Open Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

The extensive consultations about western grain marketing are drawing to a close.  With the re-opening of Parliament (September 16th), the government will soon present our detailed response to all the input we have received.

Through the work of the Western Grain Marketing Panel, the Panel's Report which was published in July and the reaction to that Report which I requested from farmers this summer, literally thousands of individuals have participated in the consultative process.  I want to thank everyone who made the effort to get involved.

In assessing all the input and arriving at final conclusions, I'm not just counting noses and adding up the numbers.

The quantity of support for a particular point of view is, of course, important.  But even more important is quality.  I have been most interested in those spontaneous personal letters where the writer puts forward a reasoned and cogent argument to back up their marketing preferences.

I am also interested in the "tone" of the replies I have received.  Grain marketing is a hot topic and people are perfectly equipped to express themselves vigorously.  That's what a democracy is all about.  But just as I am singularly unimpressed by conduct which violates or circumvents the law, I am equally unimpressed by abusive language or threatening behaviour - directed toward me or anyone else.

This is not time for bluster or bombast.  No time for rancor or breaches of law.  The issues are too serious.  The consequences are too profound.  This is a time for solid reasoning and careful judgment - respectfully and courteously by and toward all concerned.

Some have been critical of the time I am taking to listen to all points of view before making final decisions.  I understand the desire to have certainty on grain marketing matters just as quickly as possible, but I also know the magnitude of what's at stake here:

• a multi-billion dollar industry which forms the backbone of the prairies
• the long-term livelihoods of 130,000 farm families across four provinces - among some tf those farmers, opinions are very deeply divided;
• 80 million acres of farmland across a dozen different soil zones and 900 different delivery points;
• 35 or 40 million tonnes of production for sale to customers in over 70 countries - the United States is only one of those countries and at most it can absorb only one-tenth of what we have to sell;
• trade policy, trade law, trade risks, trade opportunities and trade effectiveness, not just in North American but even more so around the globe;
• and an international reputation for Canada which appears to rank today as the best in the world.

It only makes good sense to exercise a high standard of care when dealing with issues of such magnitude, complexity and potential consequences.

That divisiveness in the debate about grain marketing does not result from a dispute between farmers and the government.  The dispute here is among different groups of farmers themselves.  The best solution would be fore farmers themselves to voice their own concerns.  But given the fractious nature of the grains industry, I know that's not possible.

So the government must assume the responsibility.  We will discharge that responsibility in good faith - trying our best to reflect what we have heard from farmers.  Our decisions will be announced early this fall.

Yours sincerely,

Ralph Goodale