Sunday, January 21, 2007
Feds Get Wheat Board Ballot Question Right
After Gary Doer's pathetic attempt to skew the numbers by posing a loaded question on the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite, the Feds now know not to make the same mistake (sub).
If we're to use the Manitoba plebiscite as an indicator, this could spell trouble for proponents of the monopoly.
The Feds' question is more honest, and much more in line with the Torie's vision, than the live-or-die options given by the Doer government.
The Doer question forced farmers to choose between the status quo, and "I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system."
And that "middle ground" just so happens to be exactly what the government's plans are.
The Free Press has learned that Chuck Strahl's Agriculture Department has been preparing a ballot for the key vote that gives farmers three options -- instead of simply asking farmers whether they prefer selling barley on the open market. [...]
But Conrad Bellehumeur, Strahl's director of communications, did not deny there may be more than two questions, saying an "either-or" situation does not reflect the Tory vision for the world's largest barely and wheat marketer.
"I cannot confirm how many (voting) boxes there may be. There could be two, there could be more," Bellehumeur said.
"It (the ballot's wording) will reflect the government's vision to provide freedom of choice to producers."
If we're to use the Manitoba plebiscite as an indicator, this could spell trouble for proponents of the monopoly.
The Feds' question is more honest, and much more in line with the Torie's vision, than the live-or-die options given by the Doer government.
The Doer question forced farmers to choose between the status quo, and "I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system."
"That would not be the ballot we would use," he (Bellehumeur) said. "It is not an all-or-nothing option."
Strahl has said he will not be bound by the results of the barley plebiscite.
Mike Bast, chairman of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, which has been among the biggest backers of the Tory plans for the CWB, said a three-option ballot is exactly what his group recommended to Strahl.
"That is the most accurate way to gauge farmers," Bast said.
"I feel that is where the Manitoba plebiscite missed the mark, because it did not give farmers out there that middle ground."
And that "middle ground" just so happens to be exactly what the government's plans are.
Labels: Conservative Party, CWB, Fun With Polls, Gary Doer, Manitoba, NDP
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
while I don't agree with the government controlling the only marketting board, I also don't think that Joe Farmer selling his own grain directly to the customer is going to work either.
What would work, is canning the government run wheat board and allowing private corporations (regulated and licensed by the government, of course) to run their own wheat buying/selling groups. that way the farmer's have the option to sell to WheatCorp-A, or WheatCorp-B. it gives them selling options, and competition, without having to directly deal with the end customer.
Government run monopolies like the wheat board get so top heavy after running unchallenged for so many years, having private competitors would allow them to pay the farmers more per bushel, and provide better service on both the buying and selling end of the spectrum.
I know my position is usually totalitarian, but I think this is a good application of a public/private partnership.
What would work, is canning the government run wheat board and allowing private corporations (regulated and licensed by the government, of course) to run their own wheat buying/selling groups. that way the farmer's have the option to sell to WheatCorp-A, or WheatCorp-B. it gives them selling options, and competition, without having to directly deal with the end customer.
Government run monopolies like the wheat board get so top heavy after running unchallenged for so many years, having private competitors would allow them to pay the farmers more per bushel, and provide better service on both the buying and selling end of the spectrum.
I know my position is usually totalitarian, but I think this is a good application of a public/private partnership.
Re: the CWB being "top-heavy". Look at the percentage of revenue they return to farmers. It's somewhere in the area of 97%. What corporation would do the same? The CWB doesn't need to make a profit, so farmers get more. Corporations need to build in those profits, which would come off the backs of farmers.
My guess is that the model proposed in the first comment would benefit the large grain multinationals and hurt small farmers. Not the result anybody wants.
As for the Federal questions, I have to disagree. There is enough evidence out there to suggest that the Wheat Board would not survive in a so-called "open" market. They don't own their own infrastructure and would have to rely on their competitors to ship and handle grain. And those same competitors have tried numerous times to kill the CWB in trade tribunals and courts. They have not succeeded, but what is the likelihood they will play fair if the CWB monopoly ends. Zero.
The Federal questions are - IMHO - a smokescreen for their real intention, which is to dismantle the CWB regardless of farmer support.
So in the end, it comes down to two visions. One is a farmer-run organization with the resources to compete on the global level. The other is the American model of farmers being forced to deal with a handful of large multinational grain corporations.
Except that our farmers don't get the huge subsidies American farmers do...
My guess is that the model proposed in the first comment would benefit the large grain multinationals and hurt small farmers. Not the result anybody wants.
As for the Federal questions, I have to disagree. There is enough evidence out there to suggest that the Wheat Board would not survive in a so-called "open" market. They don't own their own infrastructure and would have to rely on their competitors to ship and handle grain. And those same competitors have tried numerous times to kill the CWB in trade tribunals and courts. They have not succeeded, but what is the likelihood they will play fair if the CWB monopoly ends. Zero.
The Federal questions are - IMHO - a smokescreen for their real intention, which is to dismantle the CWB regardless of farmer support.
So in the end, it comes down to two visions. One is a farmer-run organization with the resources to compete on the global level. The other is the American model of farmers being forced to deal with a handful of large multinational grain corporations.
Except that our farmers don't get the huge subsidies American farmers do...
Well Anon, the Australian Wheat Board did fine when they turned into a private company (at least until the Oil-for-food Scandal), so I don't see why Canada's would do just as well, if not better.
From the sounds of things you don't think Canadian farmers can compete globally unless the playing field is rigged in their favor, and I don't agree with that.
Post a Comment
From the sounds of things you don't think Canadian farmers can compete globally unless the playing field is rigged in their favor, and I don't agree with that.
Links to this post:
<< Home
