The man in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board election has dismissed
complaints that the board is interfering in the vote.
A group of candidates running on a platform to dismantle the board’s
single desk status, along with two farm groups that share that view,
are unhappy with two recent communications by the board.
After reviewing the documents, election co-ordinator Peter Eckersley of
the accounting firm Meyers Norris Penny rejected the complaints.
“What I was looking for to support any accusation was clear
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
electioneering,” he said last week. “I don’t think either of the
documents that went out were in that vein.”
One was a market update distributed by the board with recent interim
payments and the other was an open letter by CWB chair Ken Ritter on
the subject of those farmers who chose to protest the CWB monopoly by
going to jail rather than pay fines for violating the Customs Act.
Eight candidates running under the anti-monopoly CARE banner, along
with the Western Barley Growers Association and the Western Canadian
Wheat Growers Association, say the board is campaigning on behalf of
incumbent directors seeking re-election.
“The CWB’s continued intervention in the director elections is totally
inappropriate and must stop,” said wheat growers association president
Art Enns.
Those charges were denied by Ritter, who said the board is staying out
of the election fray.
“There will be allegations flying hard and fast from every direction,
but we are not interfering in the campaign,” Ritter said in an
interview.
The complainants said the update and the open letter were a “clear
violation” of the board’s election period code of conduct for directors
and said they would raise the issue with the independent election
co-ordinator and the federal government.
But Eckersley said their interpretation is wrong.
The market update was informing producers about the board’s grain
selling activities so far this year, he said.
And the open letter, posted on the board’s website, was meant to
clarify the legal situation surrounding the protesting farmers and the
board’s role in the affair.
In neither case, he said, did the board urge farmers to support a
particular position in the election or vote for a particular candidate
or group of candidates. Eckersley said he can understand why the
board’s critics might be unhappy, but said it’s unreasonable to expect
the agency to shut down its regular activities during the election
period.
“The board is still going to function and there are still roles for it
to play and there will be communications it will send out,” he said.
“There is an obligation to inform farmers what they’re doing.”
The election code of conduct for directors states the board has an
obligation to ensure the vote is conducted in a fair and impartial
manner and they must avoid activity that might detract from a public
perception of integrity and impartiality.
But it also goes on to say that the board will respond in a “normal
manner” to election policy issues that arise during the election period.
Ritter said he can’t understand how anyone with an open mind could
interpret either document as being politically motivated or designed to
support particular candidates.
He added the board has to keep farmers informed about its business
activities and has a duty to respond to public issues such as the trade
challenge from the United States and the jail issue.
He said directors who are running for re-election will not speak or
appear on behalf of the board during the election period, with one
exception. Larry Hill, seeking re-election in District 3, has been and
will continue to be the board’s spokesperson on international trade
issues.
