IAN White, the new president of the Canadian Wheat Board, told a parliamentary committee last week that he had never discussed with any government official his views on the issue of ending the CWB monopoly on marketing exported and malting barley.
He said it after Winnipeg New Democrat Pat Martin had reminded him that as a parliamentary witness, he was under oath.
“So no government official has ever raised the idea of how you feel about dual marketing versus single desk?” asked the incredulous MP.
Read Also
Rural emergency room closures continue to be vexing problem
Staffing issues are at the root of disruptions and closures in hospital emergency departments, both in rural and urban Canadian locations.
“No,” replied White.
For his sake, you have to hope there is no paper or electronic trail that contradicts him. If it is true, it is astounding.
After all, the Conservative government fired CWB president Adrian Measner because he publicly opposed demands that the monopoly be ended without changes in the CWB Act that dictates a monopoly.
It is almost inconceivable that agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, when he interviewed White before appointing him as CWB top dog, would not have asked whether he would be willing to go along with a politically dictated end to the monopoly.
So either White was being technically correct but generally disingenuous or Ritz was letting his anti-monopoly tribe down by not asking the obvious question.
Martin was far from convinced, reverting to Shakespearean poetry to suggest the CWB chief was wearing “the mask of treachery.” But Martin wasn’t likely to be convinced that the Conservatives had not picked a “saboteur” to undermine the wheat board.
Beyond that suspicion, White’s performance May 13 before the House of Commons agriculture committee was masterful.
He assured skeptics that he did not come to Canada from Australia with an agenda to dismantle the CWB monopoly despite his role in supporting an end to the sugar marketing single desk in Australia.
And by refusing to sign on to the opposition opinion that monopoly marketing is the only effective option for the CWB, he gave the critics an opening to believe he can be persuaded that the monopoly is wrong.
“I appreciate your comment when you state that we all have to have an open mind,” Brandon-Souris Conservative MP Mervin Tweed said, referring to what he considered opposition opinions that defending the monopoly is more important than seeing how it affects farmers.
White’s reply was very nuanced, indicating he is open to either side.
“My role is to see a strong Canadian Wheat Board that is effective into the future and in marketing, however it’s deemed it should market,” he replied.
That, in addition to other comments, indicated he was open to considering arguments about why dual marketing is the better option.
It led Martin to conclude that White cannot be trusted to defend the CWB in the face of Conservative pressure to end the monopoly.
It led Liberal CWB defender Wayne Easter to conclude that White will continue to defend the CWB single desk as long as the board of directors says he should.
It led Conservative MPs to think he is not tied to a rigid pro-monopoly ideology.
All in all, it was an adept political performance by an Australian still trying to get his head around the land mines surrounding Prairie debate over the CWB.
