The federal Conservatives have made no secret of their desire to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.
With a long sought after majority attained in the last federal election, many now wonder if they will move to make that happen.
There is little doubt that the Conservatives are the party of choice for western Canadian farmers. In the prairie provinces, all rural constituencies elected Conservative members, with the exceptions of northern Manitoba, which is not particularly agricultural, and Saskatchewan’s Wascana riding, which is a combination of rural and urban voters.
Read Also
Why feds imposed EV tariffs
Moe and Kinew have a fight on their hands when it comes to eliminating the EV tariff. Canada has to worry about pissing off the U.S. and Mexico and hundreds of thousands of auto workers.
It should come as no surprise to rural Conservative supporters if their government acts quickly to eliminate the CWB’s single desk for western Canadian wheat, malting barley and export barley.
But is it fair for the government to assume it has a mandate to do so?
Wheat board supporters argue that elections for wheat board directors are a better indicator of board support. In the fall of 2010, farmers elected four of five single desk supporters to the director posts up for re-election that year. However, detractors of those votes point to a need to expand the voters’ list to include other commodities and to increase the minimum required acreage to qualify for a ballot.
Another factor that questions the Conservative mandate on the CWB is the fact that many issues were at play during the election that superseded the wheat board. Those include crime, economic policy, tax cuts, the long gun registry, a perceived smaller government philosophy and the fact that in many regions, particularly in Alberta, many people see no viable alternative party.
Still, it could be argued that farmers have to accept the entire package of the party they elected. At the least, Conservative popularity in the rural West sends a signal that farmers don’t care enough about the CWB to make it a priority at the ballot box.
Former agriculture minister Gerry Ritz (it’s not yet known if he will retain the post) has stated the government will move on the issue without a farmer plebiscite, although it will consult.
While a plebiscite could clear up confusion over the level of CWB support and the government’s mandate, it raises questions about when governments should exercise the leadership and authority bestowed on them by the electorate.
But if a plebiscite occurs, it must be a clear, two question vote: single desk or open market. Any third question about dual marketing muddies the waters. The so-called third option of a dual market with a voluntary CWB is equivalent to an open market, with the CWB serving as one option within that.
Although it appears the Conservatives are unlikely to hold such a vote, Ritz did say the party would gather input from affected groups. We trust that would include organizations and farmers from all sides of the debate. Broad and open discussions can play significant roles in keeping governments in touch with the grassroots and in gauging voter attitudes.
On such a vital and irreversible decision as the CWB monopoly, open discussions are essential.
They would also present farmers with one final chance to speak out. If they really want the monopoly, they must adopt activist roles. They must send a clear and unequivocal message that the Conservative mandate does not include the CWB.
Meanwhile, those who oppose the CWB must not be complacent. While it is true that doing nothing amounts to tacit consent for change, open market supporters must be sure their voices aren’t drowned out.
We have long stated that the CWB’s future must be decided by farmers, and it is indeed now in their hands.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Joanne Paulson collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
