IF ONE thing is clear from the results of the barley plebiscite, it is that western barley growers want the Canadian Wheat Board to be part of their barley marketing options.
Arguments will continue about the legitimacy of the ballot questions, particularly whether the option most chosen by those who cast a ballot – that they would prefer the option to market to the CWB or another buyer of their choice – is a realistic one.
However, farmers are an intelligent lot and they know what they voted for. It would seem that many reject the argument that the CWB cannot be retooled to survive in an open market.
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?
Prairie-wide, 48.7 percent of barley growers who voted want the CWB to compete in the open market for all western-grown malting barley and feed barley for export.
In second place, 37.8 percent voted to maintain the board’s single desk authority. Only 13.8 percent said they want the board to have no role in barley marketing.
The vote process was far from perfect. There were criticisms about the voters list, mishandling of ballot mailings, lack of ballot secrecy and poor voter response. These are valid concerns that the government must investigate to ensure a smoother vote next time, assuming there is to be a wheat plebiscite down the road.
Any future plebiscite should also have a clearer question with two options: open market or single desk. If voters choose the open market, government could then explore whether producers want such a market with or without a revamped CWB, and whether their desires are possible.
Mistakes in process notwithstanding, the wheat board, politicians and farmers must accept that barley growers have spoken.
The debate is no longer about whether the CWB can compete on the open market, but rather how it can compete.
Federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl has announced that he will propose amendments to CWB regulations to remove the board’s single desk authority over barley by Aug. 1.
Now he needs a well-articulated plan to ensure the CWB can be a strong competitor in the new environment.
Government must ensure the board has the tools and proper backing to get it off to a robust start.
The wheat board also has a responsibility. It has not taken part in discussions about dismantling the barley single desk, saying it would not engineer its own demise. In a recently released study of its operations, the CWB said if it lost its barley marketing monopoly, it could offer no more value to farmers over what grain companies offer, and therefore it would be pointless for it to continue in that role.
That response is unsatisfactory.
Given the outcome of the vote, the CWB must now take a lead role and become involved in strategic planning for how it can remain a vigorous force in barley marketing without a monopoly.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
