To the editor: Gerry Ritz has been designated to speak and act on behalf of our newly elected federal majority government on matters related to agriculture. This includes the Canadian Wheat Board. He has made his views very clear. No one can possibly misunderstand. It goes as follows:
1. The continued existence of the CWB as the single desk marketer of Western Canadian wheat and barley is an unacceptable infringement on the rights and freedoms of those producers who would prefer to market their grain in some other fashion.
2. In the recent federal election Western Canadian farmers massively supported Tory candidates. If those electors did not know the Conservative position respecting the Wheat Board, they should have. It was made quite clear.
3. It's now time to get on with the job. No further consultations are necessary. If the existing legislative framework for the board has to be dispensed with to avoid any more voting, then so be it.
We can all agree, "If the majority of the Western grain farmers decide that the single desk approach of the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer in their interest then so be it. Only the person who wears the shoe really knows where it pinches."
The decision should not be made however and proceeded with by a cadre of right wing idealogues who seem to think that because they won an election they are at liberty to do whatever they want whenever they want.
Historically, the broad base of support for the board has crossed all party lines. It has not been, and should not be, a partisan political issue.
Why is Mr. Ritz so adamant and rigid in his approach on this matter? Has he no faith in the validity or persuasiveness on his own arguments? Is he afraid to allow the discussion to go beyond the highly disciplined environment of his own caucus?
I think not. I hope not. There must be more to than meets the eye. The infringement on personal liberties embodied in the Canadian Wheat Board is miniscule compared to the discipline required to sustain the agriculture supply management boards in this country.
Dairy producers must sell to their marketing board, but more than that, they can only produce in the volumes for which they have quota. Any existing producers wanting to enter the business can only do so by purchasing quota from someone retiring or going out of business. This existing quota has a very significant dollar value completely apart from the land or the barns or the cows.
This system is bolstered by a rigidly enforced set of tariffs and border controls. They are designed to eliminate foreign competition and maintain price stability.
Preston Manning, the Fraser Institute and others on the right wing have been very clear on the topic of supply management. It is their position that such systems add significantly to the Consumer Price Index in Canada and is paid for by shoppers from coast to coast. It renders our economy less competitive than it might otherwise be. In addition, it is seen as a handicap in international trade negotiations. Other countries view supply management as an artificial impediment to the free international movement of goods and services.
The precedent of a producer referendum would not be very useful if and attack on supply management is anticipated. Supply management producers would not likely shoot themselves in the foot by voting to dismantle the very foundation of their financial stability.
Give your heads a shake folks. The handwriting is on the wall. If you think you can escape the wrath of the right wing idealogues by keeping your heads down while they dismantle the CWB, then think again. The old maxim bears repeating "If you don't hang together you will surely hang separately."
Doug Cowling, Yorkton, SK.
