Some members of the Canadian Wheat Board’s producer advisory committee aren’t ready to be put out to pasture.
With the board soon to be run by a board of directors that will include elected farmers, some have suggested that will eliminate the need for the advisory committee.
But after meeting in Winnipeg last week, several committee members say they think some sort of elected body will still be needed to act as a bridge between the new board and farmers.
“Whether you call it advisers in the future, or some kind of delegate system, there has to be some way of getting the board a little closer to home,” said committee chair John Clair.
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
He said one clear message to come out of the debate about the wheat board during the past year has been the need for greater accountability and a stronger relationship between the board and the farmers it serves.
“To me, that means you have to have people out in the country, and preferably farmers, talking to farmers,” he said from his farm at Radisson, Sask.
While the details of how the wheat board’s new structure haven’t yet been worked out, Clair said he suspects the five or six farmers on the board of directors will deal with world grain marketing issues and won’t have time to travel out to the countryside.
However, not every member thinks the committee should stay in business
“I’d say there would really be no need for the advisory committee if there are farmer-elected directors in the new system,” said Dan Cutforth, member from Barons, Alta. “It would be just a duplication.”
The farmers on the board won’t really be running the board on a day-to-day basis, he said, and should have lots of time to get out into the country and meet with farmers. “I would think that would be part of their job description.”
Mike Halyk, advisory committee member from Melville, Sask., said there is no way new farmer directors will be able to keep in touch with grassroots farmers.
“If communication (between the board and farmers) has fallen down under the present system, it’s only going to get worse if you eliminate the advisory committee and only have five or six actual producers on a board of directors.”
Not only will the advisory committee be needed, he said, but it might be a good idea to expand it, perhaps by increasing the number of electoral districts from the present 11, or by electing two farmers from each district.
