Brian Otto, a Warner, Alta., area farmer and unsuccessful candidate in recent Canadian Wheat Board director elections, reflects on the need for CWB changes to address farmer concerns.
After reflecting on the outcome of the Canadian Wheat Board elections, I am concerned that the elected directors who support the single desk are not listening to the real message being sent to them by producers.
Allan Oberg says he believes a voter turnout of 41 percent is a “creditable result.” Single-desk supporters claim there is overwhelming support for the CWB.
Read Also
British Columbia farmers to receive increased AgriStability supports
B.C. farmers to receive bump in AgriStability compensations due to weather concerns, international trade instability
However, on average throughout the five districts, single desk candidates received 57 percent of the vote. Out of 28,500 eligible votes, only 11,400 were cast. That means they received only 6,500 of the eligible ballots cast in their favour.
The true outcome of this election is that single-desk supporters can only lay claim to the support of 23 percent of the eligible votes (6,500 out of a possible of 28,500 ballots.) There is a silent majority (59 percent) who never cast their ballots whom no one can claim as supporters.
To make any claim of overwhelming support for the present system with 23 percent support is misleading and naive.
Why are a majority of producers reluctant to cast a ballot? In my phone calls to more than 1,000 pro-
ducers in District 3, some told me the CWB has become irrelevant to their operations because they grow crops they can market outside the CWB.
Others said they felt that it did not matter who was elected to the CWB board because nothing changes and why cast a ballot? Some felt that casting a ballot was showing support for the present system and refused to vote. Some are retired producers who felt the vote should rest in the hands of active producers.
I was told by people on the producers list that they received ballots sent to their addresses with names of individuals that had never lived at that address. Some unregistered producers never cast a ballot because of the complicated process to get a ballot.
There were incidents in my district where producers were waiting for their ballots only to find out after the deadline that they were placed in the wrong district that was not up for election. Producers who rent land told me that casting a ballot was a waste of time because they knew their ballot would be cancelled many times over by their landlords who supported the CWB.
They felt that nothing would change as long as those not actively involved in grain production could still cast a ballot.
Producers do not feel confident that the CWB voters list reflects actual practicing producers.
It is clear to me the elections should be decided by producers who have the risk of producing a crop; those who have to pay the bills. Until the voters list reflects this, the turnout will remain low and not a true reflection of the majority of those who are producing grain.
I have listened to the comments made by the elected directors and I am not confident that changes will be made to address these concerns .
Oberg says his top priority is to figure out a speedier way to get initial and adjustment payments into farmer’s hands. I agree this should be a priority after the wreck we had last fall when producers were receiving $1.42 per bushel for durum that was worth well over $7.
It is clear the outdated system of initial payment, adjustment and final payment is not meeting the needs of farmers and the way farmers are paid has to change. This board of directors
has to make significant changes, not cosmetic ones, if it is going to address farmer’s real concerns.
Farmers are asking for better market signals that are more
transparent. One only has to look at international durum prices or the offshore malt or feed barley prices that fail to be reflected domestically to understand.
Farmers want and need the best marketing structure to receive maximum returns for their grain. They do not believe the
present business model used by the CWB does this.
A good system is about cash flow on the farm, about delivery opportunity and the ability to sell what they grow to pay bills on time. Ask durum producers whether they are willing to store durum for two years while they have bills to pay.
Many producers feel the CWB is misleading and secretive about its operations. The recent decision to purchase two lakers with $65 million of producers’ money confirms this.
If the CWB board of directors continues to ignore farmers’ concerns, it will continue to sink into irrelevance for most farmers, dragging wheat and barley with them.
The status quo is not a viable or successful option for western Canadian producers.
