MPs’ views called irrelevant

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: October 3, 2002

As the House of Commons prepares to get back to work, Canadian Wheat

Board officials and supporters are downplaying the significance of

criticism that MPs might have for the agency.

Earlier this year the Commons agriculture committee recommended that

the board set up a temporary open market experiment.

CWB critics say that signals a growing political momentum against the

board’s monopoly in Parliament.

But one wheat board director said MPs’ opinions on the board’s

marketing mandate are irrelevant.

Read Also

thumb emoji

Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down

Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.

“I haven’t lost a great deal of sleep over it,” said CWB director Ian

McCreary, a strong supporter of the agency’s export monopoly on western

grown wheat and barley.

He said the CWB Act lays out a procedure for changing the board’s

marketing powers and it has little to do with MPs in Ottawa and

everything to do with farmers in Western Canada.

The act says the board’s mandate can be changed only as a result of a

plebiscite among prairie farmers, which can be initiated only after the

minister for the CWB has first consulted with the agency’s board of

directors.

McCreary said that’s the appropriate way to deal with questions about

the board’s marketing mandate, not through Commons committee reports or

MPs’ lobbying.

“It would make no sense for the government to have passed that

(legislation) and say it’s farmers’ choice, but then because some

farmers are complaining, do something different,” he said.

Darrin Qualman, executive secretary of the National Farmers Union,

which supports the board’s monopoly, said it’s inconceivable to him

that the federal government would bring in changes to the agency that

run counter to wishes of the wheat board’s elected directors.

“It would be very illegitimate for the government on one hand to say

‘we’ll have elections and turn the board over to farmers,’ and on the

other hand say they’re going to wade into the middle of the debate and

change policy in a way farmers haven’t indicated,” Qualman said.

McCreary said MPs and all Canadians should recognize the financial and

other benefits that the board provides to prairie farmers.

But he added that increased tensions between government and the board

are a result of the agency’s restructuring from a government agency to

a farmer-controlled marketing organization.

That has been reflected not only in criticism of the board by some MPs,

but also in the board’s criticism of government policies such as rail

competition and the agricultural policy framework.

“I think that has been a big shock for Ottawa, but we see it as a

natural extension,” said McCreary. “The board is now owned by farmers

and we have an obligation to put farmers’ concerns front and centre all

the time. That’s our only mandate.”

About the author

Adrian Ewins

Saskatoon newsroom

explore

Stories from our other publications