Plebiscite fair way to settle CWB issue

Note: This letter was published in the November 29th edition of the Lethbridge Herald.  The Herald did not publish the letter in its online edition for reasons of their own.

Editor:

In his letter about the CWB of, November 20, Jim Hillyer is technically correct that Parliament has the right to overturn legislation put in place by previous governments.

However, governments also have an obligation to seriously consider the effects of overturning previous legislation and of introducing new legislation. This is why there are debates in the Parliament and, usually, extensive committee hearings. But the Conservatives are using closure to shut down debate and to limit severely the time available for the agricultural committee to hear witnesses. Furthermore, the legislation they're introducing is coming at a time when farmers are busy harvesting crops. The Canadian Wheat Board Act required a plebiscite to determine if the majority of wheat farmers agree with the move. Yes, it is technically legitimate to rescind this old legislation, but it definitely violates the spirit of the old law and, more importantly, the spirit of fairness. Why not hold hearings throughout the prairies? Independent experts (e.g., agricultural economist Murray Fulton) have stated that the CWB cannot survive without its single desk (See The Canadian Wheat Board in an Open Market: The Impact of Removing the Single-Desk Selling Powers ). Why not ask the farmers and see if they agree with Fulton or with Harper?

It's hard to argue against the phrases, "Marketing Freedom" and "Freedom of Choice." But if a group, very likely a majority group, chooses one approach to marketing, a change to that approach should, at the very least, include consulting with that group, particularly if it's a major and irreversible change.

A group of farmers have, in the past 12 years, chosen repeatedly to keep the CWB in its present form by repeatedly electing farmer directors of the Board who support the CWB's monopoly. Indeed, some directors who were elected on a dual desk platform, when they learned about the advantages brought about by the single desk, changed their mind.

Recently the Globe published an obituary for Ken Ritter, former chair of the CWB. Mr. Ritter, a Conservative, was one of the ones who changed his mind from supporting dual desk to the single desk.

Mr. Hillyer mentions a small group of farmers, but it's a small group that are the ones who want to dispose of the CWB in its current form and who are in the minority. No one can know for sure, unless there's a fair plebiscite of those affected. Why are you and your party so afraid of doing this, Mr. Hillyer?  

Mark Sandilands