Vote's a joke
There are at least seven good reasons why it is both unfair and unwise
to allow Ontario's 24-year-old wheat marketing pools to be dismantled by
a mere third of the voters in this fall's referendum. The decision by the
Ontario Farm Products Marketing Council must be overturned.REASON ONE: Opponents of the pools are more motivated to vote. It's only common sense that if you've been nursing a gripe against the pools for the last 10 years, you're not going to miss a chance to cast a ballot against the board.
REASON TWO: Supporters of the pools are handcuffed. It shouldn't surprise anyone that many of the strongest supporters of single-desk marketing are also board directors. They've been given a chance to help put together the information packages but because of the rules of the vote, they are not allowed to take to the podium or airwaves to defend the pools.
REASON THREE: Voter turn-out may be low. Attendance at the wheat board's recent annual meeting was scarcely better than average. The commission is planning only four regional meetings before the vote deadline. If it were honest, it would admit that the reason it isn't organizing 20 or 30 or more is that it doubts more than a few hundred growers will come out to meetings during the middle of harvest. Most people - although not the commission, which clings to its 12,000 vote prediction - are expecting about 5,000 total votes will be cast. Under current rules, therefore, the pools could be scrapped by just 1,650 growers, less than 10 per cent of the growers in the province.
REASON FOUR: Elevator owners can also vote. Of course it's fair that everyone who grows wheat should have a chance to vote, regardless of whether they're involved in any other business, such as grain buying and selling. But with the one-third rule, every vote is enormously important. No one can tell whether elevator owners will cast their ballot in their best interests as growers or as elevator owners. With a 50-per-cent-plus-one majority, it wouldn't be so critical. With the one-third:two-third ruling, every vote must be scrutinized.
REASON FIVE: Growers can't get the information they want. If anyone calls the wheat board with a query about how a voluntary pool might compare to the current pools, and whether it's likely a voluntary pool would prove viable, they'll be politely told, "no comment".
REASON SIX: If the pools are dismantled, they will never be revived. Nothing is impossible, but under current NAFTA and GATT rules, if Canada wants to create a new single-desk pooling system, it's free to do so only if it agrees to pay compensation to any country that can show its farmers or millers would be hurt. With current Canada-U.S. relations tinder dry over wheat exports, how likely is it that Ottawa would lob this kind of lit match over the border?
REASON SEVEN: It's a dangerous precedent. Several marketing boards argue that the one-third rule will make it too easy to destroy supply management systems. We agree, but we also believe that the height of the two-thirds hurdle will force other boards do everything in their power to prevent grower votes. Plain and simple, that's unhealthy.
The Farm Products Marketing Commission must step down from its ivory tower and reverse itself. A fair vote is the only chance for the wheat industry to settle its future.
LETTERS
Royal recall
1997 marks the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Royal Agricultural
Winter Fair. Plans are well underway for this exciting celebration. The
theme of the Royal will be "A Fair to Remember" and we have been advised
by Canada Post that a commemorative stamp will be issued on the opening
day of the fair, Nov. 6.
If any of your readers have any memorabilia such as ribbons, medals, prize
certificates, posters, etc. of previous Winter Fairs and are willing to part
with these items, we would like to have them for display in the archives
exhibit. They can be sent to the undersigned c/o The Coliseum, National
Trade Centre, Toronto, Ont. M6K 3C3. Any donations would be appreciated.
David E. Garrick
Chief Executive Officer
The Royal Agricultural Winter Fair
Zimmer blows a fuse
I read with interest Hugh Zimmer's article on Ontario Hydro. Mr. Zimmer is
quite wrong in his description of stranded debt. Stranded debt only arises
when a company cannot meet the service costs of its debt. Ontario Hydro
does not have stranded debts, and in fact was able to pay down its debt
by some $4.5 billion over the last three years. Studies also show that
Hydro's prices would have to decline by 15 per cent before stranded costs
became an issue.
Mr. Zimmer's conclusion regarding deregulation in the utility business
increasing acid rain is equally wrong. If anything, deregulation and the
resulting competition will cause old, inefficient generation plants to be
retired earlier, and make "green energy" and other new, efficient sources
of energy more widely available sooner to people like Mr. Zimmer. This will
ultimately result in lower costs for all consumers.
David Butters
Etobicoke
Average it out
The Farm Products Marketing Act clearly authorizes Ontario Pork to market
hogs produced in Ontario. Why then would any pork producer market their
own hogs outside of the pork board's monopoly?
Let us first look at a direct quote of Andrew Marks, manager of the
assembly division of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board: "The
board's goal has always been to obtain the best overall deal for the
average hog producer."
Now let us take out our calculators or pens and paper. We have in Ontario
7,400 hog producers who marketed approximately 3.7 million hogs in 1996.
So from these two numbers, we can say the average hog producer in
Ontario ships 500 hogs per year.
Now, the board collects $1.90 for each hog shipped. Multiplied by 3.7
million, this equals $7.03 million. That total, divided by the number of
producers amounts to $950 per producer.
If everyone reading this has gone along with the math so far, you were
probably thinking to yourself, 'This guy is an idiot if he thinks the
average producer ships only 500 hogs per year'.
So let's break it down even further. If we agree that 80 per cent of the
hogs in Ontario are produced by 20 per cent of the producers, which is
generally accepted in the pork industry, then 5.624 million hogs are
produced by 1,480 producers, for an average of 3,800 hogs per producer.
The remaining 80 per cent of producers are producing 1.406 million hogs,
an average of 237.5 hogs per year.
The question is, who is the average pork producer for whom the board is
getting the best deal?
I say it doesn't matter who produces what percentage of hogs as we are
all on average producing 500 hogs a year. Instead of paying the board a
fee per hog, each producer should be charged the same amount rather
than on a 'per hog' basis.
The pork board cannot achieve the highest possible price for the larger
producer. Anyone who has shipped hogs to the U.S. knows there is no
dickering over price. You get paid on carcass merit programs.
Now the board says we can ship our hogs anywhere we like, as long as
they okay the contract and some of the specifics, just to keep everyone
on a level playing field. No problem!
But I search out a market, set up my own transportation, look after my
own border crossing, get money transferred, arrange delivery times with
Canadian packers, and whatever else it takes to get the best price for my
hogs, then turn around and give the pork board $1.90 per hog. I don't
think so!
I have no objection to supporting the industry as an average producer,
which means 500 hogs per producer at $950 per year.
Eric Van Boekel
Mount Elgin