Critics of the government’s latest attempt at Canadian Wheat Board reform plan to amputate a proposal that farmers could vote to expand the board’s jurisdiction as well as to shrink it.
As the House of Commons gears up to begin debate on the legislation this month, the “inclusion” clause appears poised to overtake the board’s monopoly as the focal point of opposition.
“The issue that I will be focusing on is the inclusion clause,” said Progressive Conservative agriculture critic Rick Borotsik. “That is very unpopular in the West. I have yet to hear a good reason for it.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The Reform party also has highlighted the clause for a fight.
And late last week, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange joined the fray, issuing a denunciation of the inclusion clause as a threat to the grain marketing system.
Bennett Corn, president of the commodity exchange, said the presence of the clause and the possibility of a farmer vote to put new crops under the wheat board’s monopoly will be a damper on investment and a destabilizing factor in the grain industry.
Affect marketplace
“The proposed inclusion clause will have a significant adverse impact on WCE’s marketplace and its participants,” he said in a statement issued by the exchange Oct. 2. “It clearly does not reflect the needs of all parties and would seriously damage the well-being of our free and open markets.”
The inclusion clause was added to the government’s wheat board reform bill in the last Parliament under a proposal by Liberal MP Wayne Easter. That bill died when the election was called, but the government’s new version includes it.
Canadian Wheat Board minister Ralph Goodale says it is a matter of fairness.
The legislation would allow farmers to petition for a plebiscite on the jurisdiction of the board and could affect oats, canola and flax. A vote would be held only if the request came from an organization representing farmers who would be affected, if the wheat board approved it and if the federal government agreed.
Borotsik said in an Oct. 2 interview the last thing the government should be allowing is a vote on expanding the board’s jurisdiction.
“This is a bad signal to send, that we are willing to move toward more regulation,” the Brandon-Souris Tory MP said in Saskatoon.
Critics have expressed skepticism about the checks and balances in the proposed system for deciding who could propose a vote and how a government would decide whether it is valid.
The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange agreed with the critics.
It said the mere possibility of a vote to take another grain out of the open market would throw unease and confusion into the market for non-board grains.
And it would raise the possibility that farmers could impose their will on the rest of the industry by voting to move their crop out of the competitive “price discovery” sector and into a regulated sector against the will of traders, buyers and many farmers.
“In effect, this would allow one segment of the industry to impose a fundamental change without general industry input,” said the commodity exchange statement.
Opposition parties, with the exception of the New Democratic Party, which supports the inclusion clause, will reflect that criticism.
