Modern elections are often won or lost in public debates where
candidates, pitted head-to-head, confront each other on the burning
issues of the day.
Not the 2002 Canadian Wheat Board election.
All-candidates meetings have been scarce in most districts and
non-existent in one. That’s a dramatic change from previous campaigns.
During the 1998 CWB election, Larry Hill attended six meetings across
District 3. This year the incumbent hasn’t been to one debate because
no chamber of commerce, farm group or marketing club has organized any
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
in the district, which stretches from Lethbridge to Swift Current, Sask.
Hill chalks it up to the fact that he only has one opponent, Buck
Spencer, and the two candidates couldn’t be further apart on the
issues. Hill supports the single desk and Spencer opposes it, so the
choice is obvious – there is no need to get to know the candidates any
better.
That doesn’t explain why there have only been two public debates in
District 7 where four candidates are vying to become the next CWB
director, or just one in District 5 where eight people are on the
ticket.
Greg Porozni, a dual market supporter running in District 5, is
disappointed with the lack of all-candidates meetings in his district.
“My gut feeling is it’s just the economy,” said the Vegreville, Alta.,
farmer.
“I think people are just more concerned about survival than they are
about the CWB election.”
District 7 incumbent Micheal Halyk thinks part of the problem is that
the election has become a “one-trick pony” pitting dual marketers
against single desk supporters.
“I think a lot of groups were reluctant to get involved in putting on
all-candidates debates for fear that it was going to turn into a
barroom brawl. And let’s not kid ourselves, Yorkton got close,” he
said, referring to one of only two public debates held in his district.
But Halyk is still surprised by the overwhelming lack of involvement in
this election by grain companies like Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and
Agricore United and provincial farm groups such as Keystone
Agricultural Producers and the Agricultural Producers Association of
Saskatchewan.
“I did find APAS extremely silent throughout this whole campaign,” said
the Melville, Sask., farmer. “I wonder why APAS did not take it upon
themselves to organize some all-candidates meetings?”
APAS president Terry Hildebrandt said the board discussed it and
decided not to sponsor any debates, but in retrospect he thinks that
was the wrong decision.
“There was some worry that we’d be seen taking a stand one way or the
other, and we’re not here to tell people how to market their grain.”
On the other hand he realizes that APAS is funded by producer dollars
and helping inform farmers on such an important vote would be money
well spent.
“It should have probably been a role that we took up, but we opted not
to,” said Hildebrandt, adding that APAS will revisit its stance in the
next election.
Weldon Newton, president of Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers,
said his organization didn’t get involved this time around because KAP
had 12 of its own annual district meetings to organize in November.
“We have enough on our own plate this year without looking at trying to
organize forums for the election too.”
National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells said there has been a
vacuum in public debate since Sask Pool distanced itself from policy
issues. The NFU may help fill that void by sponsoring some debates in
the next election two years from now.
But he said more public meetings would not have advanced the 2002
campaign because the election has become so polarized on the pro- and
anti-board issue.
“Most farmers have their minds made up,” said Wells.
That’s something most candidates and outside observers agree is the
main factor contributing to the lack of interest in public forums this
time around.
Alanna Koch, chair of CARE, a group that supports dual market
candidates, said for many the vote is already done.
“If you already pretty much know what your decision is, what do you
need to go to a meeting for?”
There is also unanimous agreement that this year’s late harvest hasn’t
helped. Farmers can’t fill meeting halls when they are still out in
their fields.
Hill isn’t too worried about the lack of public debates because they
only attract a small percentage of the farming population and those
people are usually voters that have already made up their minds.
“The average person tends to stay away from these highly inflammatory,
politically charged meetings.”
But some candidates worry about what the lack of interest in public
forums means in the broader context of the election.
“I’m starting to wonder about voter turnout. What is that going to be
like? Is it going to be low?” Porozni wondered.
