<b>Wheat, barley freedom</b>
By: Editorial
Posted: 09/15/2011 1:00 AM
The Canadian Wheat Board says the principles of democracy, particularly the doctrine of majority rule, should determine the future of the board and whether it retains its monopoly on the sale of wheat and barley. As such, it recently held a plebiscite that it claims proves a majority of producers prefer the status quo.
Unfortunately, the non-binding vote by more than 60,000 farmers did not disclose that those who deliver most of the West's wheat and barley want freedom of choice. Some 18,000 farmers who hold permits to sell to the wheat board account for 80 per cent of production. Obviously, the plebiscite did not measure or account for the majority of farm production. If it had, the results would have been dramatically different.
Even the Canadian Wheat Board acknowledges young farmers and farmers with the largest amount of land tend to favour market choice, while the old and the small want everything to stay the same. Small, by the way, does not mean the family farm of the past, which is largely a hobby today. Farmers who make a full-time living from agriculture today are usually sitting on a minimum of 485 hectares of land, while the average is about 1,200 hectares.
There are other, more compelling reasons, however, for ending the monopoly.
The principle of majority rule makes sense on questions of which party forms a government or in the passage of laws. It is not an appropriate axiom for the world of commerce and trade, which need rules, to be sure, but which are stifled, frustrated and discouraged by laws that inhibit competition, rivalry and initiative.
The wheat board is a legacy of an earlier time when farmers needed help from the hand of government and not Adam Smith's famous invisible hand. Parliament created the wheat board in 1935 to control grain prices and help farmers during the Depression. The board served a useful purpose then and during the Second World War, but its powers were eventually reduced. It once handled a wide range of grains and held sway over interprovincial trade in feed grains, but its powers today are limited to control over export sales of wheat and barley, as well as sales to flour mills and pasta makers.
Over time, then, Adam Smith's invisible forces of competition and self-interest replaced the collectivist grasp. As times changed, some farmers understandably feared the future and grieved over a lost past, but others embraced the new era. They expanded, specialized and thrived.
Over the last 20 years, a growing number of grain growers have become disenchanted with the board's monopoly, mainly because they believe they can do better in the free market. Farmers are rarely rebellious, but some of them have been fined and even imprisoned for fighting for the right to sell their product in their own way.
In 1995, Andy McMechan went to jail for 155 days for trying to sell his barley for $6 a bushel in the United States while the Canadian Wheat Board was only offering $3 a bushel.
U.S. farmers are getting more money for their wheat and barley in the free market than Canadians, but it is an over-simplification to say every Western wheat grower would increase his or her profits without the wheat board. Other issues, particularly transportation and grain logistics, also play a role in net revenue.
The point, however, is they should have that right.
The wheat board claims it cannot survive in a competitive market, but the private grain companies disagree. They believe it could succeed as a farmer-owned pool that used the services of the private sector. In the end, it's up to farmers to decide with their deliveries if it's worth saving.
The wheat board is going to lose its monopoly. Instead of holding useless plebiscites and surveys, it should focus its efforts on helping its clients make the adjustment to the more robust demands of marketing that await them.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 15, 2011 A10
By: Editorial
Posted: 09/15/2011 1:00 AM
The Canadian Wheat Board says the principles of democracy, particularly the doctrine of majority rule, should determine the future of the board and whether it retains its monopoly on the sale of wheat and barley. As such, it recently held a plebiscite that it claims proves a majority of producers prefer the status quo.
Unfortunately, the non-binding vote by more than 60,000 farmers did not disclose that those who deliver most of the West's wheat and barley want freedom of choice. Some 18,000 farmers who hold permits to sell to the wheat board account for 80 per cent of production. Obviously, the plebiscite did not measure or account for the majority of farm production. If it had, the results would have been dramatically different.
Even the Canadian Wheat Board acknowledges young farmers and farmers with the largest amount of land tend to favour market choice, while the old and the small want everything to stay the same. Small, by the way, does not mean the family farm of the past, which is largely a hobby today. Farmers who make a full-time living from agriculture today are usually sitting on a minimum of 485 hectares of land, while the average is about 1,200 hectares.
There are other, more compelling reasons, however, for ending the monopoly.
The principle of majority rule makes sense on questions of which party forms a government or in the passage of laws. It is not an appropriate axiom for the world of commerce and trade, which need rules, to be sure, but which are stifled, frustrated and discouraged by laws that inhibit competition, rivalry and initiative.
The wheat board is a legacy of an earlier time when farmers needed help from the hand of government and not Adam Smith's famous invisible hand. Parliament created the wheat board in 1935 to control grain prices and help farmers during the Depression. The board served a useful purpose then and during the Second World War, but its powers were eventually reduced. It once handled a wide range of grains and held sway over interprovincial trade in feed grains, but its powers today are limited to control over export sales of wheat and barley, as well as sales to flour mills and pasta makers.
Over time, then, Adam Smith's invisible forces of competition and self-interest replaced the collectivist grasp. As times changed, some farmers understandably feared the future and grieved over a lost past, but others embraced the new era. They expanded, specialized and thrived.
Over the last 20 years, a growing number of grain growers have become disenchanted with the board's monopoly, mainly because they believe they can do better in the free market. Farmers are rarely rebellious, but some of them have been fined and even imprisoned for fighting for the right to sell their product in their own way.
In 1995, Andy McMechan went to jail for 155 days for trying to sell his barley for $6 a bushel in the United States while the Canadian Wheat Board was only offering $3 a bushel.
U.S. farmers are getting more money for their wheat and barley in the free market than Canadians, but it is an over-simplification to say every Western wheat grower would increase his or her profits without the wheat board. Other issues, particularly transportation and grain logistics, also play a role in net revenue.
The point, however, is they should have that right.
The wheat board claims it cannot survive in a competitive market, but the private grain companies disagree. They believe it could succeed as a farmer-owned pool that used the services of the private sector. In the end, it's up to farmers to decide with their deliveries if it's worth saving.
The wheat board is going to lose its monopoly. Instead of holding useless plebiscites and surveys, it should focus its efforts on helping its clients make the adjustment to the more robust demands of marketing that await them.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 15, 2011 A10
Comment