Board changes need definition

In lengthy articles last week and this week (page 10), a former wheat board official has raised a disturbingly long list of questions and concerns about proposed changes to the board.

One key issue identified by David Suderman, former director of market development for the board, is how much money farmers will have to put into a proposed new contingency fund.

It’s clear the fund will be required if the federal government ceases to guarantee the board’s interim payments.

What’s not clear is how big a fund the government will require, and how fast the board will have to create it. Will farmers lose more than $7 a tonne in deductions for the fund over five years? Or will the deductions be measured in pennies?

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

In a statement in January, federal agriculture minister Ralph Goodale seemed to imply he will be looking for guidance on this issue from the Commons agriculture committee, which is preparing to hold hearings on the proposed changes.

Noting that there must be a balance between the board’s accountability to producers and its accountability to Parliament, Goodale said:

“The legislative committee will no doubt consider this matter. It will be important to weigh the pros and cons of having fewer safeguards for the taxpayer against having a less comprehensive guarantee. …

“The committee’s deliberations on this issue will be instructive. And I will be listening very carefully.”

While such words are no doubt flattering to committee members , they aren’t likely to reassure farmers.

Is it possible, as Suderman suggests, that farmers could be forced in a comparatively few years to put something on the order of $575 million into a contingency fund?

A question like that should not be left unresolved until some last-minute flurry of motions in the committee. It would be far better if farmers could have a much clearer idea of the government’s intentions so that they can lobby for any desired changes before the legislation is cast in stone.

The same could be said about other vaguely worded provisions in the proposed amendments to wheat board legislation. Would government-appointed directors become patronage appointments, to be changed whenever the party in power changes?

Would farmer-elected directors be subject to dismissal by the government? Does this whole exercise amount to giving the agriculture minister a blank cheque to settle such questions later by ministerial decree?