Wheat Board supporters lose key legal battle

Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board which used to have sole power to market some grains in western Canada lost a legal battle when the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling that said that the Conservative government had broken the law when it took away the monopoly over wheat and barley sales without holding a plebiscite on the issue.

When the Conservatives originally passed legislation stripping the board of its monopoly supporters of the Wheat Board filed a lawsuit claiming that producers had to vote on any such changes. A lower court agreed last December but the government appealed. The Appeal court said there is nothing wrong with the government in effect changing its own law through parliament.

Justice Mainville wrote:"I am of the view that none of the arguments advanced by the respondents or the interveners can sustain an interpretation that would preclude the minister from introducing in Parliament legislation which would fundamentally modify the CWB's mandate or which would lead to the repeal of the CWB Act," This is the final nail in the coffin of the Board. The U.S.and big international grain companies had tried for years to destroy the board using international trade rules but always failed.

Farmers by electing the Conservatives have destroyed an institution that served them well. When the Wheat Board conducted its own survey a majority wanted the powers of the Wheat Board retained. However, Conservatives obtained large majorities in rural areas of the prairies and the Conservatives made it clear and a campaign promise that they would curb the power of the Wheat Board. The donations will come pouring in from the giant international grain traders. For more see this article.

Canada's largest grain handler Viterra ripe for foreign takeover

International capital is circling around Viterra Canada's largest grain handler just waiting to gobble it up now that it has become more valuable after the Canadian Conservative government has broken the monopsony of the Canadian Wheat Board. Viterra itself is now itself part of the global conglomerates involved in grain handling. Viterra has operations in the U.S. New Zealand and Australia and even China and has expanded into areas such as food processing.

A UK paper reports that a Swiss firm Glencore PLC has made a bid of 5.5 billion dollars for Viterra. The Wall Street journal also reports that the huge U.S. based agribusiness Cargill Inc. is also interested in buying Viterra.

On Friday Viterra share surged almost 25 per cent. Viterra will also benefit by the eliminationof the Wheat Board control over marketing western wheat and barley.

The formation of Viterra itself is the culmination of the complete destruction of farmer controlled Pools that were begun during the depression and even before to protect farmers from the power of giant grain buyers such as Cargill. However, first the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Wheat Pools were merged and privatized as Agricore and finally the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool also ended up privatized as Viterra which is a merger of Sask. Wheat Pool and Agricore. For more about the Pools see this article. and this. Now all these farmer-controlled institutions are replaced by Viterra the sort of giant that farmers in the early part of the century were protecting themselves from! It is only fitting that the company be taken over by another competing giant to help form an oligopoly that has the power to dictate prices to farmers. For much more see this CBC article.

Former Wheat Board directors lose bid to suspend new Wheat Board law

Eight former directors of the Canadian Wheat board lost their bid to suspend the new Conservative law that would end single desk selling by the board. Eight former members dismissed by the Conservative government had asked for an injunction suspending implementation of the law until Canadian courts had ruled on its validity.

The eight former directors argued that a referendum among western grain producers had to be held before the monopoly rule could be changed. They also argue that the changes will hurt Canadian farmers. The U.S. and big grain companies have been fighting to end the monopoly for years.

Otttawa abolished single desk sell in a law passed late last year and wants to have an open market in place for wheat and barley by this crop year. The former directors were elected by farmers but were terminated with the passage of the legislation by the Harper government.

The Wheat Board monopoly has been in place for Prairie Farmers since the 1940s. The Conservatives campaign promises included ending the monopoly even though a majority of farmers in a poll supported the board monopoly. The Conservatives also promised a referendum which was never held. The Conservatives claim their election was the referendum! Ironically the Conservatives have strong support on the prairies. For more see this article.

Canadian Wheat Board: Farmer elected members booted and replaced by government appointees

        After passing legislation that would remove single desk selling from the Wheat Board the Conservative government has now replaced five farmer elected board members with their own appointees. These five immediately voted to discontinue the suit filed against the government. The former Wheat Board sued the government and had won on the grounds that the government was required by law according to the Wheat Board Act to hold a plebiscite among farmers first. NOTE: In single desk selling all wheat and barley in the western prairie provinces is marketed through the Wheat Board. This gives the board the power of a monopsony. The board was formed in the depression by farmers who believed they were at the mercy of large grain companies who bought their grain at prices that were too low.
   The agricultural minister put a familiar spin on what happened. It is all about freedom of choice or marketing freedom. No doubt the large grain companies were cheering as well. Others cheering are the U.S. who filed over a dozen suits against the board claiming that the board gave prairie farmers an unfair advantage. Farmers in the room where agriculture minister Gerry Ritz was speaking apparently cheered his speech.
    The Wheat Board itself had taken a plebiscite on whether farmers wanted to remove the single desk selling monopsony and a majority said they did not. The Conservative government in the last election campaign promised to remove those powers but also said it would hold a plebiscite of farmers. But it did not. It just threw out the elected farmer board and ignore a judgment of a court that their action was illegal. For more see this article.

Canada: Conservative government will go ahead and break the law to end Wheat Board monopoly

    Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz will go ahead with a bill that a federal judge has just ruled breaks the law. Ritz noted that the government of Canada has the sole right to act amend or repeal any piece of  legislation. While that is true it is irrelevant. The situation here is that the government has been found to have broken an existing law. Rather than break that law the government should first repeal it. But this Conservative government has a number of times showed its contempt for parliament, it is now just showing contempt for the law.
    The court ruling found that Ritx broke the law by violating a section of the Wheat Board Act. As interpreted by the judge this requires that the government  consult the Board and hold a plebiscite among farmers to see if they support the changes. The government is appealing the decision but is going ahead with passage of the bill even during the appeal process.
   The Conservative government has been a long time critic of the Wheat Board and is supported by some farmers. However a plebiscite held by the Wheat Board showed a majority actually support keeping the monopoly. Nevertheless the Conservative election platform pledged to remove the monopoly.
   The monopoly was formed in the depression by prairie farmers who felt they were exploited by the big grain companies. It has been the subject of over a dozen complaints by the U.S. that the monopoly is an unfair marketing practice but all were lost. Now the Harper Conservative government has come to the rescue of the big grain companies. Of course this is all in the name of free choice. For more see this article.

Wheat Board sues Federal Government

    A lawyer for the Canadian Wheat Board told a federal court in Winnipeg that the Conservative government Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz broke the law when he ended the Board's monopoly on marketing western wheat an barley. Another lawyer for the board Matthew Fleming noted:"Farmers were promised a vote. The minister himself made that promise."'
   A section of the Canadian Wheat Board Act that set up the board says that changes to the marketing of wheat and barley cannot be changed except  "the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension."  The agriculture minister interprets this to mean that the farmers must vote only on what commodities will be excluded or included not the monopoly powers of the board. However as critics noted he did promise a vote on the monopoly issue as well.
   If the court interprets the section in the manner of the agriculture minister no doubt it will find that no law has been broken. The Wheat Board lawyers seem to anticipate this result by arguing that the court should rule that the government has a duty to hold a plebiscite since it had promised to do so.
  If the Wheat Board wins its case the Conservative government may be forced to hold a plebiscite before the monopoly powers are set to end on August 1st 2012. The U.S. representing the interests of big grain companies has been a constant critic of the board challenging the Board's powers several times but losing every time. The challenges often claim that the Board gives the farmers an unfair market advantage. A list of 14 challenges and their disposition can be found here.
 The Board was set up by farmers back at the time of the Great Depression. By binding together they sought higher prices for their grain. Now some farmers want the power to seek better deals themselves. Good luck as individual farmers face bargaining with oligopolistic global grain buyers. For more see this article.

Read 27comments27

CWB board chair Allen Oberg speaks to reporters outside the federal courthouse in Winnipeg. (Claudine Richard-Beaudoin/CBC)

Wheat Board supporters protest on Parliament Hill

 A group of farmers opposed to the Conservative government's bill to end the Wheat Board monopoly on marketing wheat and barley in western Canada protested on Parliament Hill yesterday. Drew Baker the farmer who led the rally said: "On our own, we will have little power to negotiate with big American companies, and that concerns me." The U.S. has long challenged the Wheat Board monopoly as giving Canadian farmers an unfair advantage in global marketing.
     Where the U.S. complaints have always failed , western farmers themselves have now achieved what the U.S. and the grain marketing giants have long desired, an end to the Wheat Board monopoly. Farmers have done so by voting in large numbers for the very Conservatives who promised as part of their platform to end the monopoly. A  Wheat Board organised vote later showed that a majority of farmers actually support retaining the system.
     The board is run by directors elected by farmers. Only two of the elected board members favor the changes in the government bill. The remainder support the retention of the single desk system as it is called. The system gives the farmers collectively considerable power to negotiate good prices for grain sales.
      The government legislation would also dismiss the farmer-elected directors of the board. The board had been controlled by members elected by farmers since 1998.
       The Wheat Board has launched a lawsuit challenging the government's bill. The suit claims that the bill violates the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The Wheat Board Act specifies the minister cannot change the system without holding a vote of Prairie grain farmers. The  Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz promised during the latest election campaign a vote would be held. The only vote held was by the Wheat Board itself. The Conservatives claim that the abolition of the monopoly was a prominent part of the campaign platform and since they were elected with a majority they already had a mandate to change the system. For much more see this article.

Wheat Board wins tariff dispute with the U.S.

This is from the CBC.
The Wheat Board may win in court but the U.S. will always appeal. It is clear that the US would love to get rid of the Wheat Board. However, the US will eventually prevail with the help of farmers who elect many Conservatives. Harper is determined to do away with the Wheat Board monopoly or single desk selling. In the name of marketing choice farmers often are suckered into shooting themselves in the foot. Big Grain cheers them on.


Wheat board wins tariff dispute with U.S.
Last Updated: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:54 PM CT
CBC News
A trade court has found in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board in a longstanding dispute with the U.S. over tariffs.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to return duties it collected on Canadian hard red spring wheat between August 2003 and February 2006.
At the time, there was a 14 per cent tariff charged on wheat going to the U.S, a duty found to be unfair in an earlier ruling.
"The purpose of collecting anti-dumping and countervailing duties is to level the playing field so that producers can compete fairly in the marketplace," Judge Richard Eaton wrote in his decision.
"That purpose would not be advanced by allowing the United States to keep [the wheat board's] deposits when it has been conclusively established that the domestic industry has suffered no material injury from the subject imports."
Wheat board spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry said the U.S. government will not have to pay a large amount of money, but it sets an important precedent.
"Not very significant — we only had one customer involved during that period because the tariffs were so high, they basically prevented Canadian wheat from trading into the U.S market during that time," she said.
"So we're talking sort of less than $100,000, but it's a very significant principle."
Because the tariff had to be added to the price of wheat, the money would go back to the producer. The U.S. can appeal the decision.
American authorities deemed the Canadian wheat to be unfairly subsidized in implementing the tariff. The Canadian Wheat Board appealed and, after a lengthy court battle, the U.S. International Trade Commission ordered that the duties be eliminated.
The most recent ruling means tariffs collected by the U.S. government, including money gathered before the tariffs were declared unfair, must be returned to the Canadian Wheat Board to distribute back to the producer.

Pressure to change Wheat Board mandate should ease: Pat Martin

This is from the Winnipeg Free Press.
Given that it is part of the Conservative platform to do away with single desk selling, it is unlikely that the Conservative government will just drop the issue. However, the economy will probably be the first priority for a while. We will see. The Conservatives may feel they can try and push something through while the Liberals are weak. If they did make the issue a confidence motion then it would be unlikely that the opposition would try to defeat them on it any time soon!


Wheat Board pressure should ease: Martin
bylineParse('By Mia Rabson')
By: Mia Rabson
Updated: October 23 at 11:09 AM CDT

Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin says the Conservatives failure to secure a majority government and the economic downturn should mean the pressure will come off the Canadian Wheat Board.
“I believe the Conservatives did not get a mandate to kill the Canadian Wheat Board,” Martin said today, at an unrelated press conference on Parliament Hill.
“Canadians will push back if they try.”
Martin also said given the current state of the Canadian economy, tinkering with the Wheat Board wouldn’t be a good idea.
In a time of economic crisis the last thing you want to do is turn orderly marketing of commodities upside down and on its head.”
The Wheat Board’s monopoly on prairie wheat and barley sales received very little attention during the campaign.
However as soon as the election was over lobby groups in favour of opening up barley marketing in the prairies immediately called on the Conservative government to implement the election promise Stephen Harper made in 2006.
Many cited the fact the Conservatives won almost all the rural seats in the prairies where wheat and barley are grown as evidence of the backing for eliminating the Wheat Board.
Legislation introduced last year to end the monopoly on barley sales was never brought up for debate by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and died on the order paper. Currently the government is fighting a court challenge against its regulatory change restricting the voters list in Wheat Board director elections to farmers who produce a minimum amount of grain.
Pro-Wheat Board supporters say that removes 16,000 people from the voters’ list.
A federal judge in Winnipeg earlier this week reserved a decision in the case.
Elections are already underway for five of the Wheat Board’s director seats. If enough directors are elected who want to open up marketing, the board could vote to do it on its own and the government would not have to pass its legislation.
Before the current elections, the pro-monopoly wheat board directors outnumbered the anti-monopoly directors by just one vote.
Martin said if the government reintroduces its legislation, he is doubtful Harper would make it an issue of confidence in order to help it pass.
In the last Parliament, a number of bills the Conservatives knew would not pass easily were hit with a confidence label, which meant if the opposition parties voted against them there would be an election. The Liberal party abstained from more than three dozen votes in order to prevent that from happening.
But Harper himself has said he is tired of elections and Canadians surely would be unhappy at any party that caused another one to happen soon. It means the confidence vote tactic likely will not appear as often if at all in the near future.
“My prediction is you’re going to see a kinder gentler Prime Minister,” said Martin. “I don’t think he is going to push the envelope on controversial areas in this next short minority government.”
Triggering an election over the Wheat Board would also be unwise, says Martin, noting it is an issue that only directly affects the prairies.
“Making the Wheat Board a confidence matter, most Canadians wouldn’t get that,” said Martin. “I can’t imagine Harper trying to trigger an election based on how barley is marketed around the world.”

CWB: Canadian gets more per bushel (for wheat) than U.S. farmers.

Canadians got more per bushel than U.S. farmers, wheat board says

Last Updated: Thursday, July 31, 2008 | 5:03 PM CT

This is from

CBC News

In spite of the fact that the U.S. has fought vigorously to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board because of the advantage it gives Canadian farmers, the Harper government and many farmers are also bound and determined to destroy it as well under the banner of the freedom to market their grain as they wish. While this might on occasion bring marginally more profit to a few farmers, overall it would be disadvantegeous to them as a group. Do these farmers think that the U.S. is fighting to destroy the Wheat Board because it will make Canadian farmers better off! Here are some examples of what the U.S. has done from CWB.

Hot topics

WTO dispute settlement panel ruling

In 2004, World Trade Organization (WTO) bodies dismissed U.S. complaints about the CWB, both in a dispute settlement panel ruling and again on appeal. Click here to view full decisions.

These decisions exonerated the CWB from American claims of unfair trade practice, affirming that it conducts its business on strictly commercial grounds in compliance with international trade laws. The ruling was a major victory for the CWB in the ongoing wheat trade battle launched by the United States.

The case began after a December 2002 announcement by the United States Trade Representative, as part of a four-pronged attack on the CWB, that he would seek a dispute settlement case at the WTO. In March 2003, the WTO agreed to an American request to convene a panel to hear the dispute. In April 2004, the panel released its report, in which it dismissed the U.S. charges and ruled:

• That the CWB operates in compliance with Article 17 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
• That the CWB has a strong incentive to act in a strictly commercial manner, since it is controlled by farmers who are interested in maximizing their own returns and there is no day-to-day involvement by the Canadian government.

The panel stated: The Board satisfies producers by ensuring that their financial returns from the CWB's sales of wheat or barley are maximized. The mission the CWB's Board has given the CWB confirms this point: the CWB is to "market…quality products and services in order to maximize returns to western Canadian grain producers." Moreover, the CWB Act requires that, in the exercise of their responsibilities, directors and officers of the CWB "act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the [CWB]." For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the CWB has an incentive, because of its "legal structure" to make its wheat sales on the basis of considerations other than price, quality, availability, marketability etc.

The U.S. appealled this ruling and, in August 2004, the WTO Appellate Body again dismissed its claims........

Here is the CBC article:

Prairie farmers earned a record $7 billion from grain sold through the Canadian Wheat Board in 2007-08 — a 57 per cent increase over the previous year, the agency said Thursday in its annual report.

According to Larry Hill, chair of the Winnipeg-based grain marketer, the earnings worked out to more than $8.40 a bushel for high-quality spring wheat and more than $12 a bushel for high-quality durum, after freight and handling expenses are paid.

Western Canadian farmers got better prices than many U.S. farmers who sold their grain before prices spiked earlier this year, Hill said.

"This is significantly higher than what American producers received," he said. "The prices were very good in the fall and American farmers thought that $6 or $7 a bushel was a good price, so they took it."

Meanwhile, malting barley sales were the highest they have been in eight years, at 2.4 million tonnes, with farmers earning $5 a bushel.

This year, the wheat board is expecting an average crop with yields up over last year.

Prices will remain high, but they will be slightly lower than this past year, Hill said on Thursday, the final day of the crop year.

The CWB said markets have fallen over the past few weeks due to improved prospects for the U.S. winter wheat harvest and expectations of record world wheat production.

The wheat board has a monopoly on most wheat and barley sales in Canada, something that's been a subject of heated debate in farm country in recent years.

Some farmers like the status quo, but others say they could make more money if they could sell their own grain.

The federal Conservative government has vowed to give farmers more "marketing choice" when selling barley.

Government loses court battle over Wheat Board barley monopoly

It will be interesting if the Conservatives make this a confidence motion. If so we could again see the Liberals sitting on their hands. They are not about to go to an election because of the polls and particularly on this issue. To half the country the whole issue would be mainly irrelevant! The big issue would be when (not if) the Conservatives try to take away the wheat marketing monopoly from the Board. A plebiscite on that issue might fail even if the Conservatives make a mockery of the format again by giving three choices.

Government loses court battle to crack barley monopoly
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:20 PM CT
The Canadian Press
The federal government's attempt to strip the Canadian Wheat Board of its barley monopoly was rejected by a court for a second time Tuesday, setting the stage for a showdown with the opposition in Parliament.
The Federal Court of Appeal in Winnipeg upheld a lower court ruling from last year, which said the Conservative cabinet exceeded its authority when it tried to unilaterally open up the wheat board's control of western barley sales and allow producers to sell independently.
Wheat board supporters said the ruling sends a strong message.
"I think it's a victory for farmers, but moreso, it's an establishment of democratic principles," said Kyle Korneychuk, an elected wheat board director who farms in Saskatchewan.
"It's not a dictatorship. We're going to have a vote."
The ruling means the minority Conservatives will have to get a bill passed in Parliament to make the change. That could be an uphill battle because the Liberals have vowed to fight the move.

Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who has already pledged to introduce legislation ending the barley monopoly by the end of the month, said he was disappointed with the court ruling.
"This government is committed to pursuing all avenues to deliver … market freedom to western barley producers. We will be moving ahead quickly with legislation to give them this freedom," Ritz said in a written statement from Ottawa.
MP wants Liberals to oppose bill
The Conservatives campaigned on a promise to end the barley monopoly. Many producers support the plan, saying they deserve the right to try to seek higher prices for their grain by selling independently.
But critics — including many farmers, the federal Liberals and Manitoba's NDP government — argue the monopoly ensures producers get fair prices instead of competing against each other for sales.
Winnipeg Liberal MP Raymond Simard said last week he would ask his caucus colleagues to oppose any bill ending the wheat board monopoly, even if it is deemed a confidence matter that could trigger an election.
The court battle was the latest in a series of disputes between the Tory government and the wheat board, an agency dominated by farmer-elected board members.
The Harper government fired former board president and CEO Adrian Measner in December 2006 over his public defence of the wheat board's monopoly on wheat and barley sales.
Four weeks ago, vice-president Deanna Allen was fired by Greg Arason, the man the government appointed to replace Measner.

Ian White to Head Up Canadian Wheat Board

This is from a Queensland source. It is not the board that decides whether to keep or ditch its monopoly. The government of course wants to ditch the monopoly. White at least seems to have a lot of experience and this article says nothing unfavorable about him. White has been head honcho while various regulatory changes were taking place at Queensland sugar so he has experience in such situations. This makes him a good choice for Harper. However, White will also not buck any removal of single desk selling unlike the former head of the board. White's experience is just icing on the cake.

QSL’s Ian White to head up Canadian Wheat Board Thursday, 31 January 2008 Queensland Sugar Limited chief executive officer, Ian White, has resigned to take up a new position heading up the Canadian Wheat Board - one of the world's largest grain exporters.
The Canadian Government announced the appointment of Mr White today.
Mr White is best known for his active role in the Australian grain industry and he joins the board at a time of deep turmoil in the industry as it tries to decide whether to keep or ditch its monopoly over wheat exports.
Sugar industry peak body, Canegrowers, said Mr White's departure from QSL presented both opportunities and challenges for the Queensland sugar industry.
Canegrowers CEO, Ian Ballantyne, said the future and stewardship of the export marketing effort for the Queensland sugar industry is of vital importance and the departure of Mr White put the issue in the spotlight and needed to be resolved as a matter of priority.
Mr White has filled a variety of high profile positions including being the first CEO of Graincorp, managing director of Defiance Mills and in more recent times, heading up Queensland Cotton’s North American operations.
He joined QSL in 2000.
Originally from a finance and accounting background in both government and private industry, Ian held senior management positions with Elders Grain and the large grower cooperative, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in Canada in the 1980s.
"As chief executive of QSL, Mr White was influential in the development of the international face of the Australian sugar industry and had been on the frontline of marketing the majority of Queensland’s raw sugar," Mr Ballantyne said.
"Ian has also been at the forefront of industry restructure following deregulation, and has been a compelling advocate in arguing for change to the international trade regime."
Mr Ballantyne said the sugar industry was "at the crossroads" in crucial negotiations with regards to raw sugar marketing operations and at a decisive point in determining the future use of sugar terminals.
"At the same time future price risk management arrangements need to be bedded down and rolled out to growers at the earliest opportunity," he said.
"It is imperative that a clear decision be made on QSL’s role, function and authority to operate in marketplace – these matters are vital and need to be very clearly determined before an appropriate replacement for Mr White can be recruited."
SOURCE: CANEGROWERS and FarmOnline.

Conservatives to introduce legislation re Wheat Board barley marketing.

This is from Canada.com. I doubt that anyone will want to provoke an election on the issue of the Wheat Board having a monopoly on marketing barley! The Bloc Quebecois could support the Conservatives since the issue has no bearing at all really on Quebec since the Wheat Board governs marketing only in the west. However the Bloc seems anxious for an election so maybe they would not side with the government. This would be embarassing for the Liberals except that nothing embarasses them any more. They would sit on their hands or vote with the government. Canadians don't yet want an election. Translation: Our polls aren't good enough yet.


Feds to introduce legislation ending wheat board's monopoly
Mia Rabson , Winnipeg Free PressPublished: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
OTTAWA - The federal Agriculture Minister will introduce legislation as early as next month to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on prairie barley sales.
But because it's a minority government, turning Minister Gerry Ritz's legislation into law will require the support of the opposition, something neither the NDP nor the Liberals plan to provide.
Ritz delivered the news Tuesday after a controversial meeting with the wheat board and barley industry representatives. Ritz acknowledged he stacked the room with people who oppose anything short of full, open marketing choice for barley producers.


But he said those who oppose marketing choice are in favour of the status quo, which is an unacceptable position and is contrary to what farmers said in a federal plebiscite held in 2007.
Ritz said he expects the wheat board to unveil "a clear road map" by the end of this week, after the board of directors' meeting in Winnipeg.
"We agreed there is a gap between what western Canadian barley producers are asking for and what they are getting," said Ritz.
However, Ritz said he will introduce legislation before Parliament breaks in three weeks, regardless of what the wheat board does.
"We've been pushing this rock uphill for years," said Ritz. "We are willing to go it alone."
Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin and Saskatchewan Liberal MP Ralph Goodale both said their parties would not vote in favour of ending the wheat board's single-desk system.
But Martin said he fears Prime Minister Stephen Harper will turn this bill into a vote of confidence, which means if it fails, it will trigger an election.
That could make it harder for the Liberals, in particular, to vote against it, though Goodale said he cannot imagine a scenario where the Liberals would support such a bill.
"This is a continuation of the government's supreme arrogance and their heavy-handed, thug-like tactics to try and blow (the wheat board) out of existence," said Goodale.
He said it could even be illegal, because the government by law has to ask farmers to vote on the matter, and he said last year's referendum - in which two thirds of farmers backed an end to the board's monopoly on barley sales - doesn't count.
"There is a powerful legal argument that that plebiscite was not legal," said Goodale. "Farmers must vote on the specific changes the government has in mind. That is not what the government asked last year."
mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca

Farmers: Ottawa wants to dismantle Wheat Board

This is hardly news. In fact if farmers bothered to read the federal Conservative party platform it included a pledge to end the Wheat Board's monopoly or single desk selling. The plebiscite the Conservatives held was misleading but there also seems to be a general misunderstanding to the effect that the Wheat Board could survive without a monopoly and that caused a lot of farmers to vote for a dual marketing structure for marketing barley. Perhaps the same three choice questionnaire will be used when there is a plebiscite re wheat.


Ottawa wants to dismantle Wheat Board: farmers
Updated Tue. Jan. 29 2008 11:22 AM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Some western farmers are arguing that the federal government wants to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and turn control of agriculture over to big business.
They say it's the start of a slope that could see the government do away with marketing boards, medicare and the CBC.
Farm representatives are in Ottawa protesting a closed-door meeting called by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz to discuss the future of the barley industry.
The government wants to give western farmers the option of selling barley outside the wheat board system, although its first try was stymied by a Federal Court decision.
Opponents of that idea say the Ritz meeting is a ploy to allow wheat board "haters" to bully the agency into giving up control of the barley market.
Although a plebiscite last year seemed to support the government's effort to allow farmers an option in barley sales, opponents say the vote was rigged.
The government has appealed the Federal Court decision on barley marketing and a hearing is scheduled for next month.

Canadian Wheat Board has been a Tory target for 20 years

This is an old article from NUPGE. It shows how connected Harper is to the battle to wreck the Wheat Board and marketing boards as well. Now Wall will help his comrades in Ottawa attack the board's single desk feature that will in effect destroy its effectiveness.

Canadian Wheat Board has been a Tory target for 20 years

Fight to kill board vindictive, ideological and pro-corporate

Ottawa (13 June 2007) - The announcement by Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl that the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) will be stripped of its exclusive marketing authority for barley on Aug. 1 fulfills a long, vindictive and ideological campaign waged by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. The Harper Index

The CWB had a government mandate for decades to market Canadian grains on behalf of Western farmers. The CWB took no profit from the sales. Instead, it pooled the returns and redistributed them to farmers. Independent studies undertaken by agricultural economists dating back to 1997 show that farmers were far better off marketing their grain through the CWB than they otherwise would have been. They earned higher returns every year, varying from $530 to $655 million annually.

The CWB has been targeted by the giant multinational grain trading companies, the railroads, the Prairie grain handling companies and the right wing farm groups associated with them. That coalition convinced the Mulroney government to move unilaterally to remove oats from the CWB's jurisdiction in 1989.

When it arrived on the scene, the Reform Party engaged in a crusade to achieve an entirely free market system for agriculture. This policy included dismantling the CWB and the orderly marketing systems in place for dairy products, poultry and eggs. Stephen Harper was a key figure in the Reform Party's 1991 policy conference in Saskatoon, and he helped Preston Manning to turn back grassroots resolutions calling for a continuing government role in agriculture.

In 1997, Liberal Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale was pressured into holding a farmer referendum regarding the CWB's authority to sell barley. The farmers voted 2-1 to retain the Board as the exclusive marketer of their barley.

The CWB also came under increasing attack by European and American corporate interests and governments at the World Trade Organization and elsewhere. The Board had been a Crown Corporation, so Ralph Goodale moved in 1997 to have it become arms-length from government, with 10 of 15 members of its directors to be elected by farmers.

Attacks continued

This change did not allay the critics or halt the attacks. American companies launched 14 separate actions alleging that the CWB is an unfair trader, but tribunals ruled in the Board's favour every time. The Reform Party, and later the Canadian Alliance continued their domestic attacks while the Americans mounted challenges.

Soon after he chose to resign as an MP in January 1997, Stephen Harper became president of the secretive, right-wing National Citizens' Coalition (NCC). The NCC focused its most strident attacks on medicare, unions and the Wheat Board. In a letter to the Brandon Sun in 1999, Harper described the CWB as a "draconian wheat monopoly [that] for years has relied on force and fear to exist." The NCC poured money into third-party attack ads against the CWB during elections for its farmer-controlled board.

By 2004, Harper had graduated from the NCC, won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance and orchestrated its takeover of the foundering Progressive Conservatives. In the campaign that year, Harper promised that, if elected, he would change the Board. He lost that election but he made the same promise in his victorious 2006 campaign.

Harper planned to emasculate the CWB by regulation but could not ignore polls indicating that nine farmers out of 10 wanted a plebiscite. A majority of the CWB's directors also opposed the government's autocratic plans to dismantle the Board by fiat, a position echoed by Inky Mark, a rural Conservative MP from Manitoba.

Harper and Strahl responded by issuing a gag order on the board of directors and firing CEO Adrian Measner, who had worked at the CWB for 30 years. The government then orchestrated an intentionally divisive referendum farm activists called "bogus." The vote would be about the CWB's authority over barley (grown mainly in Alberta), but not about wheat (grown mainly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan). The renewed attack on wheat would be left for another day. The questions were loaded and manipulative, quite in contrast to Harper's insistence, when he was the Reform Party's constitutional critic in 1995, that the Parti Quebecois provide a clear and concise question for the Quebec referendum.

Aggressive campaign

Conservative MPs campaigned aggressively during the CWB referendum, while the Board was bound by a government-imposed gag order and unable to defend itself. There were no third-party spending limits. Major farm organizations were not allowed to scrutinize the ballot-counting procedure. Despite appearance of blatant manipulation and loaded questions, 38 percent of farmers voted to retain the CWB's existing marketing arrangements, but the Conservatives declared total victory.

The American grain industry is delighted. The former president of the National Association of Wheat Growers said that if the CWB loses its single desk selling authority, "U.S. wheat would be more competitive in markets such as Asia, the Middle East and Central America, where the two countries go head to head."

For Canadian farmers, the outlook is less promising. The Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board told a Winnipeg news conference that it will go to federal court to have Strahl's order-in-council removing barley from CWB jurisdiction declared null and void. The challenge is being led by 12 barley-producing farmers from across the Prairies.

Source: This article was originally published June 12 by The Harper Index.

The WTO and the Wheat Board

This is from the nupge site. The Harper GOvernment will be quite happy to agree to having no Wheat Board or Marketing Organisations backed by legislation. The Harper govt. would love "free" competition among the oligarchs with no competition from farmer monopolies.


The WTO position of the U.S. and EU, whose companies are some of our biggest competitors in the world market, would basically outlaw farmers’ ability to have an effective organization able to compete with these companies.

It would make it illegal for any farm group in any country to establish a marketing organization that had bargaining powers backed by legislation. It wouldn’t matter whether 51% or 100% of the farmers democratically voted in favour of the concept, as it would be illegal under WTO rules.

That’s when the handful of multinationals that already control more than 70% of the world grain trade will be truly unchallenged in their domination. For all intents and purposes, those companies would completely control the world grain trade and a basic staple of the world’s food supply.
Art Macklin


Those companies are actively working behind the scenes to ensure that happens. On Feb. 2 of this year an organization calling itself Grain Vision sent a letter to Chuck Strahl, minister of agriculture and agri-good, also minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, urging the government to change its negotiating position at the WTO. The letter was also addressed to David Emerson, minister of International trade.

It stated:

"Cabinet needs to change this position (defending the CWB). We are asking you, as the ministers responsible for the negotiating position, to immediately put the need for this change on the Cabinet agenda.… We ask that you begin to provide greater consistency in Canada’s negotiating position by allowing our agricultural negotiators to explicitly bring the monopoly powers of state trading enterprises into the discussions…. For greater clarity, Grain Vision is recommending that the government of Canada be prepared to discuss and negotiate the matter of exporting state trading enterprises at the WTO."

Grain Vision is driven by corporate interests

Predictably, Grain Vision is driven by the interests of a collection of grain companies that stand to make a handsome profit from the end of the CWB. The list of companies signing the letter includes: Cargill Limited, Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited, Rahr Malting Canada Limited, Agricore United (a company whose largest single shareholder is ADM), Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (no longer a farmer cooperative), and James Richardson International Limited.

The letter was also signed by a handful of groups like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the Western Barley Growers. Those groups often claim to be a legitimate voice of farmers but in reality would not exist without the sponsorship largess of big corporations. Some urban chambers of commerce, some Alberta government mandated farm groups, the Grain Growers of Canada, and a few other groups also signed the letter.

If the Americans, Europeans and multinational grain companies get their way, new WTO rules will make it illegal for any group of farmers to organize and collectively bargain for export crops.

This becomes an issue of national sovereignty. The principle under attack is the democratic right of citizens or an economic group to have legislation enacted that empowers them to organize effectively in the interests of the majority. To deny Canadian grain farmers this right is also to put at risk this right for farmers producing products under the supply management system.

Trade unions, teachers unions, and many others could also be affected by this principle since they are empowered to bargain for their members by legislation under which a majority vote allows them to bargain for the whole group.

A wide cross-section of Canadian society should be concerned by the WTO attack on the CWB because they could be the next victims if the principle is established. NUPGE

Art Macklin, his wife Donna and their youngest son Nathan operate a family farm in the Peace River Country of northwestern Alberta. Mr. Macklin is a former president of the National Farmers Union and a current elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Web posted by NUPGE: 11 May 2006

Wall govt. to opt out of Wheat Board court case.

This not surprising. The Conservatives are out to dismantle the Wheat Board. What is surprising is that Calvert did not even mention the Wheat Board in the campaign or he certainly never made it an issue. The NDP seems to have no strategy to try to regain support in rural areas except the north.

New Sask. government to opt out of wheat board wranglings
Last Updated: Friday, November 9, 2007 | 9:38 AM CT
The Canadian Press
The battle over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board has taken another turn with the election of a new government in Saskatchewan.

Premier-designate Brad Wall says his government won't pursue intervener status in the legal wrangling between Ottawa, the board and the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

At issue is the federal government's plan to eliminate the board's western barley marketing monopoly.

The previous NDP government had supported the court action, arguing that the federal government does not have the legal authority to make the change.

But Wall says he'll opt out because the Saskatchewan Party supports choice.

Bill Woods, a barley producer and member of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, is disappointed with the move.

Woods says it "pulls the rug out" from under the group, but adds it doesn't change the fact that board supporters believe they are right

Adrian Measner: Harper's Campaign Against the Wheat Board

Harper will certainly do the right-wing thing if not the right thing and continue his campaign against the Wheat Board. The Conservative policy after all is to do away with the Board's monopoly or single desk selling. While it is true that the recent barley plebescite was manipulative in that it had three choices rather than a simple yes or no question, farmers did vote as a majority to either have dual marketing or no involvement of the Wheat Board in barley marketing at all. There is no way of getting around the fact that many farmers are mesmerised by the idea of choice in marketing.
The elimination of the Wheat Board is a prime aim of the big grain companies and of the US. If Harper wins he will no doubt see Conservative coffers swell from donations from grateful corporations.

The Harper Government and the Canadian Wheat Board
By Adrian Measner
When a federal government is elected there is an expectation that they will
develop sound policy by consulting with both the people directly affected by
policies and Canadians as a whole. That is what farmers and Canadians
expected of the Harper government with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board
(CWB) issue.
Instead, the Harper government has deliberately attempted to
bypass good process and existing laws. This flawed approach slashes deep
into the principles and expectations held by Canadians when they elect
governments. The government has been able to get away with this only
because farmers are a small voice in this country, and farming has neither
drawn the concern, nor the interest of the broader population.
This is a government that would initially not engage at all in policy
discussion because the decisions abut the CWB were already made. This is a
government that only after much outrage and pressure moved to engage, but
then sought direction only from the groups that agreed with its position.
This is a government that placed a gag order on the very organization, the
CWB, whose future was at stake – the only organization that was large enough
and knowledgeable enough to be a balancing force against the government
agenda.
This is a government that terminated the terms of its appointed directors,
including mine, before our terms were up, in order to alter the composition
of the CWB Board – a Board on which eight of the ten democratically elected
farmers disagreed with the government’s direction.
This is a government that held a plebiscite that prompted at least one
professional pollster to question whether the authors of the questions were
either incompetent or diabolical. Two other professional pollsters said
that the questions would not yield meaningful results. The plebiscite had
no official voters’ list for scrutiny; multiple ballots were sent to many
voters; and the ballots were numbered. And then, when after all of that the
government failed to get the results it wanted, it simply added two of the
questions together to justify its predetermined actions!
Legal challenges have been brought to bear against a number of these
actions.* But it is my opinion that if this had been any other issue of a
more national scope, rather than one having to do with a minority, farmers,
there would have been a major revolt. These actions go beyond the rights
and powers conferred upon the federal government by Canadians.
Why is our Prime Minister so focused on this issue?
We see the influence of ideology and what I would view as a personal agenda
dating back to his days with the National Citizens Coalition.
We also see the intervention of some very large companies whose shareholders
will benefit enormously from Harper’s efforts.
A recent newspaper article talked about the price of gas at the pumps,
saying that while it is easy to say “competition will take care of
everything”, when you have a few sellers and many buyers as is the case in
the oil industry you experience higher prices at the pumps. That is because
oil companies set prices as a cartel. Given that truth how can anyone
believe the arguments of Rolf Penner of the Frontier Institute and other
right-wing think tanks supporting Harper’s agricultural agenda, that
destroying the CWB and forcing many farmer sellers to sell their crops to a
few private grain buyers is going to give farmers higher prices. It defies
the logic of supply and demand, and defies any real-life examples in other
industries.
That is why four out of five CWB Directors, voted in by farmers as recently
as last fall, support single-desk marketing. It is the elected Directors’
role to ensure the organization is delivering maximum value for the farmers
it works for. From working eight years with those Directors I can tell you
they are very good at their job.
One element that should never be overlooked when discussing the CWB issue is
that the CWB is a Canadian company with a top-notch international
reputation. A recent poll in the Globe and Mail showed that 68 percent of
Canadians surveyed were concerned about foreign ownership of Canadian
companies. Similar comments have been made by prominent CEOs in Canada who
feel the government should be doing more to protect Canadian companies from
foreign ownership. The CWB is the last chance for a significant Canadian
presence in the international grain market. In the CWB’s absence the market
will be dominated by a handful of international companies as is the case in
all countries operating without single desk marketing.
This is a road we should not go down. The better alternative is to maintain
the single-desk marketing that is wanted by and that benefits the vast
majority of farmers, and to continue to support a Canadian institution, the
Canadian Wheat Board, that is recognized internationally for the quality it
delivers, and that brings credit to all Canadians. Any changes in the CWB’s
role should be made by farmers.
Adrian Measner is the former CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board who was fired
by the Harper government for his decision to follow the direction of the
CWB’s farmer-elected Board of Directors and his refusal to acquiesce in the
government’s decision to strip the Board of its monopoly position in the
Canadian grain market. He was the guest speaker at the CCPA-MB Annual
General Meeting in Brandon in June 2007.
* One of the CWB court challenges was initiated in response to the Harper
government’s attempt to end the CWB monopoly on barley sales by an
order-in-council that would allow barley producers to sell their crops
without going through the CWB. The CWB argued that this action contravened
the Canadian Wheat Board Act. On July 31, 2007 Federal Court Judge Dolores
Hansen ruled that the federal government’s action was illegal, because the
Act requires that changes to the powers of the CWB be voted on in
Parliament. The question now is: will the Harper government do the right
thing, and terminate its campaign to dismantle the CWB?

Harper's Hit on Grain Farmers

This is gives a bit of interesting history of the Board. It is so evident that the big grain traders are opposed to the board and the US govt. that it is amazing that so many farmers have fallen for the dual marketing option on the barley plebiscite. This article is a bit misleading in that although the plebiscite did show that only a few wanted the board removed from marketing barley at all, if you add those who wanted dual marketing (the largest minority) than you have a majority against the monopoly. This is what the Harper government conveniently did. The whole three question plebiscite was a cleverly engineered farce which as usual uses the sucker phrase "free choice" to dupe the farmers. I really do not have any faith in the Liberal's desire to preserve the board. They were about to sabotage it at trade negotiations as I recall. The Liberals were the Conservatives going slow as far as the Board is concerned.



Harper's Hit on Grain Farmers
Ag Minister Chuck Strahl. Tories will aid US firms by gutting Canadian Wheat Board.
By Albert Horner and David Orchard
Published: April 23, 2007


TheTyee.ca
For a year the Harper government has been threatening to destroy the power of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Agriculture minister Chuck Strahl (who represents Chilliwack, B.C.) says barley will be removed from the Board's jurisdiction by August 1; a decision on wheat will follow.
In the early 1930s, there was no CWB. Prairie farmers took the price offered by the large grain companies or took their wheat home. Grain sold for a few cents a bushel. Farmers were driven off the land in droves.
In response to pressure and thousands of farmers demanding an end to the unfettered power of the grain giants, R.B. Bennett made a historic radio address referring to "unconscionable monopolistic purchasers" and "economic parasites." He set up the CWB as a single seller of prairie wheat. In the 1940s Mackenzie King extended the Board's power to include oats and barley.
Starting from nothing in 1935, the Board has grown into the world's largest marketer of wheat and barley, one of Canada's biggest earners of foreign currency and perhaps the most prestigious marketing board in the world.
A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study described as "huge" the $1.6 billion annual economic impact of the Winnipeg-based Board, "with Western Canada as a major economic beneficiary."
As OPEC gave undeniable clout to oil producing countries, so the CWB's quasi-monopoly put marketing power in the hands of farmers.
'Communist' upstart?

Since its founding, the U.S. grain companies dominating the world grain trade have fought this impressive upstart. Earlier, they called it "communist." In the last 15 years, the U.S. has mounted a dozen trade challenges seeking its demise.
The reason is simple. The Wheat Board returns all revenue earned to the farmer, minus a miniscule per bushel administrative charge.
Loss of the CWB would move the Canadian grain trade into U.S. hands virtually over night. Hundreds of millions more in profits annually would drain from the farmer to the "five sisters" that dominate the international grain trade, none Canadian. The Port of Churchill -- with the bulk of its business from the CWB -- and the entire east-west rail system including the great grain terminals in ports from Québec City to Prince Rupert would be at risk.
If the Canadian Wheat Board goes, who believes the rest of Canada's supply-managed agriculture is safe?
Since assuming power the Harper government has waged an unrelenting attack on the CWB -- firing its popular CEO, Adrian Measner, stacking the board with government appointees who detest it, and holding a fraudulent barley "plebiscite" (complete with gag orders, a secret voters' list, traceable ballots and deliberately misleading questions). Still, only 13.8 per cent voted to remove barley from the Board.
This unprecedented assault on the internationally respected CWB by its own government has not gone unnoticed. Standard and Poor's recently downgraded the Board's formerly pristine credit rating, and according to the largest buyer of Canada's wheat, China's Yang Hong," Once the CWB's single-desk system is abolished, we think the Canadian wheat industry may lose advantages to other competitors." He said his company may turn to other countries if Canada can no longer guarantee reliable supply and quality. Mexico's Grupo Altex president wrote, "We would hate to see you adopting the U.S. model, where we have to deal with the large trading houses that always try to take advantage of both farmers and clients like us and very seldom, if ever, deliver what they promise."
Harper majority will seal fate
But the Wheat Board is not gone yet. For over 70 years it has -- with Ottawa's backing -- withstood American hostility. Now the Harper government is about to do what the U.S. alone has been unable to accomplish; it plans, by order-in council, to strip the Board of its marketing power on barley.
Once before, a Canadian government joined the Americans against its own farmers. Following its signature on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989, the Mulroney government took oats from the Board. In 1993, it tried the same with barley, but was stopped by a successful court challenge. The government changed and Ralph Goodale and Jean Chrétien held a fair vote among farmers, restored barley to the Board, where it has remained ever since, and introduced the Canadian Wheat Board Act putting farmer elected directors in control.
This time, too, a court challenge may follow. However, as in 1993, only a change of government will secure the Board's future. A Harper majority will see the CWB gone, and quickly. The new Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, behaving more like a friend of the western farmer than the Alberta based Harper administration, has promised to restore the Board's powers putting full control of its future back into farmers' hands. Whatever changes the CWB needs -- and every farmer knows of some -- will be made by farmers, not imposed from Ottawa or Washington.
Today, the Liberal party is truer to John Diefenbaker's defence of the West than the party claiming his name.
Related Tyee stories:

It was a good trick from the Conservatives viewpoint to have choice, something they much favor. Actually no choice had a majority. As Strahl says 62 per cent voted in favor of change but that 62 per cent voted for TWO different changes! It is true that there was a gag order on the Wheat Board against trying to convince farmers the monopoly was in their interest and dual marketing of barley would have the same effect as if the Wheat Board got out of barley altogether. One choice, in fact the most popular choice, is an illusion based upon the misconception that the Wheat Board has the resources to compete with the big grain companies such as ADM.
It is probably only a matter of time before wheat too is removed as a board marketing monopoly. The big grain companies can then have a big celebratory party and invite Strahl, Harper, and maybe Harper will even be granted an audience with Bush.

Stephane Dion tells Saskatoon audience wheat board vote tainted Canadian Press
Published: Sunday, April 01, 2007 Article tools
* * * SASKATOON (CP) - Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says the recent vote by barley growers on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is tainted.

Dion told an audience in Saskatoon on Sunday that gag orders against the wheat board's directors and traceable ballots that were used in the vote have little to do with democracy.

"Because of ideology, Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper is determined to kill the wheat board," Dion said. "This is his goal, and I think he must be stopped.

Dion said if he were elected prime minister, he would guarantee the wheat board's monopoly on grain sales.

But a spokesman for federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said it is Dion and the Liberals who are failing to respect democracy.

"They're basically telling farmers they know what's best for them, but they're not listening to or respecting the will of farmers," said Conrad Bellehumeur.

"We've just held a plebiscite (and) 62 per cent of those who voted, voted in favour of change. But Mr. Dion is saying that if he was ever put in a position of power, he would take those privileges away from farmers."

Strahl has called the plebiscite results announced last Wednesday "unequivocal." The majority of the 29,000 farmers who cast ballots voted to either have the Canadian Wheat Board participate in a competitive market, or stop dealing with barley altogether.

Strahl has said he will now take steps to get the cabinet approval needed to remove the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly by August, in time for the start of the crop year.

The wheat board, backed by the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, has said from the beginning that the plebiscite was flawed.

It has pointed to the fact farmers were given three choices, not two; that many farmers got more than one ballot; and farmers could be identified by numbers printed on both their ballots and the return envelopes.

The board also suggested it was the subject of a government gag order after the federal cabinet last October said the board could not spend money to advocate keeping its monopoly.

"He put a gag order on the entire board to shut them up, to keep them from defending themselves against his attack," Dion said Sunday.

Bellehumeur said Dion's suggestion that the vote was tainted is "ludicrous." He said the plebiscite was run by a reputable, international firm, the question posed was fair, and everything possible was done "to ensure that producers that were eligible to vote, could vote."