49.5% don't care enought to vote

[chaffmeister]

Say there's only three wheat farmers - you, me and Tom. You produce 90% of the wheat and Tom and I grow 5% each.

And let's say there's a vote to decide whether (1) we can sell to whomever we like or (2) we sell to the CWB only.

Tom and I vote to keep the CWB and you vote for freedom of choice.

But we each get only one vote. So you lose: 2 to 1.

Still think it's fair?

[rbrunel]

So let me get this straight... I gross 1million$ and u gross 100 000$...do I get a million votes for the gov't and u get 100 000 votes?...WoW I think we are on to something...democracy rules... one person one vote..

[TOM4CWB]

brunel;

In a "Free" and "democratic" society, the "Free" part is about freedom to associate and own personal property.

If there is no freedom to associate and own personal property... it is no longer a democracy... it is communism.

Communists always had elections from what I have seen!

[wilagro]

Since when were 'single desk' supporters classed as 'communists'?

You guys are a laugh a minute.

[chaffmeister]

This is for rbrunel and all those in his philosophical camp…..

Social governance (i.e. government) as we know it, is based on social equality – one-vote-one-person because, in theory, we believe people have equal value and possibilities in contributing and influencing government as well as equal social benefit derived from government actions (social benefit, not financial). We all expect and demand it, don’t we? The alternative is a class or caste system where some people are more “socially equal” than others. It would be an autocracy – or one-party rule, dictatorship, etc. Others might call it a Kingdom – he who has the gold, makes the rules. But most of the Western world has outgrown it and has no appetite for it. (So rbrunel, keep your $1,000,000 gross in your pocket for now…..)

Corporate governance is quite different; it’s based on economic equality – one-vote-one-share. Each shareholder gets a block of votes corresponding to his or her economic stake in the corporation. This is not based on the amount of investment in the company – if it was, Bill Gates would have very little influence on his little company Microsoft – most investors have spent on Microsoft much more than Billy ever did. No, it’s the wealth you stand to gain or lose that matters. Billy has a lot to lose – so he gets more of a say in how things are done than others. There are many very good reasons why this system is preferable to the one-vote-one-person system we see in government. (Too many to list here.)

So now we come to the CWB. Is it a government? Or is it a corporation? If the CWB is to be governed on a one-person-one-vote structure, then aren’t we saying it is a social structure, not an economic one? Like a government. But if that’s the case, I should get a vote too – as well as all my friends here in Winnipeg.

But all you guys would say “Hang on – you don’t have a stake in what happens at the CWB!”
And I’d say, “Sure I do – I eat.”
And then you’d say, “That may be true, but we have FAR MORE at stake than you. We actually grow the stuff.”
And then I’d say “But I have a quarter-section just south of town where I grow a bit of barley every now and then. I grow the stuff too. I should get a say – same as you.”

Now some of you would say “That’s cool. You get a vote too.”
And others would say, “Hang on. It wouldn’t matter one bit to you what happened at the CWB – you have that high-payin’ job in town. Farming's just a hobby to you. But for us, this is our business – this is our livelihood.”
And I’d say, “You know – you’re right. You have far more at stake than I do. You should get a bigger voice in how the CWB is run than me.” I’d also say, “I don’t get paid that much – I waste too much time on Agriville….”

Only those with an economic stake in the CWB can vote for directors or vote in plebiscites. That’s the rule. Sounds like corporate governance to me.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck perhaps you should treat it like a duck.

[Vader]

Chaff,

Did you make that argurment to the election review panel.

The debate between the majority and the individual is as old as time. Many structures have evolved to provide a framework for that type of decision making. It is why we have government, laws, constitutions, courts etc.

You can lobby on agri-ville all you want. The constitutional framework we are governed by is the CWB Act. The CWB Act will continue to be the governing framework until the government of the day can get a majority decision in the house of commons which supports a change.

The majority decisions have become abundantly clear through the defeat of the Gerry Ritz private members bill and the CWB Directors elections. I suggest we get on with the evolution of the CWB to take advantage of its strengths, and overcome the weaknesses.

For those of you who still want to spend your days ferreting out the supporting evidence for your conspiracy theories you now have the freedom of information act. Go for it!

[cottonpicken]

Socialist=communist=evil
Socialist=Tommy Douglas=evil
Conservative=macarthism=good
Conservative=Pinochet=good

[chaffmeister]

Vader:

I think I’m allowed to explain my position on these issues without it being misconstrued as lobbying. I post here because I enjoy the discussion – and hopefully I have something of value to contribute. Perhaps you don’t think so, and when I get the feeling that my posts are no longer appreciated, I’ll stop. But in the meantime, when I get sarcasm thrown at me (say, from rbrunel) I think it’s acceptable to respond in a rational and well thought out way.

You want to “get on with the evolution of the CWB”. Perhaps how it’s governed is part of that discussion and evolution. As far as I can see, how it is governed is one of the weaknesses that you are so anxious to tackle. And just because you just had a vote, doesn’t mean you don’t talk about it now. And just because you don't want to discuss it, doesn't give you the right to try to muzzle others.

[JohnKenneth]

your comments are appreciated chaff - don't stop posting!

honestly that description of the social vs. corporate structure of the cwb was great. vader your head's in the sand if you think this doesn't matter - it's the crux of the whole debate! it's what so many people don't underrstand as the underlying unanswered question!

[rbrunel]

Chaff

I hope my sarcasm is sometimes appreciated, it's part of the humor i try to bring to alot of discussions I participate in serious or not if you can't laugh a little why live. I am always open to discussion and debate on the CWB. I would rather build on the CWB platform, with changes then destroy and then try and rebuild, which is what I think is happening now. The biggest thing is that ideologies don't usually work as thought out and so both sides, the open market ideology and monopoly ideology do have some flaws. I think that what the cwb has gone through has been the most destructive thing for the industry and was not necessary to bring change to it. Listening to alot of the comments made on agriville over the past months I can see alot of sense in what both sides are trying to acheive, but am not sure how to bring it all together. I am a realist, have been painted a socialist here( althought I have never considered myself one or voted for one) But as a young farmer I need to wade through this all and try and think of my future. I think it is pathetic that there is a poor turnout. and wonder if the voters list could be made acurate to real producers, maybe there should be a mandatory vote, and a penalty for those who don't vote. hmmmm...In director elections that would give a clearer position of where people stand and want to go. For those pro-marketing people out there, is there a way to have an open market within a monopoly? or for that matter a monopoly within a open market?, (speaking in western canadian term or the market)?
What i don't like about alot of discussion on here is that there are alot of comments made of how people are open to suggestion or debate yet go on a rant or tirade when there position is chalenged. Both sides can only agree to disagree. so how do we move forward? where everyone can stand a chance at winning and being happy? Is one side right and the other one wrong? that is a matter of which side you are on right?

OK so maybe i have ranted a bit. I haven't participate much in any CWB debate on here because there has been no progress made, the situation and discussion had stood still or regressed. maybe we should work on that?

[AdamSmith]

rbrunel,

I believe that in order to move forward there must be an agreement on the facts. In any dispute resolution the first thing that is agreed upon is the facts surrounding the dispute. From there people offer solutions in accordance with the facts.


But with this issue at no time has there been any facts that can be agreed upon so we just endup arguing the same old things over and over. In fact the positions of the cwb will change depending upon the circumstance.

It's like trying to debate with a two year old.


Example: The CWB right now claims they are a self governing corporate body that is why the Minister has no right to gag the cwb, yet the CWB presented to the courts the following;

From a 2005 Federal Court Document Renova Holdings Ltd. et al. v The Canadian Wheat Board

CWB STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

[3] THe defendants seek to strike out the statement of claim on the basis that the Board is accountable only to Parliament and that neither the Board nor the Crown owe any duty to or are accountable to the Plantifs as producers of wheat.

The CWB claim they should be treated as a body corporate when it suits them and then turn around and say the cwb is only accountable to parliament the next day because it suits the purpose that day.

Please tell me rbrunel, How do we get to a resolution under these circumstances?

[parsley]

rbrunel,
You asked:

For those pro-marketing people out there, is there a way to have an open market within a monopoly?

My answer is:

We already have an open market within a monopoly.

Look at Creston-Wyndell farmers. They were in the Designated Area. They constantly shippped their grain across the border.

The CWB worked WITH them, and allowed them to continue shipping across the border. No buybacks needed.

Years later, when the CWB Act was changed, the region of Creston-Wyndell was entirely removed from the DA.

Did the CWB fall apart? no

C-Wyndell farmers have their own buyers, and market their own grain.

Can the area of the Sand Hills in Southwest Saskatchewan, for exaample, begin marketing on their own? Yes, if the CWB will allow them and don't insist on requiring the buyback.

Will the CWB fall apart if these farmers in this area bypass Board marketing? No.

Can the Sand Hills area operate independently if remaining in the DA? Yes, as long as the CWB will issue their export/interprovincial licenses to them, becuse they must have the legal permits.

Can the Sand Hills area be taken out of the Designated Area? Yes. Through legislation

Parsley

[rbrunel]

See..I didn't know that...interesting, now here is another question, is that being considered or lobbied for? is that grain being exported to the US only?

[parsley]

It's a done deal years ago. In fact, CW farmers bypassed the Board for years before they were formally taken out of the DA by Goodale in 1998.

Where CW farmers have their markets is for CW farmers to decide. They function exactly the same as Ontario or New Brunswick farmers. They market to the buyers of their choice.


The point is, bypassing the DA DOES NOT affect Board marketing. Being removed from the DA does not affect Board marketing.

Do you want more examples of those who bypass the Board ?

Parsley

[rbrunel]

parsley
I don't need anymore examples...thanks for the information though.