|
The Ram's Horn: a monthly journal of food systems analysis. The Ram's Horn is supported solely by subscriptions & donations. If you are able to give a higher amount, your gift will subsidize a subscription for someone in need. Annual subscription
fees are All cheques payable
to Contact us
Copyright: All material published in Canada is automatically copyright. However, we decline this privilege and place all the material in The Ram's Horn in the public domain, to be freely used and built upon. We would appreciate acknowledgement of the contribution of The Ram's Horn to your work. webmaster:
Please visit www.miningwatch.ca | 
|
Ram's Horn #240: August 2006 Ideological Individualism: “Choice” The business government we are currently saddled with in Canada is busy dismantling the structures which have been built by farmers to protect themselves from The Market. While our focus in The Ram’s Horn is the food system, we must also note the other ways in which this government displays its ideological individualism, lack of morality and contempt for the public. Lack of morality: unqualified support of Israel’s extraordinarily vindictive and destructive assault on Lebanon, its people and its infrastructure (roads, bridges, power stations, water supplies, schools etc). Contempt for the public: acting on behalf of its special-interest supporters and right-wing ideology regardless of its minority status. And, to get back to the food system, destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) by ending its single-desk-seller status and offering business training to farmers in its place. Certainly there are those farm businessmen and organizations (Canola Council, Canadian Agricultural Trade Alliance, Western Canadian Wheat Growers, etc.) who support the Harper government and the grain companies, as they have for years, in calling for an “open market,” the end of agricultural subsidies (but not until Europe cuts its agricultural support programs) and “choice” in how they market their grain.
The extremist mentality of the anti-CWB crowd is well expressed by Cherilyn Jolly-Nagel, president of Western Canadian Wheat Growers, the organization that died but was resurrected by the grain traders to give them another voice: “We look forward to the day when we are each free to sell our property to whomever we please... If I’m mandated to market in a certain way, that’s dictatorship, not democracy.” Note that she refers to grain as ‘property’ – not the term usually used in referring to food. Neither Jolly-Nagel nor the Harper government seem concerned about the extreme difficulty of radical individualists forming a democracy. The dishonesty of the “choice” being called for is obvious. The genesis of the Canadian Wheat Board goes back to World War I and the need to ensure that farmers can sell their grain and get paid fairly for it. Until 1935 it was an on-and-off affair but in 1935 it was obvious that the CWB needed permanent status and the Canadian Wheat Board Act was passed with three primary functions: single-desk selling; price pooling; and the government guarantee. Note the aim of equity and justice in these functions. Single desk selling means that instead of competing against one another for sales, Western Canada’s 85,000 wheat and barley farmers sell as one through the CWB, giving the CWB more clout against the grain majors. Price pooling means that all CWB sales during an entire crop year (August 1 to July 31) are deposited into one of four pool accounts; wheat, durum wheat, feed barley, and designated barley. This ensures that all farmers delivering the same grade of wheat or barley receive the same return at the end of the crop year regardless of when their grain is sold during the crop year. The Government guarantee means that farmers are guaranteed by the government to get paid something like 75% of the final CWB price for their grain. As Ken Ritter, chair of the board of directors of the CWB points out, the “dual market” demanded by the anti-CWB forces is a misnomer since the CWB would not be able to extract premium prices because other sellers of Canadian wheat will be willing to sell for less, and the single desk would disappear. Stuart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, says simply: “The real choice is a single desk that operates in the farmers’ interests or an open market dominated by five global grain companies that operate in their own interests.” Grain companies don’t care about what the farmer gets paid. It’s the margin – the difference between how much they pay farmers for their grain and how much they sell it for – that matters, so if their selling price drops, they will simply pay the farmer less – and the farmer has no choice. It is by focusing on margin that Cargill, ADM and Bunge have gained world dominance in the grain business. John Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics, University of Missouri, says that if some farmer businessmen want a choice, they should have it. But it should be the choice between producing commodities for the global market or producing for domestic food sovereignty. Ikerd writes: “Governments should clearly distinguish between those agricultural producers who choose to compete in global export markets and those who choose to produce for domestic food security. Those who choose to produce for export should be encouraged to do so, as long as their practices do not threaten domestic food security. But they should not expect taxpayers to subsidize their farming ventures. Neither should they be allowed to participate in government programs supporting food security. . .” Ikerd is suggesting a dual market with a difference. If you want to play the market, go right ahead, but don’t then cry for subsidies so you can “compete” with the grain giants. On the other hand, if you want to grow food for domestic food security and sovereignty because it is a good thing to do, on principle, you are certainly entitled to public support. Then, of course, we have to start discussing the multitude of forms such public support could take – including everything from encouragement of local farmers’ markets to school food programs to supplying hospitals and seniors homes with the best local foods possible at a price that makes small farms viable. On July 27 MP David Anderson, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (responsible for the CWB), held a meeting of anti-Wheat Board advocates. Expressing his contempt for farmers and the public, he declared: “We’re trying to find a broad spectrum to keep that discussion on pro-change and what the Wheat Board will look like in the future.” A timetable for change has not been set but the sooner the better, he said, and added: “Giving western farmers marketing choice will give us the ability to greatly improve our prices, cash flow and delivery opportunities.” Of course the anti-Wheat Board gang, of which Anderson has long been a member, has never provided any evidence to back up such ridiculous claims, but Anderson has told the press that his mind is made up on the issue. “My opinion is that I don’t think the outcome as to whether farmers should have the marketing choice should be decided by a vote [by the farmers, as provided for in the Wheat Board legislation]. It is their right. But the final decision will be made by the minister.” Ahhhh, ‘democracy’! #240: August
2006 TOC
| |
Back
Issue
