Saying farmers, not government, should decide the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, the agency’s directors have refused to join the federal task force charged with designing an open market system for wheat and barley.
CWB chair Ken Ritter said a crucial factor in the decision is the belief that farmers should vote in a plebiscite on whether to retain the single desk.
“When you have a divided view on a public policy and you have a clear mechanism to resolve it, like we have in the CWB Act, namely a plebiscite, that is the first step that should be taken,” he said.
Read Also
First annual Ag in Motion Junior Cattle Show kicks off with a bang
Ag in Motion 2025 had its first annual junior cattle show on July 15. The show hosted more than 20…
The government is “putting the cart ahead of the horse” by designing a new marketing system without first asking producers if they want it, he said.
While the government hasn’t ruled out a plebiscite, neither has it committed to one.
A majority of CWB directors also said that since they were elected by farmers as supporters of the board’s sales monopoly on western grown wheat, malting barley and feed barley for export, it wouldn’t be right to take part in a process designed to get rid of the single desk.
“What would be the point of us joining this task force, which is there to dismantle what we feel is the best way to market grain?” said Ritter.
He said the 15 directors voted by a “very clear majority” to reject the government’s invitation to join the task force. He declined to provide the exact numbers.
One of the directors in the minority was Dwayne Anderson of Fosston, Sask., who said the board must also consider the views of the sizable number of farmers who didn’t vote for single desk candidates.
Anderson said it’s important to have someone on the task force who could talk about the strengths of the board and provide a balance to the views of the other members, who are all strong proponents of an open market.
While the board pledged to co-operate with the task force and answer technical or operational questions, Anderson said that’s not the same as being part of the discussion.
“If you’re not at the table debating the questions and answers, you’re not having any influence,” he said, adding he had considered resigning as a director so he could sit on the task force.
Ritter said the one-sided make-up of the task force membership, the limited terms of reference and the short four-week deadline all led the board to conclude nothing would be gained by taking part.
“We cannot, in good conscience, participate in a process that ignores their rights and will,” he said.
The reaction from farm groups to the board’s decision mirrors their various positions on the single desk issue.
The pro-open market Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association accused the board of being irresponsible and shirking its responsibilities to act in the best interests of all farmers.
Association president Cherilyn Jolly-Nagel said that by not taking part, the board will not be able to ensure that it has the tools to be a viable competitor in an open market. She said the board could also provide valuable information and expertise to the task force.
National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells said the board did the right thing, given the make-up and mandate of the task force.
“The task force as it stands has no credibility and standing among farmers whatsoever,” he said, adding the main reason the government wanted the board to join was to provide some legitimacy and credibility to the process.
Bill Dobson, president of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, said he’s of two minds on the issue. He would have liked the board to participate while first stating that it did not condone the task force’s mandate, but he understands why the directors said no.
“The task force itself is very one-sided,” Dobson said, adding the task force needs to spend time analyzing the impact of an open market before moving ahead. WRAP’s position calls for a farmer plebiscite before changes are made.
