Harper Steps In Cow Pie On Farm Issues

As I wrote here last night Harper has abandoned Western Canadian Wheat farmers to the rump lobby group out of the old Reform party that wants to get rid of the Canada Wheat Board. Even though the Wheat Board is now farmer controled and still gets the best blended price for Wheat and cereal grains.
See;Harpers Pre Depression Farm Plan

Then in 1998, in response to farmer pressure for the CWB to be more accountable to farmers, one of the most significant changes in the history of the CWB occurred. On December 31, 1998, a 15-member Board of Directors assumed overall governance responsibility for the CWB and a single full-time President and CEO was appointed. Ten of the members of the Board of Directors are elected by Prairie grain farmers and five of them, including the President and CEO, are appointed by the federal government. Under the new "shared governance" corporate structure the CWB is much more at arms' length from the federal government than it was previously and is more directly accountable to the farmers it serves.

This small group of rightwing farmers, mostly from the Mormon and Dutch Reform communities in Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, who came here after the great depression and who live on the border, insist on instituting a dual desk program, that is open borders for them to bargain directly for their 'own' wheat without having to sell it to the CWB.

Harper supports this. But in Eastern Canada he says no such thing, he in fact embraces the sole monopoly power of the Supply Management system.

So which is it Mr. Harper a dual desk for all of Canada's farm products or just a discriminaTORY policiy of supporting your Alberta Right Wing rump and only trying to destroy the sixty year old Wheat Board?

Stephen Harper: But this government's best proposals are always the ones that never actually took place. Let me just outline some other things we'll do. We're going to continue to defend supply management in the international bodies and the three pillars of supply management. This is the one sector of agriculture that has actually been from time to time making a profit in the last few years. We want to defend it. We want to make sure that our farmers get market access. We're going to fight for that in trade negotiations. I should just add about the wheat board. Prairie farmers have been arguing for dual marketing options and that's the system we want to see.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, you've got a 30-second rebuttal.

Paul Martin: We voted very strongly for supply management. In fact, there was only one party leader who did not show up to support supply management, and that was Mr. Harper, and he was in town that day.

Here is the Globe and Mail blog take on Harpers farm debate last night.

Brian Milner, 9:03 p.m. That's a joke. Martin loves the dairy and poultry farmers in Quebec and Ontario, because he keeps protecting their subsidized incomes and shelters them from competition.

Marcus Gee, 9:05 p.m. The sad fact is that all 4 parties have folded under the weight of the farm lobby, even the free marketing Tories.

Brian Milner, 9:05 p.m. I'll say. Listen to Harper defend supply management.

Mary Janigan, 9:06 p.m. "This government's best proposals are the ones that never actually took place." Great line from Mr. Harper. But all of them are claiming roots in the land -- when many farmers are now agri-businesses. And should be.

Marcus Gee, 9:08 p.m. This is weird -- a one time neo-con, Harper, vowing to protect the already over protected farm market. I wish he'd sound even a little bit of like the conservative he is.

Feature:

You are here: Home > Features > The Canadian Wheat Board

Jump to . . .

» Introduction » What's the Wheat Board? » History of Regulation » Structure of the Board » Wheat Board Effective? » Internal Pressures » External Pressures » Links and Further Info

Internal Pressures on the Canadian Wheat Board
Do Western farmers need the Canadian Wheat Board?

The Canadian Wheat Board has its critics. Despite the fact that farmers were the driving force behind its creation, organizations representing groups of farmers are actively lobbying for significant changes to, or the outright abolition of, the Wheat Board.

These groups have voiced a number of concerns over the Board’s structure and operation:

Monopoly over the marketing of grain

Some argue that the original concept behind the Canadian Wheat Board, that a single organization will have more power negotiating contracts for the sale of grain than individual farmers, no longer holds true. Changes in technology mean that farmers can use computers to obtain up-to-the-minute data on grain prices. Under a more open system, farmers (or groups of farmers) could then use this data to obtain the best possible price for their grain, whether by selling it to buyers over the Internet, transporting it across the border to sell to US markets, or through some other method.

Others have argued, however, that the ability to obtain the most recent data on wheat and barley prices does not necessarily give farmers the skills required to sell these grains in a competitive marketplace.

Does Canada Really Have a Monopoly?

Furthermore, some argue that Canada’s ability to obtain the best possible price for farmers in the international market is limited. While Canada has a monopoly over the marketing of the majority of wheat that is commercially grown in Canada, it does not have a worldwide monopoly over wheat sales. Canada accounts for less than 20 percent of the worldwide wheat export market, which means that it must compete with other sellers when setting prices. Setting prices too high will reduce sales.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that while Canada does not have a monopoly over worldwide wheat exports, Western Canada’s wheat and barley are respected around the world for their superior quality. Therefore, having a monopoly over the selling of these two grains, and not having to compete with other sellers, helps the Canadian Wheat Board obtain the best possible price for farmers. Furthermore, combined with “Single Desk Selling,” a monopoly allows the CWB to price differently to different markets on any given day. This allows the Board to sell wheat to one customer at a lower price (in order to secure a sale), without being threatened with the loss of “premium markets” that are charged a higher price.

Voluntary versus Mandatory Participation in the Canadian Wheat Board: “Buy-back” Licenses

A particularly sore point with many farmers involves the issue of “buy-back” licences. A farmer wishing to sell his wheat or barley to a third party (for example, by transporting his grain across the border to take advantage of higher prices in the United States) must first deliver the grain to the Canadian Wheat Board and buy it back again. The price charged for the farmer to purchase the grain (the price that the Canadian Wheat Board would charge to sellers on that particular day) essentially removes any advantage that would be gained from selling it to a third party. Furthermore, Canadian Wheat Board officials are free to refuse the farmer’s request for a buy-back license.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that buy-back licenses are consistent with the philosophy of price pooling, whereby all farmers who deliver wheat during the crop year share in the profits. Requiring farmers to purchase a buy-back license allows other farmers to share in the proceeds from the sale.

Price Pooling

Some argue that the system of price pooling, like any bureaucratic system, inevitably leads to a time lag between receiving information about market conditions and acting on that information, both at the micro and macro level. At the micro level, since they are receiving the pooled price for their grain and not the market price, farmers may be slow to respond to changes in demand. In the 1994/95 crop year, the CWB was unable to undertake a potentially lucrative contract to supply Japan with barley, as it could not attract enough barley into the pool to fill the contract. At the macro level, it can lead to poor marketing decisions, such as selling grain to the export market when it would have received a higher price on the domestic market, and vice versa.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that any financial losses that may have been experienced in specific cases are minor compared to the overall financial benefits to farmers of the system of price pooling and single desk selling.

Alternatives to the Canadian Wheat Board – An Open System or Dual Marketing?

Some critics of the Canadian Wheat Board call for a completely open system, in which wheat and other grains are bought and sold on the open market. Others favour a “dual marketing” system, where farmers could choose between selling their wheat independently and participating in the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that, as with any other monopoly, being the sole provider of Western wheat gives it greater clout in negotiating the best possible price for the product. Furthermore, the system of “price pooling,” whereby all farmers share equally in the risk, could not continue if the CWB was in direct competition with other grain sellers. Therefore, a dual market is neither practical nor in farmers’ best interests.

Supporters of dual marketing point out, however, that a type of dual market operated successfully in the 1920s, when approximately one-half of Prairie farmers participated in provincially run Wheat Pools, while the remainder marketed their own grain. Furthermore, they argue that a dual marketing system exists in Ontario, where farmers have a choice between selling their wheat themselves, or through the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board. The Canadian Wheat Board acknowledges that Ontario farmers have more flexibility in choosing how to market their wheat, but point out this does not necessarily lead to higher profits.

Do Farmers Support the Canadian Wheat Board?

In recent years, several polls have been conducted to gauge the level of support for the Canadian Wheat Board among farmers. The results illustrate the lack of a clear consensus among farmers as to the future direction of wheat marketing in Canada:

• A 1997 non-binding referendum, conducted by the Canadian Wheat Board, found that 63 percent of barley farmers preferred a single market for barley, while 37 percent preferred an open market.
• A 2003 poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 64 percent of Alberta wheat growers would like to see changes to the way their wheat is currently marketed.
• The same poll found that 68 percent of Alberta barley growers would like to see changes to the way their barley is currently marketed.
• A 2005 poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 48 percent of wheat farmers preferred the current “single desk” market for wheat, while 46 percent supported the implementation of a “dual market.”
• The same poll found that, in the absence of a dual market, 64 percent of wheat farmers preferred the current system over a completely open market.
• With respect to barley farmers, the 2005 poll found that 56 percent of barley farmers preferred a dual market, while 32 percent supported the “single desk” market.
• In the absence of a dual market, the same poll found that 53 percent of barley farmers prefer an open system without the Canadian Wheat Board.

Tags
Canada
Federal Election
Politics
Leaders Debate
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

Conservatives Attack Prairie Farmers

Driven by the Southern Alberta farming lobby that is deeply influenced by its American roots, the area is rampant with Mormons, Dutch Reformed Church and other proto-American exiles, the old Reform party took the position that the Canadian Wheat Board was a communist state monopoly. That's because it was originally formed in the dirty thirties during the Great Depression as a producers cooperative.

The New Conservative Government of Canada having its roots in this backwater minority lobby has taken on the Canadian Wheat Board and has decidied that one of its election promises, though not one of its five priorities, was to carry on the Reform party tradition and attempt to open up the western Canadian wheat and barley market by eliminating the Wheat Board. The problem is that of course while a free market in wheat and barley may appeal to large producers with their own trucks living close to the U.S. border, for the majority of wheat and barley farmers trade is international, and the single desk has served them well.

Orginally intended to be a producers cooperative board, the state created a bueracracy alienated from the farmers. In the last decade that has changed in response to pressure from the farm base and in response to criticism from the right and the right wing lobbying for a dual market in wheat and barley. The Board is now elected by farmers. And the much lauded dual market lobby even has elected its own members to the board. However they garner far less grassroots support than they do media attention, and of course their voice is not really of farmers but of the neo-liberal Calgary lobby around the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party.

Now the government intends on forcing the stupidity of a dual marketing scheme on farmers without asking them their opinion. Worse it is gagging them, refusing to allow the Wheat Board to defend itself. Talk about a paranoid authoritarian action by the state. So much for democratic consultation with stakeholders.

Wheat Board ordered not to sow discontent Globe and Mail, Canada - 11 hours ago WINNIPEG -- The Conservative government has banned the Canadian Wheat Board from advocating its continued existence as the monopoly seller of Western Canadian ...
Canadian Wheat Board asks Ottawa to withdraw partial gag order Canada.com
Farmers fretting over Wheat Board's future Globe and Mail
Farmers Support Wheat Board Despite Conservative Claims
Wheat Board supporters accuse Ottawa of imposing gag order
Canadian Wheat Board won't sit on committee designed to end its existence
Prairie coalition fights for Canadian Wheat Board
Keep the tradition of the Wheat Board
Farm groups demand voice in talks about Wheat Board

Why it makes one wonder where the libertarians in the Conservatives disappeared too. Nary a one left to speak out against state interference in a producers cooperative, which is democratic. What ever happened to minila state intereference, the compalint that was raised agaisnt the Liberal government from its domination over the farmers on the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board exists not to limit the market, but to get the best deal for the most farmer from a market that is dominated and manipulated by large American Agribusiness monopolies. And their market manipulation works against the producers in favour of the market gamblers and the big agribusinesses who control transportation, storage, frefining, distribution and marketing. Volatile CBOT Wheat Futures Hit Market-Makers Hard


I guess it is time for another praririe farmer rebellion against a government in Ottawa that doesn't listen to them. Ironic ain't it.



See:

Wheat Board

Mormonism Cult of the Political Right

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper, Free-Trade,
Tags
Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

Barley B.S.

The underwhelming coverage of the Conservative attempt coup d'etat at the Wheat Board.

The Blogging Tories who should be overwhelmingly leading the cheering section here, have nada, zip, zero, nothing to say about the Barley Plebiscite.

And no I am not kidding.

This is astounding that those who have lobbied and fought so long and hard to destroy the farmer cooperative which for them has been a symbol of Canadian Socialism have been deafening in their silence on the barley plebiscite. Stage One of the Conservative governments dismantling of the producer cooperative they call a Monopoly.

I even checked the Canadian Blog Exchange and found only posts by Progressive Bloggers.

In fact members of the Progressive Bloggers posted seven stories.

Tories Sink To New Depths On Barley Vote

Stacking the deck

Do Farmers Know What They Really Voted For?

Sham

A resounding outcome

Farmers Reject Phony Plebiscite

Misusing regulations and how the Conservative's plan to dismantle the CWB's monopoly.

I had to Google blogs on the Wheat Board before I could find a single BT who blogged on the issue.

However never let it be said that Sad Sack Kate over at SDA did not leave a stone unturned. She did blog on the Barley vote. And she too tried to point out that the majority voted for choice. Which of course ignores the fact that the majority voted to keep the Wheat Board, even if they supported choice. And that an even greater majority boycotted the government sponsored vote.

Which corresponds to something I have observed; the BT's are predominately Easterners. And when they are Westerners they are too busy reading, studying, repeating, and reiterating Republican thought from south of the border.

Showing that the real radical reform politics that is Prairie Populism, proves the West is Left.

And so this most essential Western Canadian issue of political import, as Janis Joplin would say, was of no import to the Conservative Government echo chamber.

Passing strange since Chuck Strahl and the government claimed it was a victory.

If it was a victory it was a hollow one. Little fanfare for the Barley plebiscite amongst the echo chamber, little pro government coverage in the MSM, and the majority of farmers rejected the Conservatives attempt to eliminate the Wheat Board through its plebiscite.

Passing strange indeed. As Sherlock Holmes would say about the lack of response from the BT; the dog did not bark in the night.

I s there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident"

(Silver Blaze)

And the irony here is that the Wheat Board this Conservative government so hates and wishes to abolish is the creature of previous Conservative governments.

Is CWB vote beginning of the end?

The Edmonton Journal

Published: Saturday, March 31, 2007

It was a Conservative who first created the Canadian Wheat Board, another Conservative who made it a monopoly, so it's only fitting that it's a Conservative who seems eager to pull the trigger on its execution.

In 1917, Robert Borden established the Board of Grain Supervisors to establish a price for grain in an effort to limit volatility in a time of war. After the war ended, the board became known as the Canadian Wheat Board. In 1935 -- at the height of the Great Depression and the dust bowl -- the board was taken over by R.B. Bennett's government to ensure Western farmers a consistent and predictable return on their crops. Losses were covered by the government, and profits absorbed by it.

Now, the Harper government plans to break the seven-decade-old monopoly system based on a confusing, one-sided, and supposedly non-binding referendum in which opponents of the wheat board -- including some of the companies that stand to benefit most from the end of the wheat board monopolies -- were allowed to run a public relations campaign against the single-desk barley and grain marketing board, while the board was unable to campaign to remind farmers of the services it provides.

Even with that, only 14 per cent of 29,076 farmers (the government has not revealed how many were actually eligible to vote) chose to completely remove the wheat board from the barley market. The rest of the votes split relatively evenly between maintaining the monopoly as it is, and giving farmers "a choice" of selling to the wheat board or going it alone on the open market.

The wheat board exists principally to reduce the volatility inherent in farming and to guarantee farmers a more steady cash flow. Critics of the Harper government's plan to "offer choice" say that without a monopoly, this function is virtually impossible, since non-CWB farmers taking their crops to market will always be in a position to undersell the board.

If the board is forced to try to undercut the non-CWB farmers, that will prompt a rush to the bottom, pushing prices downward -- good for the foreign buyers, but bad for Canada.

Even if the wheat board could outsell the individual farmers, it would be a ridiculous proposition for a federally owned organization to be in direct competition with other Canadian farmers. Moreover, it would also almost surely run afoul of trade law, which currently only tolerates the wheat board because it was grandfathered into Canadian trade agreements.

This likely means the only logical outcome of ending the wheat board's monopoly is for it to leave the playing field for barley. And, presumably, it's only a matter of time before the government presses for "choice" on all forms of wheat sales, with a similar outcome.

See:

Wheat Board

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper,

Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

I Fear For Democracy

Gee I thought the Conservatives represented all the Western Farmers.....

Ken Larsen, a grain farmer from central Alberta, said he thinks farmers will be the big losers if the wheat board collapses.

"I think if we lose the wheat board, we're going to lose a lot of income," said Larsen, who held up a pro-wheat board placard.

"I don't like the way (federal Agriculture Minister) Chuck Strahl has put forward such a manipulative and dishonest question on the barley plebiscite."

Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, got a loud ovation at the rally as he accused the federal Conservatives of being underhanded in their attempt to end the wheat board's marketing monopoly.

"We've had this endless stream of dirty tricks and manipulation and the gag orders and the firings," Wells told the cheering crowd. "For the first time in my life, I'm actually afraid for democracy in this country."

But then there is always a silver lining.....

Stephen Harper's Conservatives are going to lose farm votes on the Prairies over their ideologically driven assault on the Canadian Wheat Board, says fired Wheat Board boss Adrian Measner.

Measner told reporters yesterday that the Harper minority government will pay for its campaign to end the board's monopoly when it goes to the polls.

"I have talked to a lot of farmers who say they are unhappy with what has happened," he said. "They voted Conservative in the last election, but won't in the next election."

Meanwhile the Harpocrites have failed to pay their own CWB CEO appointee his salary.

THE Canadian Wheat Board will pay its new chief executive officer just as soon as the Harper government enters discussions on what the president's salary should be, says a Manitoba farm leader.

"I think (Agriculture Minister Chuck) Strahl has led people to believe we're unwilling to pay our CEO, which is not true," said Bill Toews, one of two farmer-elected board members from Manitoba.

New wheat board CEO Greg Arason has not been paid in five weeks, ever since Strahl fired Adrian Measner and appointed Arason without consulting the board.

Hey Bill Toews wouldn't be related to Vic Toews would he?

And he is right Chuck is saying it ain't his fault. And who do you think he blames? Why the Wheat Board Directors of course.

The Wheat Board is the Tories favorite scapegoat. Not because the Harpocrties represent farmers, far from,it because they represent a small political special interest group and lobbyists for big agribusiness.

And because of these old Reform Party alliances they will continue to engage in this partisan attack on the Wheat Board despite the fact it makes money for the majority of farmers and is important in maintaining Canada's grain sovereignty in the world market.China wants Canadian Wheat Board to stay

See:

Wheat Board

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper, Free-Trade, Klein, NDP, taxpayers, PR, propaganda,
Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

Many Sask. grain farmers couldn't fulfil their contracts: APAS

THEY CHOSE THE MARKET OVER THE CWB

An overwhelming number of respondents to a survey of Saskatchewan farmers say they fell short of this year's grain contracts.

The survey by the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan found 75 per cent of roughly 200 respondents couldn't fulfil grain contracts after a dire drought baked their fields earlier this year.

"This issue is fairly widespread across the province, just like the drought was," APAS president Todd Lewis said.

"Producers and grain companies have had to struggle with this over the last number of months."

Respondents were also concerned about the lack of transparency around calculating buyout and administrative fees.

It was a common complaint during harvest, when rural groups and the province asked grain companies to be flexible with contracts that grain farmers had no hope of fulfilling.

Reported buyout provisions ranged from $20,000 to more than $300,000. Interest rates on unpaid amounts ran up to 19 per cent, according to the survey.

The severity of this year's drought created the largest payout for crop insurance in the province’s history, to the tune of $2.4 billion, Finance Minister Donna Harpauer reported on Monday.

Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association, noted the survey may not be a representative sample, but that doesn't diminish the issue.

"There's a group out there that really got caught on the wrong side of their contracts," he said.

"That's not good for them; that's not good for us."

Sobkowich said grain companies have also been losing revenue without the tonnes they expected to export.

He expects them to emphasize proper communication with farmers so both parties are making informed decisions about the risk they're taking on, he said.

"You can't go through a unique and impactful situation like we did this year and not evaluate and try and learn from it."

Recent Statistics Canada numbers comparing January to September in 2020 and 2021 show total crop receipts were up by 9.6 per cent, with non-durum wheat up roughly 14 per cent and durum wheat up about 32 per cent.

Sobkowich said that shows some farmers may have reaped the rewards from fulfilling those contracts during the drought.

"What this demonstrates is that some producers may have gained significantly at the expense of others," he said.

Nick Pearce, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The StarPhoenix

1. 2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was …
   https://www.nfu.ca/2020-hindsight-ending-the-canadian-wheat-board-was...

   2020-07-30 · 2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was an economic tragedy. August 1st 2020 marks the 8th anniversary of one of the great economic tragedies in Canadian history. This was the day the wrecking ball swung by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz finally destroyed one of the most important ...

   • Author: Terry Boehm

   • Estimated Reading Time: 

Canadian Wheat Board | The Canadian Encyclopedia

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-wheat-board

2006-02-06 · The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) was an agricultural marketing board headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Established in 1935, for much of its history it was the sole

HARPER SELLS WHEAT BOARD TO US CORPORATION & SAUDI INVESTMENT FUND

Brent Patterson

6 years ago

The Harper government has sold the Canadian Wheat Board.

Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow says, "Harper sells out Wheat Board to two foreign corporations. Biggest theft from farmers in Canada's history!!!"

The Globe and Mail reports, "Until Ottawa ended its monopoly in 2012, the Canadian Wheat Board was the prairie farmer’s link to food companies around the world. Now the former giant has been taken over by a U.S. agrifood company and an investment fund owned by Saudi Arabia. The $250-million deal announced on Wednesday marks the final stage in the transformation of the Canadian Wheat Board, which was formed by Parliament in 1935 to guarantee western farmers would get fair prices for their wheat and barley."

The article notes, "Global Grain Group (G3), a joint venture between food company Bunge Ltd. and a unit of Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co. known as SALIC Canada Ltd., will pay $250-million for a 50.1-per-cent stake in the grain trader. The rest of the equity in CWB will be available to farmers who sell their grain to the company."

But the Financial Post clarifies that rather than "paying for" or "buying" the CWB, "Under the terms of the deal, G3 is committed to spending $250 million in the CWB." And Global News adds, "G3 Global Grain Group will get 50.1 per cent of the company in exchange for an investment of $250 million. The other 49.9 per cent will be kept in trust for farmers who deliver grain to the board. Any farmer who does deliver will get $5 per tonne in equity in the organization. In seven years, G3 Global Grain Group has the option to buy back the shares from farmers at market value."

National Farmers Union president Jan Slomp says, "With this, the Conservative government has accomplished the biggest transfer of wealth away from farmers in the history of Canada. The CWB’s physical assets, its commercial relationships, and its good name have all been given away. The 'buyers' of the CWB actually get to keep the $250 million pittance they are 'paying' for it."

And NDP MP Pat Martin comments, "This is a strategic industry for Canada. It might be different if they sold the wheat board for billions of dollars. But they didn’t. They’re handing it over free of charge. All the assets – we’re talking the thousands of rail cars, the port terminals, the ships on the Great Lakes. ...I think it’s a sad for the Canadian grain industry. There never was a business for abolishing the wheat board to begin with, but you really have to question what kind of a business model it is to hand it over to an American agrifood giant and a Saudi agrifood giant who until recently were your greatest competitors."

The Council of Canadians has long supported the Canadian Wheat Board.

In 2005, we said, "The Government of Canada should maintain the Canadian Wheat Board and supply-management mechanisms that support family farms, protecting them from the prejudiced impact of international trade agreements." And in 2011, we participated in a court challenge that argued Section 47 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act required a vote by grain producers to remove the single-desk marketing authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. At a rally that year in front of the Canadian Wheat Board office in Winnipeg, Barlow told the large crowd assembled there, "Stephen Harper doesn't like democracy, and you know what? I don't think he likes farmers very much either."

Farmers Reject Phony Plebiscite

That should be the headline in the papers today, but it isn't. The headlines are full of government spin on their failed barley plebiscite.

A total of 62 per cent of just over 29,000 farmers who cast eligible ballots said they wanted the board out of the barley market altogether, or for the board to participate in a competitive market. Another 38 per cent said they wanted to maintain the status quo.

Farmers overwhelmingly rejected Chuck Strahl's plebiscite as it was not sanctioned by the Wheat Board. About 86,000 ballots were mailed out based on crop insurance data.

Now at least in some reports those ballots were as high as 89,000. That means if 29,000 farmers voted even with my terrible reputation at math that works out to one third voted not even fifty percent as the government claims.

Strahl said KPMG, the firm that handled the plebiscite for the government, made every effort to ensure only eligible votes were counted. Voter turnout was just over 50 per cent. Strahl said many eligible voters said they didn't bother to vote because they only sell their barley to feed lots, not the wheat board.

So if two thirds of prairie farmers don't vote that means they support the status quo.

The real number that supports the Conservatives opposition to the existence of the farmer owned producer coop; the Canadian Wheat Board they can only muster up amongst their Reform Party base in Southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, 15.2% of the total who voted. Not even the total who could vote.

Contrary to Strahl's math; where he combines pro-choice with anti-Wheat Board,and proudly announces that his side won with 62%, Wayne Easterly the Agriculture critic for the Liberals was justified in pointing out that the numbers could equally show support for the Wheat Board 87.2%. Since those that answered question number two wanted both choice and the Wheat Board.

As Neil Waugh points out in the Edmonton Sun;

Another 15.2% said get rid of the board altogether when it came to the barley business. Still, it was enough to carry the day.

In the four western provinces, where the CWB monopoly rules, the overall result saw only 37.8% back the so-called "single desk," while pro choice hit 49.4%.

But when the Saskatchewan numbers were broken out - where 15,327 farmers voted - 45% chose to extend the monopoly.

In Manitoba, where it appeared a boycott was in the works, 50.6% of only 3,703 barley producer cast ballots saying leave it be.

In B.C., the vote was 49.4% pro choice. But only 156 ballots were in the boxes.

Interesting that Waugh fails to note the Alberta number of votes, in his article.
Well in all the rest of the provinces, total votes other than Alberta; 19,186 That leaves Alberta with less than 10,000 votes and Waugh fails to break them down.

They were 9,881 total votes. It was in Alberta that the plebiscite got 15% support for getting rid of the Wheat Board, the same number as the national result. In fact all of Strahl's numbers are for Alberta.

They are not the reality of the prairie position on the Wheat Board.

Farmer support for Option 1 the Wheat Board was;

Manitoba 50.6%
Saskatchewan; 45.1%
B.C.; 42%

Farmer support for Option 2 market to Wheat Board or on my own;
Manitoba; 34.5%
Saskatchewan; 42.1%
B.C.; 49%

In Manitoba and Saskatchewan the majority of farmers support the Wheat Board, their farmer owned producer cooperative.

Only in B.C. is it the reverse, but the government in its desperation looks at percentages instead of core numbers. B.C. only had 156 votes compared to Manitoba and Saskatchewan's 19,0000 votes.

That's because the Conservatives included B.C. making this not a prairie farm vote but a Western one.

Just as Alberta's vote skews the numbers.

For Option 1: 21.4%
For Option 2: 63.4%

Prairie farmers face their battle to maintain their producer cooperative not with Ottawa, but with Alberta and its party in Ottawa.

The government asked three questions. Period. And there was no clear winner. The government has to resort to arithmetricks.

The reality is that 57,000-60,000 farmers abstained from voting, a boycott was called, and they did not vote in the governments fixed plebiscite. That is twice as many as voted, and a clear rejection of Strahl and the Alberta Reform Party Farm lobby.

See:

Wheat Board

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper, Free-Trade, Klein, NDP, taxpayers, PR, propaganda,
Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives

Farmers Vote To Join Wheat Board

In Nebraska. Farmers vote to join the Wheat Board.

That runs counter to the propaganda of the Harpocrites that farmers want an open market. American farmers who suffer from Agribusiness domination of the market like Canadian farmers recognize that a Marketing Board is the better option. Because as we all know consolidation creates better market access in the capitalist market.

As Marx said; That production rests on the supreme rule of capital. The centralization of capital is essential to the existence of capital as an independent power.

The Nebraska Wheat Growers Association, formed in 1954 and based in Ogallala, plans to move its office to Lincoln, as part of a proposed merger with the Nebraska Wheat Board. "The proposal, under discussion for about a year now, is aimed at improving the efficiency of both groups and making promotion of wheat more effective," says Mike Sullivan, NAWG president and producer from Wallace. "It will also make lobbying efforts on behalf of wheat growers more effective with NAWG being based in Lincoln near the Legislature." The Nebraska Wheat Growers Association is a dues-paying, voluntary membership organization that represents the state's producers, including lobbying for them on state and national policy issues. It sets membership policy on such matters as the farm program, crop insurance, soil and water conservation, transportation, and environmental issues. The Wheat Board, on the other hand, consists of a seven-member board, appointed by the governor, that administers the 1-1/4-cent-per-bushel wheat checkoff fee paid by all Nebraska wheat growers. The checkoff was created under state law and as such the board is prohibited from lobbying on state issues, although it can do so on national issues. The board's responsibilities are allocating checkoff dollars for research, promotion, education and market development, says Royce Schaneman, executive director of the Wheat Board.

See:

Wheat Boom

Death of the Family Farm

Wheat Board

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, agriculture, wheat, WTO, G8, WheatBoard, farmers, Western-Canada, barley, wheat, Strahl, Government, Conservatives, Harper,

Canada
Politics
Harper
CWB
Wheat Board
farming
Supply Side Management
Conservatives