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

[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)

[gustgd]

Lets be realistic here.

It's crazy that we have to vote on our property, and that the only ballot question is monopoly or no?
These elections are NOT about board governance and how to properly run a government agency.
Another fact of life until the conservatives get a magority we are stuck with the system that's in place.
It's too good of a wedge issue for the Libs to give away. and basically the only difference in Ag policy between the Conservatives and Liberals.


Parsley thats why we fight over voting rules. It's all we have. and when someone with no economic stake gets a say on my farm that's where the system falls apart.

BTW theirs not enough farmers out in the country just too many people who call themselves farmers to maintain their capital gains exemptions.
As you said before bad policy leads to bad outcomes.

My advice to the Conservatives grow a pair and the day after the next Federal election make it a confidence motion. Give Western farmers marketing freedom.
My advice to the Liberals The day the election is called beat the Conservatives to the punch and change your position on the long gun registry and the Canadian Wheat Board. Appeal to moderates and I would bet their are 15 seats in the country that you might swing.
If you keep doing the same thing expect the same result of Conservative blue across the country.

[AdamSmith]

The basic point of this policy change is to change away from a permit book based ballot eligability, which clearly allowed way more people being classified as having a stake in the cwb when by any rational standard they really had none.

Is this the best way to go about it?

Very doubtful.

Is this a step in the right direction?

No.

Not when it comes to deciding the future of the monopoly and it's continued ability to force individuals into associations which they do not wish to belong to.

Not when it comes to the issue of treating one group of Canadians (Ontario,Maritimes) differently than another group of Canadians (designated area)

These issues are at the root of the problem that needs to be resolved.

I personly think it's at best, sheer folly and ignorance or at worst, a deliberate diversianary tactic with the aim to avoid having to deal with the real issue.

It's nothing more than debating what color of curtains you want to hang over the bars in your jail cell window.