This spring, the Senate agriculture committee raised expectations among opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly that it might take the radical step of endorsing their fight.
Last week, with a timid report that should ruffle few government feathers and steered clear of the monopoly debate, the senators dashed those expectations.
Now, the anti-wheat board monopoly advocates are faced with the dicey prospect of organizing farmers to put their votes where their mouths have been.
When wheat board elections are held, probably later this year, the anti-monopoly crusaders will have a chance to prove that the majority want choice.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
It would have been far easier, and certainly faster, if the politicians simply had taken them at their word that the majority is on their side.
Democracy, as any professional politician will tell you, can be a messy and unpredictable process. The pressure will be on to prove their strength through the ballot box.
If you are Larry Maguire, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and prime advocate of the “most farmers want choice” lobby, the pressure will be on. Scary stuff.
But for the moment, the spotlight is on the performance of the senators.
In Prairie anti-monopoly farm circles, the credibility that the senators gained by going west to hear farmers drained away like water from a leaky slough last week when it turned out they did not listen.
Even the senators agreed that the majority opinion they heard at committee hearings was in favor of choice.
But the furthest they would go in their report was to note that while “numerous” witnesses pleaded for choice, the new board could accomplish that if farmers elect anti-monopoly directors and the government of the day agrees to hold a vote and the majority support it.
Ralph Goodale could not have said it better.
Committee chair and Saskatchewan Tory Len Gustafson said he believes the end of the monopoly is inevitable “but I don’t think the climate is right for the government to listen to that.”
For an anti-monopoly advocate like Maguire, that sounds like a cop-out.
Whether the government accepted it or not, the Senate committee or a portion of it could have registered its view that a large segment of prairie farmers want choice and feel discriminated against.
He figures that with Ontario moving toward an opt-out for farmers willing to market all their own wheat into the U.S., the lack of a similar option for Prairie wheat farmers creates “two classes of wheat farmers in Canada.”
He complained senators did not respond to what they heard. “Despite representations of farmer after farmer at public hearings, the senators do not adequately address the issue of a voluntary marketing system.”
Back in the Senate, Alberta Liberal Nick Taylor figured the committee performance was stellar. “The publicity that we received in the west showed what the Senate can do, what the Senate is doing and what the Senate has done,” he said.
Maybe, but not on the Maguire farm.
