Regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, the federal New Democrats either need a new policy director or a better information officer.
Because right now both in Parliament and in the press, the party is arguing against itself, not the Harper Tories.
Their arguments imply that removing the board’s monopoly is actually a good idea, and simultaneously hold the position that the wheat board bill is both monumental and minor.
Perhaps once they have a permanent leader, gaffes like these can be eliminated and Canadians can again rely on the NDP to provide effective opposition. But on this one, they’re chasing their tails.
The laws of debate are not binding but they are immutable. You can break the laws of debate but if you are caught, you automatically lose the argument.
NDP wheat board critic Pat Martin says the party found at least seven Conservative MPs in a conflict of interest because they, their spouses or their offspring have stakes in grain farms. Martin has also filed a complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson on the matter.
He points to the Commons conflict-of-interest code that says: “A member shall not participate in debate on or vote on a question in which he or she has a private interest.”
OK, let that be the starting point.
NDP news releases say the conflict arises because these seven MPs (and there could be more, if you widened the family net) stand to benefit if the wheat board loses its monopoly. That assumes the NDP accepts the argument that Western farmers are better off without the board; that they would get more for their grain selling into an open market.
If they were not to do so, the conflict disappears. No benefit, no conflict.
But that’s not what the party is arguing, is it?
There are 57 ridings in Western Canada where farmers must sell their wheat and barley to the board. All but five of these MPs are Conservative and none of the opposition members has grain farming interests. Do 57 ridings constitute a major group, and does the interest of this group constitute a major public concern?
If you ask the NDP, the answer is both yes and no.
Yes, it is a major concern, the NDP say. But government officials who comment on these questions say MPs are exempt from conflict-of-interest rules because the code has an exception for measures affecting “a broad class of the public.” Thus, there’s no ethical reason preventing all MPs from voting.
Well then, say the NDP, the 75,000 Western grain farmers only represent 0.22 per cent of Canada’s population of 34 million.
In debating circles, that evasion has a name: equivocation — and it’s grounds for their side to lose the debate.
You can’t argue that 57 ridings in Parliament does not constitute a broad public interest. Therefore, the MPs can vote.
And you can’t parse one of Canada’s most important export industries into 0.22 per cent of population. What portion of Canada’s population are the managers of our pension plans? You want to call that small potatoes?
If laws were proposed to change the rules governing our private pension management, would you want your MP to be disqualified from voting on it because he or she held an RSP? I wouldn’t. In fact, I might lobby my MP regarding my interests.
The wheat board itself has filed a lawsuit against the government, saying a plebiscite must be held before the board’s single-desk monopoly can be cancelled.
Almost 40,000 producers took part in their internal plebiscite last summer and 62 per cent voted to maintain the monopoly for wheat. There were allegations that some of the people who voted there weren’t actually wheat farmers.
We’ll leave that question to judges, in whom we trust to spot errors in argument.
Greg Neiman is an Advocate editor.