On Minnedosa – you can quote Laura all you like, but she wasn’t even there. Reference to the imposition of dual marketing is her words. The change Ritz was talking about was the change to the voters’ list where farmers would have to produce a minimum of 40 tonnes to get a ballot – he wasn’t about to make that change unless the CWB (farmers) agreed to it. (Originally the CWB board had agreed to it and then did a 180.)

He’s eliminating the elected farmers from the CWB because they don’t agree on the future of the CWB. Like many have asked how Henry Vos and Jeff Nielsen could sit on that board with the intent of making the CWB voluntary, how could Ritz expect the remaining eight farmer-elected directors to sit on a board governing a voluntary CWB when they don’t believe in it and so strongly oppose it?

The concept of a monopoly benefiting farmers is indeed a sound argument – on paper. In execution, it has not materialized. To say it would be better than “competing buyers who seek only to benefit their shareholders” misses an important point. It’s not one or the other; with the CWB system, farmers are paying for the CWB’s overhead and its effect on the market – AND they’re paying the grain companies to handle it. It’s a double whammy; grain companies serve their shareholders either way. Keeping the single desk around doesn’t somehow preclude these companies from profiting from handling CWB grains. In fact, CWB business is lucrative enough that a common saying in the business is “You don’t build elevators without CWB elevations”. Most grain companies believe their margins on wheat will drop without the CWB.

Democracy – an interesting concept. We both blog – supposedly we both benefit from it, otherwise we’d probably stop. Would you consider a vote on forcing the marketing our “services” and those of other bloggers jointly and pooling our sales “equitably” among all? I wouldn’t even want to put that to a vote. (I would only consider doing it if it was unanimous and you could opt out at any time.) Yes, we have universal health care and in some places, public insurance. But those are public goods; the fruits of farmers’ labour (and yours and mine) are private goods. Democracy – choosing by a vote – is great for public goods but not at all palatable (to most) on personal or private goods.

A vote on the CWB single desk will not prove anything except what we already know – many farmers want to work collectively and many don’t. And the interests of some regarding their private goods should not allow them to compel (Allen Oberg’s term) others. If some people want to force everyone under one system, they should at the very least, sell them on the value of doing so. That’s never been done.

Regarding Ritz’s election promise: Writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, Laura Rance (who edits the Manitoba Co-operator), noted “Ritz told farmers in Minnedosa March 15 the government will not attempt to impose dual marketing unless farmers vote for it. “Until farmers make that change, I’m not prepared to work arbitrarily,” Ritz said. “They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.”

If Ritz later tried to spin this as “talking about CWB director elections” why is he planning to eliminate the elected farmer positions on the CWB’s Board of Directors?

Does the CWB help farmers get more value from the market than they would get otherwise? Economists disagree on this, though the argument that one monopoly seller working on your behalf will do a better job than competing buyers who seek only to benefit their shareholders is a sound one.

Democracy would be better served if the Conservative government lived up to the spirit and letter of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and held a plebiscite of western grain growers. Instead it has chosen to ignore this law. What are they afraid of?

Also, I’m not sure of which candidates you are talking about that promised a vote, but I know Gerry Ritz has been accused of that – specifically in a meeting in Minnedosa where he said he believed in democracy and supported farmers’ ability to vote. Unfortunately, the media mistook it to mean a plebiscite on the future of the CWB (because that’s what the CWB said) when in reality, he was talking about CWB director elections. I know for a fact that the Minister’s office tried in vain to get corrections on that.

I agree – the interpretation of 47.1 will be “settled” in the courts. But the over-arching issue is parliamentary sovereignty which basically means parliament may change or repeal any previous legislation. A farmer vote cannot stop that.

As for having little regard for farmers, I believe the conservatives recognize that the CWB has not lived up to its promise. It has been shown time and time again that it has failed farmers in getting value out of the market and comes at a huge cost. Let’s not hang onto something because it looks good on paper.

Regarding the looseness of the interpretation of 47.1, that matter will be decided in the Federal Court, which will hear the case in December.

It seems pretty clear that the intent of the Canadian Wheat Board Act was to ensure that farmers had democratic control of their marketing agency. By flouting the requirement for a binding plebiscite and by removing the provision for farmer-elected directors, it seems clear that the Conservatives have little regard for either farmers or democracy.

The other thing is the loose interpretation of Section 47.1. That section says the government must hold a plebiscite only if they are removing commodities from the single desk. But the govt isn’t doing that; it is removing the single desk completely. Even Ralph Goodale and Pat Martin have admitted that the government has every right to do what it is doing. It serves no reasonable purpose to keep promoting this error.