Without end
By Morris W. Dorosh
The Wheat Board monopoly controversy gets still more shrill
The Canadian Wheat Board, and especially the eight of its farmer-elected directors who are fanatic defenders of its
monopoly and regulatory powers, and even more especially its chairman Oberg, are no closer to accepting the reality
that removal of the monopoly is now as good as accomplished. Each week they are less restrained by facts and truths.
The Wheat Board wrote (it does not communicate in person, apparently) to agriminister Ritz with rough outlines of
19 different post-monopoly models, insisting that not one will work, or create the same alleged value as the existing
monopoly system. One of the plans would retain the monopoly on wheat for export, which of course is a non-starter.
Another would force grain handlers to give the Board guaranteed and preferred access to their storage and handling facilities,
at rates set by the Board or by a third party through arbitration, requiring them to give Board grain a higher priority
than their own.
Oberg said last week that the existing Wheat Board will disappear, to be replaced by a new and unrelated organization
which apparently will inherit the Wheat Board’s assets but not its liabilities. Oberg wanted to be “clear” that “this
is not a transition process”. Of course the Wheat Board was created in 1935 as a crown entity by an act of parliament
and only parliament can disband it. It is profoundly to be hoped that the legislation being prepared for the removal of
the monopoly does not officially wind up the Board. This would be politically stupid, would play into the hands of promonopoly
and pro-Board extremists, serve no useful purpose and destroy the Wheat Board brand before a voluntary
version could make use of it.
Oberg, who seems to be doing all the talking as if the other directors were gagged, not trusted to say the right thing,
said Ottawa “will have to” to pay shut-down costs amounting to “hundreds of millions” including, incredibly, penalties
for cancelled grain contracts if the Board closes down next year when it loses the buying and selling monopoly. For the
‘old’ Board to be unable to fulfill sales obligations, it is to say that in the waning days of the monopoly it would continue
to sell grain which it is not sure it would have or could get. This would generally be considered a deliberate act of
sabotage, if not fraud. The Board may have some long-term agreements, but they are not binding, inasmuch as they do
2 AGRIWEEK August 8 2011
not specify quantities, delivery dates or prices. Many were signed (including with China) as political photo-op publicity
stunts.
The Board, and for that matter everyone else, expects the federal government to assume costs of employee pensions
and severances, but directors and management had better be careful not to alter pension benefits or severance terms.
None of this is going in the required direction. When the monopoly ends, farmers who wish to use the Board’s services
should be able to do so according to procedures that are as identical as possible to those which exist under the
monopoly. Any farmers who believe strongly in the Board principle should be able to surrender voluntarily the same
commercial and property rights of which they are now deprived by the Wheat Board Act. The dual market is the outcome
supported by a clear majority of all farmers, short and tall, big and small.
AGRIWEEK (ISSN 0228-5584) is published for the exclusive use of subscribers by Century Publishing Co., Division of CANVESCO Inc., P.O. Box 444, Winnipeg, Canada R3C 2H6. Tel. (204) 943-
8861; FAX (204) 944-8033. Morris W. Dorosh, President & Publisher (mwdorosh@allstream.net)
Please visit www.agriweek.com for daily updates.
By Morris W. Dorosh
The Wheat Board monopoly controversy gets still more shrill
The Canadian Wheat Board, and especially the eight of its farmer-elected directors who are fanatic defenders of its
monopoly and regulatory powers, and even more especially its chairman Oberg, are no closer to accepting the reality
that removal of the monopoly is now as good as accomplished. Each week they are less restrained by facts and truths.
The Wheat Board wrote (it does not communicate in person, apparently) to agriminister Ritz with rough outlines of
19 different post-monopoly models, insisting that not one will work, or create the same alleged value as the existing
monopoly system. One of the plans would retain the monopoly on wheat for export, which of course is a non-starter.
Another would force grain handlers to give the Board guaranteed and preferred access to their storage and handling facilities,
at rates set by the Board or by a third party through arbitration, requiring them to give Board grain a higher priority
than their own.
Oberg said last week that the existing Wheat Board will disappear, to be replaced by a new and unrelated organization
which apparently will inherit the Wheat Board’s assets but not its liabilities. Oberg wanted to be “clear” that “this
is not a transition process”. Of course the Wheat Board was created in 1935 as a crown entity by an act of parliament
and only parliament can disband it. It is profoundly to be hoped that the legislation being prepared for the removal of
the monopoly does not officially wind up the Board. This would be politically stupid, would play into the hands of promonopoly
and pro-Board extremists, serve no useful purpose and destroy the Wheat Board brand before a voluntary
version could make use of it.
Oberg, who seems to be doing all the talking as if the other directors were gagged, not trusted to say the right thing,
said Ottawa “will have to” to pay shut-down costs amounting to “hundreds of millions” including, incredibly, penalties
for cancelled grain contracts if the Board closes down next year when it loses the buying and selling monopoly. For the
‘old’ Board to be unable to fulfill sales obligations, it is to say that in the waning days of the monopoly it would continue
to sell grain which it is not sure it would have or could get. This would generally be considered a deliberate act of
sabotage, if not fraud. The Board may have some long-term agreements, but they are not binding, inasmuch as they do
2 AGRIWEEK August 8 2011
not specify quantities, delivery dates or prices. Many were signed (including with China) as political photo-op publicity
stunts.
The Board, and for that matter everyone else, expects the federal government to assume costs of employee pensions
and severances, but directors and management had better be careful not to alter pension benefits or severance terms.
None of this is going in the required direction. When the monopoly ends, farmers who wish to use the Board’s services
should be able to do so according to procedures that are as identical as possible to those which exist under the
monopoly. Any farmers who believe strongly in the Board principle should be able to surrender voluntarily the same
commercial and property rights of which they are now deprived by the Wheat Board Act. The dual market is the outcome
supported by a clear majority of all farmers, short and tall, big and small.
AGRIWEEK (ISSN 0228-5584) is published for the exclusive use of subscribers by Century Publishing Co., Division of CANVESCO Inc., P.O. Box 444, Winnipeg, Canada R3C 2H6. Tel. (204) 943-
8861; FAX (204) 944-8033. Morris W. Dorosh, President & Publisher (mwdorosh@allstream.net)
Please visit www.agriweek.com for daily updates.