Prairie farmers can expect to see a far-reaching and thorough review of the Canadian Wheat Board’s election process and governance structure in the next few months.
CWB directors say the need for a review is prompted in part by the trouble-plagued 2004 election and by possible changes to the board’s structure arising out of proposed new World Trade Organization rules.
“I think we’re going to see a wide-ranging discussion and a very public debate of elections and governance and structure,” said director Dwayne Anderson of Fosston, Sask. “All of that is part of the debate.”
Read Also
Alberta crop diversification centres receive funding
$5.2 million of provincial funding pumped into crop diversity research centres
There will be a broad array of issues on the table, likely including voter eligibility, how to put together a voters list, district boundaries, whether to introduce a weighted voting system that will give more say to bigger farmers, the role of the election co-ordinator and the future of government-appointed directors.
Directors say they want the review
to start soon, given that the 2006 election period is only 19 months away.
“Something will have to begin to happen before too long in order to have changes in place before the next election,” said Bill Nicholson, director from Shoal Lake, Man., and a member of the board’s election subcommittee.
“Two years should be enough time to have some new things in place.”
While the directors talked about election-related issues at their regularly scheduled board meeting in Winnipeg last week, no decisions were made about what form the review should take or who should conduct it.
However, based on interviews, there seems to be agreement that it should be conducted from outside the board.
“Our view is it should be a quasi-independent review where everyone with an interest in the issue could participate,” said Nicholson.
The board’s election subcommittee will proceed immediately with its own traditional post-election review, getting feedback from candidates, scrutineers and the co-ordinator on issues arising from the 2004 vote. Recommendations arising from that will likely be forwarded to the broader review.
The role of the federal government in the proposed review will also have to be worked out. CWB minister Reg Alcock has said publicly that Ottawa would conduct its own review of CWB elections, but some directors say it shouldn’t be a government-run process.
Rod Flaman, a director from Edenwold, Sask., said he’d like to see a five-member electoral commission set up, with perhaps two members appointed by government, two by the board and the fifth selected by those four members.
He said the commission should also be responsible for running future elections, similar to Elections Canada. The board now contracts out election administration to private companies, such as Meyers Norris Penny.
“I believe the ultimate solution is for the board to distance itself one further step from the process by establishing this electoral commission,” said Flaman.
Director Larry Hill of Swift Current, Sask., said it’s crucial that any review be designed to get the most input possible from farmers, a process that he added will undoubtedly start at the board corporate accountability meetings with farmers this spring.
Hill thinks the election process worked well, given the difficulties inherent in creating an up-to-date voters list and conducing a mail-in vote during a busy time for farmers.
Unfortunately, he said, the mistakes that were made in the 2004 vote provide ammunition for critics to question the legitimacy of the board’s democratic process.
“Obviously these kind of embarrassments and difficulties have to be cleaned up,” he said.
