In all the sound and fury of the diatribes against wheat board marketing powers, two arguments stand out sharply:
1. Farmers should have freedom.
2. Farmers should have a vote.
These are powerful statements, appealing to feelings that every farm family must share to some degree.
Those who put forward such assertions should not be casually dismissed.
It does not matter what their status is – farmer, trucker, wannabe commodity broker, lawbreaker, whatever.
No matter what the personal circumstances of the person making the assertion, the assertion has to receive a considered response.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
“Freedom” is a powerful word. We all want freedom. But it must be defined in a larger context.
Should five percent of a group have the freedom to cause financial suffering to the other 95 percent?
Should nine percent of farmers have the freedom to lower Canada’s export exchange earnings by three, four or five hundred million dollars a year?
To start grappling with those difficult questions, we need more facts and analysis. What if the freedom for five percent actually causes no appreciable harm to the 95 percent? That would change the situation greatly.
What if giving the nine percent freedom would lower the nation’s export earnings by only $10 million a year?
Assessments like that can make a huge difference in how the basic question is ultimately answered.
Then there is the question itself. Almost everyone supports the idea of allowing farmers to vote on something that affects their future.
But how do you define the question? How do you decide who can vote? One vote per permit book? One vote per spouse and child over 18? What background information do you give voters as to the impact of their votes?
These are not easy questions. To begin dealing with them requires an informative, analytical study that lists the options facing Prairie farmers.
Hopefully, within a week or two we will have such a study, courtesy of the federal grain marketing panel.
Then the fun begins.
Then, politicians, policymakers, farm leaders and farmers themselves have to decide what to do next.
There will likely be a vote of some type at some time. But the question is how it will be worded and organized.
That question will require careful thought and application of basic common sense and fairness.
Are government policymakers and farm organizations up to that challenge? Or will they continue to be fragmented into squabbling factions?
The answer will soon be evident.
