KENASTON, Sask. – Are farmers being elected to the Canadian Wheat Board to do what they think is right?
Or once elected, should they always try to find out what the voters back home think, and act accordingly?
At a meeting here last week, the nine candidates running for election in district six expressed some sharply different views on that basic question about the democratic process.
Mich Ozeroff, a Langham, Sask., area farmer, said his philosophy is to tell voters exactly what he thinks, and then they can vote accordingly.
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
“You know where I stand,” said the staunch supporter of single-desk selling. “I believe there are certain fundamental issues on which you can’t compromise. I’ll tell you what I think and you can judge me accordingly.”
That’s what representative democracy is all about, he said, a view shared by Ian McCreary of Bladworth.
“You elect people to make decisions,” he told the crowd, adding the board members will often have access to information that’s not available to the average farmer back home.
On the other side were several candidates who said they weren’t running with any strong pre-determined agenda. They said they want to represent the wishes and interests of the constituents.
“I have to listen to what you want,” said Garry Dubyk of Hanley. “I’m just one voice.”
Russell Marcoux of Saskatoon said he would make use of meetings and electronic information systems to take the pulse of local farmers as much as possible.
“I’m not representing me, I’m representing them,” he said in an interview after the meeting.
While he’s not suggesting farmers should be consulted directly on every issue that comes before the board, that would be the case for any major change in policy. And he said that shouldn’t be interpreted as being indecisive.
“I’m not afraid to make a decision or stand up for what I believe in, but I don’t want to approach this with a bunch of pre-conceived notions and try to force that on my constituents,” he said. “I don’t want to get locked in.”
The discussion was prompted by questions from some of the 70 or so farmers in attendance, who said they were concerned about the “accountability” of the new board.
One asked the candidates if they would carry out their constituents’ wishes even if that meant going against their own personal views. Another asked how they would try to find out what local producers want them to do.
Ozeroff said the idea of governing by plebiscite or town hall meetings is a “noble concept” but completely unworkable, adding it’s important that voters know where their candidates stand on important issues.
“You must believe in something or you’ll fall for anything,” he said, adding he would set up a local advisory committee to stay in touch with local concerns.
Wayne Bacon of Kinistino said he would hold regular meetings with local farmers to find out what they want him to do. If it didn’t match his view, he would try to organize a vote on the issue.
Allan Burechailo of Domremy said it’s incumbent upon a director to be open-minded and to be flexible, and listen to other opinions from farmers at home and at the board table. Knowing what the producers at home want is perhaps the most important job for the director, he said, adding he supports a plebiscite on major issues.
Barry Firby of Kenaston said he has no pre-determined agenda and is a strong believer in the democratic process. Plebiscites should be held only on major issues.
Chad Doerksen of Dalmeny said he would do what his constituents wanted, even if he disagreed, and would support producer votes on major issues.
Dan Kachur of Lanigan said he believes the board has been much more accountable to producers than grain companies or railways. He said voters should know that he will always support single-desk selling.
