Canadian Wheat Board:The Facts
ridenrain @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:21 am
Didn't anyone even read this:
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
Banff @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:22 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
ridenrain ridenrain:
$1:
Canadian Wheat Board:The Facts
This essay by publisher Morris Dorosh is reprinted with permission from the Dec. 18, 2006 issue of Agriweek.
In politics it is not the truth that counts. It is what people can be made to believe. If enough people believe it, it becomes the truth. If a thing is repeated often enough and energetically enough, no matter whether it is true or not, people will usually begin to believe it and then it becomes the truth. People are more inclined to believe what they want to believe instead of inconvenient truths, generally things that fit their prejudices, habits and outlooks. Different people can observe the same facts and come to completely opposite conclusions. Supporters of one point of view are routinely appalled by the inability of holders of another point to see the truth as they see it.
Politics sucks. The western grain marketing situation is pure 100% politics. It really sucks.
The following statements are verifiable facts. The Canadian Wheat Board is a government agency because the Government of Canada owns its assets and is responsible for its liabilities. The Wheat Board is not a corporation unless it is a crown corporation because it is owned by the government. If it were a corporation but not a crown corporation it would have shareholders. If it had shareholders they would not elect directors on the basis of one vote per person but on the basis of one vote per share.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not obtain any price premium for wheat and barley, since any farmer can take almost any sample to almost any elevator in North Dakota and be offered a better price than that promised by the Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet. If it were not so the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board would have it in their power to expose the taxpayers of Canada to liabilities of billions of dollars without responsibility nor accountability to the taxpayers.
The duty of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is to represent, and especially to protect, the interests of the only shareholder this peculiar entity has.
These are facts. No director elections and no number of press releases blizzarded by the Wheat Board propaganda contraption can change them. Nothing gives those directors passionately obsessed by their monopoly power any license to continue to thwart the intentions or authority of their owner.
The present situation with Wheat Board governance is exactly the same as if every owner of a General Motors vehicle had one vote in the annual election of directors of General Motors Corp., and the owners of General Motors stock were expected to accept the results and all ensuing consequences. The Wheat Board and the supporters of its lead-pipe monopoly have no cause to chortle. In a country where the rights of tiny minorities, sometimes a fraction of 1% of the population, are assiduously protected and guarded, it is inconceivable that the rights of a minority as large as 40% can be ignored and trampled, which is precisely what the anti-choice forces want to keep doing. It is not possible to give monopoly supporters what they want without abusing the rights of monopoly opponents. Furthermore, the government which grants a monopoly has the moral authority to continue it or to remove it at will. Many things are missing here. If the monopoly is so widely supported and preferred, why its there not a general, persistent movement, comparable in durability to the pro-choice movement, to put all western crops under monopoly marketing control? Why is no one demanding that Ontario and Quebec grains be put under the same monopoly? Why is no farm organization advocating the replacement of vulnerable supply-management marketing boards with a government agency such as the Wheat Board? Why has it not even crossed anyone’s mind that agencies should be created on the Wheat Board model to market, say, lumber, coal, iron ore or crude oil? The process of terminating the monopoly has not been well handled. Anyone could have predicted the storm of protest from fanatic pro-monopoly quarters to the suggestion that the government has the right to remove a privilege it has granted. The only thing on which there is any agreement is that farmers should have a vote. And so they should. But it is time for some common sense. Eligibility should be the same as for the director elections. However, the voter list provided by the Wheat Board should include the quantity of wheat and barley sold by each permit holder in the last two completed crop years. The results should be tabulated in two ways. One count should be on the present, however improper, basis of one-man (or -woman) one vote. The other should be according to the amount of grain sold by each voter, or one tonne one vote, representing the relative economic interest of farmers subject to the single desk monopoly. The Wheat Board has the necessary information. The results would go a long way to resolving this. It doesn’t look like anything else will.
This essay by publisher Morris Dorosh is reprinted with permission from the Dec. 18, 2006 issue of Agriweek.
In politics it is not the truth that counts. It is what people can be made to believe. If enough people believe it, it becomes the truth. If a thing is repeated often enough and energetically enough, no matter whether it is true or not, people will usually begin to believe it and then it becomes the truth. People are more inclined to believe what they want to believe instead of inconvenient truths, generally things that fit their prejudices, habits and outlooks. Different people can observe the same facts and come to completely opposite conclusions. Supporters of one point of view are routinely appalled by the inability of holders of another point to see the truth as they see it.
Politics sucks. The western grain marketing situation is pure 100% politics. It really sucks.
The following statements are verifiable facts. The Canadian Wheat Board is a government agency because the Government of Canada owns its assets and is responsible for its liabilities. The Wheat Board is not a corporation unless it is a crown corporation because it is owned by the government. If it were a corporation but not a crown corporation it would have shareholders. If it had shareholders they would not elect directors on the basis of one vote per person but on the basis of one vote per share.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not obtain any price premium for wheat and barley, since any farmer can take almost any sample to almost any elevator in North Dakota and be offered a better price than that promised by the Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet. If it were not so the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board would have it in their power to expose the taxpayers of Canada to liabilities of billions of dollars without responsibility nor accountability to the taxpayers.
The duty of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is to represent, and especially to protect, the interests of the only shareholder this peculiar entity has.
These are facts. No director elections and no number of press releases blizzarded by the Wheat Board propaganda contraption can change them. Nothing gives those directors passionately obsessed by their monopoly power any license to continue to thwart the intentions or authority of their owner.
The present situation with Wheat Board governance is exactly the same as if every owner of a General Motors vehicle had one vote in the annual election of directors of General Motors Corp., and the owners of General Motors stock were expected to accept the results and all ensuing consequences. The Wheat Board and the supporters of its lead-pipe monopoly have no cause to chortle. In a country where the rights of tiny minorities, sometimes a fraction of 1% of the population, are assiduously protected and guarded, it is inconceivable that the rights of a minority as large as 40% can be ignored and trampled, which is precisely what the anti-choice forces want to keep doing. It is not possible to give monopoly supporters what they want without abusing the rights of monopoly opponents. Furthermore, the government which grants a monopoly has the moral authority to continue it or to remove it at will. Many things are missing here. If the monopoly is so widely supported and preferred, why its there not a general, persistent movement, comparable in durability to the pro-choice movement, to put all western crops under monopoly marketing control? Why is no one demanding that Ontario and Quebec grains be put under the same monopoly? Why is no farm organization advocating the replacement of vulnerable supply-management marketing boards with a government agency such as the Wheat Board? Why has it not even crossed anyone’s mind that agencies should be created on the Wheat Board model to market, say, lumber, coal, iron ore or crude oil? The process of terminating the monopoly has not been well handled. Anyone could have predicted the storm of protest from fanatic pro-monopoly quarters to the suggestion that the government has the right to remove a privilege it has granted. The only thing on which there is any agreement is that farmers should have a vote. And so they should. But it is time for some common sense. Eligibility should be the same as for the director elections. However, the voter list provided by the Wheat Board should include the quantity of wheat and barley sold by each permit holder in the last two completed crop years. The results should be tabulated in two ways. One count should be on the present, however improper, basis of one-man (or -woman) one vote. The other should be according to the amount of grain sold by each voter, or one tonne one vote, representing the relative economic interest of farmers subject to the single desk monopoly. The Wheat Board has the necessary information. The results would go a long way to resolving this. It doesn’t look like anything else will.
Geez, how about this for an idea, LET THE WHEAT FARMERS DECIDE! One permit book, one vote.
Sure why not because in the long run the whole thing will end up looking like the Walmart of wheat . Its not about the immediate picture , its the long term
and what kind of money are you going to get selling to Walmart ?Even if you are a big Canadian Producer don't go thinking the US won't inflate to produce an essential AG product . By the way that $13.00 bucks was in the heart of wheat country 
Looks like there is enough around here to mill my own bread by hand 
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:33 pm
SJ-24 SJ-24:
Membership to this socialist organization in mandatory, that's where I have my problem. If the farmers were allowed to join the "co-op" or go it alone I would have no problem with whatever they do, but the board has the power to dismantle a farmer's life for him wanting to sell outside of the organization. That to me is a communist dictatorship that only Stalin could be proud of.
Dismantle it and let the chips fall where they may.
Dismantle it and let the chips fall where they may.
Membership to any socialist organization should absolutely be mandatory. Would you rather have an organization that controls and regulates, yet they selectively exclude some of the affected framers from being a member?
I think what you really meant is: compliance is mandatory...and you don't like what "compliance" means
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:35 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Didn't anyone even read this:
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
What do you mean about "elected and appoint"? Are they elected, and who elects them?
Proculation @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:06 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
ridenrain ridenrain:
Didn't anyone even read this:
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
What do you mean about "elected and appoint"? Are they elected, and who elects them?
Some are elected and some are appointed by the PMO.
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:14 pm
10 are elected by farmers, 5 are appointed by order in council - including the president.
Banff @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:35 pm
Membership to this socialist organization in mandatory, that's where I have my problem. If the farmers were allowed to join the "co-op" or go it alone I would have no problem with whatever they do, but the board has the power to dismantle a farmer's life for him wanting to sell outside of the organization. That to me is a communist dictatorship that only Stalin could be proud of.
Dismantle it and let the chips fall where they may.
Riiiiight , this coming from someone who may have escaped from the wacko texas group . SJ face it you're not even a neo con you don't believe in government at all and would open up a timeshare condo resort on the richest ag producers land if you could get more money . Don't forget you are in an industry which is inflated more than even the petroleum industry ...how about we close all gas stations turn off gas to everyones homes and I sell you inflated disposable jerry cans to use on toll farmer roads to get your fuel and while we're at it maybe you'd want to buy a milling machine too .
yeah yeah yeah I know you'll just say
it Rolls off like water on the ducks back
Ripcat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:28 pm
weaponeer weaponeer:
it's not all bad, the small family farmers simple get jobs working for the corporate farms. they don't have to dish out gobs of $$ for equip, they can have corporate workers help harvest, it becomes and industry. the corporations want to succeed, they willl not let small farmers go under, they need them.....
Really? How exactly do the corporations need them? A few weeks of work at planting and harvest time?
fifeboy @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:02 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Didn't anyone even read this:
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not controlled by farmers because its directors, elected and appointed alike, serve at the discretion of the federal cabinet.
As Harper has just proven, with the dismisal of a Pro-Wheat Board Director with an Anti-Wheat Board Director.
dog77_1999 @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:42 pm
$13.00 for 4 loaves of wheat. In Texas that would cost $2.75.
Sweet mother get rid of the wheat board!!!
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:54 pm
The US subsidizes its grain farmers to the tune of several billion dollars...that's not exactly the hand of the market either.
RUEZ @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:23 pm
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
A monopoly would be if 1 person own and controlled the wheat board.
A wheat board that ultimately takes direction from it's members is a democracy. I'm not sure, is that the case here?
I don't think that's right. If GM sold every car in Canada it would still be a monopoly even if it had a board of directors.
A wheat board that ultimately takes direction from it's members is a democracy. I'm not sure, is that the case here?
Banff @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:40 pm
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
$13.00 for 4 loaves of wheat. In Texas that would cost $2.75.
Sweet mother get rid of the wheat board!!!
Sweet mother get rid of the wheat board!!!
Not exactly about getting rid of the wheat board ...you see Canadians are so careless they want to sell raw to the US make a lazy buck ship produce back and earn $16.00 dollars for 4 loaves so that Canadians eventually sell to the Walmart wheat board and all the other bakerys close and maybe even doughnut shops close because retail can't buy their own wheat from themselves. ....get my point ?
I highly doubt the local farmers have a brilliant plan over and above the wheat board . In my opinion they'd be better off selling in home milling machines and close down farming . Maybe the Canadian Government can tax the blades of yellow grass by the foot like they do with trees and lumber so they can buy Canadian wheat back from the US to feed the people
anyhow its pretty f**ked up .
That essay is pretty weird almost sounds like someone saying they don't know what their saying so they'll just ramble on and on using similes and metaphors .
dog77_1999 @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:42 am
ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:
The US subsidizes its grain farmers to the tune of several billion dollars...that's not exactly the hand of the market either.
Even with the subsidy, it wouldn't account for the 400%+ increase in Canada. Even with the subsidies, the prices would probaly add cents to the price. Then again, every industrialized nation has been doing this.....should be eliminated IMHO.
Patrick_Ross @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:17 pm
Proponents of the wheat board engage in propaganda as well. To this end, I present:
http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=4973
$1:
ARE PRAIRIE FARMERS NO LONGER WHEAT KINGS?
SHANNON PHILLIPS / [email protected]
A fight between farmers, industry and the feds that could affect what's on your plate
A big storm is brewing on the Canadian prairies, but most of us don’t even know what it’s about.
Over the past month, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has slapped a gag order on the Canadian Wheat Board, struck a committee charged with dismantling it and banned the Wheat Board from publicly advocating its advantages while spending tax money on anti-Wheat Board advertising.
Wheat Board directors are farmers, elected by farmers. The future of the Board is determined by those directors. Last week, in the middle of the election campaign, the Harper government rejigged the voters’ lists, removing thousands of farmers from it.
The Canadian Wheat Board is used to having a tough row to hoe. Over the past few years, the Americans have unsuccessfully argued before NAFTA and the WTO that the Canadian board is unfair competition because it dumps cheaper wheat onto the market. International panels have dismissed those claims, indicating that the CWB is not a subsidy and the goal of the CWB is to “maximize returns for farmers”—the very opposite of dumping cheap wheat on the market.
For years, the Alberta government has championed the demise of the CWB. Last month, the Alberta NDP revealed the province had spent $1 million on anti-Wheat Board advertising and market research.
There are a few farmers who hate the Board enough to go to jail to make a point about how it has outlived its usefulness. Most others, though, defend it with tireless vigour: plebiscites and surveys show most farmers want to keep the it. A majority of the directors elected by farmers support retaining the board. While the Alberta government says our province’s farmers want to be rid of the board, anti-Wheat Board forces have only elected two of the 10 directors.
With all this controversy swirling around our national breadbasket, Vue looked into the role of the Wheat Board and asked farmers a simple question: why should city people care?
It’s mandatory for prairie farmers growing wheat, durum and barley for export (not for domestic livestock feed) to sell to the Wheat Board. In return, the CWB says farmers get a predictable—and higher—price on the world market.
It’s called “single desk marketing.” The single desk markets Canadian wheat to countries and companies all over the world. The wheat board negotiates the price and payments are issued to farmers in instalments. Because there is only one source of prairie wheat, with high quality standards, the Wheat Board usually fetches a premium price for prairie farmers. But not always—there are times when the spot price on the market is higher than the Wheat Board price over the course of the year.
According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the price they negotiate is anywhere between $10-$40 more per tonne than a “multiple seller” system. Saskatchewan organic farmer Dale Flavel says it’s a powerful form of collective action.
“Nobody [grain traders or other countries] goes around asking for the highest price,” he said. “The CWB says to them ‘here’s the price you’re going to pay for prairie wheat,’ which everyone knows is the highest quality in the world.”
Flavel has been farming since 1970 and says he wouldn’t be farming today without the board.
“Without the Board, the brokers are going to go around negotiating for a price that’s as cheap as possible,” he explained. “Farmers will try to undercut each other just to get rid of it. It’ll be a race to the bottom.”
Supporters of the CWB like it because it gives farmers stability that comes from “price pooling.” This means the price the CWB gets for farmers is an average of the price of wheat over the course of the year. Farmers don’t get the proceeds of their sale right away, as they would on an open, cash market. Instead, they get paid in instalments. At the end of the year, CWB profits are returned to farmers. If there’s a major destabilization of the global market, the price the CWB projected at the beginning of the year is guaranteed to farmers.
The CWB is a mandatory monopoly, and that’s what really sticks in many farmers’ craw.
Jim Chatenay, a grain farmer in Penhold, Alberta, loathes the CWB. In 1998, he spirited one bushel of wheat across the US border to make a point. He was fined $4 000 for contravening the Wheat Board Act. Instead of paying the fine, he served 23 days in jail as a symbolic protest.
Chatenay was elected to the Board in 1998. He’s been re-elected twice, as one of two anti-Wheat Board directors.
Chatenay “cherishes his freedom,” and wants to sell wheat on the open market, just as grain farmers in Ontario do. “How in the world can you put a farmer in jail in one part of the country, but not in the other?” he asked. “I should be able to grow and sell to whomever I want. That’s freedom.”
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.
Allen Oberg, who also sits on the CWB as an Alberta director, says that’s not because there has been a federal Liberal bias in favour of central Canada, as Chatenay believes. Rather, Ontario farmers voted to end the single desk system a few years ago.
In 2005, Ontario farmers got $1/bushel less than prairie farmers for the same wheat.
Anti-CWB forces champion their cause as a question of choice and freedom, juxtaposing these emotionally charged concepts against pejorative words like “monopoly,” and “restrictions.”
Darcy Willis, spokesperson for Alberta Agriculture, says that there are all kinds of ways farmers can voluntarily get good prices for their wheat without the CWB monopoly. Willis argues that farmers market all sorts of other crops, such as canola, flax and oats. He says Alberta farmers don’t understand why wheat and barley should be different.
But wheat is a different kind of crop. It is the second-largest cereal in the world, after maize. Just under 20 per cent of that wheat is brought to the market by the Canadian Wheat Board.
In other words, there is money to be made off prairie wheat, and right now, that money flows to prairie farmers, not shareholders.
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.
Jim Chatenay and the Alberta government say all the talk of “being at the mercy” of multinational grain companies is “fear mongering.”
Eighty per cent of the CWB directors beg to differ with Chatenay. Flavel says his experience with barley—which was put on a “dual marketing” system in the 1980s—showed him what life after the Board looks like.
“I tried selling my barley off-Board—compared to people who sold to the Wheat Board that year, I took a lickin’,” he said. “Sure, I got my money in cash, up front. But by the end of the year, when the final payments came in, my friends who stayed with the Board did far better.”
Barley was returned to the single desk after a farmer plebiscite in 1997, with 63 per cent of farmers voting in favour.
CWB advocates say that the system is run by farmers, and that’s how it should stay. Allen Oberg says he’d gladly abide by any decision to dismantle the Board, as long as the decision was made by farmer plebiscite, with a fair question.
But federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has refused to put the question to farmers. He told the House of Commons last week that many changes can be made without a plebiscite or a change in the law.
Some of those changes were made last week. Five director positions are up for re-election this November. In the middle of the campaign, the government decided, via administrative fiat, to remove anyone who hadn’t delivered grain to the Board in the last 15 months.
There are many reasons why a farmer who usually sells to the CWB wouldn’t have done so in the last 15 months. Farmers rotate their crops. Crop failure is a reality—that’s why 48 per cent of farmers in the Peace River area are now dropped from the voters’ list. Northern Alberta and BC farmers are traditionally strong supporters of the board.
The CWB is facing the most severe challenges of its 63-year history. But why should city people care about the Canadian Wheat Board?
All farmers, regardless of their views on the Board, believe urban Canadians have a stake in the future of grain farming. “If you eat, you care about agriculture,” said Jim Chatenay.
“Whether you agree with the Wheat Board or not, the feds are being totally undemocratic,” said Allen Oberg. “Here we are sending people to Afghanistan to promote democracy, and here we have infringement on voting rights and freedom of expression. It’s not the way things should be done in Canada.”
The Wheat Board is one of Canada’s last forms of collective market action. It remains to be seen if it can survive the Harper dustbowl.
SHANNON PHILLIPS / [email protected]
A fight between farmers, industry and the feds that could affect what's on your plate
A big storm is brewing on the Canadian prairies, but most of us don’t even know what it’s about.
Over the past month, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has slapped a gag order on the Canadian Wheat Board, struck a committee charged with dismantling it and banned the Wheat Board from publicly advocating its advantages while spending tax money on anti-Wheat Board advertising.
Wheat Board directors are farmers, elected by farmers. The future of the Board is determined by those directors. Last week, in the middle of the election campaign, the Harper government rejigged the voters’ lists, removing thousands of farmers from it.
The Canadian Wheat Board is used to having a tough row to hoe. Over the past few years, the Americans have unsuccessfully argued before NAFTA and the WTO that the Canadian board is unfair competition because it dumps cheaper wheat onto the market. International panels have dismissed those claims, indicating that the CWB is not a subsidy and the goal of the CWB is to “maximize returns for farmers”—the very opposite of dumping cheap wheat on the market.
For years, the Alberta government has championed the demise of the CWB. Last month, the Alberta NDP revealed the province had spent $1 million on anti-Wheat Board advertising and market research.
There are a few farmers who hate the Board enough to go to jail to make a point about how it has outlived its usefulness. Most others, though, defend it with tireless vigour: plebiscites and surveys show most farmers want to keep the it. A majority of the directors elected by farmers support retaining the board. While the Alberta government says our province’s farmers want to be rid of the board, anti-Wheat Board forces have only elected two of the 10 directors.
With all this controversy swirling around our national breadbasket, Vue looked into the role of the Wheat Board and asked farmers a simple question: why should city people care?
It’s mandatory for prairie farmers growing wheat, durum and barley for export (not for domestic livestock feed) to sell to the Wheat Board. In return, the CWB says farmers get a predictable—and higher—price on the world market.
It’s called “single desk marketing.” The single desk markets Canadian wheat to countries and companies all over the world. The wheat board negotiates the price and payments are issued to farmers in instalments. Because there is only one source of prairie wheat, with high quality standards, the Wheat Board usually fetches a premium price for prairie farmers. But not always—there are times when the spot price on the market is higher than the Wheat Board price over the course of the year.
According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the price they negotiate is anywhere between $10-$40 more per tonne than a “multiple seller” system. Saskatchewan organic farmer Dale Flavel says it’s a powerful form of collective action.
“Nobody [grain traders or other countries] goes around asking for the highest price,” he said. “The CWB says to them ‘here’s the price you’re going to pay for prairie wheat,’ which everyone knows is the highest quality in the world.”
Flavel has been farming since 1970 and says he wouldn’t be farming today without the board.
“Without the Board, the brokers are going to go around negotiating for a price that’s as cheap as possible,” he explained. “Farmers will try to undercut each other just to get rid of it. It’ll be a race to the bottom.”
Supporters of the CWB like it because it gives farmers stability that comes from “price pooling.” This means the price the CWB gets for farmers is an average of the price of wheat over the course of the year. Farmers don’t get the proceeds of their sale right away, as they would on an open, cash market. Instead, they get paid in instalments. At the end of the year, CWB profits are returned to farmers. If there’s a major destabilization of the global market, the price the CWB projected at the beginning of the year is guaranteed to farmers.
The CWB is a mandatory monopoly, and that’s what really sticks in many farmers’ craw.
Jim Chatenay, a grain farmer in Penhold, Alberta, loathes the CWB. In 1998, he spirited one bushel of wheat across the US border to make a point. He was fined $4 000 for contravening the Wheat Board Act. Instead of paying the fine, he served 23 days in jail as a symbolic protest.
Chatenay was elected to the Board in 1998. He’s been re-elected twice, as one of two anti-Wheat Board directors.
Chatenay “cherishes his freedom,” and wants to sell wheat on the open market, just as grain farmers in Ontario do. “How in the world can you put a farmer in jail in one part of the country, but not in the other?” he asked. “I should be able to grow and sell to whomever I want. That’s freedom.”
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.
Allen Oberg, who also sits on the CWB as an Alberta director, says that’s not because there has been a federal Liberal bias in favour of central Canada, as Chatenay believes. Rather, Ontario farmers voted to end the single desk system a few years ago.
In 2005, Ontario farmers got $1/bushel less than prairie farmers for the same wheat.
Anti-CWB forces champion their cause as a question of choice and freedom, juxtaposing these emotionally charged concepts against pejorative words like “monopoly,” and “restrictions.”
Darcy Willis, spokesperson for Alberta Agriculture, says that there are all kinds of ways farmers can voluntarily get good prices for their wheat without the CWB monopoly. Willis argues that farmers market all sorts of other crops, such as canola, flax and oats. He says Alberta farmers don’t understand why wheat and barley should be different.
But wheat is a different kind of crop. It is the second-largest cereal in the world, after maize. Just under 20 per cent of that wheat is brought to the market by the Canadian Wheat Board.
In other words, there is money to be made off prairie wheat, and right now, that money flows to prairie farmers, not shareholders.
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.
Jim Chatenay and the Alberta government say all the talk of “being at the mercy” of multinational grain companies is “fear mongering.”
Eighty per cent of the CWB directors beg to differ with Chatenay. Flavel says his experience with barley—which was put on a “dual marketing” system in the 1980s—showed him what life after the Board looks like.
“I tried selling my barley off-Board—compared to people who sold to the Wheat Board that year, I took a lickin’,” he said. “Sure, I got my money in cash, up front. But by the end of the year, when the final payments came in, my friends who stayed with the Board did far better.”
Barley was returned to the single desk after a farmer plebiscite in 1997, with 63 per cent of farmers voting in favour.
CWB advocates say that the system is run by farmers, and that’s how it should stay. Allen Oberg says he’d gladly abide by any decision to dismantle the Board, as long as the decision was made by farmer plebiscite, with a fair question.
But federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has refused to put the question to farmers. He told the House of Commons last week that many changes can be made without a plebiscite or a change in the law.
Some of those changes were made last week. Five director positions are up for re-election this November. In the middle of the campaign, the government decided, via administrative fiat, to remove anyone who hadn’t delivered grain to the Board in the last 15 months.
There are many reasons why a farmer who usually sells to the CWB wouldn’t have done so in the last 15 months. Farmers rotate their crops. Crop failure is a reality—that’s why 48 per cent of farmers in the Peace River area are now dropped from the voters’ list. Northern Alberta and BC farmers are traditionally strong supporters of the board.
The CWB is facing the most severe challenges of its 63-year history. But why should city people care about the Canadian Wheat Board?
All farmers, regardless of their views on the Board, believe urban Canadians have a stake in the future of grain farming. “If you eat, you care about agriculture,” said Jim Chatenay.
“Whether you agree with the Wheat Board or not, the feds are being totally undemocratic,” said Allen Oberg. “Here we are sending people to Afghanistan to promote democracy, and here we have infringement on voting rights and freedom of expression. It’s not the way things should be done in Canada.”
The Wheat Board is one of Canada’s last forms of collective market action. It remains to be seen if it can survive the Harper dustbowl.