Supporters and opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board agree there are lessons to be learned from the elimination of single desk wheat marketing in Ontario three years ago.
They don’t agree on what those lessons are.
For those who want to end the board’s single desk selling authority, the lessons from Ontario are that a voluntary marketing board can survive and prosper in an open market and that farmers will be better off.
Single desk supporters disagree and say the only real lesson can be boiled down to three words: let farmers decide.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Change in Ontario was instigated by the province’s wheat farmers and eventually implemented through the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board’s democratic structure of delegates and directors.
Farmers didn’t ask government to step in and make the change, as single desk opponents in Western Canada have done.
“Ontario went that route because farmers voted to do that,” said CWB chair Ken Ritter.
Prairie farmers can turn the western board into the exact same thing as the Ontario board, he added; all they have to do is elect directors who support such a change.
“They haven’t done that, they’ve done exactly the reverse,” said Ritter, noting that of the 10 elected CWB directors, eight are strong supporters of the single desk.
By contrast, in the 1990s Ontario farmers who were intent on ending the board’s single desk decided to run in board elections, find out more about how the agency operated and bring about change through the democratic process.
“They got in there, they figured out the board wasn’t all bad, but that there was room for improvement in terms of giving growers more flexibility and that’s exactly what they’ve done,” said Peter Johnson, a wheat industry specialist with the Ontario government.
Some wanted to move quickly, by having an immediate referendum to end the single desk, but such an approach turned out to be fraught with procedural and legal difficulties.
Instead, they decided to implement change on a more gradual basis by offering new marketing options, including exempting a limited tonnage from the single desk.
The exemptions proved so popular that three years later, the board decided to offer them on an unlimited basis, effectively ending the single desk and creating an open market.
“When they got to looking at what opportunities they had to bring about change at a slower pace inside the board, they found some really good things they could do. They did them and the outcome is where we’re at today,” said Johnson, adding the new system is widely supported by the province’s farmers.
Blair Rutter of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association acknowledges that Ontario achieved marketing choice though the board’s democratic structure, but rejected the suggestion that change must happen the same way in Western Canada.
“Because the CWB election process is flawed and because we see tremendous benefits from implementing marketing choice, we feel the federal government has a mandate and should move forward on that as soon as possible,” he said.
Proponents of CWB change argue that the Ontario board’s democratic structure is more credible than the CWB’s and more reflective of grassroots opinion, with 100 local delegates gathering annually to establish policy.
They also say the recent federal election, which saw Conservatives win almost every rural seat in Western Canada, shows that farmers want an end to the single desk. Others dispute that, saying farmers voted Conservative for myriad reasons with grain marketing well down the list.
Single desk supporters add that if the government decides director elections are not a good enough reflection of farmer opinion, then it should hold a plebiscite among farmers before implementing change.
Johnson said it may not always be possible to bring about change the way it happened in Ontario, but added it made for a smoother, better accepted transition than might have been the case had the change been imposed by government.
“Often times until you have been part of the internal process, you don’t understand there’s a reason why the process is the way it is.”
