Cwb wants farmer vote.

[monte]

I was reading a story where the cwb is promoting
farmer controlled.

Does the government have the power to end the
monopoly?

[parsley]

Yes it does

[FarmRanger]

Farmer control would imply the ability to say no.
Hopefully we will soon have that control.

<i>"Does the government have the power to end
the monopoly?"</i>
The question is do they have the willingness. So
far, so good.

[furrowtickler]

Great, give us a vote, no more old age pensioners - one tone/vote, no more dead land owners, clean this crap up - it will be fair this time. I am so sick of my wife's grandma getting a vote when she is sure that John D is still in power for the NDP, Elvis still lives and the moon landing just happened last week. And there are thousands like her who still get a f%^king vote!!!!!.

[TOM4CWB]

Cwb wants farmer vote

Fair enough... vote with truck.

[mbratrud]

Find myself agreeing with Tom. Make it voluntary and then farmers will vote with their trucks.

[RedRiverMB]

Repeal the CWB ACT, then you have no legal issues.
Parliament is supreme at the end of the day.

[bucket]

Oberg is a staunch socialist. He knows that the cwb can only be change through an act of parliament but still figures he is above the government.

Those assholes on the board along with the cwb alliance will spend a small fortune of farmers money taking this through the courts instead of trying to make the cwb more appealing to farmers.

I guess they don't know what the word compromise means.

[BreadWinner]

Sick of the vote, get me free from this CWB crap. Conservatives do it now then by next election all farmers will know that the CWB was a sham.

[parsley]

RedRiver, I agree. But in the interim, the Minister could for example, declare that CWB licensing duties be handed over to Canada Customs, and also order Customs to automatically approve all farmer export applications.

End of CWB Export Licensing Department. End of monopoly.

The CWB can throw a farmer in jail because he has no export license.
If the CWB won't give him the license, the CWB are in control of the monopoly.

With the CWB Act in place, and not yet repealed, the only piece of paper necessary for getting around the monopoly is for the export license to be issued. Trade and Commerce could do it. Or foreign Affairs. Or Customs.

.

[tipsy]

Bucket your comment sums up the last 25-30 years of the cwb very nicely.
When the advisory board was created in the early to mid 80's, if there was any common sense with those directors or the directors that followed this issue would have gone away long ago.

[jensend]

so if you want greater right to self determination are you also willing to give up government subsidies to grain farmers?

[silverback]

The government is forcing subsidization for certain sectors of agriculture by the citizens of canada - supply management.

The cwb and it's unnecessary regulations need to be gone. Period.

[bucket]

Of course the cwb wants another vote, then they can send more ballots to dead people to vote. It happened last cwb election. When you send a vote to an estate you really have to wonder about the election coordinator and the cwb's ethics.

[Fransisco]

http://cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/2011/05/leadership-and-single-desk.html

Leadership and the Single Desk

Like Hank Williams Jr. says, it’s all over but the crying. The Conservatives got the majority that they wanted and needed. So now one of the key questions for Western Canadian farmers will be what is the future of the Canadian Wheat Board?


One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb for me was the reminder that the results of CWB director elections and federal elections don’t seem to be consistent. I say “reminder” because this isn’t the first time this has happened.


Last night, in the federal election, 67% of the rural voters in the CWB Designated Area favoured the Conservatives whose platform included giving farmers the right to choose who they sell wheat and barley to (in other words, making use of the CWB voluntary by removing the single desk monopoly). Provincially, Conservatives won handily in all three prairie provinces; 70% in Manitoba, 57% in Saskatchewan and 76% in Alberta. By all accounts, a resounding endorsement of the Conservative platform. Even though the other federal parties argue that, because the Conservatives have only 40% of the National popular vote, 60% voted “against” Harper and his Conservatives, that can’t be said in the CWB designated area. With 67% of the rural vote, it can be said that only 33% don’t agree with the Conservative platform.


To compare, in the last CWB election (last fall), 57% of the votes in the final round went to single-desk minded candidates (those that want to protect and keep the single desk). Individually, the single-desk minded directors won with the following share of the votes cast: Stewart Wells (55%), Allen Oberg (64%), Kyle Korneychuk (57%), and John Sandborn (66%).


A couple of questions come to mind:


Where were all the CWB single desk supporters during federal elections? For example, those that want to keep the single desk view MP David Anderson and CWB Minister Gerry Ritz with contempt for their efforts to reform the CWB, yet these two MPs won their ridings handily by a margin of 70% and 67% respectively.


And where were all the open market supporters during CWB elections? David Anderson’s riding overlaps a great deal with Stewart Wells’ CWB district. Although David Anderson won with 70% (20,560 votes), Stewart Wells won his CWB election – although only 54.6% (1,872 votes), he still won. Clearly, many, many farmers voted for David Anderson knowing his view of the CWB, yet didn’t seem to be interested in voting for a similarly minded CWB director.


It needs to be said that any political party has more than one plank in its platform (perhaps with the exception of the Green Party) and that voters respond to more than one issue. The gun registry, health care, job creation, and the economy all come to mind. All very important issues – but isn’t the CWB an important issue on the prairies? You’d certainly think so during the CWB director’s elections. In fact, the singled-desk minded candidates ran on the main plank of keeping the single desk monopoly because it is deemed so important in ensuring farmers get the best value from their production.


The CWB seems to believe that CWB director elections are more relevant to the single desk issue than federal elections. Immediately following the federal election, the CWB released a statement. In it, the CWB states:


“The same important democratic principles that determined yesterday's federal election also apply to farmers' decisions on grain marketing. Prairie producers have been clear that they should determine the future of the CWB as their marketing organization. Through a sound democratic election process, they have chosen their representatives on the CWB's board of directors since 1998.
"Farmers have the right to continue to make the decisions themselves about the role and structure of their marketing approach. The path forward must be forged in clear accordance with their wishes.
"This issue is crucial to farmers' livelihoods, to the economic stability and competitive viability of Canadian wheat and barley exports, and to the spirit of democracy."


Even though the CWB acknowledges that it plays a role in the “economic stability” of the prairies, CWB elections are restricted mainly to CWB permit book holders. Many other commercial farmers, growing a wide variety of different crops are shut out of the CWB elections, unless they choose to hop through the administrative hoops needed to just get a ballot. Since they believe they are farming around the CWB as it is, why would they even bother?


The future of the CWB should not be left in the hands of CWB permit book holders only. Beyond the obvious possible issues around a list maintained only by the CWB itself, the greater issue is that the CWB clearly affects all farmers and most people in the Designated Area. Even those farmers who believe they are “farming around the CWB” by growing only non-CWB crops are affected by the CWB. If democracy rules the day, they too should have a say in the future of the CWB.


Since the CWB has a direct effect on the financial results of farmers, it has an impact on all other people who choose to make the prairies their home; local implement dealers, elevator employees, shop keepers, machine shop operators, school teachers, truck drivers, municipal employees, and so on. The “important democratic principles” that Mr. Oberg talks about apply to everyone that the CWB touches. The federal election results should play a greater role than CWB director elections in deciding the future of the CWB, not the other way around.


One definition of leadership is making tough decisions and taking appropriate action even though it may be unpopular by many. With a lack of evidence that the CWB provides value beyond its costs, and with a very clear mandate in the CWB Designated Area, the new Conservative government should use its new majority and amend the CWB Act to make it voluntary.