On choosing one's battles

Wendy Holm nicely points out the benefits which farmers currently enjoy from the Canadian Wheat Board which the Cons are going out of their way to destroy, as well as the U.S.' role in trying to undermine the Wheat Board over the years. Unfortunately, though, she misses the extent to which the Board is already at risk in focussing on the impending Bill C-300 rather than the potential for change through other means. And in that regard, it's worth correcting Holm's assertion that the current Canadian Wheat Board Act requires a vote by those affected before any change is made to the CWB's authority.

The section of the Canadian Wheat Board Act discussed by Holm reads as follows:

47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless

(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and

(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

Now, it's simple enough to suggest that the spirit of section 47.1 should provide for a vote before any substantive change. But the section can easily be read to suggest that a vote is needed only before a "bill" is introduced before Parliament - which would leave the Cons free to make any changes which can be made through other means.

And there's little reason to think the Cons are willing to face the increased accountability that would come with a vote in Parliament. As I've pointed out before, the CWB's single-desk authority can be destroyed through regulations under s. 46 without a vote ever taking place. And given Chuck Strahl's stated intention to consult no more than is absolutely necessary, it doesn't seem likely that the Cons will choose a route which requires votes both among producers and in Parliament when it's technically possible to reach the same route without any chance of being stopped.

Which isn't to say that farmers and opposition parties shouldn't be doing their best to save the CWB. But the battle could easily be lost without Bill C-300 ever moving forward - and that means the fight needs to take place in the court of public opinion now, not in Parliament at some later date.