Are CWB directors elections intended to be referendums on the Monopoly?

[AdamSmith]

thalpenny says in the Port Gossip thread "if farmers collectively decide to end the monopoly, you'll be out. That's who has the power.

I'm not sure I agree with that, the Minister and the Federal Gov't still have ultimate authority over CWB legislation and the CWB Act.

But leaving that aside for right now, I will agree that Ralph Goodale wants it that way, so for the time being your right.

With that said, when and how is that collective decision to be made?

Are the CWB directors elections actually supposed to be referendums on the monopoly?

If not when are we going to be given the opportunity to vote on the monopoly?

More farmers voted for "Choice" candidates as their first preference. 15415 first ballot votes for Choice candidates, 14315 first ballot votes for Pro-Monopoly candidates.

What are the rules for conducting a vote?

How does one initiate the whole process?

thalpenny, as it stand today the CWB says it's up to farmers to decide but the CWB themselves refuse to give us the chance to.

Looking for other thoughts here.

AdamSmith

[TOM4CWB]

A challenge to the CWB;

If they believe CWB Act will not allow directors to exempt sales, then show good faith and do an exemption.

What do I mean?

Exempt some organic grain and ungraded grain, and then just see if the courts put a stop to the exemption!

The way Ralphie G. works has been if the courts do not stop a certain action of the CWB, then it is OK.

Well we all know with the Alberta government threatning to demonopolise the CWB the directors must do something to save the CWB, Right?

THey should just do it, and see what Ralphie G. and the Courts do about it!

This way the directors come out smelling like roses, and the blame rests with the government and the courts, like it should!

What do you think about this solution?

[parsley]

Why do we need a vote Adam Smith?

The CWB Act applies to all of Canada.
The CWB can grant or deny export licenses.
They do just that.

They grant licenses to everyone except designated area farmers.
The AcT doesn't say they can pick out a certain group of farmers from a certain area and deny them licenses.
They are just doing it. Beyond their authority.

We already have the legislation that says we can have export licenses.
The CWB just decided not to grant them.
And for that they will pay dearly.
Not legal

What do you want us to vote on?

PS AdamSmith...you say:
"thalpenny says in the Port Gossip thread "if farmers collectively decide to end the monopoly, you'll be out. That's who has the power. "

thalpenny obviously doesn't know or understand that the CWB only has the monopoly because the CWB denies farmers export licenses.

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

parsley, having a vote takes nothing away from all other issues you, Tom4 and others raise. Let those all proceed.

I'm talking about an up or down vote on the monopoly, the legislation now allows grains to be removed from CWB jurisdiction. Let's exploit that legislative process as well. I believe we have the numbers today, to win it.

Vote Question:

Should the CWB retain it's single desk authority in Western Canada?

Yes___ No____


AdamSmith

[wedino]

Adamsmith, Quote>Vote Question:

Should the CWB retain it's single desk authority in Western Canada?

Yes___ No____ <

Let's make the vote fair, only farmers get a ballot. Landlords shouldn't have a vote, after all they are not producing... & let's make it even more fair...let's vote with our acres....Producers only & 1 vote for each acre farmed!

Later.....Cam

[TOM4CWB]

Cam,

THIS VOTE WOULD BE FAR TOO CLEAR, AND FAR TOO FAIR, THE WAY YOU HAVE STATED IT!!!

THIS COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN CANADA, A CLEAR FAIR QUESTION.

IF RALPHIE G. DOESN'T WANT 1 ACRE PER VOTE, THEN THE NEXT FAIREST WOULD BE THAT ALL CANADIANS VOTE, SINCE THEY ARE PAYING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO SUPPORT FOR GRAIN FARMERS BECAUSE THE CWB IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING LOST INCOME!

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE!

[cowman]

Why is it that I got to vote for a director in my area when I've raised not one bushel of grain in over 14 years and never exported any or sold any to the board all my life. My father had a wheat board permit book but hadn't sold any grain to the board for years. So how come they still send me out a ballot? By the way I voted for Chatenay.

[TOM4CWB]

cowman,

This CWB system needs a real overhaul, no question about it!

The saddest part is that were wrong to be voting on what our neighbour does with his or her property.

THis is why the CWB will never be at peace with western farmers, until a voluntary perspective is added to its mandate.

Hope the Alberta gov. can help out with this and then we can get back down to doing productive farming!

[parsley]

cowman,I sure hope the elected directorsdon't simply become salesmen promoting the Board. A good paying JOB. Full time. Usually Directors run their own business, and the Directorship is a duty-job. but with the CWB, no one is accountable...there is no way to check what is going on.....and the trainings, and the in-house information sessions, and the in-camera meetings and on and on.... soon become a per-diem job.

One of the Directors stated at the Standing Committee of Agriculture this month, the following:

"I farm around 5,000 acres right up until this year I decided to rent out a portion of my farm. I'm going to be down to about 3,000. The
board job takes a lot of time. "

I hope we don't end up with "trained" Directors that forget that they are there to serve farmers.
Parsley

[cowman]

parsley:
Well I don't think Jim Chatenay is forgetting why he's there. He campaigned on a dual market and he's pushed for a lot of reforms. Right now he's really promoting the idea of free export permits or buybacks. The thing that kind of bugged me was why do they send me a ballot? How many other people who have no vested interest in barley or wheat got to vote? It sort of makes me wonder how competent the people running the board are.

[TOM4CWB]

Cowman,

Somewhere the CWB permit book system must have you listed as an intrested party who is entitled to a share of grain.

What this means is that your acres are being counted likely in a neighbours permit book, with your name listed in that permit book.

If you really do not have an agreement with anyone, then you could simply write the CWB with the legal land discriptions, and I am sure they would be deleted from any book they are not supposed to be in.

This is a big problem because so many suffixes are in Permit books that many farmers get to vote 3 or 4 times!

The running joke was vote early and vote often!

Quite a way to run the show isn't it?

[parsley]

cowman, you're alive!!! I heard that in the first election, dead people got ballots. Maybe things are improving. Can you imagine the number of ballots that would go to nursing homes, cause grandad still hadn't legally finished handing over the farm?
Chatney does a whale of a job....he listens and writes it down. Some of them seem there to spiel their memorization lesson that the Board has given them. If they do a good job, maybe they get on another something I heard called fivehundredaday committee.
Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Cowman,

I think that Jim Chatenay earns all the $500/ day payments he gets. They sure hassle him to the end for doing what District 2 elected him for, a voluntary CWB, marketing choice.

I am glad that you see fit to use your vote wisely, and now that Rod Flaman is at the CWB Jim at least has someone to second his motions to get them discussed!

Jim and Rod are negotiating to get marketing choice, and I sure appreciate their common sense approach to working through these problems, and dedication to the subject! These guys will be a tuff combination to stop, especially if they stick together!

[parsley]

Flaman is doing a good job. And Chatney with his win margin has proved he's doing a good job. And both work hard to serve those who elected them. Both Chatney and Flaman were elected by constituents who supported choice marketing. Maybe a good thing for the present would be for both their Districts to be able to get no-cost export licenses. Doesn't that seem what those electors indicated they wanted and needed?

Parsley