Some critics of the Canadian Wheat Board seem to get a lot of kicks out of portraying the board and its defenders as fossils who oppose all change and want only to maintain the “status quo.”
Well, anyone who believes that is clueless about what’s been happening in grain marketing.
In a recent news release and briefing for farm writers, board officials rattled off an impressive list of changes they have helped implement to provide better service to farmers and grain customers.
There were, of course, landmarks like creation of a modern weather and crop surveillance department in the 1970s, or taking the lead in creating the Canadian International Grains Institute.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
But even looking just at recent years, innovations include: public forecasts of pool returns; producer delivery contracts; farmer-funded grains research; an “800” telephone service; expanded protein increments and payments; a payment schedule for better quality feed barley; crop demonstration plots linked to foreign uses of Canadian grain; risk management tools; the annual Grain World conference; opening a Beijing office; closing the old Montreal office; a market newsletter for Latin American customers; improved harvest sampling; purchasing noodle production equipment for CIGI; diversified borrowing sources; overseas market development for Glenlea, AC Karma, AC Readymade and hulless barley.
Some people may not agree with all those moves, but the list should make it clear there’s been a lot of change.
And there’s more to come. The board itself has asked for change to its legislation so farmers can have more flexibility and options in marketing.
The board-requested changes would allow it to: facilitate off-farm sales; pay for farm storage; provide blanket permission for farmer-owned storage; make final payments before Jan. 1; purchase grain on a cash basis; speed up federal approval of payments; allow early cash-out from price pools; issue transferable certificates for final-payment entitlements; and create a capital base for participation in joint ventures.
Again, some farmers may feel that list doesn’t go far enough, while others may feel it goes too far.
But, at the very least, that list of requested changes and the list of reforms already achieved should demolish the myths that the board and its supporters are opposed to change, or that the board hasn’t changed for a half century.
In fact, the so-called “status quo” has included continuing innovation and adaptation to changing needs. If that’s “status quo,” let’s have more of it.
