open i

The future of the Canadian Wheat Board is where it should be - in the hands of our Ottawa MP's whom we elected to make such decisions. (530 words)

Attending the Canadian Wheat Board information meeting at Camrose on August 16 was a sad occasion for a couple of reasons.

In the first place it will probably be the last such debate on this issue to be witnessed in these parts. After more than 40 years these meetings have become as much a part of the political landscape as the country elevators were of the physical landscape. If the majority federal government's plans unfurl as currently drawn up, after harvest the debate will have moved to Ottawa and the specifics of disabling legislation. And from there on it will be a matter of post mortems which do not provide much in the way of fresh sustenance for the continuation of this multi-generational debate.

The other sad matter was that the substance of the current debate has progressed very little over those forty plus years. The same half truths continue to be related eloquently and with obvious conviction, with the opportunity to challenge evidence often limited. And even if point and counter point were accommodated, few if any strongly held beliefs would likely be influenced.

And the issue is beliefs. Some protagonists, observing other economic activity, believe the value of limiting regulation, while other believe unfettered competition will disadvantage farmers. Most of us hold views but few of us probably fully understand the issues.

This is almost certainly the case for most issues left for politicians to divine. And this is where the democratic process comes to society's rescue.

Through that process we elect representatives to make decisions for us. The expectation being that with their personal talents, for which we elect them, and the process of debate in the widest sense of the word with other representatives, decisions which are in the best interests of the electorate will result.

It should not be about making popular decisions resulting from MP's newsletter tear-offs or specific issue plebiscite. These are tools to set us on the course to anarchy.

The challenge for politicians is to make decision that they believe to be beneficial even if they might not be popular, whether it be a tax increase or an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. And that requires leadership. All this is probably understood by MP's as they were conspicuous by their absence. They probably understood there was little new to be learned at the meeting and there was advantage to avoid being tempted to do something that was simply popular.

We were probably better served 100 years ago when our elected representatives departed after an election on a five-day train trip to Ottawa, possibly only to be seen again prior to the following election to be judged by their constituents on their performance.

Just as only lawyers are reputed to get rich from litigation, it would seem that farm economists may be the only ones to benefit from the endless debate on the Canadian Wheat Board. They may be the only ones to suffer from an end to the debate.

David Walker
August 19, 2011