Five agricultural economists from the University of Saskatchewan recently issued a provocative critique of the report of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
Their analysis reinforced what many farmers have been saying – the panel’s proposed hodgepodge of marketing options would simply not work as well as the current system of orderly marketing under the Canadian Wheat Board.
Exempting feed barley and unlicensed wheat varieties from board jurisdiction, for example, could lead to extra costs in the handling system and provide easy ways to bypass the board.
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.
But perhaps the most provocative idea was the economists’ proposal that decisions on such issues should be delayed until new farmer-elected directors run the wheat board.
The proposal has some immediate appeal, as well as potential disadvantages. One thing that virtually all farm groups have been urging is greater accountability of the board to farmers.
If there is rough consensus on that idea, why not go ahead and implement it, leaving the more divisive issues for the new board to sort out?
That would mean decisions, or at least detailed proposals for legislative change, would be made by people with a democratic mandate directly from farmers.
Moreover, the panel itself warned that many details would have to be carefully worked out if some of its major proposals were to be viable. Rather than rushing into poorly defined radical change, farmers could elect representatives to take a closer look at how the system could change.
Among the disadvantages of leaving all the divisive issues to be handled by elected directors is that decisions would be delayed and controversy would continue to simmer.
There are also the questions of whether and when farmers would be able to vote on specific choices.
Western grain producers and policymakers might ponder what decisions they would be comfortable leaving to directors elected, for example, by CWB permit-book holders.
At the same time, there needs to be consideration whether other changes, in addition to the elected directors, could be made quickly – for example, the wheat board’s proposal to have tradable certificates for final payments.
And there is the question of whether some key issues need to be settled by a producer plebiscite.
A careful combination of options could yet lead to resolution of the current debate.
The more farmers who get their views in to federal agriculture minister Ralph Goodale, the better the chances that he will make the right decisions.
