Dual market supporter all alone on committee

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: December 8, 1994

SASKATOON (Staff) – The Maytag repair man has nothing on Dan Cutforth.

The 40-year-old farmer from southern Alberta is the only dual market supporter elected to the Canadian Wheat Board’s advisory committee.

“I think it’s going to be a lonely four years,” Cutforth said in an interview last week from his farm at Barons, north of Lethbridge.

Cutforth was re-elected with 59 percent of the vote, managing to buck the trend that saw two other dual marketers on the committee – fellow Albertan Lee Erickson and Larry Maguire in Manitoba – turfed out by voters in their districts.

Read Also

Agriculture ministers have agreed to work on improving AgriStability to help with trade challenges Canadian farmers are currently facing, particularly from China and the United States. Photo: Robin Booker

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

He made no effort to hide his disappointment at the result, saying both of those defeated members brought a lot of insight and knowledge to the committee. But he also showed a sense of humor about the outcome.

“It’s going to be tough. I won’t even have anyone there to second my motions.”

Cutforth said he’ll continue putting forward the views of farmers in his area who want major changes to the grain marketing system, particularly an end to the board’s export monopoly.

“I’m certainly not going to lay down and die,” he said, adding it’s important to have all sides heard so it’s not just a “love-in” when the committee meets with the board.

Cutforth, who was first elected to the committee in 1986, said supporters of the status quo won because they successfully portrayed the election as a vote on whether to keep the wheat board or get rid of it, with no middle ground.

That’s wrong, he said. Dual market supporters aren’t out to destroy the board. They just want to make it more flexible to ensure its long-term survival. But they never got that message across.

“There was fear out there that the pro-change candidates were out to eliminate the board and that fear scared a lot of people off and they voted the other way.”

explore

Stories from our other publications