Most prairie academics who have watched the barley plebiscite campaign unfold predict that when the votes are counted next month in the Winnipeg, the Canadian Wheat Board will win.
They are less clear on what that will mean.
“In my view, the board side will win,” said University of Manitoba agricultural economist Daryl Kraft, in a typical prediction.
“I would guess the board support will hold,” agreed Howard Leeson, head of the political science department at the University of Regina.
But after the stark fact of votes for and votes against, interpreting the results will become more complicated.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
In December, agriculture minister Ralph Goodale told the House of Commons agriculture committee he hopes the vote will settle the issue of whether the board should retain monopoly marketing control over all barley exports and domestic sales of malting barley.
“I don’t speculate about what the results of the vote may be,” he said. “That’s up to farmers to decide. But this democratic process, I think, is essential in the circumstances to clear the air with respect to barley.”
Sociologist Bob Stirling from the University of Regina doubts it will serve that purpose.
The traditional “hegemony” of prairie farmers supporting the wheat board “like will hold sway in this vote,” said Stirling. “But I believe it will be a hollow victory. The pressure will continue. There will be future votes. The only apparent direction is the diminution of the board.”
The result will be analyzed through the prism of a series of pointed questions.
How big was the turn-out? How close was the vote? Will the losing side take the result as a sign they simply must turn up the heat?
One of the greatest complicating facts would be a relatively close vote.
Goodale has insisted that with a clear question and a fair campaign, he will accept the opinion of the majority, no matter how slim the margin.
“We intend to act upon the majority opinion,” the minister told the agriculture committee in mid-December.
Alberta Reform MP Leon Benoit was skeptical.
“You mean 50 percent plus one?” he asked.
“The majority position, yes,” replied Goodale.
Kraft figures that could be a tall order.
“My personal view is that if it is a close vote, as a minister I would be reluctant to impose the view of a small majority on a large minority,” he said. “I think that could make things worse, not better.”
In fact, few believe the vote will end the debate, largely because it is a battle over ideologies rather than economic facts and figures.
The campaign has been marked by debates between economists and farm leaders over whether or not the board or the open market is better able to extract premium prices and find reliable customers.
But from Ray Ryland’s vantage point on the farm near Eston, Sask., the competing numbers have been somewhat irrelevant.
Most farmers will make their decision based on philosophy or ideology, said one of the organizers of a pro-wheat board lobby group. The statistical debate might influence the undecided but there are precious few of those.
“Long before the ballots were sent out, I would say 98 percent of farmers had decided how they would vote,” said Ryland. “There really are just a couple of percent on the margins who were open to be influenced.”
On both sides, the effort has been aimed less at changing minds and more at convincing partisans to send in their ballots.
“I would say a low voter response would be a problem,” said Ryland. He and other board supporters have been urging like-minded farmers to vote because they assume board opponents will be motivated to send in their ballots.
But on the other side, there also is concern about a low turnout.
Organizers like Ken Dillen with Canadian Farmers for Justice in Saskatoon say some of their troops are discouraged by the question. They wanted a “dual market” option.
Dillen said it is important they vote against the board. “This is probably the last opportunity you’re going to get to vote in your lifetime, and we’re saying you ought not condemn your children to continue the expropriation of their grain by the Canadian Wheat Board.”
Between these two sides stands Goodale, who has been predicting a large voter return.
At the University of Regina, political scientist Leeson marvels at the minister’s handling of a hot political file.
“I think this vote was a risk by Goodale but not much because he wins either way,” said the former senior Saskatchewan bureaucrat who also farms north of Regina. “Either way, as long as he abides by the vote, he can say he’s a democrat and not be responsible for the decision. Of course, it becomes much more complicated for him if it is a close vote.”
