opinion
Advocates of Canadian Wheat Board marketing should be careful not to ignore the results of Alberta’s grain marketing plebiscite. Any time 16,000 farmers speak out, policymakers have to listen.
It would be at least equally unwise, however, to accord too much importance to the vote. The whole plebiscite process was flawed from the beginning, when biased questions were drafted.
When asked whether they wanted the “freedom” to sell wheat outside the board system, 9,701 farmers voted yes and 5,890 voted no.
Considering the biased question and the Alberta Conservative government’s long propaganda campaign against the board, it’s almost surprising the “yes” forces couldn’t do better than 62 percent.
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 wheat board actually got a higher “yes” response (68 percent) when it commissioned a survey of Alberta farmers on a similarly worded question about “freedom.”
But when the pro-“freedom” respondents were asked if they would still vote that way if it meant the elimination of the board, the “yes” response plummeted to 29 percent.
Obviously, the wording of questions influences the responses to them.
Meanwhile, another 20,000 Alberta farmers with board permit books didn’t bother to vote. How many of those abstained because they had no complaints with the board, or because they thought the plebiscite was a sham?
And, of course, the Alberta plebiscite could not include the majority of Prairie grain farmers who live outside that province and who also deserve a say in what happens to the board.
In short, the costly plebiscite settled nothing. Contrary to the claims of Alberta minister Walter Paszkowski, it was not a “decisive vote.”
The minister, however, is correct in saying that the vote should not be ignored. Whatever its flaws, the plebiscite did serve as a reminder that a significant number of producers want changes in the marketing system.
A federal review panel is already preparing for hearings this winter on how the system can be improved.
There is no shortage of ideas. One suggestion, for example, is that farmers who don’t want to wait for final payments should be allowed to sell their final-payment entitlement to banks or anyone else willing to buy it. Buyers would have to cover their interest costs and allow for some risk that the expected pool return would not be realized, but farmers who wanted more money on delivery could get it, without destroying the pooling system.
If enough groups participate in the federal review, perhaps solutions can be found that will benefit farmers across the Prairies. In the long run, farmers are all hurt by divisive confrontation.
