Will you be able to vote in the next CWB election? - Interviews with Richard Phillips and Larry Hil

[FarmRanger]

One man one vote is best, IF every individual has
rights to own, use, and dispose of his property as
he sees fit. Otherwise, it's just the tyranny of the
majority.

[parsley]

I read your opinions on voting eligibility.

It seems not forward, reasoned thinking, as I have observed success cannot be soley based upon, for example, size, nor worth, nor gender, nor location, nor the size of testicles, nor amount of gall.

Should farmers be restricted from voting because they don't 'appear' big enough, (numbers or money wize) to aggressive agricultural central planners?

Certainly, the CWB itself, has deemed all DA farmers as a bunch of growers needing looking after; an incapable lot; so it is no wonder that some of the leadership spawned from that climate do not believe in you, do not believe in the ability of farmers.

What principles should participation be based upon?

#A How about Proposed Livestock Voter-Eligibility Based on WORTH? :

Richie Dumbass claims eligible cattle voters should get a vote ONLY if they have 75 or more calves per year. (An arbitrary number dreamed up at a lap dancing bar.)

Sounds simple, huh? Take a looksee.

Old One-Eyed Lou has a cow calf operation and sells calves in the fall. He owns 100 cows and aims to sell 100 calves yearly. He's eligible to vote.

100 X $800.00 per weaned calf(2010) = $80T

He plans on doubling his herd so he can realize $160,000/year.

2. Slim Butt has 25 purebred Charolais cows and a 24K gold reputation. Sells 20 yearlings per year at an average of $8,000.00 per head in his sale = $160,000. Can't vote. He plans on doubling his herd so he can realize $320,000/yr

So....How are these stupid petty eligibility rules made in backrooms by people ineligible to reason, going to REALLY impact agriculture?

Only a Richie Dumbass would promote one operation over another based upon numbers of cattle sold.

#B Proposed CWB Voter Eligibility Based Upon Impressive numbers.

You want big-acres based, boys?

How about a million acre farm being the eligibility requirement being lobbied for, with that single farm's one hundred thousand eligible corporate shareholders, who recieve an annual crop share, being able to vote?

And WHAT IF the following year, the 100,000 eligible voters pass the following resolution:

RESOLUTION: "Only those who participate in and own a million acre farm or more are eligible to vote in the CWB elections."

The Richie Dumbass types don't anticipate the end result scenarios from catering to a gang mentality.

You know, ...the biggest gang wins.

Is that what farming should be about?

Shouldn't every farmer reading this site, be wanting his young son, buying land in his own name, and proud of it, to be able to actually call himself a farmer, and be able to vote in a farm commodity organization that works for the benefit of any farmer growing that commodity, regardles of size of his modest but growing farm? Should bushels or farmgate price matter? Or his age? Or IQ?

If you are a farmer, are you not a bloody farmer?

Does the CWB have the moral or legislative right to deem a five hundred acre farm a voicless plot, whilst anything larger is represented?

What would you respond to this:

"Any farmer who has gone through bankruptcy or Farm Debt Review Board should not be eligible to vote in any CWB election?"

Or this:

"Any farmer who does not carry crop insurance is not deemed a farmer, and therefore cannot vote (There goes me!)."

Or:

"Any farmer who does not realize $4M/yr gross from farming cannot vote"(some smart marketing farmer ended up with only $175,000 gross but with $75,000 net, and yet couldn't vote. The $4M gross farmer only ended up with $152.25 net but got to vote) What's the matter with that picture?


"Any farmer who does not realize $90,000/yr net from farming cannot vote"
(some guy with 20,000 acres ends up with $1200,00 net and can't vote)" Huh?

" Only organically certified farmers can vote in CWB elections." Fits like a sock on a rooster, right?

All ill thought-out policy is folly.

The only thing bad policy does, is this....it picks winners and losers.

The Richie Dumbasses suggesting quick fixes for Agriculture have not based their policies upon sound principles BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THEIR INTENTION.

If agriculture, including the farm community, is going to do well, farm leaders must choose sound principles when they speak for, or lobby for, or work for farmers.

Equal opportunity.

Not equality.
But, equal opportunity.

Pars

PS Re Participating in Farm Organizations: Those Richie Dumbasses promoting centrally planned policy will ONLY court and accept farmer memberships from their current backroom benchmark membership reguirements.

The rest of you will be spurned:

"Don't call old George back for approving his membership application for hell's sure. He only got sixteen quarters and he don make us look any better than we already is when we go lobbying for more government funding."

[FarmRanger]

Pars, you can call yourself a farmer, rancher, or a
fiddler crab for all I care; just don't tell me that a
fiddler crab should have a right to vote to
confiscate another farmer's production.

That is the bigger issue.

[parsley]

1. A TONNAGE eligibility does not address the marketing choice issue. Neither does deleting 70 year old farmers off the voters list.

2. btw, did you recall that other "grains" can be legally added or subtracted from CWB marketing, according to the CWB Act? For example, wheat could be dropped from CWB marketing entirely, and canola added.

3.The CWB Act, working in tandem with its' sister act, affects many facets of agriculture, including elevators, and railroads which are legislatively designated as "works for the general advantage of Canada."

Isn't that rather, er, astoundingly important, compared to limiting farmers to 40 tonnes?

Wouldn't any business minded organization conclude that the first goal, the primary goal, the unrelenting aim, of ANY organization
'working in the interest of farmers'

as well as sound business practices, should FIRST be to pursue relegating 'works for the general advantage of Canada' communist kind of regulation, to the garbage can, instead of chasing after, of all things, real farmers' eligibility to participate?

Businesses would work with farmers, wouldn't they?

Limiting voting elegibility does not help real farmers in the end game. Any Minister can and will use their legislative veto when they WANT TO, anyhow.

Ritz simply does not want to. He has his people in place in the farm community who do not pursue the REAL issue of market choice, did you notice?

Property rights. Grain ownership. Free marketing. All hould be the focus. NOT CWB elections.

Ritz has made sure the politics is toned down so the public only hears about '40 tonnes', which hurts farmers, but leaves the government unscathed. That's what your farm representation has done to YOU while you lie prone, politically snoozing.

The organizations who ballot-bind some segments of farmers are not looking out for the general interest of farmers.

btw, ass much as you do not agree with socialist farmers, they are, indeed a political fact.

As much as you don't agree with socialist legislation, it is indeed a Conservative fact.

Chasing after voter eligibility bait is like diverting whining farmer-kids to play in the sandbox, leaving the political adults to safeguard compulsory government marketing.

You have been duped.

[parsley]

Look farmranger, I know lots of oil rig kids that always wanted to farm, and they are buying land, a little at a time, and as it comes up for sale. Prob most will not get a vote.

A couple of quarter sections, work like hell and pay their way.

They rig full time as they are still physically able, and farm when they can. Call them ABC FARMERS.

Are they what you would probably deem 'true farmers'? NO. Their primary work is not farming. Should they be encouraged or discouraged to farm?

Does the farmer who rents 10,000 acres, call him FARMER XYZ, and borrows money to put in every crop, and has declared bankruptcy a couple of times, and rents all new equipment,and constantly lobbies for a government payout, better fit your paradymn of an 'acceptable' farmer designation? He'd get a vote for sure.

You say XYZ should get a say on where farming should be headed. You say ABC should not, (based upon your constantly changing criteria)?

Yes, well.

[vvalk]

In no way or by any definition are you a farmer if you don't produce 40 tonnes over 3 years. Lets say you get 3/4 of a tonne per year. So you need 50 acres total so about 18 acres per year. 18 ACRES. Or another way to look at it is 40 tonnes is about $7000. You wouldn't even be eligible to be classified as a farmer in Canada. The minimum is $10000. So what people (NFU,7 CWB directors etc)are arguing is that they want non farmers voting in the CWB elections. Pars how will you defend that

[parsley]

1. Here we are, and the focus is again arguing over election tinkering ...only this time it's over an arbitrary production number for elections. Enjoy.

So much for holding Ritz' marketing freedom feet over a federal election fire. (SPEAKING NOTES; "We'll just leave it up to farmer directors and farmer elections at this point......")

2. A lot of farmers been through the mill with this kind of mentality. For years, the CWB and the Ministers consistently argued that they were not interested in marketing organic grain. They were and they are. And they lied.

3. In the future, you can count on each and every Federal Government using farmer-decided "details" from the backroom- negotiatins AGAINST the same farmers. "Let the farmers decide".

Future election will 'consider' 42 tonnes. And the election after, 38. As you might guess, it's hard to determine if farmer "Saskatchewan 1285046930 Corp. is a lawyer or a rigger or a farmer. Privacy Act, you know. And then of course, you wouldn't dream of selling some of your neighbors feed barley barley in your name in exchange for straw, ............ to become eligible for a ballot, would you? Nah.
Remember LIFT?


4. Organic grains carry long forage rotations in their production patterns. Not all systems plant wall to wall every year. Surprise.

The folks who think they are clever enough to centrally plan agriculture make a mess of it.


And if you do not believe me, examine CWB Board grains net income statistics at the farmgate.

But I'm sure vvalk, you mean to get it "right" this time.

They reflect, to a decimal, what centrally planned agriculture has achieved in Canada for the past 70 years, in comparison to other industries.

And in 2010, farmers who have resorted to growing mostly canola, have lobbied to influence wheat and barley farmers' voting patterns.

I can support the tactic of lobbying based on the principle of marketing choice, vvalk. I cannot support the tactic of lobbying based on the principle of production volume. ANY volume.

Apply both tactics, one at a time, to the principles of the open market and then to supply management.

Examine your position.

Will you also argue that supply management MUST have production controls?

Ritz does.

That is exactly why Ritz speaks like an ass in the international community.

You either believe in a free market or you do not.

Pars

[parsley]

I just want to make my position clear for those who read, but don't.

vwalk says: "In no way or by any definition are you a farmer if you don't produce 40 tonnes over 3 years."


According to whom? vwalk rules? That's actually 'Laugh-In' stuff. Old but sickly funny.

Thus....

If I want to hitch up my two ploughing clydsdale horses and cultivate through my five acres of of Harrington barley, and bag it and export it to the race horse industry blended with a few other grains; and also sell my 15 acres of garlic to an Asian store in Naianamo; and also sell my florist cosmos to the Forks in Winnipeg; plus bag my four acres of wheat to put in a porridge mix exclusively for Toronto's Auberge du Pomier restaurant,....hold your hypertension-breath......

I will.

At the risk of infuriating your systolic level, I will also call myself a full fledged farmer.

So will the public.

And keeping politeness in mind, I will also reply to the "In no way or by any definition are you a farmer if you don't produce 40 tonnes over 3 years."
with two words: "Piss off".

I simply don't subscribe to your gang's measurement.

With my usual affection for central planneing, I remain, Pars

[shaney]

You may be a farmer if you do those things Pars you just won't be able to vote in the CWB elections.

I am actually suprised Pars that you are upset with these suggested changes.

If you really want to take this farmer definition to the n-th degree I think you need to be mindful of the fallout realities. Many gardners that are passionate about the urban food movement and take care of a 10 foot by 5 foot garden plot on top of a downtown apartment also consider themselves farmers. Should they also be able to vote if they produced one of the seven major crop types?

To me this is not about single desk versus choice as I wrote above. This is about making sure we have people voting that are involved in trhe practice of farming. There is no reason why my 85 year old grandfather that rents his land out to a cash renter should still be able to vote.

[parsley]

Do you consider One Earth should get one vote?

[parsley]

You see, shaney, when anyone, and I mean anyone exports wheat or barley, they are forced to do a buyback to obtain an export license. Unless, of course, they are a seed grower, such as yourself, and licenses are automatically issued, with no fees and no buybacks for you, right?

The buyback fee for some farmers, though, is, er, 'non-refundable.

So which commodity groups are now lobbying for the farmers who are forced to participate in the pools, but recieve zero service?

I'lm listening. I'm reading. It's silent.

Hmmmm.

Maybe Ontario would. Yes, that's an idea. Ontario farmers could probably recognize hypocrisy when they see it. They always get their licensing paid for by DA farmers, and they don't have buybacks!! Lightbulb!!

You've been an inspiration, shaney. Thanks
Pars

[shaney]

I missed something...

What do export licenses have to do with changing who can and cannot vote in the CWB eletions.

If One Earth delivers at least 40MT in one of the 7 major crops in one of the last three years they should be able to vote in the CWB election.

[parsley]

1. fyi, Toronto garden rooftops are not in the designated area.

2. Federal legislation involves both CWB marketing and CWB LICENSING.

If some farmers work towards getting marketing rules to obtain an exclusively designed vote, then those bypassing Board markting should also be free from licensing constraints which soley extract money. Otherwise those that are forced to pay get no say. Those who sell $25.00 a bushel wheat or $50.00 flax will continue to pay neverendingly revised forced buybacks into your system, but have zero input if they do not produce an amount that absolutely without a doubt, WILL BE revised, according to whim. It's not about 40 tonnes today. It is about what the figure will be two years down the road.

The right to vote issue is not about declaring the size of the farm, the number of bushels, or the quality of exports when it is a government instrument in charge of both marketing and licensing, shaney.

3.Just curious....Should One Earth get soley one vote?

[vvalk]

Pars. Should every shareholder in a publicly traded company get one vote regardless of how many shares they have. Why don't you grow up a bit and live in the real world. You vote based on your how much you have invested. Just the way it is. That why if you have 51% of the shares then you control the vote. Let's get real about this. Maybe 5000 farms produce the majority of the grain that the cwb sells yet how many vote? 100000 voters. Let's bring this all back to the real world. Don't get me wrong I personally believe that having any vote to determine what happens to my property is rediculious. Baby steps. Lastly parsley with all do respect if you think someone with less then 18 acres or say even 40 counting rotations should get a vote that cancels my vote then you can piss off?

[shaney]

I really don't know how many votes one earth should get or currently has. Like any corporation (including many farms) there is more than one permit book per household. I have no idea how One Earth has its business structured.

I think the whole purpose here is to make sure farmers are getting to vote and not to prevent gardners from having a voice. If you don't make the minimum requirements of 40MT maybe you need to look at other organizations. And by the way if you have a 5 acre farm why would you ever grow board grains? I would be looking at higher value crops than wheat or malt barley. But thats just me.