Missing the Point in CWB Elections
Commentators rightly zeroed in on the 59% turnout in the October federal election as a disturbing sign for the health of Canadian democracy and suggested all sorts of changes.

So what does it say when only 52% of western farmers who were eligible to vote in the recent election for Canadian Wheat Board directors bothered to return the ballots mailed to them? The CWB should be concerned about the impact on its credibility when nearly half the eligible farmers don’t vote.

CWB chairman Larry Hill said the directors’ election is “central to the principle of farmer control over the CWB as their grain marketing corporation.” No sign he was concerned about all the farmers who couldn’t be bothered to mark their ballots and put them back in the mail.

“This is a huge victory for farmers,” NFU President Stewart Wells gloated because eight of the 10 farmer elected directors support the Board’s monopoly on wheat and barley sales. He thinks the Harper government should back off its criticisms of the Board. But there was no evidence Wells was concerned about the level of voter participation.

Although it hasn’t been particularly adroit at making its case for changing the Board, the government has never hid its wish to gain marketing freedom for Prairie producers and it did win every Prairie rural seat in October. One of its main criticisms of the Board is that its voter list is packed with folks whose livelihood isn’t affected by the CWB’s successes and failures. The government’s attempt to get a minimal production requirement included in determining who is eligible to vote in the election was fought all the way by opponents who want to keep the status quo.

The low turnout will likely encourage the government to keep pushing for changes that make the board more business like. Why shouldn’t it? It knows from the plebiscites it conducted than 15 to 20% of farmers want out of the board completely and more than half would like the choice of selling through the open market and the Board.

If the CWB doesn’t undertake to find out why so many farmers didn’t vote, then the government should. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggest many growers have switched out of wheat and barley because of the presence of the Board. Others don’t vote because they think there’s no point as the CWB is determined to ignore their wishes for marketing choice.

Most discussions about the CWB come down to are you for or against it. The federal plebiscites as well as the Board’s own surveys suggest a majority of producers want a different arrangement. Maybe they were discouraged from voting because no one is offering alternatives to keep the Board in business but let farmers sell on their own when they want.

Rolf Penner- There is an interesting discussion going on about this at Agriville.

Ballots returned                       3233

Return Rate                                 57.9%

Ballots rejected                           12

Applications to Vote              200

Rolf Penner- Well, as the old saying goes, close only counts when it comes to horseshoes and hand grenades. We only lost by 124 votes but we lost just the same. 

I thought we ran a darn good campaign, I knew the majority of farmers were on the choice side,  but obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in getting the vote out. 

Yes, I’m disappointed, I put a lot of work into this and I’m passionate about my belief that a farmers grain belongs to the farmer who grows it.  One day that will be true in Western Canada the way it is everywhere else but that day has once again moved further down the road than it should be.

I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to vote for a choice candidate.  I’d like to thank all of those who helped out the other choice candidates and myself with election expenses.  One of the most important and overlooked ways of supporting a cause is by doing so financially and those that do so need to be commended for their contributions. 

I’d also like to thank my family who has not seen me nearly as much as they should the past few months.  A special thanks needs to go to my Father who after harvest had to do without my help for most of the fall work, if it wasn’t for him there would have been no way I would have been able to run in this election at all.  

As a small conciliation I believe we did increase the number of people who voted for choice by quite a bit. I’m going to have to dig up the last elections results to be sure but I think  percentage wise the number has pretty much doubled since four years ago.  The trend is definitely on our side. 

Looking at the big picture I’m reminded of what Winston Churchill said once about the Irish “situation” when he had to deal with it, ” if you are not thoroughly confused by it all then you don’t fully understand what is going on.”  How is it that the barley plebisicite and the wheat board surveys keep going our way but director elections have yet to catch up?  There is a contradiction here and the best anyone can say about it all is that the results continue to be mixed.  As long as that’s the case one can argue either way about what farmers really want and still be right.  

Having said that I am reminded of something Jim Chatney once said,” freedom is not something that you vote on, it’s something that you fight for.” Unfortunately, too many still believe the opposite. But there is an ever growing number of us who agree with Jim. The fight for a more moderate approach to the CWB monopoly will carry on and one day we will finally have -the right to choose-.

Number of Posts- 147

Total page views- 4265

Busiest day- October 23,  382 views

Most viewed page- about

Rolf Penner- Okay, well maybe that’s not all, but since we’re past the point of people being able to vote in this election things are going to start winding down on this blog.  I’ve got a few more posts kicking around my draft box that I’ll be putting up this week, but its getting time for me to get caught up with a whole bunch of farm work so the posting will be light for now.

As soon as I know the election results, which will hopefully be Sunday December 7th, I’ll post them and have a comment about the outcome. 

Having never run in an election before this certainly was an educational experience for me. I really enjoyed talking to the farmers that I was able to and am sorry I couldn’t find the time to talk to more. But with over 5000 voters in the district that  just was not possible.

A big thank-you to everyone who supported me financially, gave me words of encouragement and of course a big thank-you to everyone who voted for me.  I can honestly say that I have worked hard to get elected and if I win I will continue to work hard on your behalf to ensure every farmer has the opportunity to decide what is best for his or her farm.

Rolf Penner- CWB chairman Larry Hill apparently is “disappointed“  that there are some MP’s in Saskatchewan who decided to endorse certain choice candidates in the directors elections a couple of days ago.

Now while it may be fair to say that this is not sporting, the charge that this somehow interferes with the democratic process rings rather hollow. To my knowledge there is nothing in the election rules that say the Conservative MP’s can’t do this, maybe they need to register as third party interveners but that’s probably about it.  If someone knows otherwise please let me know at pennerspoints@gmail.com

There is a difference however between unsportsmanlike and illegal  .  Further to this,  Mr. Hill’s claim that the CWB has remained neutral in these elections is false.  They have allowed the incumbent in District 10 to use the CWB logo throughout the entire campaign, doing nothing to stop him.  Thus giving the CWB stamp of approval to one and only one candidate in district 10. 

They could have said you have three days to fix the signs or we’re going to hire someone to pick them up and send you the bill.  They didn’t.  After the brochures with the logo came out a letter could have been sent to all the people who got it saying the CWB is not endorsing this candidate. They didn’t do that.  There also could have been a news-release with Mr. Hill saying that he was disappointed with Bill Towes for breaking the rules and misappropriating CWB property.  That didn’t happen either.

For Mr. Hill to cry foul over MP endorsements while he has ignored his own directors cheating,  well, the most charitable way of putting it is, pot meet kettle, topic of discussion, the colour ‘black’.     

CWB: The CWB has recognized farmers’ desire to manage risk based on their individual business needs. That’s why the CWB’s farmer-elected directors asked management to devise the Producer Payment Options (PPOs).

Penner: Actually, the CWB hasn’t recognized farmers’ desires to manage their own risk. In 2006, its own survey showed that 46% of farmers wanted the dual-market option and a full 19% didn’t want the CWB around at all. That’s 65% who aren’t happy with the status quo; they want change and they want choice. A restaurant that adds a couple of items to its dessert menu and one to its appetizer list does not satisfy a customer’s desire to dine at other restaurants.

” gotta find me a future. Move outta my way!”

Rolf “A vote for choice is not a vote against the CWB. It is a vote that acknowledges there is more than one way to successfully market barley and that no single way works best for everyone all the time. No two farmers are exactly alike and neither are their business requirements or marketing strategies.”

CWB: There is no more appealing concept than “having your cake and eating it too.” Unfortunately, facing several enormous obstacles (such as having no physical assets) a “strong, viable CWB” just is not possible. Removing the single desk would remove the key competitive edge the CWB leverages in order to maximize returns for western Canadian farmers.

Penner: The CWB clings to the myth that it can’t function without the security blanket of the single desk. That is simply not the case. Many, many successful marketing agencies started and successfully continue to operate without a captive supply chain. At one time, the CWB claimed that it would crumble if all its sales were not pooled. It now offers farmers pricing options outside of the pool, and even brags about them. Yet the sky did not fall. Why should we believe them now?