The opt-out bears looking at primarily because the Conservatives have already proposed it as a way for marketing choice. Even though it was only a private members bill, (BILL C-619), it can be presumed to have had support from the CPC and was likely crafted by Conservative lawyers.
The purpose is to provide marketing choice, and for those wanting out of the monopoly that is laudable. The general thrust appears to be that between Jan 1 and Apr 1 of each year, a producer may choose to opt out of sections 45 and 46 for a period of at least 2 years. They would get a licence which allows them to sell to elevators and presumably this licence allows the grain companies to export or sell domestically. However, there are some concerns with this approach which may make other options better.
1. Sections 45 & 46 are the only sections of Part IV of the Act, so it allows an opt-out of the national Part IV of the Act, something which eastern farmers have never had (nor needed). The grains and products grown in the designated area that have been arbitrarily allowed out of the CWB also have never had this special opt-out, but rather have received licences on demand. The opt-out clause along with the current licence issuing looks like it would create more jobs at the CWB. Not only that, but the costs of both will be paid for by the producers who do not opt-out.
2. Bill C-619 also states that in section 24, the operator of an elevator must accept deliveries of opt-out wheat and wheat products (therefore also barley and barley products). This is very strange, because section 24 is only about grain, and producers do not deliver flour or malt to elevators. Also, section 24 is in Part II of the Act and specifically states grain which is defined in the Act as including oats, flax, ****seed, rye and canola as well as wheat and barley.
Many will remember when there were quota’s placed on all of the grains. So if quotas are again imposed, a farmer can get some cash by hauling in a load of opt-out flour to the elevator! While it looks like the intention is that opt-out wheat or barley can go through the system, it appears sloppy and indicates a lack of understanding of how the CWB functions.
3. Choosing to make an opt-out to Part IV implies an endorsement of Part IV as integral to the operation of the CWB. It was added to the Act in 1947 to serve the purpose of government, not farmers. The stated purpose was to act as a tariff, an export and import tax so that the government could set a price inside Canada that was independent of world prices enabling them to fulfill a contract they had with England after the war. Canada’s prices are now the same as world prices, and the CWB has deceived farmers into believing Part IV is monopoly legislation.
With the opt-out, there is no monopoly. Part IV should be repealed, not entrenched and instead of an opt-out, there should be an opt-in.
4. The opt-out method is a change of the Act. This can certainly be done with a majority, but Parliament tends to work slowly, and monopoly and status quo supporters will fight and delay it in every possible way.
On the other hand, a simple regulation to issue licences immediately ends the monopoly, and with it gone, the opposition will have a vested interest to work with the government to assist in creating a viably functioning volunteer CWB. Part V of the CWB Act is even there to provide a model of voluntary pooling.
5. No Parliament can tie the hands of future Parliaments. Therefore to only make an exemption to the vile Part IV and leave it in, eases the way for future Parliaments to simply remove the opt-out exemption.
The purpose is to provide marketing choice, and for those wanting out of the monopoly that is laudable. The general thrust appears to be that between Jan 1 and Apr 1 of each year, a producer may choose to opt out of sections 45 and 46 for a period of at least 2 years. They would get a licence which allows them to sell to elevators and presumably this licence allows the grain companies to export or sell domestically. However, there are some concerns with this approach which may make other options better.
1. Sections 45 & 46 are the only sections of Part IV of the Act, so it allows an opt-out of the national Part IV of the Act, something which eastern farmers have never had (nor needed). The grains and products grown in the designated area that have been arbitrarily allowed out of the CWB also have never had this special opt-out, but rather have received licences on demand. The opt-out clause along with the current licence issuing looks like it would create more jobs at the CWB. Not only that, but the costs of both will be paid for by the producers who do not opt-out.
2. Bill C-619 also states that in section 24, the operator of an elevator must accept deliveries of opt-out wheat and wheat products (therefore also barley and barley products). This is very strange, because section 24 is only about grain, and producers do not deliver flour or malt to elevators. Also, section 24 is in Part II of the Act and specifically states grain which is defined in the Act as including oats, flax, ****seed, rye and canola as well as wheat and barley.
Many will remember when there were quota’s placed on all of the grains. So if quotas are again imposed, a farmer can get some cash by hauling in a load of opt-out flour to the elevator! While it looks like the intention is that opt-out wheat or barley can go through the system, it appears sloppy and indicates a lack of understanding of how the CWB functions.
3. Choosing to make an opt-out to Part IV implies an endorsement of Part IV as integral to the operation of the CWB. It was added to the Act in 1947 to serve the purpose of government, not farmers. The stated purpose was to act as a tariff, an export and import tax so that the government could set a price inside Canada that was independent of world prices enabling them to fulfill a contract they had with England after the war. Canada’s prices are now the same as world prices, and the CWB has deceived farmers into believing Part IV is monopoly legislation.
With the opt-out, there is no monopoly. Part IV should be repealed, not entrenched and instead of an opt-out, there should be an opt-in.
4. The opt-out method is a change of the Act. This can certainly be done with a majority, but Parliament tends to work slowly, and monopoly and status quo supporters will fight and delay it in every possible way.
On the other hand, a simple regulation to issue licences immediately ends the monopoly, and with it gone, the opposition will have a vested interest to work with the government to assist in creating a viably functioning volunteer CWB. Part V of the CWB Act is even there to provide a model of voluntary pooling.
5. No Parliament can tie the hands of future Parliaments. Therefore to only make an exemption to the vile Part IV and leave it in, eases the way for future Parliaments to simply remove the opt-out exemption.