I just submitted the following to many, many papers in Western Canada. In case it doesn't get picked up, I'm putting it here as well.
Cheers,
John
The Canadian Wheat Board and personal property
The debate about the CWB single desk has seen many arguments; "the CWB puts more money in farmers pockets" (with no proof whatsoever); "the law requires a vote" (only if you’re going to change the Act - not if you’re going to rescind the Act); "what's Ritz afraid of" (a not so adult version of calling “chicken!”); "it’s a farmer’s democratic right to vote (which means even if you disagree, you have to do it our way); “Winnipeg will lose jobs” (it should be noted that when the single desk was put in place in 1943, they estimate 500 jobs in Winnipeg were lost – a huge blow to a city of its size at that time).
When the CWB announced it was going to conduct its own plebiscite, the arguments pointed toward the voters list and the questions to be asked. When Minister Ritz explained that the CWB’s plebiscite would be irrelevant, the futility of the exercise sunk in causing many to start to think about the issue of voting on personal property. Thankfully, the argument is now firmly on whether there should be any kind of vote at all. In my view, if you’re going to debate the CWB issue at all, rather than work at the transition, this is exactly where the debate should be.
I've been searching for just the right way to explain the issue so even urbanites can understand. I haven't found it but many others have.
I liked the way Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud put it in a recent press release:
"Saskatchewan farmers spend their own hard-earned money on land, machinery and inputs to grow their own crops, so why shouldn't they have the marketing freedom to decide how, when, and to whom they sell their grain?"
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has been very succinct in presenting his position:
"Every single farmer must have a choice in how they market their grain and no expensive survey should trump that right."
I've looked for a good analogy for the idea that what a person does with his personal property should not be decided by a vote. Blair Rutter, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association came up with the best one yet. In a letter to Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mia Rabson, Mr. Rutter wrote:
"…is there any property you own that requires the consent of your neighbours in order for you to sell it? Are you not free to offer your property for sale to anyone you choose at a time and price of your choosing? Would you not agree that farmers deserve the same freedom?”
Exactly. Compare the CWB, making dollar-decisions on behalf of farmers, to a mutual fund manager, making dollar-decisions for investors. I think most people would not want the decision of which mutual fund manager to employ to be left up to others. It’s a personal decision regarding personal property. Choosing who makes dollar-decisions on grain marketing fits in this category.
These are all good points but my favourite comment regarding who should decide came out of the Prince Albert Daily Herald, authored by "Herald Staff":
"...the repeated point — made by those who want to keep the board as it is — that a majority of farmers have voted for the status quo, shows nothing but disregard for other farmers.
It doesn't matter if a plebiscite on the matter showed a slight majority or a massive majority in favour of the status quo — this isn't politics, it's business.”
Single Desk supporters argue that it’s a farmer’s democratic right to a vote on this. Really? Having someone else decide for you how you will sell your property and to whom, sounds more autocratic than democratic.
On this I'll give the last word to Charlie Mayer, past Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who once said to me, "There's nothing more democratic than the market."
wilagro, agstar77, prairiefire - anyone:
can you please help out and explain your argument that you should be able to decide for others? If I'm wrong, please explain.
Cheers,
John
The Canadian Wheat Board and personal property
The debate about the CWB single desk has seen many arguments; "the CWB puts more money in farmers pockets" (with no proof whatsoever); "the law requires a vote" (only if you’re going to change the Act - not if you’re going to rescind the Act); "what's Ritz afraid of" (a not so adult version of calling “chicken!”); "it’s a farmer’s democratic right to vote (which means even if you disagree, you have to do it our way); “Winnipeg will lose jobs” (it should be noted that when the single desk was put in place in 1943, they estimate 500 jobs in Winnipeg were lost – a huge blow to a city of its size at that time).
When the CWB announced it was going to conduct its own plebiscite, the arguments pointed toward the voters list and the questions to be asked. When Minister Ritz explained that the CWB’s plebiscite would be irrelevant, the futility of the exercise sunk in causing many to start to think about the issue of voting on personal property. Thankfully, the argument is now firmly on whether there should be any kind of vote at all. In my view, if you’re going to debate the CWB issue at all, rather than work at the transition, this is exactly where the debate should be.
I've been searching for just the right way to explain the issue so even urbanites can understand. I haven't found it but many others have.
I liked the way Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud put it in a recent press release:
"Saskatchewan farmers spend their own hard-earned money on land, machinery and inputs to grow their own crops, so why shouldn't they have the marketing freedom to decide how, when, and to whom they sell their grain?"
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has been very succinct in presenting his position:
"Every single farmer must have a choice in how they market their grain and no expensive survey should trump that right."
I've looked for a good analogy for the idea that what a person does with his personal property should not be decided by a vote. Blair Rutter, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association came up with the best one yet. In a letter to Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mia Rabson, Mr. Rutter wrote:
"…is there any property you own that requires the consent of your neighbours in order for you to sell it? Are you not free to offer your property for sale to anyone you choose at a time and price of your choosing? Would you not agree that farmers deserve the same freedom?”
Exactly. Compare the CWB, making dollar-decisions on behalf of farmers, to a mutual fund manager, making dollar-decisions for investors. I think most people would not want the decision of which mutual fund manager to employ to be left up to others. It’s a personal decision regarding personal property. Choosing who makes dollar-decisions on grain marketing fits in this category.
These are all good points but my favourite comment regarding who should decide came out of the Prince Albert Daily Herald, authored by "Herald Staff":
"...the repeated point — made by those who want to keep the board as it is — that a majority of farmers have voted for the status quo, shows nothing but disregard for other farmers.
It doesn't matter if a plebiscite on the matter showed a slight majority or a massive majority in favour of the status quo — this isn't politics, it's business.”
Single Desk supporters argue that it’s a farmer’s democratic right to a vote on this. Really? Having someone else decide for you how you will sell your property and to whom, sounds more autocratic than democratic.
On this I'll give the last word to Charlie Mayer, past Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who once said to me, "There's nothing more democratic than the market."
wilagro, agstar77, prairiefire - anyone:
can you please help out and explain your argument that you should be able to decide for others? If I'm wrong, please explain.
Comment