If the Reform Party’s plans to “reform” Canada are in any manner similar to its plans to “reform” the Canadian Wheat Board, then the Quebec separatists may not be the most serious threat to national unity.
As reported in this issue, Reform MP Leon Benoit called on the government to “allow the wheat board to handle any crop it wants but permit farmers and grain companies the right to compete with the board.”
That phrase “right to compete” has a nice ring to it, but Benoit’s prescription would deny farmers the benefits of orderly marketing.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
What Benoit and others refuse to publicly accept is that the much-envied Canadian system of orderly marketing requires the board to control export sales. They also refuse to accept that the board acts as an agent for farmers, trying to work in farmers’ long-term interest rather than to maximize the profits for some group of shareholders.
Critics of the board would be far more honest if they accepted those basic facts and then proceeded to make their arguments. For example, they could try to convince farmers that orderly marketing should be terminated to try something else. Or they could argue that the board is not competently performing its role as an agent for farmers.
But instead of openly and forthrightly calling for the end of orderly marketing, many opponents of orderly marketing use weasel words suggesting that they just want to reform the current system, or make it more competitive.
The idea of a “right to compete” is misleading. The principle of competition works in many cases, but there are also many areas where it is simply not appropriate.
Can anyone argue that any enterprising individual or group of individuals should be allowed to set up private fire departments, police forces, or other operations to offer cut-rate competition to government services?
There are also many non-governmental activities, ranging from medical practices to insurance agencies, that are extremely closely regulated. It might bring down medical costs or insurance premiums if anyone could start a shoe-string operation without proper training or adequate financing, but it could also do a lot of harm to innocent people. The principles of unrestrained competition and buyer beware do not apply in all cases.
A strong case could be made that farmers in Canada would benefit with even less competition between themselves — for example, if the board also controlled canola exports.
Such issues need debate and analysis, not unquestioning faith that some “right to compete” applies everywhere.
