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  

Survey's 'majority' doesn't add up

TUESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2011 02:01 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Re: "Municipal taxes too high: survey" (Lethbridge Herald, Nov. 8, page A1). It's interesting to see that 49.9 per cent is labelled "a majority." There's a common phrase: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, it's not the statistics - the numbers - that lie, it's the interpretation of them that can be misleading. The research quoted in the article found that 15.8 per cent of the respondents think their taxes are far too high and 34.1 per cent believe taxes are somewhat too high. Adding these two together, a common and legitimate practice in interpreting survey data, gives the 49.9 per cent figure. But 49.9 per cent is not a majority. Just ask the supporters of Quebec separation in 1995. But I digress. If adding response percentages from a survey is a legitimate exercise, let's add some other response percentages. The survey found an almost identical number, 46.4 per cent (almost within the margin of error, I might add), felt that property taxes are at about the right levels in relation to the services received from municipal governments. Also, 3.7 per cent think their taxes are too low. (This is made up by summing 3.4 per cent who think they are somewhat too low and 0.3 per cent who state that they are far too low. Adding these together leads to the conclusion that 3.7 per cent think taxes are too low. Thus we could conclude that 50.1 per cent (46.4 + 3.4 + 0.3) think taxes are about right or (even) too low. This figure, 50.1 per cent, is a majority, by the way. They'd likely object to a cut in services done to reduce taxes. As I said, it's all in the interpretation. When one of several possible interpretations leads to the conclusion that taxes should be lowered, and amplifies it by suggesting that 49.9 per cent is a majority, one wonders why. Just asking.
Mark Sandilands Lethbridge