FROM AGRIWEEK FEB 4/08:
he outcome of the Ottawa pow-wow last week of people with a stake in the western barley market was not expected to produce an instant solution to an issue that has been festering for a generation. But the equivocal statements of agriminister Ritz after the meeting and on other recent occasions will not cheer up many monopoly opponents.
The minister has given the Board the gentlest kind of ultimatum: sort of like “help me out with this, or I will have take measures.” The Board will probably respond that it is offering all the marketing choice, flexibility and options that anyone could possibly want in its zoony CashPlus program for malting barley, and that it did so on its own and without any urging from the minister. Furthermore, it is likely to say that standing legislation does not permit it to do other than what it is doing.
There is definitely the rotten smell of compromise in the air. Though the directors will be the last to admit it, they must realize that a threat does exist to their statehood. All that saves it for the moment is the Harper government’s lack of a majority such as would allow it to pass legislation freely. If the 2006 election had turned out a little differently the monopoly would be gone by now. The directors must understand that there is still every possibility that Canadian Wheat Board Act amendments could be passed even in the minority situation. The Board’s opinion polls, the latest of which is either underway or just finished, are said to be showing declining farmer support. Not just weariness of all this conflict: the Board’s 2007-08 prices lag surging free outside wheat and barley markets by yawning margins.
So the directors would probably agree to an arrangement allowing individuals and grain companies to export barley to the U.S. by providing export permits automatically at no charge. It might even cede the domestic non-feed market. It would keep the offshore monopoly. It would expect a guarantee that the government will stop the offensive to eliminate the wheat single-desk. There would be no change in regulations or legislation and the Board would have the right to re-impose monopoly control either on a certain future date if not extended, or at any time it chooses perhaps with one-year notice.
If the minister and the government accept such a preposterous proposition he and it will have been taken in like the morning milk. The matter of the moment is barley, and the Board has addressed only the fraction represented by the domestic malt trade. This is 7.5% of the Board’s business. The real issue is wheat and barley and whatever percentage of business it cannot attract on a voluntary dual-market basis.
Until and unless the government carries out its election promise to eliminate the monopoly and allow a dual market, the Wheat Board will have fought the Government of Canada to a draw. A situation exists in which the government has no control over a government entity and creation, for whose financial integrity Canadian taxpayers are responsible. Parallels are hard to think of, but it is might be like a case in which the Canadian Revenue Agency were to write and enforce its own tax rules claiming some loophole in the law with the government unable to close it.
Supporters of the Board and its monopoly system are fond of citing democracy issues. They say the Board is run democratically by elected directors and that the government is acting undemocratically by attempting to change the rules. If the government had not conducted a vote of barley growers a year ago they would have said that farmers’ wishes were not discovered; since a vote was held and showed clear majority support for at least a dual market, they say the vote was improperly done and results are invalid. Don’t tell me the anti-choice crowd would accept amendments to the Wheat Board Act if passed by parliament.
The democracy issue here is actually the ability of an elected government to make laws and carry out its policies. Parliamentary practice necessarily limits what a minority government can do, but to contend that a duly-elected government does not have the right to act legislatively is ludicrous. The concept that previous legislation can impose conditions limiting the authority of future governments is completely ridiculous. If a government cannot change legislation, democracy is lost. It is a wonder that through the whole sordid episode it has not occurred to someone in the government to submit the Canadian Wheat Board Act to a constitutional review.
Former agriminister Chuck Strahl was considered even by some monopoly opponents as too rough with the Board, but it turns out he was not rough enough. The directors of the Wheat Board continue to act as if it is a sovereign independent state. Enough already.
he outcome of the Ottawa pow-wow last week of people with a stake in the western barley market was not expected to produce an instant solution to an issue that has been festering for a generation. But the equivocal statements of agriminister Ritz after the meeting and on other recent occasions will not cheer up many monopoly opponents.
The minister has given the Board the gentlest kind of ultimatum: sort of like “help me out with this, or I will have take measures.” The Board will probably respond that it is offering all the marketing choice, flexibility and options that anyone could possibly want in its zoony CashPlus program for malting barley, and that it did so on its own and without any urging from the minister. Furthermore, it is likely to say that standing legislation does not permit it to do other than what it is doing.
There is definitely the rotten smell of compromise in the air. Though the directors will be the last to admit it, they must realize that a threat does exist to their statehood. All that saves it for the moment is the Harper government’s lack of a majority such as would allow it to pass legislation freely. If the 2006 election had turned out a little differently the monopoly would be gone by now. The directors must understand that there is still every possibility that Canadian Wheat Board Act amendments could be passed even in the minority situation. The Board’s opinion polls, the latest of which is either underway or just finished, are said to be showing declining farmer support. Not just weariness of all this conflict: the Board’s 2007-08 prices lag surging free outside wheat and barley markets by yawning margins.
So the directors would probably agree to an arrangement allowing individuals and grain companies to export barley to the U.S. by providing export permits automatically at no charge. It might even cede the domestic non-feed market. It would keep the offshore monopoly. It would expect a guarantee that the government will stop the offensive to eliminate the wheat single-desk. There would be no change in regulations or legislation and the Board would have the right to re-impose monopoly control either on a certain future date if not extended, or at any time it chooses perhaps with one-year notice.
If the minister and the government accept such a preposterous proposition he and it will have been taken in like the morning milk. The matter of the moment is barley, and the Board has addressed only the fraction represented by the domestic malt trade. This is 7.5% of the Board’s business. The real issue is wheat and barley and whatever percentage of business it cannot attract on a voluntary dual-market basis.
Until and unless the government carries out its election promise to eliminate the monopoly and allow a dual market, the Wheat Board will have fought the Government of Canada to a draw. A situation exists in which the government has no control over a government entity and creation, for whose financial integrity Canadian taxpayers are responsible. Parallels are hard to think of, but it is might be like a case in which the Canadian Revenue Agency were to write and enforce its own tax rules claiming some loophole in the law with the government unable to close it.
Supporters of the Board and its monopoly system are fond of citing democracy issues. They say the Board is run democratically by elected directors and that the government is acting undemocratically by attempting to change the rules. If the government had not conducted a vote of barley growers a year ago they would have said that farmers’ wishes were not discovered; since a vote was held and showed clear majority support for at least a dual market, they say the vote was improperly done and results are invalid. Don’t tell me the anti-choice crowd would accept amendments to the Wheat Board Act if passed by parliament.
The democracy issue here is actually the ability of an elected government to make laws and carry out its policies. Parliamentary practice necessarily limits what a minority government can do, but to contend that a duly-elected government does not have the right to act legislatively is ludicrous. The concept that previous legislation can impose conditions limiting the authority of future governments is completely ridiculous. If a government cannot change legislation, democracy is lost. It is a wonder that through the whole sordid episode it has not occurred to someone in the government to submit the Canadian Wheat Board Act to a constitutional review.
Former agriminister Chuck Strahl was considered even by some monopoly opponents as too rough with the Board, but it turns out he was not rough enough. The directors of the Wheat Board continue to act as if it is a sovereign independent state. Enough already.
Comment