Good ship Lollipop
Why isn’t agriminister Ritz doing his duty?
It took just hours before the bizarre scheme of the Canadian Wheat Board directors to buy two lake ships for $65 million of farmers’ money came to the attention of the House of Commons. Agriminister Ritz criticized the decision but gave no indication that he would overrule it. He correctly said it was “an irresponsible scheme that puts farmers’ money at risk”, and added that he has “con-stantly told the Wheat Board that farmers’ money in the pool accounts is off limits.” The minister has clearly recognized his duty but is not carrying it out. Wheat Board chairman Oberg sneered that Ritz’s comments were “uninformed”, adding that “Minister Ritz can say what he wants.”
The Board posted ‘information’ on its web site about the ‘business case’ for buying the ships, but it simply re-stated what it previously said to justify the decision.
The main western grain organizations are furious, as are farmers who post blog comments. Only the Grain Growers of Canada picked up on the outrageous falsehood of the Board’s claim that farmers will be the owners of the ships (inasmuch as they are not owners of the Wheat Board), a point that should be much more stressed by the monopoly system’s opponents. The GGC said it is a good time to re-assess the future structure of the Board, possibly morphing it into a farmer-owned co-op.
Those few who supported the decision did so with skimpy arguments, comparing the purchase of ships with spending on new computers. Computers are vital to the Board’s core functions while ships are not even peripheral.
An issue also arose over whether farmers should have been consulted beforehand, possibly by means of an opinion poll. This the present directors would not dream of. They think that under the representative system which elected them they are empowered to make any decision. If farmers have elected directors that are capable of such irresponsibility, they are in the same position as voters in general, who usually get the government they deserve. Others said the financial entanglement was designed to make the Board harder to disband. This is a chimera because given the $4 billion or so of Board finances backstopped by the federal treasury. selling a couple of slightly-used ships is a small matter.
In time this may prove to be the Board’s unravelling. Directors who have so little understanding of what farmers want and will tolerate will run it into the ground unless it is rescued by dual-market legislation.
Why isn’t agriminister Ritz doing his duty?
It took just hours before the bizarre scheme of the Canadian Wheat Board directors to buy two lake ships for $65 million of farmers’ money came to the attention of the House of Commons. Agriminister Ritz criticized the decision but gave no indication that he would overrule it. He correctly said it was “an irresponsible scheme that puts farmers’ money at risk”, and added that he has “con-stantly told the Wheat Board that farmers’ money in the pool accounts is off limits.” The minister has clearly recognized his duty but is not carrying it out. Wheat Board chairman Oberg sneered that Ritz’s comments were “uninformed”, adding that “Minister Ritz can say what he wants.”
The Board posted ‘information’ on its web site about the ‘business case’ for buying the ships, but it simply re-stated what it previously said to justify the decision.
The main western grain organizations are furious, as are farmers who post blog comments. Only the Grain Growers of Canada picked up on the outrageous falsehood of the Board’s claim that farmers will be the owners of the ships (inasmuch as they are not owners of the Wheat Board), a point that should be much more stressed by the monopoly system’s opponents. The GGC said it is a good time to re-assess the future structure of the Board, possibly morphing it into a farmer-owned co-op.
Those few who supported the decision did so with skimpy arguments, comparing the purchase of ships with spending on new computers. Computers are vital to the Board’s core functions while ships are not even peripheral.
An issue also arose over whether farmers should have been consulted beforehand, possibly by means of an opinion poll. This the present directors would not dream of. They think that under the representative system which elected them they are empowered to make any decision. If farmers have elected directors that are capable of such irresponsibility, they are in the same position as voters in general, who usually get the government they deserve. Others said the financial entanglement was designed to make the Board harder to disband. This is a chimera because given the $4 billion or so of Board finances backstopped by the federal treasury. selling a couple of slightly-used ships is a small matter.
In time this may prove to be the Board’s unravelling. Directors who have so little understanding of what farmers want and will tolerate will run it into the ground unless it is rescued by dual-market legislation.
Comment