CWB Election Review Panel Report

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight the CWB election panel report has been released.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/wb-cb/pdf/elect_e.pdf

Comments?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

THis report gets a FAIL grade from me.

It does not respect the assets of those who must; and are forced, to use the CWB.

1.Interested Parties many times have assets that are directly affected by CWB decisions, it is not fair or democratic that they are refused the opportunity to express a democratic opinion.

2. Actual Producers need a weighted ballot to fairly distribute votes on productive capability of growing CWB grains. THis is not dealt with at all.

If the CWB Minister or the CWB think this report resolves the democratic/property rights deficit at the CWB... they will have to have been smoking something!

IMHO Lack of respect for "designated area" grain producers assets is the #1 issue... and continues to remain front and center.

[melvill]

Tom, I admit I'm a little "thick" today - coughing all night takes it toll - but can you expand on your point #1. What, exactly, do you mean by protecting producer assets under point #1 and in your last paragraph?

[TOM4CWB]

Lee;

The foundations of the Common Law system of governance of our society deems the following:

1. The Common Law is based on the Golden Rule, which states;
Do unto others as you would have done unto you,
And the Negative Golden Rule, which states;
Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you;

2. The two fundamental principals of common law:
a) Do not infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
b) Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally.

Now to respect the ownership of assets of others, I must allow them a fair management input into the CWB.

This governance system needs to recognise the grain production assets entities own or control; proportionate to others, analogious to voting shares in a company... the more shares owned, more sphere of influence over the management of the company.

This is the context of respect for assets of entities that must deal with the CWB to market wheat/barley/durum.

Does this help?

[lakenheath]

I don't buy that for one second Tom. You think because you might farm more acres than me that you should have more CWB votes. That is fundamental b.s. No wonder you are in love with the Cargil's of this world. You think that big farms earned their way in this agri-world through free market capitalism and that they deserve more votes because of the magnitude of their success. That is nonsense. Govermnet policy had more to do with farm size then any other factor over the years. Those who got big may or may not be more fortunate than other farmers, but DO NOT have the right to think they have more say in how grain is marketed in Canada with respect to the CWB. Maybe Tom, we should all take IQ tests to determine how many Federal votes we can have in this next election, or better yet have it based on a persons "net assets". Asset based voting we will call it. The fundamentals of common law. The hell with the small guy. What do they matter, right Tom. Heck, let's give Cargill votes. Technically under common law they are a person.

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath;

What if you farm more acres, or have a greater production capability than I have, what then? I believe you should have a greater say in that event.

Is this not fair?

Thou shalt not COVET. The tenth Comandment.

3 people can vote to take a 4th person's assets; does this make it right?

I think not.

[TOM4CWB]

Lee;

On point one, if a weighted ballot were implemented; then a fair distribution of voting would be accomplished.

I have crop share landlords that like the CWB.

DOes this mean I believe they should not be able to vote?

Of course not, they should have a say... relative to their assets and investment in our industry.

Fair is fair, I would expect nothing less from them if our positions were reversed.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you;

AND

Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you.

It is Simple to figure out in my small mind anyway!

Lakenheath;

Read Proverbs, take a look at what the wisest person who ever lived showed; what greedy folks end up with!

We all end up 6 ft under in the end!

The great equalizer!

Justice will prevail!

[carebear300]

The only trouble is that some of us morally aware individuals remember another of the morally and financially corrupt federal governments, the conservatives under Brian Mulroney. And an innocent yet cynical bystander such as myself my think that an old axiom describes the situation to a tee "damned if you and damned if you don't" For what it was worth!!!!!

[MBFarmer1]

Have to stick my nose into this debate a bit I guess. As someone who has some past experience in setting up and running elections on a fairly large scale I believe that the implementation of a weighted ballot will likely never come to pass. Mostly for the simple reason that it could be very hard for the CWB to implement. Sounds easy I know, look in the permit book, add up acres, bang you are done. In reality not so, they will have a database that is many years old, quite large, full of old records, duplication, producers with multiple books, cropshare, incomplete records, etc. Guarenteed someone would get to many votes or too few and would then spend the next several weeks screaming to every possible media outlet that the election is rigged one way or the other and it is all a giant conspiracy. As an administrator....nightmare.

[ivbinconned]

""The Conservative party would have to propose a real alternative, consistent with the Canadian tradition of liberty.""

If they do not ..throw them out. I advocate we treat polititions like babys...change them often!

[TOM4CWB]

MBFarmer1;

THere is a very good alternative:

The CWB issue export licenses the same way to "designated area" grain farmers as they do for everyone else in Canada.

Follow the law of Canada, and the CWB Act as it was done before 1990.

Simple.

Then the CWB can create whatever system they need... everyone is then respected!

Simple.

If a "designated area" grain farmer can sell for - MORE - than the CWB offers, great! Issue an export license.

If a "designated area" grain farmer cannot get more than the CWB is offering... SIMPLE... the farmer will sell to the CWB, and the CWB will not issue an export license.

DONE.

Just as it was done before 1990.

[charliep]

Just as a note, the objective of the panel was to listen to stakeholders, review other factors and put forward some ideas for discussion.

MBFarmer1 - I hear your concerns. If the CWB moves away from government guarantees and towards a contingency fund, how will this impact the structure/election process? It may mean the contingency fund has some sort of equity/share structure (thinking outside the box). Corporations have developed a voting structure based on ownership.

[lakenheath]

Tom please explain, in context to CWB, how 3 voters can "take" the 4th voter's assets. Example please.

[lakenheath]

Also explain to me how coveting and greed came into context in this discussion.

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath;

I was not thinking about corporate structures, because by far the majority of "designated area" farms are in an intergenerational family structure.

Transfer from one generation to the next is continual.

Often the day to day operations are carried out by the younger generation, the older generation holds the financial equity.

Normally the older generation receives some crop share arrangement for income for day to day living expenses.

It is only respectful to honour this investment in our industry by distributing a reasonable vote to these folks.

This is in the giving spirit that the older generation themselves participate in;

By allowing the younger generation the opportunity to farm in the first place!

If you convince many farmers to take this right away, it will be in the context of the 3 people voting away the rights of the fourth...

which is both greedy and coveting... IMHO.

Does this help?