Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has refused to put the question to farmers, saying that many changes can be made without a plebiscite or a change in the law. CWB advocates say they will gladly abide by any decision to dismantle the Board, as long as the decision was made by farmer plebiscite, with a fair question. Plebiscites and surveys show most farmers want to keep the it. Barley was returned to the single desk after a farmer plebiscite in 1997, with 63 per cent of farmers voting in favour.
And that’s the essence of the problem: large multinational corporations, like Cargill and ConAgra, buy, sell, trade, and market wheat all over the world, and nowhere else do they have to deal with a farmer-owned corporation that seeks the highest possible price for the product.
“Nobody [grain traders or other countries] goes around asking for the highest price. The CWB says to them ‘here’s the price you’re going to pay for prairie wheat. Without the Board, the brokers are going to go around negotiating for a price that’s as cheap as possible.’
Ontario farmers don’t have the mandatory single desk—-they can choose to sell to a much smaller provincial wheat board, or sell on the open market – they voted to end the single desk system a few years ago.
According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the price they negotiate is anywhere between $10-$40 more per tonne than a “multiple seller” system. In 2005, Ontario farmers got $1/bushel less than prairie farmers for the same wheat.
Harper tries to eliminate Wheat Board
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 1, 2006]
Note: Harper tries to elimina...
Stumble It!
Wow. Freedom is Slavery. The feds are being totally undemocratic, because they want to give individuals the freedom to sell food to whomever they please? Property rights are undemocratic? This form of slavery is the ugly face of communism, and why Soviet Bloc countries were truly awful places to live.
Part of democracy is human rights, and Canada is often weak on property rights in specific. I'm no flag-waver for any specific party, but in this instance, Kudos to the Conservatives for having the cajones to champion basic property rights. Now if they can only figure out that the USA only pretends to be our ally, and is leading us to ruin, then I would be truly happy with them.
It's high time the Wheat Board was optional. How many organizations do you know where membership is mandatory and enforced with jail time? (Only if you live in the west. Easterners get a "get out of jail free" card. Seriously.)
And if the government is truly worried about those big mega corps, they can still pass laws to regulate their behavior, instead of directly enslaving farmers.
I think you forgot the " . . .West of Ontairo" part. It is Western farmers that didn't have a choice.
---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden
Either way, the Wheat Board in it's current form is literally collectivization at gunpoint. (To those of you who missed the previous century, forced collectivization is a failure of both economics and human rights.) If anyone doesn't believe that, just ask Alberta farmers who sell even a bushel of grain to someone of their own choosing. They get armed mounties knocking on their door to take them to jail.
Who thinks an optional Wheat Board is a bad thing? Suddenly, the Wheat Board will have to be relevant and beneficial to farmers, or risk losing membership. And if the Wheat Board is actually good for farmers, why worry about these changes?
How can any decent Canadian be against this form of accountability?
And to answer Allen Oberg's preposterous claim that silencing the wheat board is undemocratic... Silencing an undemocratic, oppressive organization is the beginning of true democracy.
Better start with the cops and then move on to the government itself then.
---
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden
Once a marketing board is broken it will not survive because those involved will demand not just the freedom to either be part of the board or independent but the freedom to move in and out of the board. Marketing Boards cannot operate on that basis because farmers will want in when prices are low and they need the pooling of resources and out when prices are high.
"Freedom" is never absolute. When I vote in an election I may not like the result but I do not have the option to move in out of my municipality, province, or country. If the Wheat Board is a democratic organization it needs to work on a similar premise. There is no halfway measure here. In the end all western farmers will be forced into the control of the multi-national corporations.
I do not know whether our current Prime Minister believes that social control requires social insecurity but his policies move in that direction. The choice being forced on all western farmers in the long term is freedom in exchange for insecurity. As a true (rather than the new "real") Conservative I would pick economic security over economic insecurity any time. (Ideologically Straussian Conservatives believe that insecurity is morally superior to security).
There is never an "easy" answer to such questions.
An economy based on the bidding system is an economy of fools and crooks, as a certain sector will always take control and enslaves the others.
By the way, as a property and business owner for 50 years, I have asked this question before: How do we define property rights? There's no objective definition only ideology and religion based harebrained claims that permit the rights of certain sectors to expropriate the properties of others, as it is happening to us when we sell our animals.
We just came home from our biweekly shopping trip, where, as usual, we found higher prices on many items, as it happens every time we shop. E.g. The price of milk powder went up by $6. since the Spring, sardines went from .65 cents per can to .95. etc. etc.
Has anybody heard anything about the milkproducers and fishermen getting more for their labours ?
Ed Deak.
If it was a one to one exchange based on the fair exchange of goods for money between the wheat farmers and the oligarchies that control what is jokingly called the "free market", then there would be NO need at all for the Wheat Board.
The oligarchy of the buyers would play the individual growers against each other and drive the price down, and if anyone here says that wouldn't happen, then I defy them to do so directly so I can call them either misinformed or a liar.
To fight one consortium, you need to be part of another.
Lone wolves soon end up as road kill in that game.
You can cry about forced collectivisation all you want, but the truth is you probably haven't got a damn clue about what you're talking about.
I've read Ayn Rand's works.
Have you?
I seriously doubt it, because while I see of a lot of "self interest" filling your postings, I see nothing in them that would even hint that said "self interest" was enlightened.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
If the system goes goes to a double desk, farmers will sell to private companies when prices are high and to the Wheat Board when prices are low. We tried this in Canada back in the 1920s and it led to one of the biggest business failures in Canadian history.
The Wheat Board gets higher prices for grain because they have strict quality control. They were instrumental in making our wheat the best on the planet. Two European companies have already said they'll switch to Australian wheat if we do this. The port in Churchill and the rail line that goes there will be gone if we shut down the Wheat Board.
The Wheat Board has lobbied for on transportion issues and helped farmers get their wheat to market. They have not only marketed wheat, but worked to make sure that wheat is the best and demands the best price. They are run and controlled by farmers...or were before Strahl and Harper started pulling their corrupt dirty tricks. They have provided advice.
The CWB also provides more choice than any private corporation that farmers may sign contracts with. The argument that the Wheat Board somehow removes choice from the farmer is, in a word, false. There are many choices within the structure of the CWB, and it only covers a few crops. Anybody saying that there is no choice within the Wheat Board should go sign a contract with Cargill in the US. They'll find out what a lack of choice really is. They'll also find out how much it really costs to handle and transport grain. Talk to some small farmers in the US. They'll tell you.
Most important of all to this discussion is what the Conservatives are doing and the way they are doing it. Gerrymandering voters lists, firing people for not agreeing with them, appointing people based on politics instead of knowledge and skill.
The farmers fought long and hard for control of the CWB so that they could control their own industry. Now a couple of ideologues who have never been on a tractor for longer than it takes to shoot a photo-op are trying to take it all apart.
You're absolutely right, in the small scope of the straw-man argument you are forming. In the real world sellers wouldn't stay as small individuals by choice. Whether it be labour or small farmers selling grain, people will join collectives, and the balance will tip the other way. Unions work for those willing to join.
I only argue against the forced part. That is all. It makes about as much sense as forcing all the oligarchies into one collective.
So in your small little world, you are right. And in the big picture and the real world... well.. I have no idea what you think about that, you have yet to write about that. Considering you say you enjoy reading Rand, I'm not surprised.
Once the compulsion is taken away the Canadian Wheat Board is doomed. That is because information suggests that about one-third of the farmers will opt-out either for ideological reasons ("faith" based) or the mistaken belief that an individual farmer can negotiate on the same level as a multi-national corporation with huge capital behind it. Once an organization loses that proportion of its membership the same amount of its power disappears.
The Wheat Board operates as a democratic organization in which members are supposed to control its decisions. The new federal government has decided to either ignore the constitution of the organization or to manipulate the process to achieve its objective (this was how the merger of the CA and PC Parties was achieved). It was created in the collective interests of the farmers now the Conservative government wants to eliminate it or destroy it in the best interest of corporate investors. In the end, neither provides total freedom and I would argue that a system in which a farmer can have some influence is preferable to one in which he has none but it is difficult to argue against "faith" either religious or economic since there is no rational argument against either.
How would you like to live with the War Measures Act continually in force?