Option 2 is "Advice to the Minister"

[parsley]

Vader,
This morning OSPG was asked to do an exhaustive search for exact information and these are the results:

The executive director of OSPG's search found:
1. Rod Flaman has never been a member of OSPG
2. Rod Flaman has never submitted an OSPG membership form
3. Rod Flaman has never paid the required membership fee.

4. No donations from Rod Flaman are listed on OSPG financial statements.

5. The only association Rod Flaman has had with OSPG is he is in a press release dated June 15, 2000.

6. I am going to guess that Rod Flaman was not even certified organic at that time, and may not even be today.

7. Rod Flaman circulated many letters, (some of which are very personal thoughts and will remain so as a courtesy)throughout the farm community, during this period of time, and included this particular buyback-problem snapshot.

8. John Husband would not include Rod Flaman's name on a press release without Flaman's permission. It simply would not happen.

9.Because it is 7 years ago, we do not have "permission notes" jotted down when asking "Will you...", but we do have the original fax-copy of the letter from the Canadian Wheat Board answering Rod Flaman's frustration, which Flaman sent us.

Flaman is quoted in the OSPG Press Release and listed as a Contact to answer questions about his buyback problem with the media, and he would have been a willing participant.

10 John Husband has been very particular about the legitimacy of the membership of OSPG, because he has always been aware that a group of 160 organic producers who's sole membership and association purpose is to pursue marketing choice would be attacked. He is exact about his words and wording.

Flaman, as of today, remains a NON-MEMBER of OSPG.

I will be gone for the day, Vader, but I can answer any more of your questions tonight.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, such a strong defence. You are obviously the caretaker of all things OSPG.

I don't care what records OSPG keeps. My view is that OSPG is largely a figment of your and John's imagination. I am not aware of any useful function that it performs other than your own person anti-CWB lobby vehicle. I stand by what I said about Johns offer to make me a member of OSPG to inflate its membership. It was a very long time ago and I did not take notes. It was a brief telephone converstaion. You can call me a liar if you like.

[parsley]

Good Morning Vader,

1. Ken Reischke, an organic farmer from GlenEwen, Saskatchewan, not I, has always managed the financial and membership records of OSPG since it's inception in 1996, so he deserves the credit for this dedicated work and purpose-committment.

Both Ken and his wife spent time yesterday morning researching the archival records and bank statements in order to verify whether or not Rod Flaman is currently, or ever was a member, which is the only way to address Flaman's accusation that he was falsely-listed as a member.

Flaman never was.

Surely this will put to rest this kind of intimidation tactic

2. Useful function? OSPG is a voluntary self-funded organization wanting marketing choice, with over 160 organic farmer-members from all the Designated Area region.

Please read that again.

It is an anti-CWB lobby vehicle! Each organic member paid a membership fee, signed their name on the application form , and joined OSPG.

Each one of them understand a)the CWB do not want our unified voice being voiced and b)will try to alienate each one of us from the other.

OSPG was formed in 1996, and has been active for 11 years. OSPG has appeared before the Standing Committee of Agriculture, met with the CWB Directors, made a presentation to the Western grain Marketing Panel etc. I am a member of OSPG, but I have not been the spokesperson or representative at any of these appearances, so once again, you are accusatory, but misinformed.

3. Other than being contacted for one press release concerning buybacks, Mr. Flaman has had no other association with OSPG.

As for credibility, I will leave it to Agri-villers to pass their own judgement about both the credibility and consistency of the positions Mr. Flaman adopts, as well as the professionlism with which he articulates his positions.

The credibility of the CWB with regards to the handling of organics is bankrupt.

4. The CWB should be interested in producer-association views and input, and instead of trying to discredit them,and trying to alienate them, and trying to intimidate them, the CWB should be encouraging producers to express improvements, and initate solutions via their groups.

According to both Mr. Korneychuck and Mr, Flaman, both of them stated very clearly, that THE BUYBACKS ARE A PROBLEM.

OSPG identified buybacks as the problem in 1996, and they remain as the CWB's most acute problem today, which reflects the problem-solving ability and effectiveness of the elected Directors during the past decade.

5. What is the Result?

Every producer has a family member,a friend, a neighbor, who inevitably observes three tactics the CWB always resorts to and employs:
1)humiliation,
2)alienation,
3)intimidation,

It only results in turning the CWB's long-standing support AWAY from the Board.

The movement away from 'supporting the Board' to condemning the Board' will continue to landslide if the CWB does not respond to farmers.

Directors elected to represent farmers would be wise to respect farmers.


If you have any futher questions, Vader, I will be home tonight.

Parsley