Review of the CWB Election - Kevin Bender, WCWGA

[shaney]

</embed></object>

[stubblejumper]

Farmers still want single desk board
The StarPhoenixDecember 16, 2010
If, as Canada's prime minister and Saskatchewan's premier believe, the Canadian Wheat Board is anathema to the interests of prairie grain farmers, those producers have an odd way of expressing their displeasure.

Given the chance to elect five of 10 directors to the producer-controlled marketing agency, western farmers once again opted to elect four directors who support the CWB's single-desk marketing of export grains.

This even though the candidates who support the "marketing choice" alternative chose this time around not to clearly identify themselves as such. Incumbent Henry Vos of Fairview, Alta., was the only dual marketing supporter to be elected, and that by a narrow 31-vote margin.

Given the outcome, it was interesting to note the reaction from the two camps.

For former National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells, a single-desk supporter, the vote was a clear repudiation by farmers of the federal Conservatives' desire to dismantle the wheat board's export sales monopoly.

But for groups such as the Western Canadian Wheat Growers who've long fought for what they say is the right of prairie farmers to market their own grain as they see fit, the low voter turnout -- only 41.3 per cent of about 28,500 eligible producers mailed in a ballot -- is proof that "bona fide" farmers have rejected the election process.

Jeff Nielsen, a sitting director who's the only other pro-choice advocate on the board, told The Globe and Mail that canola taking the place of a declining western wheat acreage is indicative of farmers "voting with their drills."

In the context of what usually happens in provincial and federal elections, the latter analysis is left somewhat wanting. After all, it's usually those who are disgruntled with the status quo who are motivated to cast a ballot for change, not those who are happy enough or indifferent.

If the board's marketing system is harming the financial interest of farmers, as its critics claim, surely these fiercely independent business owners would be rushing to restructure the CWB to suit their needs. That they demand improvements to the board's operations but continue to elect directors who support the single desk export sales suggests that things aren't as bleak as the critics suggest.

The decline in prairie acres seeded to wheat says more about the farmers' assessment of potential world prices for commodities such as canola, field peas, lentils and canary seed than it does about their willingness to compete against the treasuries of Europe and the U.S. since Ottawa's decision to abandon Canadian producers to their own fate. That the marketing-choice candidates felt it best to keep quiet about their beliefs might in fact have hurt their chances if they and the federal government indeed are correct in their assessment about farmers' sentiments on the board's practices.

The federal government is doing all farmers a disservice by trying to manipulate the election process for CWB directors by meddling with voter eligibility and imposing gag orders on the agency. Rather, it should further reduce the number of directors the government appoints, and to let the farmers themselves determine the future of the board's single-desk sales approach.

As for the provincial government, Premier Brad Wall might consider applying to the wheat board the same logic he did in assessing the value of the potash producers' Canpotex marketing arm, and consider the message the farmers sent with their recent vote.

- - -

"Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law."

-The Supreme Court of Canada, 1938

[wd9]

Yes stubble, i agree with you, farmers support the single desk. I don't, but the majority does.

[FarmRanger]

<i>"If the board's marketing system is harming
the financial interest of farmers, as its critics
claim, surely these fiercely independent business
owners would be rushing to restructure the CWB
to suit their needs."</i>

  Unless they don't understand what the cost
versus benefit is  because they aren't being told
the truth.  Even stubbles article quoted above
repeated the outrageous claim that CWB single
desk market power resembles that of Canpotex.  
There is a constant barrage of this type of
propaganda exploiting our ignorance and fear of
changing the status quo.  

I sincerely doubt that anything can change until a
majority of us understand this and care enough
to do something about it.  Until then, everyone in
the designated area of Canada will keep selling
to the only buyer available, we'll keep stretching
crop rotations, and we'll continue to experience
an ever shrinking share of world wheat trade.

<i>"Private property rights do not conflict with
human rights. <b>They are human rights.
</b>Private property rights are the rights of
humans to use specified goods and to exchange
them. Any restraint on private property rights
shifts the balance of power from impersonal
attributes toward personal attributes and toward
behavior that political authorities approve. That is
a fundamental reason for preference of a system
of strong private property rights: private property
rights protect individual liberty." </i> Armen A.
Alchian

Democracy without property rights is little more
than mob rule.

[TOM4CWB]

Farmranger,

That quote is very appropriate.

Here is the legal structure that creates the 'property rights':

1a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you,
b) Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you;
2a) Do not infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
b) Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally.
3a) That for every wrong there is a remedy,
b) The end does not justify the means,
c) Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case,
d) Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law,
e) Two wrongs do not make a right, and
f) One can enlarge the rights of the people; however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.


Together a complete picture emerges.

Where does the CWB fit in this picture?

The CWB SAYS it respects 'Common Law' principals.

Good principal to build a fair and democratic structure.

It is time to test our resolve to build a better Canada... and just as our Canadian Constitution needs to evolve... the CWB must also respect Canadians.

We have a short window here before the WTO imposes restrictions on our marketing structure at the CWB.

Do we have the resolve to adapt and build instead of tearing apart?

[TOM4CWB]

WD9,

I have asked many questions in the past weeks.

The great promise of 'designated area' grain growers is that they see a vision for a fair and democratic CWB... that also respects the individual grower.

Getting to this end will be a challenge.

Nearly everyone who is a rational human being... has moments... that this vision of being a 'Canadian' that is fair minded. The election result confirms the CWB IS worth the fight to achieve a decent moderate outcome.

I believe this is the message our CWB election has for Canada.

[Fransisco]

Sorry but I just don't buy into the notion that the majority of farmers support the single desk. The majority of farmers that vote in directors elections, yes, but thats such a small number no one can claim that that's the majority of farmers.

But even if that were the case I say, SO WHAT. If only one farmer wanted out of the system he should be allowed out. Simple majority rule is not how functioning democracies work. Simple majority rule is a recipe for anarchy.

wd9 let me ask you this. Do you think that the Director elctions which have been set up by the CWB, are run by the CWB, and are policed by the CWB are fair and impartial? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the boards own self interest finds its way into the process?

[charliep]

As a correction, the voting list is made up of CWB permit book holders and others who who took the time to fill out the declaration - not farmers. Results are still the same.

[wd9]

Fran, its not what i think. It is what is perceived by those who actually make decisions and can instill change.

From 50,000 feet ie the ones making decisions, all the farmers get ballots, run by a reputable company, everyone gets a chance to vote as mail in is simple. The vote turns out support of single desk 9 to 1.

It matters not what i think, i don't make decisions and my little teeny tiny part occured a few weeks ago on a ballot.

Farmers want the board, fair and square. Perception is reality, the facts are up for debate in most cases. But in this case, perception and the facts point to the same thing. I can't dream of a way arguing against it. Bender certainly couldn't and i respect him, a smart guy, but he has no hook. Good job on the interview Kev, a tough one. Glad you not me.

[charliep]

[URL="http://www.cwbelection.com/voter-eligibility/"]eligibility[/URL]

[charliep]

Perhaps the challenge going ahead is the current board of directors got elected on one issue - single desk. The world is changing interally (farmers are getting used to a whole new world of CWB programs - this is not going to change over the next 4 years) and externally (the potential for a WTO or change of government which has major impact on the CWB operations). Their challenge is leadership and strategic thinking.

[charliep]

Listened to Bob Treadwell, a futurist at ABC annual meeting. His theme was to think what is likely to happen in the future and then have a plan including risk identification/mitigation.

When I put on my forward thinking hat, the biggest changes I see coming to the CWB are governace and corporate structure including developing a contingency fund/equity.

[charliep]

Oops. Bob Treadway (not Treadwell).

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

Goodale set up the Election process... NOT the CWB.

The election is as trustworthy as MNP... which I would respectfully suggest that the outcome is 99 percent reflective of the intent of the CWB Act and the voters who voted in this 2010 election.

There is no change to the election process without Ottawa changing the CWB regulations.

If we need to clean up who has a permit book... and the many landmines that issue would highlight... I would want a bullet proof combine, truck, and tractor before I entered that battlefield. This should however... be done... to have a fair election process.

Then there is the redistribution of Districts to retain a democratic voice for each voter... so we do not have a large voter discrepancy between Districts.

[stubblejumper]

the point of the Star Phoenix editorial was if the majority of producers wanted change all they had to do was vote.