VOTING in Canadian Wheat Board director elections ends Nov. 28 and as usual, the campaign has had more than its share of accusations of unfairness.
Every vote since the first one in 1998 has managed to stir controversy. That’s too bad because the wheat board directors and the farmers who vote for them deserve better.
While it is important for people to remain vigilant to ensure election fairness, it’s also important not to cast doubt on the entire outcome based on inconsequential complaints confined to particular processes of the campaign.
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?
Over the years, the CWB elections have been fraught with problems.
There were voters list problems in the first director elections in 1998, and counting errors due to computer glitches. In 2000, complaints surfaced about anonymous advertising.
In 2002, there were disputes about the roles of third party interest groups and charges of CWB interference.
In 2004, about 800 voters were left off the voters list.
In 2006, the federal government changed the voters list in the midst of the election.
This year, there are complaints about new rules on third party spending limits, eligible voters not receiving ballots, marked mailouts from the government, flawed ballot application forms, disputes over advertising signs, misuse of the CWB logo and a call for government to remove the election co-ordinator.
Yet none of the complaints has played a major role in the outcome. That’s not to say the disenchanted voices lack reasons for their suspicions. The government was outed in court this summer after a secret cabinet document was revealed. That document outlined a step-by-step plan designed to get rid of the wheat board’s single desk marketing monopoly, which included such things as gag orders, firing the chief executive officer and a three-option producer vote on barley marketing.
All were steps the government enacted, but few people suspected each step was part of larger plan.
Were it not for the document, skeptics might have written off the conspiracy charges as the fertile imaginations of a few paranoid critics.
But in light of the revelations, it is apparent that more was afoot. Or, as Dr. Johnny Fever of the 1970s television show WKRP in Cincinnati put it: “When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.”
Nevertheless, there is little to suggest that election results have been skewed.
This year, there have been conspiracy theories surrounding bar codes on government mailouts and Dekalb advertising that some think is designed to surreptitiously support one side in the CWB debate with its “my farm, my choice” catchline.
The absurdity of these claims demonstrates how divisive the CWB issue has become. It also shows the debate has long passed the point of constructive vigilance.
Constructive critics serve their cause better by picking issues carefully. Those prone to overkill bring disrespect to the process and cast the system, the CWB, federal politicians and some farm groups in unsavoury light.
With the voting period all but over, the way forward is to accept the will of the voters when results are tallied. Perhaps in the future, all those involved in the CWB can work toward a system based on mutual respect rather than suspicion.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
