Canadian Wheat Board:The Facts
ridenrain @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:15 am
$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.
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:53 am
I find it ironic that Mr. Dorosh, at the beginning of his article, gives us a lesson in propaganda - anything that is repeated often enough becomes the truth - and by the end of his article he is referring to his ideological opponents with brutal ad-hominems like 'fanatic' and 'obssessed'.
Hello? Kettle? This is the Pot calling.
Anyhow, I find it curious how opponents of the Wheat Board constantly try to pigeon hole supporters of the Wheat Board as monopoly fanatics, when in fact the wheat board is designed to protect small farmers from being overtaken by larger outfits.
Mr. Dorosh is arguing that those who produce more grain should have a greater say in the future of the wheat board. Essentially, this means that the largest producers with the greatest ability to market their grain, and the power to undercut smaller competition by selling at a loss, will have an inflated influence on dismantling an organization that is designed to protect their smaller competition. How is this anything but 'monopolistic?'
Robair @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:20 am
ReliableIntelligence ReliableIntelligence:
Mr. Dorosh is arguing that those who produce more grain should have a greater say in the future of the wheat board. Essentially, this means that the largest producers with the greatest ability to market their grain, and the power to undercut smaller competition by selling at a loss, will have an inflated influence on dismantling an organization that is designed to protect their smaller competition. How is this anything but 'monopolistic?'
Pretty much. That "CWB: The Facts" is kinda short on facts, isn't it?
The CWB doesn't get farmers a premium? Yea, right.
Hey Ridenrain, the wheatboard is no longer allowed to advertise the single desk point of view. Your Conservatives have put a gag order on them. Now THAT'S democracy, eh?
Proculation @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:37 am
The only real fact is that the CWB is a monopoly. That's enough for me to want it dismantled.
At least, they should allow farmers to form other coop and sell to who they want. The CWB will just be another big "coop". They should not force you to sell to them. We are not in USSR.
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:47 am
Meant to point out that this line...
$1:
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?
...is either intentionally misleading or spectacularly stupid.
The wheat board exists to protect prices for small family farmers.
When was the last time you heard of a mom and pop oil drilling operation, or iron mine?
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:57 am
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?
A few rogue farmer that want to operate outside of a democracy, don't deserve my time.
A few rogue farmers that are lorded over by a democracy turned dictatorship, automatically earns my support. But perhaps a measured response isn't dismantling the entire wheat board. perhaps a measured response is reforming and restructuring the wheatboard.
SJ-24 @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:13 am
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.
ridenrain @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:15 am
I understand 100% of Quebec farmers fully support the Wheat Board.
Why is that, because they are not restricted by it.
weaponeer @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:24 am
Farmers should be allowed to sell to whom ever they want, this is not the USSR. diband the wheat board, hopefully the cbc will be next....
Proculation @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:31 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
I understand 100% of Quebec farmers fully support the Wheat Board.
Why is that, because they are not restricted by it.
Why is that, because they are not restricted by it.
Please don't talk of Quebec farms.
The agriculture sector here is a real mafia.
We pay our milk and eggs 3 or 4 times the real price because a few small farms could not handle the drop in price. Millions paying to protect a few dozens jobs. That's insane.
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:33 am
If we let the chips fall, they're going to fall quickly into the stacks of huge farm operations, and the already short stacked family farmer is going to have to leave the table altogether.
'Democracy' is not supposed to be about helping an already advantaged minority overpower the interests of the majority.
Let the wheat board vote, but make it a fair vote in which the interests of the family farmer aren't overwhelmed by the interests of big business. Let it be a fair vote that doesn't stifle one point of view and promote another. Don't rig the lists to support one point of view.
weaponeer @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:40 am
RI,
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 $$ for equip, they can have corporate workers help harvest, it becomes and industry. the corporations want to succeed, they willl not let small farmers go under, they need them.....
Banff @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:57 am
What do we need larger producers for ? Maybe to drive the prices up ? I really don't mean that as joke ...look around and you'll see what I mean . It shouldn't be true but it is anyway that essay is one large mouthful for an article which could be a few sentences long . If you can get a better price in North Dakota then so be it let the big guy deal with the market and see if the competiton is enough to down play Canadian farming to a closure and turn the whole thing into imported produce ...or get into the business of selling milling machines to the city folk and let them go pick their own wild wheat and barley . Sorry for the crass joke but geez I had to say something because I went to the store and it cost more than $13.00 for 4 loaves of bread 
while we're at it maybe we should sell the city folk one use disposable jerry cans at inflated prices and let them run onto your feilds (walk in only ) to fill up with dirty gas from the well on your property . toll them if they want to drive in .
I know its not all the farmers fault we just don't have a government in his country regardless who we vote for .
end Rant
ReliableIntelligence @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:07 am
weaponeer weaponeer:
RI,
it's not all bad, the small family farmers simple get jobs working for the corporate farms. they don't have to dish out gobs of $$ 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.....
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.....
So let the small producers decide - fairly - where their interest lies.
fifeboy @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:10 am
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.