Listen to the farmers, Mr. Ritz
By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post September 17, 2011
"Well, farmers have spoken," said (Agriculture Minister Gerry) Ritz, adding the results seem to indicate farmers want the single desk to be maintained. "We recognize that, at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for and we'll certainly work to make sure that the board delivers for them in the best way possible," Ritz said. (Leader-Post, Jan. 10, 2009.)
"Let me repeat - regardless of the plebiscite results - at the end of the day, every farmer will have the right to choose how they market their grain. No expensive survey can trump the individual right of farmers to market their own grain." (Statement from Minister Ritz's office, Sept. 9, 2011.)
My, what a difference a couple of years and a couple of percentage points in the popular vote can make!
Back in January 2009, a chastened Gerry Ritz told a Yorkton radio station that the then-minority Conservative government would listen to farmers, who had just voted decisively in favour of single-desk candidates in four of the five elections for Canadian Wheat Board director positions.
Ritz added that, in light of the director election results, the Harper government would shelve plans to introduce legislation to remove the CWB's single desk authority over export sales of Western wheat and barley.
But, the day after the May 2, 2011 election and emboldened by the Conservative majority victory, Ritz was in no mood to be conciliatory. He told reporters it was fullspeed ahead for the legislation to remove the single desk by Aug. 1, 2012, adding that the federal election was all the plebiscite he needed.
Now that the majority of farmers have spoken, yet again, in favour of the single desk, Ritz said the CWB plebiscite results are "inconsequential'' and can be safely ignored by the federal government, which is determined to give Western Canadian farmers "marketing freedom,''
whether they want it or not.
What happened to the guy who said: "Farmers have spoken?"
Of course, some farm groups charged that the CWB plebiscite itself was "illegitimate,'' "phoney,'' and a "bogus exercise,'' because some producers allegedly received more than one ballot, while others got none, there were more ballots (66,000) than active producers and that anti-single desk supporters were effectively disenfranchised by the "cumbersome'' process of registering to vote.
Without conceding the veracity of these claims, let's admit that no election process is flawless and there will be problems and issues with any vote. Does the phrase, 'dangling chads,' ring a bell?
While the CWB plebiscite may not have been perfect, it was certainly better than the alternative offer from the Harper government, which is to say nothing.
Considering the obstacles faced by the CWB in holding the plebiscite, including a boycott by some farm groups, and indifference, even open hostility, from the federal government, the vote was conducted as professionally and independently (by MNP, the same company that runs the CWB director elections) as could be expected.
And the results (62 per cent of wheat producers and 51 per cent of barley producers in favour of the single desk) were not unexpected by the either the CWB or the Harper government. (Ritz admitted as much prior to the results being announced).
In fact, the plebiscite results were remarkably similar to a poll of more than 600 Saskatchewan producers conducted by the Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food in January 2007, which indicated that 58 per cent of respondents (61 per cent of wheat producers and 53 per cent of barley producers polled) favoured the continuation of the single desk.
So the onus is on those who are saying the plebiscite results are irrelevant, illegitimate or undemocratic to show any polling data, opinion surveys or other information they may have that contradict the CWB plebiscite results. In other words, put up or shut up.
Failing that, the logical - and only - conclusion one can make is that the majority of Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers support the single desk.
In light of that, why is the federal government ignoring the wishes of the majority of producers, trampling on their rights and breaking its own laws, which require a plebiscite before making any major changes to the single desk?
By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post September 17, 2011
"Well, farmers have spoken," said (Agriculture Minister Gerry) Ritz, adding the results seem to indicate farmers want the single desk to be maintained. "We recognize that, at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for and we'll certainly work to make sure that the board delivers for them in the best way possible," Ritz said. (Leader-Post, Jan. 10, 2009.)
"Let me repeat - regardless of the plebiscite results - at the end of the day, every farmer will have the right to choose how they market their grain. No expensive survey can trump the individual right of farmers to market their own grain." (Statement from Minister Ritz's office, Sept. 9, 2011.)
My, what a difference a couple of years and a couple of percentage points in the popular vote can make!
Back in January 2009, a chastened Gerry Ritz told a Yorkton radio station that the then-minority Conservative government would listen to farmers, who had just voted decisively in favour of single-desk candidates in four of the five elections for Canadian Wheat Board director positions.
Ritz added that, in light of the director election results, the Harper government would shelve plans to introduce legislation to remove the CWB's single desk authority over export sales of Western wheat and barley.
But, the day after the May 2, 2011 election and emboldened by the Conservative majority victory, Ritz was in no mood to be conciliatory. He told reporters it was fullspeed ahead for the legislation to remove the single desk by Aug. 1, 2012, adding that the federal election was all the plebiscite he needed.
Now that the majority of farmers have spoken, yet again, in favour of the single desk, Ritz said the CWB plebiscite results are "inconsequential'' and can be safely ignored by the federal government, which is determined to give Western Canadian farmers "marketing freedom,''
whether they want it or not.
What happened to the guy who said: "Farmers have spoken?"
Of course, some farm groups charged that the CWB plebiscite itself was "illegitimate,'' "phoney,'' and a "bogus exercise,'' because some producers allegedly received more than one ballot, while others got none, there were more ballots (66,000) than active producers and that anti-single desk supporters were effectively disenfranchised by the "cumbersome'' process of registering to vote.
Without conceding the veracity of these claims, let's admit that no election process is flawless and there will be problems and issues with any vote. Does the phrase, 'dangling chads,' ring a bell?
While the CWB plebiscite may not have been perfect, it was certainly better than the alternative offer from the Harper government, which is to say nothing.
Considering the obstacles faced by the CWB in holding the plebiscite, including a boycott by some farm groups, and indifference, even open hostility, from the federal government, the vote was conducted as professionally and independently (by MNP, the same company that runs the CWB director elections) as could be expected.
And the results (62 per cent of wheat producers and 51 per cent of barley producers in favour of the single desk) were not unexpected by the either the CWB or the Harper government. (Ritz admitted as much prior to the results being announced).
In fact, the plebiscite results were remarkably similar to a poll of more than 600 Saskatchewan producers conducted by the Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food in January 2007, which indicated that 58 per cent of respondents (61 per cent of wheat producers and 53 per cent of barley producers polled) favoured the continuation of the single desk.
So the onus is on those who are saying the plebiscite results are irrelevant, illegitimate or undemocratic to show any polling data, opinion surveys or other information they may have that contradict the CWB plebiscite results. In other words, put up or shut up.
Failing that, the logical - and only - conclusion one can make is that the majority of Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers support the single desk.
In light of that, why is the federal government ignoring the wishes of the majority of producers, trampling on their rights and breaking its own laws, which require a plebiscite before making any major changes to the single desk?
Comment