A vote won’t solve anything. No use wasting the time and effort.
Yes, the right to a producer vote is promised in the Canadian Wheat Board legislation, but governments have the ability to change legislation. Legal beagles may argue the issue, but the Harper government would appear to be on solid ground.
Many farmers feel that the CWB is their organization and they should determine its future. Thus, the board of directors for the CWB has announced plans for its own plebiscite.
The proposed wording is reasonably neutral. It’s better than the wording in the government’s last barley vote, which made it seem like you could have your cake and eat it too.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
The problem will come in interpreting the results. Many market choice supporters are already saying they won’t participate.
Let’s assume that 55 or 60 per cent of the votes cast favour the retention of the single desk. How much of the actual production would this represent?
CWB grain makes up a small portion of the acreage of my moderate-sized grain farm. Some years, I don’t grow any wheat, durum or barley. Should my vote count as much as a producer with thousands of acres of CWB grain each year?
And even if single desk supporters are the majority, should they be able to impose their will on those who want marketing freedom?
It’s a shame that a producer-controlled marketing organization hasn’t been able to demonstrate enough tangible benefits to enjoy overwhelming support. Once the single desk is gone, it will never return .
It isn’t practical to expect every producer to agree with a compulsory marketing approach. However, when a large percentage of producers want out, it’s simplistic to think that the majority should always rule.
The Harper government is going to ignore the critics and remove the single desk authority. Whether you agree or not, the discussion now should be about the CWB’s role after the change occurs. It’s difficult to see a meaningful future without an asset base and powers to conduct business, including guaranteed access to port terminals.
The market choice supporters who believe the CWB can serve a purpose with nothing but good people and good will are deluding themselves.
A great deal needs to happen between now and Aug. 1, 2012. CWB involvement pervades the entire grain industry: rail car allocation, research funding, advance payments, customer support, market intelligence, variety standards and registration.
Even if both sides were dedicated to making a smooth transition, time is tight. With the two sides locked in a battle of words, how much real work will occur on the transition?
Refighting the old battles is entrenching the old biases, leaving the entire industry facing uncertainty and therefore market risk. Businesses, including farm businesses, can adapt to just about any reality. The big enemy is uncertainty.
Plebiscites, lawsuits, political grandstanding, petitions: does that sound like a productive business environment?
Let me end with a disclaimer.
In the past, I’ve done contract work for the wheat board and I have a lot of respect for the people who work there. I currently serve as executive director for the Inland Terminal Association of Canada, the Saskatchewan Mustard Development Commission and the Canaryseed Development Commission of Saskatchewan.
I’m really excited by the opportunity to contribute a regular column to The Western Producer. Please know that the opinions expressed are my own and don’t necessarily represent the opinions of organizations that I work with.
I’m always interested in the opinions of others. Don’t hesitate to shoot me (an e-mail).
Kevin Hursh is an agricultural journalist, consultant and farmer. He can be reached by e-mail at kevin@hursh.ca.
