Canadian grain handlers reject suggestions that the Canadian Wheat Board would be unable to function as a commercial entity if the board’s monopoly was terminated.
Members of the Western Grain Elevator Association indicated last week they would welcome discussions with the board.
Executive director Wade Sobkowich said his association’s members would be happy to talk with the board about how to ensure that it remains intact after August 2012. The federal government has indicated it intends to end the wheat board’s marketing monopoly over wheat and barley effective Aug. 1, 2012.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
“We see a fair bit of grain potentially being moved through the Canadian Wheat Board after Aug. 1, 2012,” said Sobkowich. “We are more than willing to sit down with the Canadian Wheat Board and negotiate the terms of a marketing agreement or a handling agreement to deal with those tonnes that are delivered through the wheat board.”
Sobkowich said the association, whose members include Viterra, Richardson International, Parrish &Heimbecker, Cargill, Paterson Grain, Louis Dreyfus and the Weyburn Inland Terminal, had been trying to steer clear of the politically charged debate. However, it felt comments made recently by CWB chair Allen Oberg warranted a response.
Oberg said recently that he doubted the board would continue to operate if it lost its single desk powers.
Sobkowich said Oberg’s comments caught WGEA members by surprise because none of them had been asked for input on how a post-monopoly board might function.
“We (the WGEA) have taken the approach that this (the future of the CWB) is not our issue. This is an issue for farmers and the government to decide,” Sobkowich said.
“But we want to be here to make sure that whatever system we’re given works.… We want it to be known that we view ourselves as continuing to be partners with the Canadian Wheat Board in the future.”
Oberg said a revamped wheat board would face significant obstacles. With no grain handling assets and no capital base, a revamped board would rely on competing grain companies to do business.
Grain moving through a voluntary wheat board in an unregulated and purely commercial environment could receive low priority treatment in terms of access to inland facilities and shipment to port position, he said.
“It’s fine to have access to facilities, but will it be competitive access?”.
The wheat board is examining various operational models from the status quo “right down to a windup or dissolution and everything in between,” he said.
Some models could benefit producers, but require government regulation. Oberg reiterated that the best alternative for farmers is for government to hold a plebiscite on the future of the wheat board and abide by farmers’ wishes.
He said the board’s survival would be tenuous unless the government agreed to concessions:
• Ottawa could allow the wheat board to use tax dollars to establish a capital base for operations and infrastructure investments.
• Government could write regulations that guaranteed the board access to privately owned grain handling facilities and equivalent treatment during shipping.
• The federal government could continue financial guarantees against board borrowings.
