OTTAWA – The government is planning to rig the barley plebiscite by asking farmers a “dishonest” question,” Reform Party MPs charged last week.
In the first week of parliamentary battle over the government’s proposed changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, Reform took aim at the question to be asked.
They insisted farmers be offered a “real choice” by having the option of endorsing a dual market.
“This option is accepted by many Western Canadian farmers,” Alberta Reform MP Leon Benoit said when asking one of only two questions raised in the Commons on the wheat board issue during the week.
Read Also
Canola oil transloading facility opens
DP World just opened its new canola oil transload facility at the Port of Vancouver. It can ship one million tonnes of the commodity per year.
Goodale insisted the question will be “very clear” and will not have a dual market option.
Farmers will be asked if they want to market all their barley on the open market or all their malting barley and export feed barley through the board.
Outside the Commons, Saskatchewan MP and Reform agriculture spokesperson Elwin Hermanson said Goodale was trying to tilt the vote by offering farmers an all-or-nothing option.
“That is not the question producers want to be asked,” he said. “That will be a dishonest question.”
Hermanson also criticized Good-ale for not being able to announce who will be able to vote and what result the government will accept.
Goodale has said those details remain to be worked out.
“I would have thought if he was going to announce a plebiscite, he would have worked out all the details,” countered Hermanson.
The way it would be
The Reform MP said if he could write the rules they would be:
- A question that offered farmers a choice between a wheat board monopoly or a voluntary wheat board.
- A voters list that gave every farmer a vote if they have grown 80 acres or more of barley anytime during the past three years.
- A promise the government would implement whichever option received the majority of votes cast.
Goodale has so far refused to say what the government will consider a “legitimate” vote.
He may propose that the government will agree to end the monopoly only if the majority of eligible producers want change, not just the majority of those who vote.
In effect, that would mean farmers who do not vote would be counted as supporting the monopoly.
“That would not be right,” said Hermanson. “If you choose not to vote, you are basically saying you don’t care and you should not be counted.”
