The Liberal decision to add an “inclusion” clause to its Canadian Wheat Board reform bill has become the focus of a major political uproar as the legislation speeds through Parliament.
Both sides should calm down and move on to other, more important issues.
The inclusion clause, even if it remains in the legislation, is virtually meaningless. It would be almost impossible to use.
It almost certainly will never lead to a board expansion.
If the Liberals insist on pushing it through, the critics should swallow their anti-wheat board monopoly bile, suppress their suspicions and allow the government its little victory, safe in the knowledge it is symbolic only.
Read Also
Kochia has become a significant problem for Prairie farmers
As you travel through southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, particularly in areas challenged by dry growing conditions, the magnitude of the kochia problem is easy to see.
The inclusion clause is a political placebo, created as a sop to pro-board farmers who are suspicious that the Liberal bill will be the beginning of the demise of the board.
It is a toothless pussycat, not a fierce, monopoly-expanding tiger.
It is not worth the political energy being spent on it.
In theory, the inclusion clause would allow farmers to vote new crops into wheat board jurisdiction. They also could reduce board jurisdiction over wheat and barley.
This has unleashed dire warnings of catastrophe from flax, canola and oat producers, oilseed crushers and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
They predict with exaggerated gravity that a threat of board expansion would jeopardize markets, scare away investment and put Canada on the wrong side of trade liberalization.
Liberals on the House of Commons agriculture committee have counter-attacked with bluster, aggressive partisan denunciations and some very ugly personal attacks. They question motives and insist it is only fair that if the board can be diminished, it can be expanded.
They note that there would be strict rules ensuring no “rogue” unrepresentative farm group could trigger and rig a vote. Are the opponents of inclusion afraid of democracy?
Emotional debate around this issue has been the most prevalent theme during hearings on the bill.
That is unfortunate because:
- It is highly unlikely an acceptable request could come from farmers. The bill will require that the request for a vote come from a farm group which can “demonstrate that it is the predominant organization which exists solely to represent the producers of that commodity.”
No group exists whose representational legitimacy is not challenged by others. A dispute over representation would have to be settled by the courts. No request likely would make it out of the legal quagmire.
- There is little support for it. Even Prairie Pools Inc., supposedly the friends of a stronger CWB, would go no farther than saying they did not oppose inclusion.
- Even if a proposal made it through all the hoops, it still would be a government decision and trade rules would require that Canada compensate traders and customers affected by the move from open market to single-desk seller.
No government would allow CWB expansion if it meant making concessions to traders in other commodities.
