CWB director election reforms

[Jeff Nielsen]

Good day all, Jeff Nielsen here, CWB director for district 2. I fully support what Henry Vos, CWB director in district 1, has written and has brought to light. In a previous thread I have read the comments and have only read a few ideas on how to provide sound basis for reforming the CWB director elections.
Clearly changes must be made, and it would be a lot better if they are done now, rather than just prior to the 2010 odd number district elections. We have seen the government try to make changes just prior to an election and not succeed. By delaying any changes once more, we will no doubt, be faced with the same inadequate process we have now in 2010.
Mr Vos points out how the current system disenfranchises producers of feed grains, pulses and canola, and forces them to sell those commodities to generate cash flow, usually at times of the year when prices may not be best. This ultimately shows the control the CWB has on wheat, durum and malt barley, and how it affects a producers ability to market his/hers other crops.
So my questions to you agri-viller's :
1 - Who should be eligible to vote? what is the minimum requirement? (gross sales? dyed fuel? crop insurance?)
2 - Should there be caps on election spending? be it by the candidate or a third party?
3 - How can the CWB adapt to create and add value to western Canadian agriculture and our producers?
I'll keep it short for now, I know there are many more questions we could ask. If I may, I'd like to see as many as possible responses. Be it for change and support of the current system. And if possible, limit your responses to one each. That way we can get more ideas and move forward, it is our CWB, its our chance to provide direction on how we as producers want the CWB director elections to operate and ultimately how the CWB operates with a strong board of directors.
Thanks Henry for getting the ball rolling!
Jeff Nielsen

[parsley]

Women, blonde, and 5'8 and over, should be the sole voters determining how Western farmers market their grain.

As a side note, we should also determine who will become <p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato"]castratos for our musicals[/URL]</strong></p>

Central planning is so much fun, isn't it? Parsley

[agstar77]

Was that another blonde joke?

[parsley]

And,do you sing?

[pilpilsner]

Get some lawyers and ...oh nevermind.

[HFL]

Perhaps some sort of system whereby people who are declaring income from the sale of grain on their income tax form get a ballot or a ballot for each ten thousand dollars worth of grain sold.( or fifty thousand ) Let the people that actually sell the grain decide who they want to sell it to. To many dead people voting in the director elections now.

[silverback]

125 tonne of wheat DELIVERED in the past 1 YEAR.

Wheat and Malt Barley growers only.

Colonies get 1 vote.

Multiple permit book holders limited to one vote.

Individual contributors to campaigns only.

2 term limit.

[Hopperbin]

I didn't sell any wheat or barley through the board last year, and probably not next year, I still want to vote.

[Hopperbin]

Land owners collecting crop share rent should not get to vote.

[ado089]

I would like to see a three or 5 year average used and ballots based on tonnes delivered. As far as Canadian value adding, it's simple. If the grain is being processed in Canada the board should keep their fingers out of it, stick to managing the export grains only. But above all I would like to see one thing put in place, ACCOUNTABILITY. Targets should be put in place before each year for comparative pricing to the global average, target dates for volume, and projected expenses. If these targets are not hit there needs to be a damn good reason or heads need to role. Also the regs need to be tightened and reformend regarding grading. We're getting robbed blind out here by grain companies and their ever-growing list of reasons to dock grade. Wheat is only used for so many purposes, the only charateristics that really matter are protein, falling numbers and flour extraction yield, with only a few exceptions how it looks doesn't matter.

[TOM4CWB]

Dear Jeff,

THis is kind of like rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

It wouldn't matter the voter process at all... if the CWB obeyed the CWB Act and let all 'board' grains go that were not offered to it... per Section 32 of the CWB Act.

There is no difference between the price inside and outside Canada as per NAFTA... therefore there is no pecuniary benefit.

Lets get on with making the CWb credible and responsible for its actions... and do what should have never been stopped in 1993... allow grain growers to vote with their trucks. Goodale messed the CWB up... it is now up to you and Henry to reverse the mess and fix it.

THis is the only way the CWB will survive long term... you know it... it is your job to create a new CWB that can work for all of us... fairly... in the long term... without discrimination! THat is your duty set forth in the CWB Act.

[Hopperbin]

Good any grain not offered to the CWB should be allowed to sell to highest bidder, any grain offered to the CWB the CWB must market. They should not have a monopoly on export either. I agree to making the CWB competitive and accountable and much more simple to do business with. Basically gotta back up with to the CWB with a truck and load up 90 percent of their garbage and hall it away.

[haveapulse]

Went to the Leonard Cohen concert (which was as good as a bumper crop with high prices) and one of his many memoralbe lines applies: "there is a crack, a crack in everything that's how the light gets in, how the light gets in."

A better voters list would at least validate the elections, and we can ask for accountability and transparency order 10,000 reports on the moribund institution, however only a
dual market would create a competitive market which is necessary for performance of the board.

In a competitive market they must proform, because if they don't we have a choice. which is why Ontario wheat is 1$ higher than ours. At 1$ higher that is 1/2 a billion dollars in lost revenur for wheat alone!

Problem is with the current voters list, how will the light get in?
And that is why it is such an important question.

When I ran in district 5 I spent most of my time talking to retirees who were grateful for my call so they could talk farming for a bit. A retiree had the same vote as a fellow farming 25,000 acres.

I realize that in this last election their was a reveiwe of this list, but based upon what Henry says it it did not go far enough. And so I ask Henry and JEff how can anyone on the board defend this voters list? And if they do please advise us who does? We need to first find the crack, so the light can get in.

As a business entity, individual votes do not have merit, the business model is based upon votes per share.

Voting shares need to be appropriated based upon tonnes of all grain delivered.

NO matter whether you grow wheat, barley, peas, lentils, carraway or canola you are impacted by the wheat
market.

One vote for the first 20 mt, 1 vote for every 1000 mt thereafter. Or some proximity to be determined by a no doubt onerous procedure to insure some level of relevance to the large and small producers.

Goodness if the average return from last year was not enough to create a crack in the minds of even the most ardent "For" Cult member, asking what went wrong with orderly marketing, then what would be?

Pray tell.

It is no longer about for and against it is now fair to say that both siddes lost, and now we must have change.

The crack needs to be found and the light needs to get in.