SASKATOON – Ralph Goodale was right about at least one thing last week.
When the federal agriculture minister unveiled his plans for the Canadian Wheat Board, he said they wouldn’t satisfy everybody.
As might be expected, the announcement produced the usual wide range of reaction from farm groups and others in the grain industry.
Those who want radical changes to the board condemned Goodale for leaving intact the board’s role as single-desk seller of wheat and rejecting the notion of a dual market for barley.
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
Those who like the board as it is say some of the proposed changes could undermine price pooling and threaten the board’s long-term future. And they say there is no need for a vote on whether to leave barley with the board.
There were also some whose comments reflected what Goodale described as the “vast majority of producers” who fall in between those two extremes.
Ron Leonhardt, president of Alberta’s Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, endorsed most of the government’s package. He likes the idea of a vote to settle the barley debate, thinks the vast majority of farmers support changes to the board’s governance and predicts changes to the way the board buys and pays for grain will make the agency more attractive to most farmers.
“Most of the recommendations are what we at Wild Rose were asking for, so we’re satisfied,” he said from his farm near Drumheller.
He’s not surprised at criticism from those who want to dismantle the board and those who support the status quo, nor does he hold out much hope that the changes will end the debate.
Opposite viewpoints
“I don’t know how anybody could make an announcement or settlement that was going to please a great number of people,” Leonhardt said. “How could you, when you had all of those viewpoints, some of them very, very opposite to each other?”
Daryl Kraft, an agricultural economist at the University of Manitoba, thinks the proposals for more flexible pricing arrangements and changes to the board’s governance will appeal to the broad middle ground.
“My impression is the majority would prefer this approach.”
As for the vote on feed barley, Kraft said it’s hard to argue with such an openly democratic solution, and agrees the choice should be between the board or the open market.
If the board wins, he said, that should assure the future of single-desk selling. But if the open market side wins, that will increase the pressure on the board’s wheat monopoly as well.
Merv Lloyd, a D’Arcy, Sask. farmer who helped organize a pro-wheat board rally in Rosetown this summer, said he supports Good-ale’s proposals, and praised the minister for rejecting the idea of a dual market for barley or wheat.
“I feel a lot more comfortable about the board’s future than I did on Aug. 1,” he said.
Here’s what some of the other voices in the farm community had to say about Goodale’s plans:
- Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is pleased that single-desk selling of wheat will continue. It doesn’t think a barley vote is needed, but is confident the board side will win. Spokesperson Murray Bryck said it’s too early to say what role the pool might play in the campaign. The governance changes might help the board survive international trade challenges, he said, and it’s good the government will continue with financial guarantees. The pool doesn’t want the board to use its proposed new capital base to compete with existing grain companies.
- Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association president Larry Maguire said Goodale’s “vague” proposals means the divisive debate over grain marketing will continue, with more border demonstrations and court challenges. The governance and flexibility proposals are tinkering around the edges, he said, while the barley vote is a delaying tactic which ignores the best solution, a dual market.
- National Farmers Union president Nettie Wiebe welcomed retention of the wheat export monopoly, but was disappointed the minister didn’t keep barley under the board. The union wants strict spending limits and financial disclosure rules for the barley vote. Wiebe said letting the board buy cash wheat and barley could undermine the pooling system.
