What's good for Ontario isn't good for the Prairies
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The federal Conservatives claim that the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board is all about democracy and freedom is belied by the fact that Ontario farmers were allowed a vote on the subject and Prairie farmers are not
by BARRY WILSON
A fascinating part of Ontario's storied history is its role as the terminus for the Underground Railroad, a 19th Century network that smuggled runaway black slaves from the United States to freedom.
That image of the province as a glory land of freedom (without invoking the Underground Railroad symbol, thankfully) was resurrected time and again by the federal Conservatives this autumn as they justified their strategy of forcing legislation through Parliament to end the 68-year-old wheat and barley monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).
At every occasion, Conservatives would raise the fact that they simply wanted to give Prairie grain farmers the freedom that Ontario farmers have.
When he announced the legislation Oct. 18, federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz made the symbolic trek to Don Kenny's farm south of Ottawa, where he extolled Ontario's wheat marketing freedom as a beacon for the West. Kenny, chair of Grain Farmers of Ontario, obliged in supporting the image.
"Ontario farmers have closely watched the Canadian Wheat Board debate," he told Ritz and his coterie of supporters, who travelled from Ottawa for the announcement. "I can share with you that our farmer members are pleased with the marketing environment that we have in place in Ontario."
That's what Ritz and his supporters wanted to hear. During the ensuing raucous parliamentary debate, cut short at every stage by draconian government closure, Ontario became the template for Conservative justification of the move.
"You have faith in Ontario farmers to market their own commodities," Ritz told Guelph-based Liberal agriculture critic Frank Valeriote during early November parliamentary hearings on the bill. "I have faith in Western Canadian farmers to be able to do the same thing."
Although predictable and longstanding, the decision to use Ontario's move to end its provincial wheat board monopoly as a template for western "marketing freedom" was odd because the two systems and situations are hardly comparable. And, in the Ontario example, opponents can find vindication for many of the criticisms they made about Ritz's move to gut the CWB.
In many ways Ontario's wheat industry is but a baby brother to the Prairie industry, smaller in size and far less complicated in its marketing reach. But more problematic for the Conservative attempt to justify their Prairie move by citing the Ontario precedent is the democratic side of the question.
Ontario wheat farmers voted to end the monopoly. The federal government refused to hold a Prairie farmer vote even though existing CWB legislation requires it. Instead, the Conservatives will rescind the CWB Act and insist that the May 2 election that sent Conservatives to Ottawa from almost all Prairie ridings was all the democracy they need.
Not good enough, say opposition MPs. "If it was good enough for Ontario farmers to vote and decide for themselves, why can't we find a way to come up with the right question and then put it to Prairie farmers and then we'll abide by their decision?" NDP agriculture critic and Ontario MP Malcolm Allen asked Ritz.
In a roundabout way, Ritz replied that the Prairies are different and no vote is required.
The Conservatives will win this political battle, but the victory will be tainted by their willingness to take what they want from the Ontario experience but to ignore the democracy component of it that they don't want. BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.