The following is a letter to the editors of certain western farm newspapers sent by Henry Vos, the elected director of the Canadian
Wheat Board for District 1 in northern Alberta:
The CWB voters list does not accurately reflect the farm community. It gives far too much clout to those who do not depend on farming as their main source of income.
In the 2007-08 crop year, the CWB issued 84,403 permit books. Some suggest that this should be the makeup of the voters list for the CWB elections.
However, 29,538 of these books did not have any deliveries. Of the remaining 54,865 books a large number are “Interested Parties” (i.e., landlords). Many of these people are not active producers but get a share of crop produced on their land.
There are also many permit book holders who have deliveries under 50 tonnes. These are usually operators who have business interests other than farming. Those with deliveries under 50 tonnes represent an additional 12,723 books. This leaves 42,142 permit books holders who one could consider as active producers.
CWB data shows that two-thirds of CWB deliveries are made by less than 12,000 permit books. In fact, 80% of deliveries are made by 18,000 permit books, representing just 21% of total books issued.
If 18,000 farmers account for 80% of our business, it makes one question why the CWB sent out 62,325 ballots during the 2006 and 2008 elections. What it means is that farmers who account for 20% of the deliveries get 71% of the votes! Where’s the fairness in that?
One reason for the excessive number of permit books is because producer car shippers and those with small holdings gain a delivery advantage if their family takes out a number of permit books. This is because the CWB allows every permit book holder to ship out a full producer car (about 100 tonnes) or truck 40 tonnes under the first contract call, even if the percentage under your contract call would be less than these amounts.
For example, if a farmer has 100 tonnes of wheat contracted and the CWB has issued a 25% contract call, the producer car shipper can ship the full 100 tonnes. A farmer with 1,000 tonnes contracted would only be allowed to ship two producer cars (2 x 100 tonnes) plus another 50 tonnes by truck.
This means a family of four that has four permit books and produces 400 tonnes would be able to ship out their entire wheat production by producer car in the fall whereas a 1,000 acre tonne farm with four permit books would only be able to ship out 40% of their production (4 x 100 tonnes). Bear in mind too that large farmers are more likely to be incorporated, in which case they are limited to one permit book.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the right of farmers to ship grain by producer cars. However, I don’t believe these producers should gain a delivery advantage, or more ballots, over those farmers who do not have access to a producer car loading site.
The effect of the CWB election rules is that those with small holdings (many of whom are older farmers who are gradually exiting the business) have a disproportionally large say in CWB elections.
The CWB farmer surveys have consistently shown that older and smaller farmers tend to support the CWB more than younger and larger farmers. In the CWB’s 2006 producer survey there was 20% more support for the CWB from farmers over 65 years of age compared to farmers under age 35. There was also 12% more support for the CWB by farmers under 640 acres than from farmers over 2500 acres.
Why does this matter? The risk to the organization is the Board of Directors does not have a mandate from the active producers of CWB grains. The voters list does not align with the actual producers who raise the majority of the grain. This lack of conformity between voters and actual producers represents a serious threat to the long term interest of producers and the long term best interests of the CWB. The risk is the organization moves on a track that is not in a direction that meets the needs of current and future producers. History is littered with many examples of organizations, including animals, organizations, political parties and grain companies that became extinct because they failed to adapt quickly enough to changing circumstances.
I believe it is my duty as a director to ensure we have a mandate from actual producers and continually strive to meet their business needs now and into the future. I think we need to change the voters list to represent active producers. We also need to change the election rules to ensure directors are truly representative of the farmers we are entrusted to serve.
Wheat Board for District 1 in northern Alberta:
The CWB voters list does not accurately reflect the farm community. It gives far too much clout to those who do not depend on farming as their main source of income.
In the 2007-08 crop year, the CWB issued 84,403 permit books. Some suggest that this should be the makeup of the voters list for the CWB elections.
However, 29,538 of these books did not have any deliveries. Of the remaining 54,865 books a large number are “Interested Parties” (i.e., landlords). Many of these people are not active producers but get a share of crop produced on their land.
There are also many permit book holders who have deliveries under 50 tonnes. These are usually operators who have business interests other than farming. Those with deliveries under 50 tonnes represent an additional 12,723 books. This leaves 42,142 permit books holders who one could consider as active producers.
CWB data shows that two-thirds of CWB deliveries are made by less than 12,000 permit books. In fact, 80% of deliveries are made by 18,000 permit books, representing just 21% of total books issued.
If 18,000 farmers account for 80% of our business, it makes one question why the CWB sent out 62,325 ballots during the 2006 and 2008 elections. What it means is that farmers who account for 20% of the deliveries get 71% of the votes! Where’s the fairness in that?
One reason for the excessive number of permit books is because producer car shippers and those with small holdings gain a delivery advantage if their family takes out a number of permit books. This is because the CWB allows every permit book holder to ship out a full producer car (about 100 tonnes) or truck 40 tonnes under the first contract call, even if the percentage under your contract call would be less than these amounts.
For example, if a farmer has 100 tonnes of wheat contracted and the CWB has issued a 25% contract call, the producer car shipper can ship the full 100 tonnes. A farmer with 1,000 tonnes contracted would only be allowed to ship two producer cars (2 x 100 tonnes) plus another 50 tonnes by truck.
This means a family of four that has four permit books and produces 400 tonnes would be able to ship out their entire wheat production by producer car in the fall whereas a 1,000 acre tonne farm with four permit books would only be able to ship out 40% of their production (4 x 100 tonnes). Bear in mind too that large farmers are more likely to be incorporated, in which case they are limited to one permit book.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the right of farmers to ship grain by producer cars. However, I don’t believe these producers should gain a delivery advantage, or more ballots, over those farmers who do not have access to a producer car loading site.
The effect of the CWB election rules is that those with small holdings (many of whom are older farmers who are gradually exiting the business) have a disproportionally large say in CWB elections.
The CWB farmer surveys have consistently shown that older and smaller farmers tend to support the CWB more than younger and larger farmers. In the CWB’s 2006 producer survey there was 20% more support for the CWB from farmers over 65 years of age compared to farmers under age 35. There was also 12% more support for the CWB by farmers under 640 acres than from farmers over 2500 acres.
Why does this matter? The risk to the organization is the Board of Directors does not have a mandate from the active producers of CWB grains. The voters list does not align with the actual producers who raise the majority of the grain. This lack of conformity between voters and actual producers represents a serious threat to the long term interest of producers and the long term best interests of the CWB. The risk is the organization moves on a track that is not in a direction that meets the needs of current and future producers. History is littered with many examples of organizations, including animals, organizations, political parties and grain companies that became extinct because they failed to adapt quickly enough to changing circumstances.
I believe it is my duty as a director to ensure we have a mandate from actual producers and continually strive to meet their business needs now and into the future. I think we need to change the voters list to represent active producers. We also need to change the election rules to ensure directors are truly representative of the farmers we are entrusted to serve.
Comment