Media Gleanings

[parsley]

Wheat Board calls kettle black; Defenders of the monopoly denounce farmers plebiscite as 'undemocratic'

Edmonton Journal
Fri 30 Mar 2007

Lorne Gunter

Wednesday, the federal government announced that an overwhelming 62.2 per cent of Western barley farmers want the right to choose to whom they may sell their grain -- the Canadian Wheat Board or private grain buyers. Just 37.8 per cent want the board to maintain its current monopoly over barley for human consumption and export.

The results are all the more remarkable given what the wheat board, its defenders and federal opposition parties have done during the last six months to scare-monger farmers into keeping the monopoly alive.

Farmers were given three options on their ballots: Retain "single-desk marketing" (the current monopoly), move to dual marketing in which producers may sell either to the board or private companies, or do away with the board altogether.

The board's supporters first complained the government had no right to hold a plebiscite at all. Two-thirds of the board's 15 directors are elected by farmers. So, supporters insisted, there was no need for a vote.

In a bizarre twist of logic, some supporters even charged the plebiscite was undemocratic. (Holding a vote was undemocratic, not holding it democratic. Go figure.)

The board and its fans then complained when the government announced it would ask producers a three-pronged question. Wayne Easter, a Liberal MP and former minister of agriculture, charged that the question was "deliberately misleading" and the plebiscite "a fraud being perpetrated on farmers."

What Easter and others neglected to mention is that the board itself has for years asked farmers the same sort of three-option question about marketing in its annual producer survey.

In its 2006 producer survey, the board found that 65 per cent of producers wanted either dual marketing or no wheat board at all, while just 29 per cent wanted the monopolistic status quo. Yet somehow, neither Easter nor the board's defenders saw these results as deceiving or fraudulent.

Also, during the just-concluded plebiscite, the federal government ordered the board not to take sides, to let farmers decide for themselves what marketing methods they wanted. Nonetheless, the board disregarded these instructions and threatened farmers that if they voted for dual marketing that would be the same as voting to disband the board. If it lost its monopoly over all barley sales and exports, the board warned, it would (like a petulant child) refuse to participate in a competitive barley market. Either vote to give us all your grain or lose the option of marketing through us entirely. Still, nearly two-thirds of Prairie barley growers chose market freedom over monopoly.

Interestingly, when conducting its own producer surveys, the board included the dual-market option, implying that it would continue to market barley even in an open environment. Indeed, when Ottawa briefly permitted a dual market for barley in the early 1990s, the board continued to market barley and competed to get farmers to sell it their grain rather than to private buyers.

But this time, the instant there was a real chance farmers might demand market choice again, and a real possibility a new government might give it to them, the board suddenly began to insist dual marketing was impossible. Talk about trying to manipulate the vote.

Also, in order to foster the illusion that market choice was impossible, the monopoly's supporters misrepresented the recommendations of the Conservative government's own task force on dual marketing. Many said Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl's fact-finding committee had determined dual marketing was impossible; opt for choice and farmers could kiss goodbye the idea of pooling their crops with the board to market en masse.

Rather, what the task force said was that some producers somehow thought dual marketing meant the board would retain its monopoly while farmers would still be free to choose. The task force concluded it would be better to call the option "marketing choice," but that in an open barley market the board would still be "a vigorous participant through which producers could voluntarily choose to market their grain."

In a further attempt to distort the outcome of the Conservatives' efforts to give farmers more options, back in December opposition MPs on the House of Commons standing committee on agriculture used their majority to block witnesses who favoured an open barley market. Wheat board directors opposed to ending the monopoly were permitted to give testimony, while directors in favour of the move where denied a chance to appear.

Yet despite all the game playing, misinformation and scare tactics, barley producers still voted decisively to free themselves from the wheat board's collectivist yoke.

So what has been the board's reaction? A threat to sue the federal government to prevent it from implementing the results of the vote.

The curious thing about that move is that all along the board has insisted it is the true voice of farmers. As the farmers' elected representatives, the directors maintain, they are operating according to producers' wishes. Yet now that we clearly know what producers want, the board is contemplating going to court to save itself from having to comply.

Yeah. And the Conservatives are the ones they call undemocratic.

[just_wondering]

In a news release, National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells, says that even with the full weight of the Harper government and a "hideously-flawed" plebiscite, the Conservatives could not get the plebiscite result they were looking for. "I'm not surprised at the outcome because when you ask a misleading question, you will get a misleading result. The news release also contains a list of 9 reasons why the plebiscite process was flawed.

The Conservative government does not have the mandate to dismantle the CWB after "concocting" the results of the barley plebiscite in the government's favour, Liberal MPs Ralph Goodale, Wayne Easter and Anita Neville said in a news release. "What the government has done is combine the results of two of the questions in order to produce the outcome it wants - that is, the end of the CWB. You cannot ask a three-part question and then report the results as if there were only two," said Mr. Goodale.

In a news release, Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture critic, says Minister Strahl cannot interpret the results of the barley plebiscite to mean the majority of farmers want barley removed from the CWB's single desk authority.

Minister Strahl must set aside the results of his barley plebiscite and instead commit to holding a vote that is fair to producers and will yield a clear result on the future of the CWB, Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk said in a news release. (CJOB-AM-Winnipeg)

Saskatchewan's Agriculture Minister Mark Wartman said in a news release that his federal counterpart has no mandate to change the CWB. Mr. Wartman said Minister Strahl was repeatedly warned about the need for clarity in the plebiscite on barley marketing, but refused to listen. "We told Minister Strahl that there would be problems with the results if he followed the process that he did," Mr. Wartman said.

The Conservative government's "bulldozing" of the CWB will have a devastating impact on Manitoba where the CWB is headquartered, Members of the Manitoba Liberal Caucus Anita Neville, Tina Keeper and Raymond Simard said in a news release. "If the CWB is dismantled, we will see job losses and a negative economic impact on the province," said Winnipeg South Centre MP Anita Neville.

[parsley]

Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Keep working you farmer drones......

Parsley

[Fransisco]

<b>Voting out a monopolist</b>

Colby Cosh
National Post


Friday, March 30, 2007

It is fascinating to watch the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and its supporters try to squirm around the results of the agriculture department's barley plebiscite, whose results were announced Wednesday. The Harper government now has a formal mandate to liberate Western barley growers from the CWB's antiquated export monopoly, if it even needed one; as CWB chairman Ken Ritter admitted glumly after the announcement, "The results of the barley plebiscite? are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings."

Thirty-eight percent of Western growers voted in favour of retaining the traditional single desk, 48% wanted the ability to choose between sticking with the CWB or marketing their crop themselves and 14% voted for the complete abolition of board marketing. Although the CWB opposed giving farmers three ballot choices, on the premise that dual marketing is impossible, the latter figure by itself is enough to establish the moral case for eliminating the board's control of every grain of Western barley. A civilized country does not give an institution total economic power over the one in seven who opposes that institution, even if there are benefits to the other six.

But on Wednesday the Liberals trotted out Ralph Goodale and a few other surviving prairie Grits to denounce the results of the balloting, calling them "concocted" -- a term whose overtones will probably not sit too well with the ballot administrators at KMPG. The NDP's Wheat Board critic, Alex Atamanenko, called the vote a "sham from the beginning and?an insult to democracy and farmers alike."

Given that the outcome is consistent with the CWB's own longtime soundings of farmer opinion, the vote must have been a very incompetent concoction indeed. Ritter's admission suggests that the last year or so of squabbling over the board's right to spend farmer income campaigning for its own death-grip on barley and over the various features of the ballot was one long waste of time. The plebiscite told us only what we already knew five years ago, which is that life will be a little harder for the board in a competitive environment but that farmers are in favour of creating one all the same.

Indeed, the best summary of the emerging situation may have come from a Drumheller, Alta.-area barley grower and supporter of the single desk who was interviewed Wednesday by the Bloomberg financial news service. "The vote weakens the role of the Wheat Board an awful lot," Ron Leonhardt told Bloomberg. "The board just becomes another company."

That, indeed, is pretty much the idea. But of course in some ways it won't become "just another company" right away. It will still enjoy the basic seller loyalty that was expressed just as strongly in the plebiscite as the desire for choice, and it will maintain the competitive advantage of government guarantees on pool payments to growers. It is likely to maintain a tight rein on powerful buyers abroad, especially state-owned ones that have ideological allergies to private agribusiness and agencies that use Canadian federal loans to buy Canadian barley.

But if you believe the officials of the board, leveraging those advantages is likely to be too much trouble. "A plan to transition the CWB completely out of barley may be the only realistic option if the single desk is dismantled," warned Ritter two days before the vote announcement. He promulgated an "analysis" by his fellow directors, claiming to show that "without a radical transformation of the CWB into a grain company with a complete range of physical assets and a large capital infusion, the CWB could not market barley." In case anyone had any trouble interpreting this "transformation," the chairman helpfully added that "ownership of both port and country grain facilities could help ensure the CWB's competitiveness with customers and farmers."

It may be that some method of cash capitalizing the CWB is desirable (guess who would pay for that, or for a mass takeover of terminal capacity), but on the whole it sounds as though Ritter is using the plebiscite as an excuse to draw up an ambitious Christmas list, implicitly conjuring the spectacle of oceans of golden grain mouldering in Canadian fields while the world's beer supply evaporates to a trickle. We don't yet know what fraction of the crop the CWB will lose when farmers are allowed to walk out, but apparently even the tiniest rebellion by a handful of pro-choice miscreants will be enough to induce a total loss of competitiveness.

More probably, though, the Board will eventually stop proclaiming the apocalypse and at last make an adult adjustment to the new reality.

ColbyCosh@gmail.com

© National Post 2007

[agstar77]

Yeah, Chuck the Liberator , regular Che Guivera!

[Fransisco]

[parsley]

Voting out a monopolist

Colby Cosh, National Post
Published: Friday, March 30, 2007

EXCERPTS

It is fascinating to watch the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and its supporters try to squirm around the results of the agriculture department's barley plebiscite, whose results were announced Wednesday.

The Harper government now has a formal mandate to liberate Western barley growers from the CWB's antiquated export monopoly, if it even needed one; as CWB chairman Ken Ritter admitted glumly after the announcement, "The results of the barley plebiscite? are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings."

"But if you believe the officials of the board, leveraging those advantages is likely to be too much trouble. "A plan to transition the CWB completely out of barley may be the only realistic option if the single desk is dismantled," warned Ritter two days before the vote announcement. He promulgated an "analysis" by his fellow directors, claiming to show that "without a radical transformation of the CWB into a grain company with a complete range of physical assets and a large capital infusion, the CWB could not market barley." In case anyone had any trouble interpreting this "transformation," the chairman helpfully added that "ownership of both port and country grain facilities could help ensure the CWB's competitiveness with customers and farmers."



It may be that some method of cash capitalizing the CWB is desirable (guess who would pay for that, or for a mass takeover of terminal capacity), but on the whole it sounds as though Ritter is using the plebiscite as an excuse to draw up an ambitious Christmas list, implicitly conjuring the spectacle of oceans of golden grain mouldering in Canadian fields while the world's beer supply evaporates to a trickle.

We don't yet know what fraction of the crop the CWB will lose when farmers are allowed to walk out, but apparently even the tiniest rebellion by a handful of pro-choice miscreants will be enough to induce a total loss of competitiveness.

[Fransisco]

<b>Good riddance to a monopoly</b>

Dennis Owens
For The Calgary Herald

Friday, March 30, 2007

The rhetoric is heating up over the fate of the Canadian Wheat Board after it was revealed this week a majority of farmers preferred to end the so-called "single-desk" system for barley marketing. In the pieces below, an analyst and a farmer offer two very different perspectives on the political interference behind the voting.

- - -

The votes on the barley referendum have been counted, and another prairie crop freed of the fetters of monopoly. If that brings for barley the same boom as the one in oats after it was deregulated in 1989, another longstanding policy error will have been corrected. It will also leave the Canadian Wheat Board with a single captive commodity, the big one, wheat.

Let's consider the board's desperate feelings. It seems convinced that it can't survive in the free market.

They're wrong -- the board has enormous experience as a marketer of grain -- but the mistake is driving some of its people to fearful behaviour.

Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl told the board to stay out of the barley referendum, an action some labelled a "gag order." That's nonsense. No matter the democratic gloss of elected directors, the federal government controls the board.

As former Manitoba attorney-general Sidney Green noted, arguments that the agency shouldn't have to listen to Strahl have ominous implications for the public sector.

What's surprising is that rebellious former CEO Adrian Measner is the only one disciplined so far. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, who vowed to fight for a monopoly from which Ontario and Quebec are exempt.

Other board employees should face repercussions as well. They've continued to meddle in referendum politics.

A special report at www. fcpp.org shows how, in contravention of Strahl's instructions, the board used its staff and website to lobby for one of the three questions in the referendum. Using farmers' own money to persuade them to vote for any of them is not what the board is supposed to be doing with its time.

Strahl's referendum offered the status quo, an end to board involvement or marketing choice.

Inserted into the ballot package were opinion pieces in support of each position. The University of Saskatchewan's Murray Fulton argued for keeping things as they are and the University of Calgary's Barry Cooper presented a case for getting the board out of barley.

Based on the Frontier Centre's presentation of the case for market freedom, the minister asked Frontier's agriculture policy fellow, Rolf Penner, to summarize that position.

On March 5, the CWB's website posted rebuttals to Cooper and Penner. Fulton's article was not discussed. That was eight days before the deadline for mailing in ballots, and a violation of the "gag order."

Penner calls the board's counter-arguments "contradiction, innuendo, red herrings and irrelevancy, with the worst outweighing the best by a healthy margin."

Penner can't point out how well former provincial pork monopolies fared in a model of marketing choice, the anonymous writer argues, because "comparing hogs to barley is worse than comparing apples to oranges." Later, we read: "Many Canadian cattlemen who dealt with rock-bottom prices during the BSE crisis . . . would disagree that the free market -- usually dominated by a handful of multinationals -- serves farmers well."

Hold on, Penner asks. I can't compare grain with our successes in the hog market, but you can cite the politically induced BSE crisis as an example of free-market failure? Which is it? And in defence of the single desk, you point out that "not enough buyers" is the problem?

Penner also punctures the perennial wheat board claim that it delivers higher prices. John De Pape, author of the 2004 Sparks Barley Study, shredded that illusion in a recent speech (also at www.fcpp. org) where he presented evidence that the board offers customers lower than market prices.

An Algerian government grain buyer confirmed that the board sold to his country at a price that saves Algeria tens of dollars per tonne. "There is no other country which grants such advantages to us," the bureaucrat said.

The board claims a free-

market U.S. grain association mistranslated the Algerian's words out of malice. De Pape had the text translated independently, and it turns out that's exactly what the writer was saying.

The wheat board's people ought to forget about political battles, in which they look increasingly futile and incompetent, and prepare for the inevitable day when open markets in barley and wheat are

restored to the Prairies.

Dennis Owens is the senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, www.fcpp.org

[Fransisco]

Brandon Sun
Thursday, March 29th, 2007

<b>Farmers reject CWB control over barley</b>

Curtis Brown and Ian Hitchen

Western Canadian barley farmers who have spent years lobbying for the right to choose how they market their grain could finally get their wish this summer.

Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said Wednesday that 62 per cent of the 29,000 farmers who cast eligible ballots in a plebiscite voted to either have the Canadian Wheat Board participate in a competitive
market or stop dealing with barley altogether.

Strahl called the results “unequivocal” and says he’ll now take steps to get the cabinet approval needed to remove the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly by August, in time for the start of the crop year.

Manitoba’s largest farm organization — Keystone Agricultural Producers — said the ballot-box verdict cannot be ignored.

“We respect the democratic process, producers have spoken,” KAP president David Rolfe said.

But the validity of the vote continues to be challenged. “I think he (Strahl) has not listened to producers,” Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk said during a stop in Brandon at the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair yesterday. “I don’t believe it’s a fair question and I believe that there is not respect for producers by the federal minister at this time.”

Of 29,000 western Canadian farmers, the majority voted to end the monopoly, and a government spokesman said Strahl will now take steps to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to that end.

Producers were asked if they wanted to maintain a single-desk system, whether they wanted the option to sell to either the CWB or other buyers or whether the board should stop marketing barley entirely.

But Wowchuk said the three-pronged question isn’t realistic, as the CWB claims it wouldn’t be able to compete with other buyers. Meanwhile, only a small percentage voted for the option to remove the CWB entirely, she said.

And in January, nearly 62 per cent of the province’s farmers voted in favour of the CWB’s single-desk system during a provincial plebiscite. In the latest vote, 48.4 per cent of western producers voted to have the option of selling to either the CWB or other buyers. Another 37.8 per cent voted to keep the single-desk system, while 13.8 per cent voted to remove the wheat board entirely from barley marketing.

As it stands, the CWB has signalled it won’t buy and sell barley in an open market, so the choice the majority of farmers voted for won’t, in fact, happen.

In Manitoba, support for the single desk was higher, with 50.6 per cent of barley growers voting to keep the system as is. Of the 3,703 farmers who cast ballots, 34.6 per cent voted in favour of a dual-marketing system, while 14.8 per cent voted to sell their barley without any CWB involvement.

Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette MP Inky Mark, the lone Conservative MP from Manitoba to argue against the government’s move to scrap the single desk, said there was little he or farmers could do to change Strahl’s mind, and expects that the CWB’s monopoly on wheat will be gone by next year. “In life, those who control the business and the legislation, they make the rules. This is a good example of that,” Mark said.

Manitoba Progressive Conservative Leader Hugh McFadyen called the vote a “significant mandate” for marketing choice. He rejected Wowchuk’s assertion that the voting process was flawed. “I assume that if the provincial NDP say that they believe in democracy, that they’ll respect the democratic outcome of this plebiscite. And if they don’t believe in democracy, then they’ll fight it,” McFadyen said, adding that he also wants to see the federal government hold a plebiscite for wheat growers.

Arthur-Virden MLA Larry Maguire, who was involved in groups looking to overturn the CWB’s monopoly before he entered politics, said he thinks that removing the monopoly will create more opportunities for barley growers to sell their crop. “From my experience, being on the advisory committee when oats were removed (from the CWB monopoly), you ended up with a lot of processing,” he said.

Brandon-Souris MP Merv Tweed said the vote showed “a pretty decent number” of farmers wanted to change the way barley is sold. Tweed, who has never taken a firm position on the CWB’s monopoly except to say farmers should vote on it first, said he respects the decision made yesterday, adding no further changes will be made for at least a year. “The challenge now is to do barley, and do it right,” Tweed said. “And hopefully, if we move forward when making another decision (on wheat), we’ll go back and ask the same question