By the nature of the beast politics is a creature given life by ideologies.
At least in the case of party politics. The lines which define one party from another are based around the party's vision of how they believe policies and legislation should determine how we do things.
While ideology often creates a philosophical position from which to start, too often that position must soften when it comes to implementing things simply because reality and philosophy rarely match exactly.
That may be where the Conservatives are about to find themselves in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Philosophically the Conservatives want the single-desk sales agency for Western Canadian barley, wheat and durum headed to export gone. They believe farmers should have choice, as do a sizable number of producers, although with the lack of a credible, unbiased producer vote, the exact percentage of like-minded producers is rather unclear.
It was no surprise the Conservatives, once elected with their first majority in their current configuration, moved toward abolishing the CWB as it has operated for decades. The government announced some time ago that the change would be implemented Aug. 1, 2012, less than a year from now.
One can appreciate the Conservatives dedication to their philosophical position on the CWB, but some level of common sense needs to factor into decisions. No party should follow philosophy without fully weighing the overall impact of the decision.
In situations where parties follow ideology blindly we taxpayers often pick up the tab for it. A case in point would be the red-tape-laden, ridiculously expensive and overly cumbersome long gun registry and firearm ownership laws.
Even if you are a huge fan of registering long guns and of ensuring owners are recorded, you cannot be happy with the costs and the bureaucracy associated with how the Liberals implemented their vision.
Now the Conservatives have made a decision on the fate of the CWB, setting its abolishment date, and are now moving ahead with a study regarding the costs and impacts of the move.
The Conservatives have been vocal opponents of the firearms' legislation, and are suggesting change is coming there, based in part on costs. That might have taxpayers thinking they had learned from the Liberal largess, but apparently not.
Agriculture Canada is advertising for an auditor to delve into the costs the government will face in changing the CWB. The audit may cost as much as a million dollars itself, as auditors work to determine potential liabilities, such as employee severance and pensions, legal costs for broken long-term contracts and other costs.
There are already suggestions the costs will be in the hundreds of millions, which begs the question if the plan the Conservatives have is cost-effective for taxpayers, or farmers.
It also brings into question the actual foresight the Conservatives have on the issue. It would be better business to ascertain costs first than plan the change, not make the change then determine costs. We might have expected a supposedly business-leaning party to have done things, but sadly they failed as they chased ideology without enough regard for farmers to hold a fair plebiscite on the issue, and without regard to the costs using taxpayer money.
