Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz has introduced amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act intended to ensure that farmers with the most at stake wield the power.
The proposal has good intentions – that of putting power in the hands of farmers whose livelihoods depend most on the wheat board’s performance.
The amendment would affect who can vote for 10 farmer-elected directors on the 15 person CWB board, which also includes four federally appointed directors and the chief executive officer.
Under the plan, farmers must have produced at least 120 tonnes of grain in either of the two crop years leading up to the election to be eligible to vote.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
That is not a large amount.
The grain produced can be wheat, barley or nonboard grains, such as canola, flax and oats.
Producers are required to swear declarations that they have met the necessary requirements.
It is difficult to envision that farmers producing fewer than 120 tonnes of grain over two years earn a living completely from that income stream.
A case can be made that landlords deserve a vote, such as those in crop-share arrangements who have a direct financial stake in a farm’s production and how it is marketed.
However, those arrangements usually provide supplemental income for the landlord and are seldom an issue upon which their livelihood rests.
Concerns that these people would be left off the voters list should not outweigh the need to ensure that farmers with livelihoods at stake have the ultimate control.
The government would be wise to include a contingency plan that ensures
that producers who experience two successive years of crop failure through no fault of their own do not lose their voting rights.
One idea popular among CWB reformers but not in the proposed bill is the idea of a weighted ballot, in which the number of votes a producer gets depends on the amount of grain he produces.
Whether you agree with this depends on your vision of the wheat board.
Some see it as an agency that not only markets grain, but also represents the interests of all farmers and is accountable to them, large or small, so long as
they meet certain minimal requirements, similar to how we elect government officials.
Those who favour a weighted ballot tend to see the wheat board as a pure business enterprise, and maintain voter eligibility should mimic publicly traded companies, in which shareholders get more votes depending upon the number of shares they hold.
That fundamental issue is one best left to farmers themselves to decide, once it is assured that genuine farmers have the appropriate voice and can then make such changes should they choose, by electing like-minded directors.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
