Farmers in Ontario have been denied a chance to vote this fall on whether they want to keep the Ontario Wheat Board. Undemocratic as that might seem, it’s actually good news for farmers across Canada.
A referendum had been set for November, but the voting rules set by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission were fatally flawed.
The worst provision was that the wheat board would have been dissolved if it received any fewer than two thirds of the vote.
That would have meant a third (plus one) of Ontario farmers could have denied the other two thirds (less one) their desire for a single-desk selling agency for Ontario wheat.
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.
If the vote had gone ahead on that basis, it could have been unfair to the majority of Ontario producers and could have set a bad precedent for votes on marketing boards elsewhere.
It’s one thing to require two-thirds support to set up a brand-new marketing agency. Such institutions should begin with solid farmer support.
But once an agency is established, with many farmers basing their plans on its continued existence, it should take significantly more than a third plus one to dismantle the agency – just as it should take more than 50 percent plus one to break up a nation.
Fortunately, Ontario farm organizations banded together to put strong pressure on the marketing commission to abandon its plans. One Ontario farm leader noted that the lobby effort demonstrated farm groups can exercise influence when they are united.
The issue was also a reminder of the Canadian Wheat Board’s national authority – without an Ontario board to which it could delegate powers, the CWB would have to process export permit applications from individual Ontario farmers.
The Ontario episode also suggests a few issues that Prairie farmers might consider, concerning the role of Ontario Wheat Board directors.
The farmer-elected Ontario directors were told not to campaign in the planned referendum. In effect, this was an unfair handicap on the pro-board side, by silencing farmer leaders who were most involved with the board.
It would be equally unfair if similar rules were applied to CWB directors when they become farmer-elected under proposed legislation.
It’s also interesting to note that, even though Ottawa guarantees the Ontario price pools against deficit, there are no government appointees on the Ontario board. All 10 directors are elected.
Why, then, is it so necessary for the federal government to appoint five of the 15 directors that the CWB would have under the proposed legislation?
