The four Shaunavon-area Saskatchewan farmers wanted to make it clear they support the Canadian Wheat Board and its monopoly marketing powers.
“I’m not anti-board,” said 50-year-old Philip Lewans. “I like the security of having it market my grain. I don’t have time to take the time to be a full-time marketer.” In nearby chairs, three other farmers who had gathered one afternoon last week to talk about their farm operations nodded in agreement.
Then, they proceeded to put the lumber to the CWB and how it works on their behalf.
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
A typical comment came from 44-year-old Robert Anderson.
“Farmers are scrambling to make ends meet, off-farm jobs, juggling crops, whatever,” he said. “We don’t see the board scrambling to do anything other than damage control and press conferences.”
Added Bruce Poppy, 51: “It just seems like there is too much bureaucracy and it is too slow moving, too much looking after itself.”
There were complaints about its secrecy. Philip Lewans, 50, said if it is to survive, the board must become “more answerable” to farmers for its performance.
Isn’t that why the government is proposing to create a reformed wheat board with two-thirds of its board of directors elected by farmers?
“That won’t do a thing,” he laughed. “Those farmers will go down to Winnipeg, like our MPs go to Ottawa, and be told what to do. I don’t see that giving farmers accountability.”
If this is how board supporters talk about it, imagine the conversation in a room full of avowed critics.
This month or next, wheat board minister Ralph Goodale’s CWB reform bill,
C-4, will be back before the House of Commons.
In his defence of the board against its critics, and in his determination to push the bill into law, Goodale always has insisted that the majority of farmers support the monopoly, but just are not as loud as the critics.
He has fretted that this “silent majority” should speak up to give him ammunition to fend off the political attacks.
Presumably, the four farmers in that room at Shaunavon were part of this “silent majority.”
If so, their conversation might suggest that in the countryside, the board is on trial.
Its support may be broad but it is thin and soft. It is being closely watched.
Farmers expect improved performance, higher returns and more information.
They want less board defensiveness and less time and money spent on self-promotion.
They want better board performance and less politics.
Goodale argues that his legislation will allow the board to be more flexible, will put farmers in charge and will allow the institution to evolve the way farmers want it to evolve.
Based on one snapshot conversation with farmers the CWB and the government must count on, producers will need some convincing. They also will expect some quick changes in board offices and some early results.
