Alex Binkley for the Ontario Farmer
Missing the Point in CWB Elections
Commentators rightly zeroed in on the 59% turnout in the October federal election as a disturbing sign for the health of Canadian democracy and suggested all sorts of changes.
So what does it say when only 52% of western farmers who were eligible to vote in the recent election for Canadian Wheat Board directors bothered to return the ballots mailed to them? The CWB should be concerned about the impact on its credibility when nearly half the eligible farmers don’t vote. Continue reading
Rolf “A vote for choice is not a vote against the CWB. It is a vote that acknowledges there is more than one way to successfully market barley and that no single way works best for everyone all the time. No two farmers are exactly alike and neither are their business requirements or marketing strategies.”
Rolf “A vote for choice is one that respects everyone’s rights, and does not place one group of farmers ahead of another. Farmers who want to sell to the CWB can continue to do so and those who wish to pursue other avenues can do so as well. That is a basic Canadian freedom enjoyed by growers of every other crop except Prairie wheat and barley, and it serves them well.”
Rolf- “Numerous studies from a diverse body of researchers favour choice. Economists Carter and Loyns found that it ‘. . would raise farm income. . . .’ The market analysis company Sparks saw ‘substantial opportunities’ if the industry were ‘unimpeded.’ An agricultural think tank, the George Morris Centre points out ‘. . . mandatory organizations in Canada that have moved to voluntary status have actually become stronger marketing organizations.’ One of the key recommendations by authors of the 2006 Market Signals Report was to ‘allow marketing choice in barley.” 
Rolf- “And, supported by many farmers, the CWB will be able to negotiate competitive handling rates and terms with many of the grain companies as they compete to handle this grain. The CWB will provide farmers a strong negotiating position with these companies.”
Rolf “A voluntary market, it is often argued, would mean the end of the CWB. Yet many examples show this to be untrue. For instance, post-monopoly, the provincial pork marketing agencies on the Prairies enjoy continued producer support, healthy market shares and positive growth. Farmers support these organizations because they have worked hard to be competitive and have earned their business.”
Rolf Penner- Another story from down under for those who say a voluntary wheat board just wouldn’t work.
Rolf-“Recently malt plants have been built or expanded just south of the Canada/U.S. border because maltsters could not source directly from producers here. Choice would mean no longer forgoing malting premiums in favour of the domestic feed market and thereby leading to increased malting in Canada.” 
Rolf “In an environment of choice, Canadian maltsters will be able to provide appropriate signals directly to producers. When they need to attract acres, they will be able to do so through price and quality indicators and directly contracting with farmers. Currently, high prices in the feed market in years of shortage encourage farmers to sell malting barley for feed.” 
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Sure they make money. They’ve got a monopoly of acquiring it and this is an interesting thing that Neil brought out, that for some farmers they get back as much as 110%, under this famous pooling system and that obviously you’ve taken 10% ITom somebody else to give to that person just because of the bureaucratic system.You can answer that, this is my last question.
CWB: A 2005 study conducted by Schmitz, Schmitz and Gray simulates the total revenue from barley sales (feed and malt) farmers would have received in an open market during the period from 1995-06 through 2003-04 and shows producers received $59 million more per year than they would have in an open market environment. 
