Thursday, October 6, 2011

My reply to Mr. Taint

Glenn Taint recently responded (September 30th “Unworkable idea”) to my Sepetember 22nd opinion in the Starphoenix, suggesting that apart from the political focus of my article, which was apparently “stupid”, I’m an “otherwise intelligent person”. I appreciate the commendation. I would return your approbation in the due course, but I harbour some concern respecting your interpretive read of my Opinion. At no point did I defend, support or offer comment on the viability of a parallel system that includes a CWB option. Mr. Taint closed by asking if I “support the interests of the majority of farmers”. I’m mildly confused by this proposition. In fact I tend to agree that it probably won’t work in the long run. I’m no economist, but the CWB, itself, says it’s not viable without a monopoly. Fair enough. My Opinion did not address the merits of either system, but the politics and methodology of the CWB vote and the Conservative’s subsequent reaction.

If you dial back the clock to 2007 following the barley plebiscite, the CWB sang a strangely similar tune when it declared, “Barley plebiscite meaningless with three options.” The CWB was none too happy with the result, and expectedly, it challenged the design and methodology of the plebiscite. And, perhaps, rightfully so. The inherent problem with plebiscites is that it’s nigh unto impossible to draft a clear, concise question devoid of bias, and, generally, the parties who design and conduct them—be it the Conservative government or the CWB—have no interest in making them so. We could generate plebiscites and interpret their results for the next ten years, and we’d continue to arrive at different conclusions. That is neither productive, nor helpful.

In this particular context, the Conservatives are choosing to put the matter to the ultimate plebiscite: the next general election. Producers on the prairies will then decide if this issue warrants enough consideration to turf their Conservative MPs. I suggested that the Conservative MPs have clearly reviewed this matter for some time and are comfortable that they will continue to enjoy the support of producers, despite the CWB plebiscite – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. You might consider why they continue to support supply management in the dairy industry dominated by producers in Quebec and Ontario? It’s probably not politically popular to alter those inherently anti-free-market systems in those regions the Conservatives hope to make gains. But on the prairies, I suspect the Conservatives enjoy sufficient support to move on the CWB.

Mr. Taint closed by asking if I “support the interests of the majority of farmers”. I will admit that in the fog of my political stupidity, I’m confused by his question. I’m not in the business of supporting farmers (except those to whom I provide professional services, whom I value dearly as clients), nor did I purport to represent farmers in any fashion. If he intended to ask whether my opinion coincides with the opinion of the majority of producers, I could better understand the question’s potential relevance. However, I never stated my opinion on the merits of the CWB. My Opinion was that, based on several considerations, I suspect the majority of producers actually concur with the Conservative government’s position on the CWB. I’m pretty sure that the Conservatives have thought this one through. But then again, I say some stupid things when it comes to politics. Perhaps Mr. Taint can advise us on the intelligent things one might say, respecting politics, to get one’s self elected to office.

Reply to my WB Op-Ed in the Starphoenix

Unworkable idea
 
I often wonder why when politics is involved otherwise intelligent people say such stupid things.
A recent example was the viewpoint, Savvy politics to end monopoly (SP, Sept. 22). Devin Dubois wrote that the federal government wants to simultaneously maintain a viable Canadian Wheat Board and take away its single desk authority.

Dubois supports the notion this is possible. Even former Conservative agriculture minister Chuck Strahl's own task force on the subject concluded the CWB could not continue if it was not a single-desk seller.

Dubois suspects that Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz are right when they say that the majority of farm voters share their free-market ideology.

However, ending the CWB single desk was rarely, if ever, mentioned and was certainly not the lead point in the 2011 election campaign.

The promise of lower taxes and the end of the long gun registry - and perhaps the abundance of signs advertising Economic Stimulus spending - seem to be what carried the Conservatives here.
Farmer voters trusted that the fate of the CWB was in their own hands, as they know the Wheat Board Act requires a vote before any change to the single desk is made. When the question is solely on the CWB, farmers support the single desk by a 2: 1, 3: 1, or even 4: 1 ratio. In fact, pro-single desk candidates in the last CWB director elections were only a scant 31 votes from a clean sweep.
Is Dubois supporting the interests of the majority of farmers?

Glenn Tait Meota


Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Unworkable+idea/5480743/story.html#ixzz1a28HH6Qj