself has put in place to encourage adding extra value in Canadian
enterprises. I haven't marketed any grain this year, but luckily I did
last year, so I may get a ballot in this year's Wheat Board elections.
My own grain gets a $3 a tonne premium,
because it is
actually milled in Canada, in Saskatchewan. That is a program the Wheat
Board put in place. It is a direct benefit to me, and it encourages
value-added.
As well, if the farmer is truly
interested, the Wheat
Board has a stock switching program that is unequalled in helping new
generation co-ops or other enterprises. What this stock switching
program means is that if I am farmer in the Peace River, I can buy a
share in a mill in southern Saskatchewan and not actually have to
deliver my own grain there. Local grain is purchased and used in that
mill, but with the paper transaction, it shows up as if it was my grain
going into that mill. This is a tremendous incentive for me to actually
purchase a share in that operation, whatever it might happen to be.
Ms. Wendy Holm:
I would concur with the other two speakers. In
the interest of time, I will pass it on to my colleagues from Quebec.
I would like to say that I've been
receiving letters from
producers suggesting that they want to see other grains included under
the Canadian Wheat Board. For example, the prices of pea crops and
canola are very low in comparison to what they feel they could get
under a regulated market.
The Chair:
Is there any response to that at all?
Mr. William Van Tassel:
Yes. For wheat, certainly
in Quebec, we try to have a certain quality for a value-added market.
We try to get as much as possible for the farmer.
Another thing is that we are near the
American boundary. I
know we are supposed to talk about the Wheat Board, but I am also
talking about income. We open an ethanol plant, but the farmer won't
get any more for the corn than is the distance from the boundary. The
buyer might just as well buy American corn. When you are farther away,
then you have the transportation charge to add. When you're next to an
American boundary, the farm bill really puts the prices down, even if
we do as much value-added as we want.
The Chair:
Stewart, did you have a final point?
Mr. Stewart Wells:
Yes, I have a tiny point in
response to the last question. The committee might want to invite the
Canadian National Millers Association to appear. They're probably
already on your list, but they would be good people to talk to on this
issue.
The Chair:
We'll make a note of that. Thank you.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your
presentations today. I am sorry for the rush. We are condensed on both
ends.
We do have another hour coming right up,
so I will have the next presenters come up as quickly as you can.
We will suspend the meeting at this point,
and we will get right back.