opinion
Would you believe that a vicious, predatory, amoral grain-selling enterprise is out to destroy orderly marketing of wheat in North America? And would you believe that this enterprise is called the Canadian Wheat Board?
If you believe that, then you’re right in step with the arguments being put forward by U.S. senator Kent Conrad. (He’s the same one who joked about pointing nuclear missiles at Canada to settle the wheat trade dispute.)
Conrad complained last week at a U.S. trade hearing that the Canadian Wheat Board is doing far too good a job of selling feed wheat and durum into the United States.
Read Also
Farmland advisory committee created in Saskatchewan
The Saskatchewan government has created the Farm Land Ownership Advisory Committee to address farmer concerns and gain feedback about the issues.
In making that argument, however, he had to contend with the observation that the U.S. Export Enhancement Program (EEP) has paved the way for imports of Canadian durum by piling so many export subsidies that the U.S. shorted itself of good-quality durum and had to import Canadian durum.
“While it is true that EEP has the side effect of making the U.S. market more attractive to Canada than the world market,” Conrad said, “Canadian imports interfere with the intent of EEP by countering the supply management and income enhancement functions of that program.”
What’s noteworthy in that quote is the thought that the United States is trying to supply-manage wheat stocks, albeit in a very awkward fashion, while it is simultaneously denouncing Canada’s supply management.
To protect the U.S. “supply management” system, Conrad and his supporters are howling for retribution that would cripple the Canadian Wheat Board and undermine Canada’s system of orderly marketing. That’s blatant hypocrisy.
Other parties at the trade hearing had the audacity to complain that the Canadian Wheat Board tries to give customers the average of a certain grade’s quality range, rather than following the U.S. practice of blending to meet only the minimum standard for each grade. The U.S. interests called this a form of hidden subsidy and unfair trade because the board is “over-delivering” on specifications.
There were other U.S. groups, however, who represented millers and other board customers. They emphasized how the board, unlike most U.S. grain companies, is willing to meet their needs by contracting to deliver durum at a set price three months or more after the agreement.
One lesson from these hearings is that Canadian farmers have a highly effective marketing agency working on their behalf.
Another is that some so-called U.S. free-enterprisers would rather run crying for government help than make the effort to serve their customers better.
