To the small network of farmers who are seeking an end to the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly marketing powers, the idea of arranging a convoy of more than a hundred vehicles is exciting.
Border-crossing convoys have proved effective in attracting the attention of urban media. But as pro-board activist Ken Larsen of Alberta pointed out in a news release last week, even a convoy of several hundred trucks would be tiny compared with total grain movement.
Recent statistics, he noted, show that in the 1995-96 crop year the board handled more than 60 percent of the 6.14 million tonnes of feed barley that were marketed. Although farmers are free to sell feed barley on the domestic market without going through the board, the majority of them seem to have found the board’s export monopoly provided attractive prices.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
What does this have to do with convoys? Larsen believes farmers are “voting with their trucks” for the board on a massive scale that dwarfs the high-profile protest convoys:
“To put this in perspective, if we assume an average tandem grain truck can haul 14 tonnes of grain, a pro-CWB convoy of trucks would require 269,285 trucks! At 60 feet per truck, this would be a line of trucks over 3,000 miles long!”
Publicity stunts like convoys, however, won’t be the only distraction in the weeks leading up to next month’s plebiscite on barley marketing.
The current parliamentary debate over proposed changes to the wheat board legislation has the potential to create some confusion over the plebiscite.
At least some farmers have wondered whether a vote in favor of keeping the board’s monopoly on feed barley exports and malting barley sales will be taken as a vote for such proposed legislative changes as having farmer-elected directors for the board.
The short answer to that should be no. A vote in favor of the basic principle of orderly marketing should not be counted as a vote for specific proposals on how the board is managed.
Those proposals are subject to change as politicians get increasing reaction from the farm community. Both before and after legislation is passed, farmers will have opportunities to lobby for change.
While there will be opportunities to fix problems that arise with the board’s restructuring, however, there will be no second chance if farmers vote to remove barley from the board. Free-trade rules would probably prevent a reversal of any such decision. Farmers who support the board should make sure they send their ballots in.
