opinion
Will there ever be hope for reconciliation between the opposing sides in the current debate over wheat board marketing powers?
Impossible as that concept may appear on occasion, for a few moments last week it seemed slightly less unthinkable. For the first time, Manitoba Pool’s annual delegates’ meeting heard an invited speaker representing the Western Canadian Wheat Growers’ Association. Director Jim Pallister joined the agenda along with representatives of the other traditionally-invited farm organizations.
Pallister, a farmer and seed broker in the Portage area, appealed for co-operation among farmers in finding ways to revitalize the rural economy and provide jobs to keep rural youth at home.
Read Also
Petition launched over grazing lease controversy
Battle continues between the need for generation of tax revenue from irrigation and the preservation of native grasslands in southern Alberta rural municipality.
He said his group is not out to destroy the wheat board, but just wants to reform it so Canada can more aggressively compete for markets and help the rural economy by bringing more money into rural areas: “We view the wheat board as a strong weapon in our arsenal, not as an end in itself.”
Far from being wild-eyed right-wing fanatics, he suggested, the Wheat Growers’ Association members are in tune with the ideals of those who founded the pools. He quoted co-operative statesmen Henry Wise Wood of Alberta Pool and A. J. McPhail of Saskatchewan Pool as strongly opposing the idea of a universal, compulsory pooling organization.
The message was seductively simple – let’s all return to the good old days of the 1920s, when farmers could voluntarily decide whether to pool their wheat through a central selling agency controlled by farmer-elected directors. With that divisive issue out of the way, everyone could then concentrate on retaliating against unfair U.S. subsidies and blasting our way into markets.
The argument had its flaws – for example, Wood’s and McPhail’s opposition to compulsory pooling applied only to pooling by co-operatives. They rightly opposed the idea of compulsory membership in a true co-operative. Also, later experience proved that non-governmental organizations like co-ops couldn’t handle the financial risk of price pooling and initial payments.
But, despite the questionable interpretation of co-operative history, Pallister’s appeal for co-operation among farmers was basically sound. Divisive bickering does distract attention from constructive action.
If the Wheat Growers’ goal is really to help the rural economy, then perhaps they should reconsider their ideological insistence on turning the clock back to the 1920s. That would clear the way for their reconciliation with the majority of farmers, who support a more modern marketing system.
