CAMROSE, Alta. – It may be a while before farmers know how much money was spent on Alberta’s grain marketing plebiscite.
The provincial government said it will be at least mid-January before all its bills are paid and the figures released.
Last year the provincial government organized a non-binding plebiscite asking Alberta farmers if they wanted the freedom to market their wheat and barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board.
About half of Alberta’s eligible farmers voted. Of those, 66 percent were in favor of more freedom in marketing their barley and 62 percent in favor of more freedom in marketing their wheat.
Read Also
Canadian Food Inspection Agency red tape changes a first step: agriculture
Farm groups say they’re happy to see action on Canada’s federal regulatory red tape, but there’s still a lot of streamlining left to be done
The provincial government isn’t the only entity with bills from the plebiscite. Bills are starting to come into farm organizations for their part in encouraging farmers to vote yes or no in the debate.
Questioning the commission
A letter to the Alberta Barley Commission, one of the farm groups spearheading the plebiscite debate, from Art Macklin, a member of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, asked a list of questions including what the commission paid to fund its plebiscite campaign.
“As a barley producer, I have a right to ask financial questions,” said Macklin of Debolt, in northern Alberta.
A reply from Tim Harvie, the barley commission chair, said costs won’t be reported until after the books have been audited in September. Costs incurred during the plebiscite in conjunction with three other farm groups in an alliance for more open marketing, will not likely be released, he wrote.
“As above, advertising during this plebiscite was pursued by the alliance of four farm groups and we are not prepared to disclose any specifics,” Harvie wrote.
A request under the Access to Information commission by The Western Producer asking similar questions was cancelled after access officials said they didn’t have answers to Macklin’s questions and weren’t likely to.
“If we don’t have a record in our control the act doesn’t apply,” said access co-ordinator Sheila Devereaux.
“There is a tendency to allow boards and commissions to do business without interference.”
The access commission did find a record that the provincial agriculture department paid $7,963.74 to F.W.J. Communications Ltd. of Calgary to develop the plebiscite question.
“As far as we know there was no cost to the barley commission,” Devereaux said.
In his letter, Harvie said if the commission sees a list of expenses from the wheat board, which was represented at the meetings, and the advisory committee, which organized many of the farmer meetings, it may reconsider its answer to reveal its own costs.
Bob Roehle, manager of information services with the wheat board said it’s unlikely the board will add up the cost of attending the meetings.
He said a rough estimate could be established by adding the cost of flying six people from Winnipeg to Alberta and six nights of hotel rooms.
To make things more exact a final cost should include salaries for the employees and time spent away from their jobs in Winnipeg.
“These things are always hard to calculate,” said Roehle.
“If you add it all up it comes to a fairly significant amount of money.”
Wilf Harder, chair of the wheat board advisory committee, said it also doesn’t have a total for the costs of the plebiscite.
Donations flooded
Robert Pontox of Galahad, Alta., also a member of the advisory committee, said much of the pro-board advertising during the campaign was funded through donations. At least $3,000 was raised in his eastern Alberta area for the campaign.
“Any advertising was paid for by farmers,” he said.
Macklin said about $10,000 was donated by farmers to fund the pro-board campaign.
