History may see vote as fatal to single-desk CWB

The campaign is over, the arguments put to bed, the votes are counted and the result is – virtually meaningless.

This winter’s barley plebiscite bought the Liberals a bit of time and in pre-election days, made Ralph Goodale’s life a little simpler. He can say he consulted, offered farmers a clear choice and they spoke loud and clear in favor of Canadian Wheat Board single-desk selling for export barley and domestic malt.

He can say the minority should accept democracy and live with the result, turning its attention now to changing the board over the long haul through the farmer-elected board of directors Goodale is proposing.

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.

“I would hope that the result would be respected by those on all sides,” he said at his Winnipeg news conference meant to bring closure to the issue.

Goodale can say that and for the moment, set the controversy aside, perhaps quietly hoping it is someone else’s problem after the election.

Wheat board defenders have taken the cue and publicly celebrated the vote result as the final decision.

But as a veteran political practitioner and a student of politics, Goodale would know in his heart that nothing was settled.

In fact, the result may be noted in history as the first legitimate indication that the wheat board’s days as a single-desk seller are numbered.

But didn’t supporters of the board outnumber opponents almost two to one?

Yes, but a decade ago, who would have predicted that in any vote of a significant segment of prairie farmers, almost two in five would vote to essentially abolish the wheat board?

That is a significant base to work from and with the size of that base now confirmed by the government itself, others with doubts will realize that the dissident army is much more than the ragtag fringe of malcontents sometimes painted by board supporters.

Like ideological souls everywhere, the anti-board forces will not ease the agitation until they win. Like Quebec separatists, they will never accept a vote result until it goes their way and then that will be the last vote. Once stripped of its single-desk status, trade rules almost certainly would mean it could not be recreated as a monopoly state-trading entity.

But what of the 63 percent who supported the board? By all appearance, they lack the single-mindedness and perhaps the ideological certainty of their opponents. The National Farmers Union will continue to defend the board, as will the federal New Democratic Party.

But the major traditional board allies, the prairie pools, increasingly see ideology and business as an inappropriate mix. Besides, much of their energy in the next few years likely will be concentrated on their business family feud.

Politically, Reform and the Progressive Conservatives (if they become relevant again) will be friendly to the arguments for freedom of choice.

And the Liberals, despite Goodale’s apparent personal affection for the board, are pragmatists. If the agrarian political winds begin to blow from the right rather than the left, the Liberals will be quick to set sail in the prevailing direction.