Federal Government Introduces Legislation

[parsley]

Question:

Maggie, the corporate head lawyer for Axiom Big Toes, is a major shareholder in a farming corporation called LanticOcean, along with her mother, Ma Perkins, and her father and her sister and her brother, her uncle and her cousins, all lawyers by the dozens, but they never see Maggie alone on the farm.

They farm 167 sections of land.

Does Maggie and her lawyer shareholders get a CWB vote? LanticOcean grows the requirements set out.


btw, Lots of pattern baldness in the family, but no pattern stupid.

Parsley

[wilagro]

Any farmer with a Permit Book should be eligible to vote for a CWB director.

What is so terrible about that?

That is the way it USED ro be and should still be even under the semi-divine guidance of Ritz.

[parsley]

Maggie her uncle and her cousins, all lawyers by the dozens, are shareholders and have permit books


In your world, should they have a vote?

[wilagro]

"This legislation will ensure voters in CWB director elections are genuine farmers who have produced at least 120 tonnes of grain in either of the two crop years preceding the election. The Government of Canada intends to have these eligibility requirements in place for the director elections in the fall of 2008."

I'm going to get a rubber stamp made which will say "GENUINE FARMER" and use it on all of my correspondence.

I would dearly love to tell Mr. Ritz what he can do with his "genuine farmer" baloney.

If they are going to restrict voter eligibility why not raise the bar and say that nobody can vote unless they are a card carrying member of the CONservative Party of Canada AND actually grow at least 12000 tonnes of wheat in any given year. That way the RIGHT kind of director would be assured.

[parsley]

What is a genuine farmer?

1. A cow-calf operation who currently grows forage?

2. A Hutterite colony with each member of the colony a permit book holder/

3. A vegetable producer in Nanavut?

4. A member of the Forty-six First Nations Farming Co-op with each a permit book holder/

5. Wives of farmers?

6.Four brother partnership...do wives get a vote?

How do YOU determine who is eligible?

Or do only Wilagro rules apply?

Or only Ritz rules apply?

AND WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE DEYERMINATION AND the stupid wrangling?


That's my point.

Parsley

[parsley]

QUOTE

The Leader-Post
Mia Rabson

Legislation would put restrictions on voters' list

OTTAWA -- Small-time grain farmers from Canada's Prairies will be cut off from voting in elections for the Canadian Wheat Board under new legislation introduced Tuesday by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.

Bill C-57 will restrict the voters' list for the 10 elected members of the board of directors to "actual producers who produced at least 120 tonnes of grain in either of the two previous completed crop years."

Currently there is no production requirement and Ritz said in a statement the changes will ensure only active farmers get a vote, not those who have retired, rented out their land or only grow small amounts of grain as a hobby.

"You earn the right to call yourself a farmer by growing crops, not by filing paperwork," Ritz said in a news release.

Larry Hill, chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, said he isn't sure yet how the change will affect the voters' list.

One hundred and twenty tonnes is not a huge amount of grain, Hill said, but he added that Tuesday was the first he'd heard of the change and the board hasn't had time yet to look at the idea.

The board meets for a regular meeting starting Wednesday and will discuss it then, said Hill.

"We will respond to the minister with what we think," said Hill.

Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter said he wonders why Ritz is introducing this bill now when his other wheat board amendments to open up barley marketing have not even been brought to the House for debate yet.

"I am suspicious of it," said Easter. "I think there is more to this than meets the eye."

Easter said he agrees that only farmers who actually produce grain and deliver it to the wheat board should be allowed to vote.

But he said this government has a poor record in democracy when it comes to the wheat board plebiscite held in 2007.

"I think we have every right to be suspicious now," said Easter.

NDP Wheat Board critic Pat Martin said if this is just about ensuring only actual producers get to vote the production requirement should be much lower.

He said he plans to amend it at committee to be 10 tonnes, not 120 tonnes.

Manitoba farmer Butch Harder, a spokesman for Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, said this is a "draconian" measure that is intended to rig the next elections so the government can put more anti-CWB monopoly directors on the board.

"This restricts the right of the smaller producer to have a vote," he said.

"It says if you're a big producer you have power and if you're small you have none. Are they next going to say people with low incomes shouldn't get to vote in the next federal election?"

Jeff Nielsen, president of the Western Barley Growers Association, which supports the government's bid to end the CWB monopoly, said this measure is welcome.

"This isn't ganging up on the wheat board, this is strengthening it," he said.

But Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union, blasted the amendments to the CWB Act as just another attempt by the federal Conservatives to undermine the single-desk system of marketing of wheat and barley.

"I don't believe it's reasonable at all,'' Wells said of restricting voting in CWB elections to farmers producing a minimum of 120 tonnes over two years.

"The people that are called producers, most of them are legitimate farmers or farmers who have rented out their land ... and are still relying on the income from that land. They have a legitimate financial interest in how that grain is marketed.''
UNQUOTE

[wilagro]

Good posting parsley...that spells it out quite well and gives some excellent viewpoints, pro and con.

[parsley]

You obvioulsy approve of arguing over tonnage amounts as opposed to marketing choice.

Process as opoposed to wealth creation.


Give your head a shake.

The goal should never be about switching the focus to proocess.


Parsley

[wilagro]

parsley: No, I oppose Mr. Ritz changing or making new rules as he goes along in order to please CERTAIN groups of farmers.

He is obviously listening to and heeding certain producer groups but certainly not all.

I'm pretty sure that Ritz went into this job with preconceived ideas as to what was needed and no one can tell me otherwise. Over the years I have read many spoutings of his.

[charliep]

Found it interesting to note that the CWB board of directors has not commented one way or the other (with deal with at today or tomorrow's meeting).

Will also note the arguement some have made that CWB support is not related to size of operation. If you believe this, then removing people who deliver less than 120 tonnes should not have any impact on CWB director election results or farmer surveyed attitude on CWB activities/role.

Will note that the CWB survey in past and the upcoming one have results segrated by farm size, age and a number of other sample (read farmer) characturistics. This survey would answer the question of the impact of this decision.

Perhaps that would have me raise the real issue behind your concerns. Do you believe the CWB system evens up the market power of big and small farmers? Should this be the role of the CWB?

[parsley]

wilagro,

An election promise is not usually called a preconceieved idea, but I can accept the term.

The Conservative Government won the election and one of their election promises was Marketing choice.
Marketing choice.

I am unhappy because we are talking about marketing process.

If I have a choice, I am gone from CWB Marketing channels, and I don't really give a damn if the Voluntary Marketing arm of the Canadian Wheat board require all their participating farmers to dress in drag.


Parsley

[charliep]

Just thought I would toss up the demographics of the 2007 survey (new one released shortly). If you assume the survey sample was developed to accurately reflect the demographics of permit book holders, then you can likely use this to figure out what the change to 120 tonnes minimum will have on the voting list.

From the 2007 survey, 24.5 % of the respondents had less than 640 cultivated acres. Based on a 4 year rotation, would potentially struggle to deliver 120 tonnes of wheat. In the same survery, 10.6 % of farmers grew no wheat, a further 7.2 % grew less than 100 acres. and 20.3 % grew between 101 and 250 acres of wheat. People in these bottom categories would potenially struggle to meet the 120 tonne minimum.

[parsley]

The legislated role of the CWB is twofold:

1. License all wheat and barley moving interprovincially or exported.(Licenses should be freely given)

2. Marketing the grain offered to the CWB.(Do the best job they can do)

If the CWB sticks with their legislation, there is no problem.

I don't want to offer my grain.

If wilagro wants to offer his grain, go for it.


charliep, the CWB doesn't have the capability to issue press releases and chew gum at the same time.The CWB spends farmers money as if it was their slush fund.

That's what this resistance is about...it HAS been their slush fund, and the reckoning is a-comin'

Parsley

[parsley]

charliep.

Until the elevators and the railroads and the cleaning mills are no longer considered "works for the general advantage of Canada", it is important that every farmer can vote. It effects every farmer, not just wheat and barley farmers.

The CWB regs/leg goes hand in hand with that generalworks cgc legislation.

[parsley]

Correction:
That should read cga, not cgc.

Parsley