On mere opinions

There's been plenty of attention - and indeed enthusiasm - in response to the Saskatchewan Liberals' petition seeking a plebiscite on a COVID inquiry. So let's take a look at what might be accomplished through that process - as well as where it's likely to fall short of how it's being billed.

To start with, there have been some questions raised as to whether it's even possible to collect valid plebiscite signatures through a website rather than a physical petition. 

On that front, the authority to determine the validity of signatures lies not with an independent agency such as Elections Saskatchewan, but with the minister responsible. And in the absence of any substantial plebiscite drives in the province's recent past, there's no clear guidance as to what will or won't be accepted. While some familiar with Elections Saskatchewan's rules have pointed out their requirement for physical signatures, there is also legislation which generally provides that electronic signatures are valid for most purposes.  

The more fundamental limitation, though, is that a plebiscite under the Referendum and Plebiscite Act is limited to an expression of opinion. And that fact seems to have been missed both in how the petition has been presented, and in much of the associated media coverage. 

Even if the signature requirement for a plebiscite is met - and even if a vote is ultimately held - the best-case scenario would be purely symbolic. The greatest possible success in the plebiscite drive would be a majority of votes providing a "yes" answer to the question raised in the petition as to whether an inquiry should be called. 

But nothing about the plebiscite process actually binds the government to call an inquiry. (This is in contrast to the referendum procedure under the same legislation; that can produce binding outcomes, but may only be initiated by the government.)

And unfortunately, the Libs' message seems designed to evade acknowledging that glaring gap in their plan. It's thoroughly misleading to offer references to show that plebiscites and public inquiries are legal (yes, that's part of their message), while eliding the reality that one can't legally require the other. 

Which isn't to say there isn't still some merit in organizing around the need for far more transparency - both on an ongoing basis in the midst of a pandemic which continues despite the Moe government's efforts to deny it, and on a retrospective basis as the human toll of the Saskatchewan Party's poor choices continues to escalate. But it's worth avoiding any promises which don't match what's actually on offer - lest the result be to foment even more of a sense of futility among opposition organizers which only serves Moe's purposes in the long run. 

A resounding outcome

The results are in from the Cons' farce of a barley plebiscite. But for all of the changing dates, marked and multiple ballots, and other attempts on the Cons' part to stack the deck, Chuck Strahl's still can't implement his intended plan without blatantly ignoring the will of 86% of the plebiscite's voters:

Ottawa hopes to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly (sic) on western barley sales by Aug. 1, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl said Wednesday after farmers voted 48.4 per cent in favour of the plan...

More than 29,000 western farmers mailed in ballots in the non-binding plebiscite, Mr. Strahl said, with 37.8 per cent voting to keep the CWB's monopoly on barley sales to maltsters and export markets, while 13.8 per cent voted to remove the agency from barley sales altogether.

Now, it's clear enough that no single option enjoyed majority support - which along with the ridiculous process makes the vote an entirely unsound basis for major policy changes. But it's also clear that any plan which results in the Wheat Board playing no role in marketing barley is entirely different from what was implied by the second option.

After all, take a look at the actual second option:

I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

And the formal explanation offered for that option is even more clear in emphasizing that it was supposed to include a continued Wheat Board presence in marketing barley(emphasis added):

A vote for choice is not a vote against the CWB. It is a vote that acknowledges there is more than one way to successfully market barley and that no single way works best for everyone all the time. No two farmers are exactly alike and neither are their business requirements or marketing strategies. Choice will allow individual farmers to match their own personal skill-sets, strengths and tolerance for risk with the marketing system that they see working best for them.

As a quick aside, let's take a moment to point out the title of the "independent specialist" who wrote that assessment:

Rolf Penner is a Manitoba farmer and the Agricultural Policy Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy(.)

Something sounds mighty familiar here.

Getting back to the plebiscite, here are the words of the Wheat Board itself:

The board's directors have said that without a monopoly, the wheat board will have to get out of the barley market, because it won't be able to compete without government funding for access to ports and grain elevators.

In sum, without Strahl moving to provide the needed resources to enable the Wheat Board to compete, the second option could never have been said to exist. Which means that in planning simply to remove the Wheat Board's single-desk status without providing any of the needed support, Strahl is in fact delivering something entirely different than what was promised under the second option.

It should be emphasized again that ultimately no conclusions at all should have been drawn from a process as flawed as this one. But despite the Cons' multiple attempts to stack the process, the end result nonetheless reflects a 6-to-1 preference for an effective Wheat Board presence in barley marketing, as opposed to having the CWB out of the picture. Which means that there will likely be even more unhappy producers - and yet another strong piece of evidence as to the fundamental dishonesty of the Cons government - if Strahl indeed takes action which he knows will leave the Wheat Board on the sidelines.

Update: For anybody wanting a refresher on just how ridiculous the process leading up to the vote was, go read.

Unfair votes

A good catch by leftdog, as the Cons' attempt to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board is taking another step toward the ridiculous with the revelation that the ongoing barley vote is based on something short of a secret ballot:

The federal government is asking Prairie farmers if they want to change the way barley is marketed and has sent out ballots with identification numbers that match numbers on voter declaration forms.

Bill Kruzko, who farms near Maple Creek, Sask., is among those who say they're not comfortable with the system.

"They'll know exactly how every producer in Canada voted because it has the identification number at the bottom of the ballot," he said.

Given that the vote has already undergone one false start for a far less important reason (one of convenience rather than fundamental fairness), it would seem reasonable for the Cons to give it one more shot in order to address the serious problems with a system where votes could easily be tracked back to individual producers.

But as has been the case throughout the Cons' efforts to demolish the CWB, it seems far too likely that the real concerns of producers will be ignored if the Cons think it'll help their cause. Which can only highlight the need for another type of vote to make sure Strahl never gets the chance to follow through on his plans.

On triangulation

The CP reports that the Cons have released their planned ballot for the Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite. And while there's ample reason to be suspicious about their motives, it looks like the wording could actually help to preserve the Board's single-desk status for at least a little bit longer:

(Chuck) Strahl announced three voting options farmers can choose from in a mail-in plebiscite that will help determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing monopoly on barley.

Barley producers can vote to maintain the board's export monopoly, scrap the board's role as a barley marketer or allow the board to be an active participant in a free market.

For the rest of this post, I'll refer to a continuation of the Board's single-desk status as option 1, the outright demolition of the Board's role as option 2, and the "Board operating in an open market" theory as option 3.

The article quotes plenty of voices to the effect that the question is biased against the Board. But as far as I can tell, the effect of the wording (at least in the short term) will depend entirely on what kind of spin gets put on the numbers after the plebiscite.

Let's first consider what wording would be most likely to lead to the strongest possible vote for the Board. That would figure to be a presentation of only options 1 and 2 - either maintaining the Board as it now stands, or immediately eliminating the Board for everybody. In that case, a lot of voters who want to retain the option of selling through the Board would presumably vote for option 1 even if they'd otherwise be sympathetic to an anti-Board position.

Of course, the Cons weren't likely to pose that choice given their intention to secure a result which would undermine the Board in the long run. Which means that a two-option poll would likely have instead posed option 1 against option 3 (as the Manitoba government effectively did in its own plebiscite).

Comparing the actual poll to that 1 against 3 dichotomy, it stands to reason that the vast majority of those who would vote for 1 in a two-way poll will do the same in the three-way poll. Meanwhile, the would-be 3 voters in a two-way poll will be split between those who are eager to eliminate the Board outright, and those who want to simply remove the single-desk status and let the Board take its chances in an open market. Which means that the Cons' wording may actually be more likely to produce a plurality in favour of option 1 than the Manitoba wording was.

So why would the Cons decide to word it as they did? There are three possible reasons that I can see - but all can be counteracted with a successful campaign by Board supporters.

The first is that the Cons want to eliminate the Board's single-desk status immediately, and plan to do that by adding the results of options 2 and 3 as "anti-single-desk options" once the results are in. It could well be that the Cons figure they can peel off a few would-be 1 votes - both by presenting option 3 as a "moderate" choice, and by trying to convince voters that they can afford to vote for 3 over 1 based on the strong possibility that 1 would be the leading option in any event. That argument would then be followed by a bait-and-switch after the votes are counted.

But it's hard to see how such a tactic can work as long as the Board's supporters are aware of the risk and act now to move against it. Presumably any 1-3 swing voters can factor the Cons' intentions into their analysis, and vote for option 1 if they don't want to hand Strahl any excuse to undermine the Board.

Another possibility is that Strahl really only wants an excuse to say that the results are inconclusive, and that he'll then feel free to make up his own mind about what farmers want (with a strong bias toward option 3). The three-question ballot could then help the Cons' dismantling efforts to the extent it prevents any one from building majority support.

But again, this danger can be easily enough counteracted if the pro-CWB camp makes clear what's at stake: either a 2 or a 3 is effectively a vote against the Board, while only a 1 will help to preserve it. Which shouldn't be that much more difficult with a 3-question ballot than a 2-question one.

The more dangerous possibility is that Strahl is really more concerned with shaping the longer-term debate about the CWB than with winning this vote at all. And that's where the presentation of removing the Board's single-desk status as a "middle" option could do the most damage to the extent it may shape perceptions going forward.

Of course, such a strategy would only work if the Cons are in a position to follow through after a future federal election. But their seemingly accepting defeat on this vote could perhaps defuse some of the opposition which would otherwise build up among Board supporters, allowing the Cons to bide their time in hopes of a future vote against a less united pro-Board faction. And the Cons' chances of staying in government long enough for that scenario to present itself might well be better (however low they seem now) if the Wheat Board doesn't seem to be a live issue at the time of the next election.

Ultimately, an effective PR campaign both regarding the vote itself and its interpretation should at least be enough to sustain the Board's current standing through the upcoming plebiscite. The real problems lie in the long-term effect of Strahl's attempt to present the removal of single-desk status as the "moderate" option, and in the possibility that the wording will help the Cons through the next election. Which means that while it'll be vital for the Board's supporters to get the word out now both during and after the vote, it'll be equally important to ensure that the Cons don't manage to finesse their way out of the issue politically or shift the terms of the debate down the road.