When agriculture minister Ralph Goodale appears before the Commons agriculture committee later this winter to defend his proposed Canadian Wheat Board reforms, he will have some serious explaining to do.
As industry players have examined the legislation in detail during the past several weeks, it is clear they have spotted some problems. The criticisms go far beyond the ideological sniping and interpreting that routinely criss-cross the chasm marking the Orderly Marketing Divide.
Some of the proposed Wheat Board Act amendments are flawed, often vague and sometimes imprecisely expressed.
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.
If the critics and their complaints are to be dealt with, Goodale surely will be called upon to live up to his promise that amendments will be made if the original draft proves to be inadequate.
Indeed, the legislation could be more precisely written. In some key areas, it does not reflect what Goodale says he means to do. The minister has promised that a majority of the board of directors will be farmer-elected. The bill says only that the cabinet “may” designate “one or more positions on the board to be filled through election by producers.”
The minister’s insistence that it is his intention to designate a majority is little comfort to those who realize a future minister may have different ideas about who should be on the board of directors and how they should get there.
The bill should be explicit on the issue.
In other areas, it does not do what farmers thought they had been promised.
The degree of farmer control is a case in point. Many farmers told last year’s Western Grain Marketing Panel they thought a future Wheat Board should be responsible to the industry through a majority-elected board of directors. They contemplated farmer control.
The Grain Marketing Panel agreed with the idea. Goodale also appeared to agree. Yet the legislation proposes that the federal government continue to control who serves as chair, who is chief executive officer and how much they are paid. It also would be able to fire elected directors. Critics rightly wonder if Ottawa really is giving up much control to farmers through the legislation.
Overall, the bill is riddled with vague references and “enabling” provisions which leave much power and discretion in the hands of cabinet, the agriculture minister and the finance minister.
If the promise of “power to the producers” is to be reality, the proposed legislation needs some cleaning up to pry Ottawa’s fingers off the levers.
If, for reasons of financial arrangements or law, the government must retain the ability to exert those controls, Goodale had better be ready with some strong justifications.
Then, there are questions that Board supporters have: Will the cash purchase policy undermine the pooling system? Why does the bill only contemplate votes on diminishing the Board, and not on strengthening it?
If MPs from all parties are doing their job, they will have some tough questions for the minister. The industry certainly does, from both sides of the Orderly Marketing Divide.
