I started this thread back in Feb. I received this reply from Rod Flaman. From the way Rod skirts around this I'm sure he is headed on to politics. Nice to know that he agrees that actual producer should have the say in director elections. No reply from the BOD.
Ormond,
I received your letter of Feb 02.
I note your recommendation to allow one vote per acre to be shared between landlord and tenant to be shared based on the percentage of crop share. ie. on 1000 acres rented on a one third/two third basis - landlord casts 333 ballots and the producer casts 667 ballots.
I agree that the actual producer should have the right to participate in the CWB election process. In fact I would point out that this has some similarity to the idealogy on which producers share the markets for board grains. Each producer shares each market to which the CWB sells based on a proportionate share of their production.
Your last paragraph says that the system you are suggsting "would give all producers, including landlords, and equal say in the CWB director elections." In fact this would not give all producers and landlords an equal say. Do you mean that this would give all producers and landlords a fair say? an equitable say? Certainly I struggle with the idea that a quarter section hobby farmer might have an equal say as a 10,000 acre farmer as to the running of the agricultural business and the associated policy in the prairie provinces. I would point out that it is conceivable that in any community that 1/4 section farmer might contribute equally to the provincial and federal taxation system, the local school, local grocery store, the local church and other community based activities.
I myself am a small farmer and could not exist without income from sources other than grain farming. I was once at a meeting where the provincial minister of agriculture was speaking. After the meeting the minister asked me if the province should give funding to large farms. It was interesting that he asked that instead of the question as to whether small farms should be funded. It makes you wonder what idealogy he was struggling with. Do we serve people or do we serve the industry? How many farmers will survive the shake out? When I farmed 2200 acres I thought that I was a large farmer. I could not sympathize with a 1/4 section farmer at that time. I must admit I feel somewhat differently now. Even if I were still farming 2200 acres I would no longer feel like a large farmer. Large farms are now 10,000 acres plus. Large farms in Brazil are 35,000 acres.
How long will the 2000 acre farmer be viable? How many communities can rural Saskatchewan support if the average farm size is 10,000 acres. I am concerned about the number of farm auctions upcoming this spring. I am not sure if the numbers are up but the trend is obvious. My great grandfather homesteaded in 1906. My sons will not come back to the farm. They are moving to Alberta or beyond. Shall we abandon Saskatchewan to the corporate farm? I believe that this is a discussion that should take place throughout rural Saskatchewan, within various producer associations, commodity groups, and certainly at the CWB board table. If we serve farmers as our primary stakeholders we should be analyzing who they are today and who they will be in five, ten or fifteen years. If the decline is to continue then are those farmers who are projected to leave the industry legitimate stakeholders? Should they be encouraged to leave in the most approriate fashion? Should they be allowed to have a negative impact on those who are most likely to remain? This is a debate that is not taking place. The question that you raise is at the heart of this debate and without bringing it squarely into the midst of the public forum I don't think that creative solutions will take place.
I did bring your concern about CWB Director elections to the board table. There was no support for a change to the existing process. I welcome your further comments.
Rod
Ormond,
I received your letter of Feb 02.
I note your recommendation to allow one vote per acre to be shared between landlord and tenant to be shared based on the percentage of crop share. ie. on 1000 acres rented on a one third/two third basis - landlord casts 333 ballots and the producer casts 667 ballots.
I agree that the actual producer should have the right to participate in the CWB election process. In fact I would point out that this has some similarity to the idealogy on which producers share the markets for board grains. Each producer shares each market to which the CWB sells based on a proportionate share of their production.
Your last paragraph says that the system you are suggsting "would give all producers, including landlords, and equal say in the CWB director elections." In fact this would not give all producers and landlords an equal say. Do you mean that this would give all producers and landlords a fair say? an equitable say? Certainly I struggle with the idea that a quarter section hobby farmer might have an equal say as a 10,000 acre farmer as to the running of the agricultural business and the associated policy in the prairie provinces. I would point out that it is conceivable that in any community that 1/4 section farmer might contribute equally to the provincial and federal taxation system, the local school, local grocery store, the local church and other community based activities.
I myself am a small farmer and could not exist without income from sources other than grain farming. I was once at a meeting where the provincial minister of agriculture was speaking. After the meeting the minister asked me if the province should give funding to large farms. It was interesting that he asked that instead of the question as to whether small farms should be funded. It makes you wonder what idealogy he was struggling with. Do we serve people or do we serve the industry? How many farmers will survive the shake out? When I farmed 2200 acres I thought that I was a large farmer. I could not sympathize with a 1/4 section farmer at that time. I must admit I feel somewhat differently now. Even if I were still farming 2200 acres I would no longer feel like a large farmer. Large farms are now 10,000 acres plus. Large farms in Brazil are 35,000 acres.
How long will the 2000 acre farmer be viable? How many communities can rural Saskatchewan support if the average farm size is 10,000 acres. I am concerned about the number of farm auctions upcoming this spring. I am not sure if the numbers are up but the trend is obvious. My great grandfather homesteaded in 1906. My sons will not come back to the farm. They are moving to Alberta or beyond. Shall we abandon Saskatchewan to the corporate farm? I believe that this is a discussion that should take place throughout rural Saskatchewan, within various producer associations, commodity groups, and certainly at the CWB board table. If we serve farmers as our primary stakeholders we should be analyzing who they are today and who they will be in five, ten or fifteen years. If the decline is to continue then are those farmers who are projected to leave the industry legitimate stakeholders? Should they be encouraged to leave in the most approriate fashion? Should they be allowed to have a negative impact on those who are most likely to remain? This is a debate that is not taking place. The question that you raise is at the heart of this debate and without bringing it squarely into the midst of the public forum I don't think that creative solutions will take place.
I did bring your concern about CWB Director elections to the board table. There was no support for a change to the existing process. I welcome your further comments.
Rod
Comment