Canadian wheat board not the best option

And it shouldn’t be the only one

STEPHEN MCCREARY VOLUNTEER STAFF

Love them or hate them, the federal Conservatives have done one thing extremely well since their election in January: keep their promises. From gay marriage to the GST, with the exception of the latest income trust announcement, they have stuck to every promise they made during the election campaign. Another controversial proposal smaking headlines is their decision to end the monopoly that the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) currently holds over the western Canadian grain market. Stephen Harper has been critical of the CWB since he was a member of the Young Liberals during his high school days, and the new Conservative party has spoken out against the board’s monopoly since the party’s formation in 2003.

Their reasoning has been simple enough: a fiscally conservative party, they are in favour of a free market and generally oppose government regulation of the economy. Since they are rooted in and still derive most of their support from the West, one could assume that they are more in touch with the mindset of the average farmer than the other federal parties.

Despite the mainstream media’s not-so-subtle support for the prowheat board side, convincing arguments defending the existence of the CWB are few and far between. The board definitely served its purpose — it was formed in the 1930s to protect farmers from bankruptcy when grain prices crashed worldwide. But today, its purpose is much harder to identify.

Currently, the CWB holds a monopoly over western Canadian wheat and barley producers. All farmers must sell their product to the wheat board by law. Proponents of the CWB argue that the wheat board can better market grain than the average grower. Ironically, they use the superiority of Canadian wheat and barley as an argument for its necessity!

If a farmer wishes to sell his wheat or barley to a third party, he must first sell it to the CWB and then buy it back. While this is an option, the CWB reserves the right to set the buyback price, eliminating any possible profit to be had, as well as refuse the buy-back altogether. Imagine you owned a business, and the state stepped in and told you that you could only sell your product to them. Imagine they refused to let you sell to anyone else — and then told you it was for your own good? Sounds kind of like the practices of an infamous failed political ideology, no?

Canadians were outraged when the Americans were unfairly taxing Canadian softwood lumber to the tune of $5 billion, and then refusing to return all the money even after a NAFTA panel ruling. However, in this case we are doing essentially the same. The CWB has a history of engaging in questionable business practices while unfairly collecting government subsidies and protections. American farmers have long viewed the CWB as a threat to their livelihood for these reasons.

While there will be endless debate about whether or not the wheat board is a necessary or even viable part of our economy, it is not the debate or even the final outcome that is most disturbing. What is unfortunate yet predictable is the immediate reaction we hear from politicians and the like. Unfortunately, these are the voices that dominate the media. We don’t hear the voices of the farmers; we don’t hear about the 2003 Ipsos- Reid poll which found that 68 per cent of Alberta farmers would like to see changes in how their product is marketed; we don’t hear about how in the absence of a dual market, 53 per cent of farmers would prefer an open system without the CWB. Instead, we hear doomsday predictors and public sector lobbyists. Churchill mayor Mike Spence argued the fate of his city is at stake if the fall of the CWB means grain is no longer shipped through its port. Adrian Measner, the president of the CWB, called the move to end the monopoly “un-Canadian” in a CBC story.

If price pooling and a full market monopoly are really the best options for farmers, why are Ontario farmers given the choice to sell to either the wheat board or the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board, while the western wheat and barley farmers are restricted to the CWB alone?

The parallels that can be drawn between this situation and our monopolistic health care system are disturbing. In both situations, the government decides what is best for us while our own decisions are deemed irrelevant.

In the healthcare system there are loopholes to get around the monopoly; you can go to the U.S. to receive medical treatment if it is unavailable domestically. Conversely, it is completely illegal for farmers to sell grain to anyone other than the CWB. In 2002, Alberta farmer Darren Winczura took a stand against the CWB and donated a bag of grain to a Montana 4-H club. For this horrendous act of defiance, he faced fines and half a month in prison.

The fact is that the CWB will be able to get better prices when the market takes a dive. It will also restrict farmers when the economy is doing well. In the end, whether the wheat board can get a better price for Canadian farmers at a certain time is a moot point. In a system of increased globalization, while sharing the longest undefended border on the planet with the world’s only superpower, this type of communiststyle operation has no place in a free market economy. If the CWB really is the best option for farmers, it will stand up on its own without the monopoly.

Stephen McCreary is a University 1 student at the University of Manitoba.