Few noticed the irony as the Conservatives used their majority to shove its legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board s marketing monopoly through a special Commons committee in three evenings.
The committee met Nov. 1-3 in an ornate chamber, once known as the Reading Room, across the Hall of Honour from the Railway Committee Room in the centre block of Parliament. It was there, 30 years ago, that MPs debated for weeks on Liberal legislation to end the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, a move of equal if not greater impact on Prairie farmers.
Read Also
ATP Nutrition wins agronomy innovation award at Ag in Motion 2025
Manitoba’s ATP Nutrition wins Ag in Motion 2025 Innovation in Agriculture Award for agronomy for its Synergro G3 biostimulant.
Wheat board chair Allen Oberg and other critics of the bill had only an hour to explain why they think removing the wheat and barley monopoly will doom the board.
The government s legislation will leave western farmers as just bit players in a global supply chain, Oberg said.
New Democrat Pat Martin ranted repeatedly about the jackboot tactics of the government, but it had no effect on the Conservative MPs. Only two reporters covered the hearings, greatly outnumbered by other Tory MPs watching the proceedings.
No apologies
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz made no apologies for the rush job, saying the wheat board debate has gone on long enough.
Our government trusts farmers to make marketing choices based on what is best for their business, he said.
Ritz promised an orderly transition to a slimmed down CWB, although no one is very sure how that will happen.
The government seems determined to have the bill become law before Dec. 5, when a court is to hear claims by some CWB directors and other groups the government violated the law by not properly consulting farmers. It used time allocation to force the legislation through the Commons with just three days of debate, and then allowed MPs only two four-hour evening sessions to hear testimony. Opposition attempts to amend the bill, such as an NDP proposal to retain farmer-elected directors, mostly failed on procedural grounds. However, the government did add an amendment allowing the board to market all western grains, instead of just wheat and barley. Final debate on the bill is expected to begin next week, followed by quick passage in the Senate.
And then what?
Predictions
Ritz predicts value-added processing will mushroom across the West, as it did when oats were taken away from the board. Already two new facilities have been announced in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and others are said to be in the works.
Ritz also says there are lots of independent grain terminals and other companies waiting for the chance to work with the board, once it s a farmer-owned co-operative or a not-for-profit company. He says the government wants the new CWB to succeed, but the current board of directors isn t co-operating, but spending millions of farmer dollars on a campaign against the government legislation, as well as buying two Great Lakes freighters.
But director Ian McCreary predicted farmers will pay a heavy price.
Large grain companies will control the show, said McCreary. Any benefits that come from the change will accrue to the companies, not farmers.
All the acrimony around the fate of the CWB could have been largely avoided back in 2006 if the Harper government had followed the advice of a technical study it commissioned, added Stewart Wells, a director and former NFU president.
The government had five years to hold a discussion among farmers and farm groups on changing the CWB, Wells said.
Hindsight
The study done for then agriculture minister Chuck Strahl proposed an in-depth consultation with western grain farmers on restructuring the CWB. However, the Harper government rejected the proposal and pushed ahead with a plebiscite on barley marketing in 2007 that resolved nothing. Then came the Conservative majority win this spring.
The bitter nature of the debate between critics and supporters since then was reflected in the testy exchanges between government and opposition MPs during the committee hearings. Martin had barely started questioning John Knubley, the deputy minister of agriculture, when Conservative MP Brian Storseth interrupted on a point of order. Martin wanted to know if a cost-benefit analysis was done on claims that farmers would be better off with the removal of the board s monopoly. Storseth said it wasn t appropriate to ask that of officials who provide advice to the minister.
That prompted Martin to charge the government had gagged, bound and hog-tied the MPs as they reviewed legislation that will make the biggest change in agriculture policy in a century.
Protests
When committee chair Blaine Calkins tried to rein Martin in, the rhetoric escalated.
I have the floor, shouted Martin. We have the duty and right to do a due diligence of the bill. The privileges of MPs are being jackbooted and sabotaged in studying the bill. We can t even ask a simple question.
In the end, Knubley stated a cost-benefit analysis wasn t part of the mandate given to the working group he headed during the summer as it reviewed the impact of removing the board s monopoly. But he went on to say several reports in the past decade had concluded there would be considerable financial advantages.
None of them found any evidence of higher prices due to the presence of the CWB monopoly, he said.
When New Democrat Niki Ashton criticized the task force for not meeting with the eight farmer-elected CWB directors who support the monopoly, Tory Randy Hoback objected and Calkins intervened again, saying Ashton should stick to technical details.
Liberal MP Frank Valeriote also got into the act, charging the legislation will allow the agriculture minister to micromanage the operation of a revamped wheat board, which will be overseen by five government- appointed directors, instead of the current 10 farmer-elected directors.
———
Our government trusts farmers to make marketing choices based on what is best for their business.
GERRY RITZ
Agriculture minister
