Kevin Hursh’s inaugural Western Producer column, “Interpreting results of CWB vote will be difficult,” is a useful starting point for a constructive discussion on grain marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board single desk. Hursh is a respected journalist with a long history of encouraging good debate on agriculture issues.
I served as an elected director of the CWB for the first 10 years after the organization was turned over to be controlled by farmers. This history inevitably brings a bias to my perspectives on the CWB.
Read Also
Regulatory model “broken” in Canada – says BASF
Taking a decade to assess the safety of glufosinate-ammonium, a herbicide branded as Liberty that has been used by farmers for years, embodies what’s wrong with Canada’s regulatory system, BASF said.
However, it also provides me with considerable information and background to expand on the points made by Hursh.
On a voluntary CWB, Hursh said, “The marketing choice supporters who believe the CWB can serve a purpose with nothing but good people and good will are deluding themselves.”
I agree. The CWB adds value to farmers because it is a single desk. Canadian grain is branded as distinct and customers must deal with a single desk to get the branded product.
In the absence of the single desk, the CWB or its successor would simply be a grain company, moving its product through the system using elevators and terminals owned by competitors.
The second point from Hursh’s article that merits further comment is that the CWB has not “been able to demonstrate enough tangible benefits to enjoy overwhelming support. Once the single desk is gone, it will never return.”
This point stings personally. Hursh is correct. It was incumbent on us as an initial board of directors to demonstrate those benefits to farmers.
When the CWB was turned over to farmers in 1998, the new board knew that measuring and improving sales performance was a key priority for farmers. Rigorous work done by the board was compelling, and most of the board members who had been skeptical about the single desk were convinced of its value.
The plan had been to have ongoing discussions with farmers on performance and value.
However, at the time, the CWB was in a trade case against the United States which was arguing that the CWB represented an unfair advantage for Canadian farmers. The sales performance and benchmarking report demonstrated value for Canadian farmers not available in the U.S. Trade lawyers argued that the performance management report would help the U.S. to make its case.
Kevin’s final point was that the CWB pervades the entire grain industry, from rail car allocation and customer support to variety standards and registration. Each of these changes will have financial implications for farmers.
The CWB currently allocates rail cars to grain companies on the basis of farmer contract sign up. In the post CWB era, rail car service will be determined by commercial contracts between railways and grain companies. Farmer choices will no longer drive the agenda.
Producer-owned terminals, small grain companies, short-line railways, and producer car shippers will not have the same commercial leverage to get access to rail service as large mainline companies.
The real business implications of removing the single desk for wheat and durum are not being debated. The notion of a voluntary CWB that adds value to farmers is a disingenuous idea proposed by those who want to get rid of the organization. Thus, the freedom of either proponents or opponents will be infringed upon.
Perhaps the path forward is to have the plebiscite through the winter when farmers have the time to consider the implications. Once farmers have voted, we can simply move forward with the result farmers choose.
