My reply to Mr. Taint

Glenn Taint recently responded (September 30^th “Unworkable idea”) to my Sepetember 22^nd 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.