THE Canadian Wheat Board election review panel has delivered a worthy report that should help restore confidence in the board’s election process. Its central recommendations are to put more control into the hands of active farmers and to make the election process more transparent and fair.
This independent review was sorely needed. In the four elections since 1998 when the board of directors was created, each had a nagging slipup, from problems over voters lists to complaints about improper third party spending, candidate overspending and conflict of interest allegations.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
These problems, though often minor, eroded confidence in the election process, the board of directors and ultimately the wheat board itself.
So there was a sigh of relief when Ottawa created the panel last June.
It has now presented 14 recommendations worthy of adoption by whatever party wins the federal election. Only one raises a cautionary flag for its potential to overly restrict the CWB’s operations during board elections.
The most significant recommendation is to limit voter eligibility to those who have delivered at least 40 tonnes of grain to the CWB in any one of the previous two crop years. This is a wise step. The wheat board should be controlled by active farmers who have the most at stake in its operation and policy. It should also make the voters list more accurate and easier to compile, eliminating the mixups that dogged previous elections.
The second most significant move is to shift the date of the election to the winter from autumn.
Although no election timing suits everyone, this move would probably help more people than it hurts. While it positions the election in the middle of the winter meeting and trade show period, it moves it away from fall when many producers are still busy winding up harvest and engaging in fall field work.
Districts where elections are being held will have to reschedule their CWB winter accountability sessions, but it should be a matter of shifting by only a few weeks.
The one place where the committee became overzealous was in its effort to promote fairness among candidates. It was right to limit incumbents’ use of the resources available as directors to enhance their profile during the election. But the recommendation that the wheat board refrain from issuing payments and program announcements during the election is excessive.
It strains credulity that the five directors up for re-election could influence the 10 remaining board members and the federal government, which must approve initial payment changes, to boost payments to help their election chances.
If the account books show an adjustment in the initial is warranted, farmers deserve quick payment, regardless of whether there is an election.
After all, it’s their money.
