The federal government’s plan to change who is eligible to vote in Canadian Wheat Board elections should be supported because it will focus voting rights on those most affected by the board’s decisions.The changes would add some farmers to the voters list but eliminate others.The necessity that voters have a CWB permit book would be replaced by a requirement that voters produce at least 40 tonnes of one of the crops listed in the CWB Act (wheat, barley, oats, rye, flax rapeseed and canola) during the previous three planting seasons.Eliminating the requirement that voters actually deliver grain to the board is a departure from normal practice seen in other commodity board elections.It is also a departure from a 2005 CWB election review panel that recommended voting be limited to those who deliver at least 40 tonnes of grain to the CWB at least once in two years.But the CWB is not just another commodity association where, if you sell the commodity and pay the checkoff to fund the association’s operations, you get to vote.First, it has monopoly powers on the marketing of wheat and barley for export and human consumption.That monopoly and how it is used, such as the setting of initial payments and delivery opportunities, both of which are factors farmers consider when selecting their crop mix, affect all western Canadian farmers regardless of whether they deliver grain to the board.Also, by virtue of its size and strength, the CWB has strong influence in transportation and handling, research, market development and other issues that have implications that go beyond its immediate customer base.The board’s broad reach justifies a broad reach of voters, particularly if their livelihoods depend on farming.But voting rights should not be extended to anyone with a patch of farmland.The new rules would exclude people with small holdings who are not able to meet the 40 tonne requirement.That is a legitimate exclusion because it is commercial farmers who make their living from crop production who should have say in CWB policy by electing directors, not hobbyists or retirees who have other sources of income.Even then, the 40 tonne requirement is a low barrier, equivalent to the production of about 40 acres. Even non-farmer landlords in a one-third, two-thirds crop share agreement on a quarter section would likely qualify if their land produced a higher yielding crop in one of the three years.Reaction to the proposed voting changes is following the usual pattern.Groups that lobby against the CWB favour the changes and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association would go even further, restricting the vote to those who produce at least 320 tonnes.But that could cut out new farmers who are starting out small and would therefore be too restrictive.Some farmer-elected CWB directors and board supporters such as the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and National Farmers Union worry that the Conservative government is rigging the voters list to further its goal of eliminating the CWB’s monopoly.Suspicion may be warranted given the sometimes questionable tactics the government has employed in its campaign to alter the board’s powers.But in this case, the government plan has merit.The monopoly held by the Canadian Wheat Board is a significant limitation on farmers’ property rights. It affects every crop producer in Western Canada.The board’s management and indeed the continued existence of the CWB should not depend on the whims of government but on wide support among the people who make their living growing crops.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
