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

[parsley]

Things for you to consider:

1. One of the interesting things about current CWB voting is this:

Countless people have spread the notion that only Wheat Board supporters currently recieved multiple permit books in a family unit.

It maybe is or is not a rumor. You decide.

From my own snooping experience, I have inquired about permit book issuance/withdrawals, and found too often than not, that those wanting marketing choice had their family cache of permit books reduced to one.

It's a great single desk tactic, if true: Stock up known Board-supporting farm units with multiple permit books, and watch the vote.

What will change by employing the proposed tactics? And remember they are only tactics that can be overun by a Minister.


2. "So what people (NFU,7 CWB directors etc)are arguing is that they want non farmers voting in the CWB elections"

So, how do you determine who is or is not a n already permitted farmer by the numbered corporation?

3. A publcly traded company is voluntary and very different from a Government crown regualtory agency.


3. fyi, I used small numbers for

[parsley]

The last item should be #4.

Sorry.

And it should read..."smalll numbers for comparative purposes."

I personally do not sell to the Forks or grow garlic.

[parsley]

To be clear, these are not my personal statistics. And I do not garden except for my own use.

But they represent a view, the ones who believe in free enterprise; a system that can only function with the principle of being able to grow and sell what a person markets, no matter how big or how small.

A farmer is a farmer.

If the current Wheat Board directors and their audience were concerned about voters who shouldn't vote, they should have had an audit session, just like they audit your grain bins, so that a one-farm-unit gets a permit book, shouldn't they?

Or is it that what some of you really want is those with more acres get more ballots? Or what about more bushels get more ballots? Or how about more net income gets more ballots? Or more GROSS income gets more ballots?

Calculated tinkering? Or naive tinkering?

Who gets ballots? Who gets a say? Isn't this really, for some, a desperate way to change things, but is it for others, about fighting their way to power and monopoly?

I don't know how many farmers have thought ahead to Phase II, but I'm sure some of you have. The supply management thinkers certainly have.

The impending impediment stemming from ill-thought out policy such as is being suggested is like herding lions. They will attack and adjust your bushels, or your income, or your acres...all in the name of eligibility to be called a farmer.

Which means policy will eventually limit who actually grows, by way of acres, money or bushels, and then who actually farms...by way of government regulation.

It is called facism.

Quota will follow.

If I was a supply management fan, I would welcome such a move, because it adds another layer of necessary government management and regulation. The '40 tonnes' condition will be pregnant with upcoming revised regulations. 70 tones and then plus $400,000.00 gross income and then plus twenty quarter sections.

And I will add, although I regret having to say it:

It is my opinion that some of the people who want to add yet more regulatory burden, more rules, are not market choice supporters at all; rather they are really closet supply-management afficioados who welcome a narrowed field, with less voices. And in leadership positions.

Regretfully, I had to conclude the same thing about our Minister of Agriculture.

Leaders who are the voice of still more government regulation, who are a voice looking to supply managed commodities for their margins, who are voices that continually court guaranteed taxpayer subsidies, yes, those voices will drag agriculture into misery.

btw, If an acre, dollar or bushel precedent is set, a million acre farming corporation might legitimately state:

"the whole purpose here is to make sure farmers are getting to vote and not to prevent [ten thousand acre]gardners from having a voice."

LOL Pars

PS Shaney: Would you consider 10-15 dollars a bushel, fob farm, for barley worthwhile growing?

[parsley]

I have to own up. LOL

I kinda predicted this reaction:

"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?"

I counted on that reaction. 18 acres was so damn galling wasn't it? LOL

Makes my point for me, better than I could ever make it, though.

Size will mean whether or not you get any say, on that slippery slope.

5000 voters will indeed determine if you get an export license or not.

You get the hang of it now, shaney?

Oops. And then there was one......

Isn't sly central planning tricky? Pars

[vvalk]

Pars. A farmer is not a farmer. by govt definition you need to have $10000 in sales to be eligible or counted as a farmer.

[shaney]

Pars when did you take out an NFU membership. You kind of sound like Stewart Wells on this one. If this was some secret tactic to keep the single desk in place why has the NFU and pro single desk board members been so outspoken just as yourself.

It just seems ironic that you being very pro single desk and your opponents both claim this is some kind of underhanded conspiracy.

If the minimum was five hundred tonnes I would probably agree with you and your line of thinking but 40 MT is reasonable and should be implemented.

[parsley]

True, vvalk, re farm income. $10T worth of hay and you are a farmer.

PROBLEM: Next it's $10T PLUS 40 tonnes, and then it will be $10T PLUS 40 tonnes PLUS 5000 acres and next it will be $10T PLUS 400 tonnes PLUS 15000 acres plus $400T in inputs and on and on.....slide, slide, slide, .....



I want less regulation. Not more. Can you understand the point organics learned from government regulation? Milk producers learned? Fishermen learned? Egg farmers learned?

shaney:"40 MT is reasonable and should be implemented"

shaney, since seedgrowers can bypasses CWB marketing altogether, and also get free licensing, compliments of the Rest of the DA, why should seedgrowers get any say at all, in election requirements? How can you defend your minimum production pronouncement in the same breath you sigh with enjoyment at being exempted from the regulatory measures I must abide by?

What was that saying, about goosing the gander, again? Pars

[parsley]

So, let me get this straight, if I grow $10T worth of only hay for five years (following low prices for barley,) I am no longer a farmer eligible to vote?

"Vandervalk is just getting back into malt barley production after a five-year hiatus when prices were</P>
<P class=EC_style8ptBK><STRONG><A href="http://bloggn.grainews.ca/Jay/2008/05/malting-barley-7-ways-to-make.html">(low)</A></STRONG></P>

I appreciate farmers who make sound decisions based on the market, don't you, vvalk?

[shaney]

Most seedgrowers that I know also deliver board grains too. And if this proposal is implemented any seedsman that produces over 40 MT will still get to vote.

So you want five acre farmers to vote but not seed growers because I can export cereal seed to the US. I don't get that logic.

[parsley]

It's not my proposal. And never would be. But, you already know that.

Should seedgrowers, who are themselves exempt from government CWB marketing, and get a free pass on CWB Licensing, actively propose specifications that non-seedgrowers be subject to?

It's a scruitinously fair question, isn't it?

You replied: "So you want five acre farmers to vote but not seed growers because I can export cereal seed to the US."


You know better than that, shaney.

You already know I think seed growers should be able to vote, shaney. But I also question the restrictions a seedgrower is so ready to place upon on his fellow non-seed growers.

I've watched seedgrowers tradionally not paying their share of the cost of export licensing. And seedgrowers do require export licensing.

It's so pathetically ironic, isn't it, shaney?

Do seedgrowers assume entitlement?

An entitlement crowd will always expect someone else to pick up their licensing tab, won't they?

Will there ever be even one voluntary modest "Thanks DA guys, for free export licenses", on a Canadian Seed Growers page? Or from Ontario and Quebec?

I think not. Pars

[parsley]

shaney, about Stu Wells.

What I kinda like about Stu Wells is the fact that at least he says it straight up, which is essentially:

'I want a few supply management winners who make piles of money from a fixed government regulated monopoly, and the hell with the rest of farmers'

That's the sales pitch from hell when you're preaching to 42,000 farmers in Saskatchewan alone, isn't it?

But, he doesn't pretend otherwise. And he's prepared to chase anyone out of farming if there is quota contravention and send taxpayers the bill for any and everything. You know what he'll do and his philosophy is his own worst enemy.

Jail is his stick.

But, at least you know where he stands, and what he preaches.

Of course, I think he is dead wrong.

But in my books, Stu should still get to vote if he is a farmer.

His gang of say, 5000 wheat and barley quota-men, would stop me from voting in a heartbeat.

That's who they are.
Which one are you? Pars

[furrowtickler]

How about 40 tn per vote? Then even the 40 ac guy feels worthy. And BTW, I have no problem what-so-ever if the guy down the road has more votes than me, he will earn it or loose it, it is that simple. Seed more = more risk therfore more say in your financial future. JMO.
But and a big but - they(anyone with a vote) must absolutly actively farm, today, not yesteryear - no questions asked... period.

[parsley]

furrow. Some day I want to meet you furrow; you are so game. I like that. LOL
Let's both approximate and belly-button gaze:

1. 40,000 farms in Saskatchewan.

2. 20,000 of them are larger and incorporated

3. 15,000 of the incorporated ones have multiple owners.

4. 5,000 of the multiples, farm over 20,000 acres. However, they have at approx 40 investors in the corporation, mostly lawyers with shares; but there is only one farmer in the corporation. (I personally know of one farm like this, so I used this non-usual example)

Who gets a ballot? Each shareholder? Or the farm unit gets one vote? Or the farmer gets all share-ballots?

5. Thirteen of the farms are over 200,000 acres each. The shares are owned by multinational corporations and they hire a farm manager. Who gets ballots?

6. Four farms are over a million acres each. Their shares are owned by thousands. They are ethnic and religious groups of people. Who gets ballots?

7. One federal government-owned farm sports 2 million acres in the DA and 6,257 appointed managers. Who gets ballots?

Have fun. Pars

[furrowtickler]

These large intergrated corperate farms are not going to be around very long IMO. So it will not matter who gets ballots.
Actualy those are good questions that need some thought. What say you?

[parsley]

I thought you'd already thought about it:

" have no problem what-so-ever if the guy down the road has more votes than me, he will earn it or loose it, it is that simple. Seed more = more risk therfore more say in your financial future. JMO."

The government and foreign owned multinational farms will have the majority of votes and you approve.

vvalk said:

"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."

Can't you just hear all those government managers whispering this into the Minister's ear, vvalk? (I've extrapolated your wisdom):

"Maybe 13 MEGA farms produce the majority of the grain that the cwb sells yet how many vote? "

You will indeed sympathize with the Mega farms unfortunate position if you believe in what you said, and support their actions to get rid of the rest of the nuisance voters. (tic)

The real point I am trying to make, (and I've not only ruffled feathers, but ripped apart some of your confortable nesting habits), is this;

Badly thought out policy will come back to peck you in the ass.

Pars

Is this pathetic lobbying/proposal the best effort/action/offensive/scheme that free enterprise is able to muster over the course of a year with the help of a paid organizer? (I'll get tarred and feathered for that comment, but at least I won't get accused of being a mealy-mouth.(LOL)