CWB Takes $$$ from Pooling Accounts for Liberal Fundraiser!

[parsley]

According to an article by Les Perreaux in today's National Post, this is what CWB staff say!

".... Jim Pietryk, a board spokesman, said the $4,000 was not a political donation but an "entry fee for the purposes of doing business."Mr. Pietryk said that evolving independence of the board has forced it to lobby government like many private enterprises."

"This was an entry fee to meet MPs on board business related to the marketing of wheat and barley," said Mr. Pietryk, who attended the dinner. "The cost was far less than what it would take to travel to Ottawa to meet with these MPs."

The cost of the dinner was $400.00/plate. What about dinners costing $25,000.00/plate?

The CWB cannot be allowed to go into farmers' pooling accounts to pay for political fundraisers.

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

1. So they go to a Liberal fundraising dinner to meet MPs. I've been to these types of dinners (in fact, I was invited to the one a couple of years ago where Chretien made his infamous attempt at a joke about the use of pepper spray). Other than small talk with whomever you end up standing next to in the lineup to the bar before the dinner starts, you spend the evening talking to those at your own table. Did the CWB buy ten tickets because that made up a table? (Often corporations will "buy a table".) If so, it could be that they spent the majority of the evening talking among themselves. And listening to Emperor Chretien, of course. The chance of getting any real face-time with MPs in a throng of 400 others trying to do the same thing is remote.

I hope they are not saying that they need to go to a Liberal fundraiser to talk to their own minister, Ralph Goodale - or even Lyle Vanclief! Ralph has shown himself to be a forceful and vocal supporter and promoter of CWB issues at cabinet (or so I'm told) - shouldn't the CWB directors deal with government via Ralph? Isn't that his job?

2. They say that they are forced to lobby government like many private enterprises. What are they lobbying for? Again, where's Ralph on this?

3. They say that the $4,000 was not a political donation but an "entry fee for the purposes of doing business." What business? I don't care what they say it was for, there is no way around the fact that it IS A POLITICAL DONATION. That $4,000 goes directly to the Liberal party - no where else (excpet maybe $250 to the convention centre for the meals). I admit that these expenses are often seen by many as a "business expense", but never does anyone try to say it's not a political donation.

4. "The cost was far less than what it would take to travel to Ottawa to meet with these MPs." Early in May - only one month ago - CWB Director Larry Hill was in Ottawa making a presentation to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, a committee of 18 MPs from all parties (plus a list of 98 "associate members" - all MPs). On March 20th, Larry Hill (again) was in Ottawa to present to the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment (a committee of nine MPs). On Nov 1 of last year, Greg Arason and Ken Ritter were Ottawa to present to the Standing Committee on Agriculture (if my memory serves me, about 20 MPs). Before that, it was Ken Ritter in June - Standing Ag Committee again. You can be sure that when they are in Ottawa they do more than just go to the meeting, make their presentation and leave - they should have individual meetings as well. Comparatively more effective face-time than at a dinner!

So, why is it they needed to go to this dinner? And why would they say it's cheaper than going to Ottawa when they got to Ottawa all the time?

The best thing for the CWB to do now is to admit it was a mistake. And not try to defend itself by saying it's something it's not.

[shawaj]

Words cannot discribe how rotten that is. We must get rid of this holdover from the soviet era (CWB)and move to a system of freedom of choice.

[TOM4CWB]

Chafmiester, well put!

Saying, "We made a mistake, we are sorry.", and making the directors pay personally, since they made the decision to go themselves, would go a short way on the long journey of rebuilding integrity at the CWB!

Or were they secretly ordered by a "higher power" to show up, hence all the cover up?

[parsley]

Some of the CWB Directors have broken their own Code of Conduct in two areas:

#1
" II Policy
B. "Members of the Board who are appointed by the Governor-in-Council
shall not represent the CWB in making financial or other contributions
to political organizations or any other candidates seeking election to
government at any level in Canada. "

Mr.Zinger was appointed to the CWB by Minister Goodale,and attended the Liberal fundraiser in Winnipeg paying $400.00 out of the wheat accounts.

#2
C. Political Activities
"Partisan politics must not be introduced into the workplace in any way
which creates undue or inappropriate influence on employees within the
CWB"

In this case, six CWB Directors attended with four staff.

Parsley

[parsley]

Re $$ for Liberal Dinner... If the $4000 is what was spent to get in the good books with the liberal party then perhaps there should be an inquiry as to how the liberal party does business. Looks like a shake down to me or maybe there are Costa Nostra contacts?

[parsley]

Good Morning Crusader,

Take a look at what your elected Board of Directors does in the Board room (I understand James Chatenay from Alberta does not approve of paying to touch the hem of a politician, but the rest of them militantly defend the policy)

The April 2001 version of the CWB's Board of Directors Code of Conduct is written like this:

"In order to ensure its independence and objectivity, the CWB will not use corporate funds, goods or services as a contribution to political parties, candidates, or campaigns".

We can see that in April 2001, they didn't yet pay politicians with your money but in May 2001 they took that sentence out of the Code of Conduct and put this one in its' place:

"The Board and individual directors will comply with the Political Donations Policy adopted by the Board."

This change was never posted on the website, or put in GrainMatters. Chairman Ritter never made an announcement out of his $2.3 Million communications budget, nor did the Public Relations Professionals at the CWB send out a press release even though the policy goes from not giving $$$to politicians to giving $$$$to politicians. With farmers' money.

It was kept nice and quiet.

Crusader, that's what you're dealing with . Every farmer who is going to cast a ballot in the CWB elections this fall should take one look at every encumbent Director who defended that policy and make damn good and sure you vote for somebody else. Farmers can toss them out.

Parsley

[wedino]

Parsley, Remember to campaign the landlords as well. Farmers are not the only ones allowed to vote. Here is a copy of a letter from Ritter. I had asked for a copy of board meeting minutes as I wanted to see if a motion had been made in this regard. Seems to me that board members may be in conflict of interest with this landlord eligibility issue. Might they be thinking that by removing landlord votes they may in fact be reducing their chances of re election?

The Canadian Wheat Board
La Commission canadienne du ble
May 31, 2002
Dear Mr. W---:
In reference to your letter dated May 4,2002, the Board of Directors of the CWB considered the issue of voter
eligibility and a weighted ballot as part of the election review last year and determined that no change should be
recommended to the federal government at current time. However, the Board will continue to monitor the
appropriateness of the eligibility rules for future elections.
Regarding your request to subscribe to the minutes of the Board of Director meetings, I regret that this is not
possible since the minutes often contain reference to commercially sensitive or strategically relevant info.
However you may be aware that Directors host Corporate Accountability meetings annually where we report on
Board activities. Directors also attend numerous farm meetings - throughout the year where we update our
fellow farmers on Board policies and initiatives. You may also contact your director directly to share your thoughts
and ideas.
Again, thank you for your letter.
Yours truly,
Ken Ritter
Chair, Board of Directors

[parsley]

Wedino, just host a Corporate Accountability meeting in your own kitchen with your neighbor over a cup of coffee during the elections. Run off a copy of the posting with the Code of Conduct before and the C of C after the quiet revision. Ask them to vote how they think is best for farmers in the long run. Ask them if they want money from their pools going to political parties. Ask them if they want the encumbent doing more of the same thing, only making more of an effortt to get to know the 'Higher' class of politicians by attending the $25,000.00/plate fundraisers.

Decent hard working people will know what to do.

Parsley

[dalek]

It's getting so you have to spend money in these kinds of ways to have access to your own politicians. For example, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture inquired into getting an opportunity to speak to the convention of Rural Municipal politicians (can't remember if it was the Ontario association or Canadian). Now, you'd think politicians representing rural municipalities would welcome an opportunity to speak to the organization representing most of Ontario's farmers with all the issues municipalities have had downloaded on them. BUT, for the OFA to have an opportunity to speak for 30 minutes at this conference, they would have had to spend $30,000 to buy the time. Little wonder the only speakers were corporate.

[parsley]

dalek, your example would be similar to likening the Western Canadian Barley Growers Association wanting to speak to the Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities Association. Is that a voluntary-funded group wanting to speak to a tax-funded group? Maybe the National Ballet of Canada applied to speak as well., and a thousand other groups.

The CWB situation does not parallel your comparison. Parliament provides in their legislation for an appointed CWB Minister who directly reports to the Government of Canada. Parliament does not appoint a Cargill MInister, nor a Con-Agra Minister, but it does appoint one for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Honourable Ralph Goodale was appointed Minister of the Canadian Wheat Board! The Minister's job IS the CWB! The Minister has a legal obligation to lend his ear to the CWB. Sorry, dalek, the CWB does not need to pay for access to their exclusively appointed. Minister. Just pick up the damn phone. The Queen appoints the Governor -General. Does the Government of Canada lobby the Queen to have access to the Gov General?

Parsley

[dalek]

Parsley, I'm not trying to say it's right, but it IS the way things are going and we have to be ready to work against it in all sorts of areas. I live just outside Vanclief's riding: Guess what? He barely speaks to the ag groups in his own riding, whose leaders he grew up with. But if you want to spend $100 or more a plate to go to a Liberal fundraiser he'll be there. He went to the OFA convention banquet last year, spoke for 10 minutes (you could probably predict his speech word for word) and refused to take any questions, from an organization representing 43,000-ish farms

[parsley]

Good Morning dalek and a Happy Father's Day to you and all Fathers!

It seems as if CWB staff and the CWB Farmer Directors have evolved to the point where they see the Government and the Liberal Party as the same thing. They are not and it is a crucial differentiation. Minister Goodale is appointed by a Government representing Parliament. That Government happens to be Liberal at the moment but that can change overnight.

The Directors, with the exception of Chatenay it seems, recognize him as a Minister representing the Liberal Party of Canada. That's why they want to go to LIberal Party of Canada functions. It is the farmers' duty to remind them in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable. It is not acceptable if they attend Liberal or Canadian Alliance or Rhinocerous Party "do's" either. The Board of Directors have lost their way and that can be the result of:

1. MInisterial influence or ministerial influence by appointed Directors.(Mr. Zinger openly broke his Code of Conduct)
2. Weak chairmanship or a dull-witted chairman
3. Political bias by individual directors that results in dysfunctionality or an unwillingness to differentiate between Government function and partisan politics function.
4. Lack of basic understanding of responsibilities by this board.
5. Some CWB staff with deep partisan roots manipulating the Board of Directors or actually running the Board of Directors. (In the National Post interview, , staff Jim Pietryk was speaking very militantly and speaking for the Board of Directors. A staffer? Wow.)
6. A self-interest Board. ( Director Rod Flaman indicated he would have attended the fundraiser had he been asked. Would it be because he likes to attend functions like this? Certainly his election platform was a dual marketing platform, hardly one that the Liberal Party of Canada supported in their Red Book, so there would be little reason for Flaman trying to touch the hem of a Liberal at the Fundraiser.)

Which do you pick dalek....all of them?

Parsley

[dalek]

Being from Ontario, I don't know that much about the CWB in particular, but judging from other boards, all of them wouldn't surprise me. By the way, I won't be a father until early December, just in time for Christmas, but catch me next year. Happy Father's Day

[parsley]

Chaffmeister says, "The best thing for the CWB to do now is to admit it was a mistake."

They still haven't!

Here is what the Chairman of the CWB, Ken Ritter, states at the Standing Committee of Agriculture on June 6, 2002

" Insofar as our ethical code of conduct, we are of the view that we have not breached that code of conduct as an organization. We had a very clear, full airing and discussion and decision around this issue. We felt it was in the best interests of farmers, that it was money well spent. Like I said, it's impartial. Our policies are impartial; they apply to all political parties. We made the decision that it was important that producers be represented at this event, and we acted accordingly."

But again, the CWB are not stating the truth. The Code of Conduct was broken in several places.

#1. Read what the Code of Conduct says and then read what they did. Here is the first way they are in direct contravention of their Code of Conduct:

"Members of the Board who are appointed by the Governor-in-Council shall not represent the CWB in making financial or other contributions to political organizations or any other candidates seeking election to government at any level in Canada. "

Mr. Ed Zinger is Minister Goodale's appointee and he attended the Liberal Party fundraiser. He represented the CWB and sat at a CWB table paid for by Prairie farmer's.

#2. This is the second way they are in contravention of their Code of Conduct:

"Partisan politics must not be introduced into the workplace in any way which creates undue or inappropriate influence on employees within the CWB"

In this case, four staff went with six CWB to attend a political fundraiser and this is extremely partisan.

The Directors did not follow the Code of Conduct and yet Mr. Ritter says " "Insofar as our ethical code of conduct, we are of the view that we have not breached that code of conduct as an organization"

" Of the view"? Wouldn't most farmers define this as lying?

You can read the full text of the Standing Committee on:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/AGRI/Meetings/Evidence/agriev73-e.htm

Parsley