| Martin/Alcock privatising the Wheat
Board
Paul Martin's Canadian Wheat Board Minister, Reg Alcock
is paying lip service to farmers as to how good the wheat board is for
farmers and then proceeds to kill the wheat board by implementing the
proverbial "death by a 1000 cuts".
Except for "Alcock's Document B..." all
of the remaining documents were received directly by me from Alcock's
office.
When I requested of Alcock's office copy of the official
terms of reference for the CWB election review process, instead of
providing me with the legitimate document, I was provided the
document that his own office called "CWB - terms of reference without
track".
However in stark contrast to this highly sanitized
document, despite the assertions of Alcock's special assistant Reg
Phillips that this was the real document, Alcock's panel in fact used a
much more comprehensive document named below as "Alcock's Document
B..."
Alcock's office knows me to be a strong wheat board
supporter. His own assistant even called me to congratulate me on
behalf of Alcock for having run as a director candidate and my literature
and public website was fully public to
him as well.
I have asked Richard Phillips about the two separate
documents and what sounds like one very misleading statement to me, but
his trail has gone silent.
Several outstanding questions follow:
Richard Phillips was a director of UGG which was then
and under its new name very hostile to the CWB. What is Reg
Alcock doing by having with a special assistant steeped in this school of
thought?
Then, Reg Alcock appoints Greg Porozni as a panel member
who is known to be hostile
to the CWB. What good purpose could possibly be served by Reg
Alcock appointing Greg Porozni to the CWB election review panel?
What does it say about a government and Reg Alcock that
uses two very different documents and apparently provides different
documents to different people depending on whether they are for or against
having the CWB single desk?
And what about the terms of reference itself. The
very first item advances the suggestion of moving the CWB from a
democratic one person one vote to something referred to as a weighted
vote. Reducing that notion to its essential components is really one
of advancing a system of "one dollar one vote". That no
longer is a democratic vote but a privatized corporate vote. Is that not
an attempt to privatize the CWB through the backdoor?
Furthermore, the entire review process was also
subjected to arbitrary and rushed measures as dictated to by Alcock's
office. For further details of this click
here.
CWB
- terms of reference without track
Terms of
Reference
- An
investigation on ballot identification.
- An
examination of voter eligibility, which may include, but not be
limited to:
- The
issue of one ballot per permit book.
- Farm
structure.
- Absentee,
non-farming interested parties having the same voting rights as
active grain producers.
- Minimum
voting age.
- Definition
of a producer and eligible voter.
- Possibility
of a minimum threshold based on production or deliveries.
- Producers
of feed wheat and barley who do not have a permit book.
- Validation
of voters list.
- An
examination of the current composition of the electoral districts.
- Establishing
management practices and accountability processes of elections for CWB
Directors.
- Evaluation
of the current cap on candidate spending
- Evaluation
of the current cap on third-party intervener spending.
- Examination
of alternatives to the current preferential voting system.
- Evaluation
of identification of candidates.
- Evaluation
of the criteria for candidate eligibility. Evaluation of
necessity for financial support of candidates during election
campaigns.
- Establish
a code of conduct during an election period for: candidates for CWB
Director; existing members of the CWB Board of Directors, the CWB.
Back
to top
Alcock's
Document B; Terms of Reference for CWB Electoral Review
Canadian
Wheat Board Electoral Review Committee
Scope
of Review
- An
investigation of the merits of maintaining the current one person –
one vote system or moving to some form of a weighted or partially
weighted ballot system based on crop area, wheat and barley area, or
some other measure, which may better represent those producers who
have a more significant economic stake flowing from the decisions and
actions of the CWB. This investigation should consider whether a
weighted ballot system should include a maximum on weight for an
individual producer.
- An
examination of voter eligibility, which may include, but not be
limited to:
- the
issue of one ballot per permit book;
- farm
structure
- absentee,
non-farming interested parties having the same voting rights as
active grain producers;
- minimum
voting age;
- definition
of a producer and eligible voter;
- possibility
of a minimum threshold based on production or deliveries;
- producers
of feed wheat and barley who do not have a permit book;
- validation
of voters list.
- An
examination of the current composition of the ten electoral districts,
the criteria upon which they were created and recommendations on any
necessary boundary changes in order to maintain equality. Specific
questions should include the following: Should the number of eligible
voters in each electoral district be re-balanced? Should the
boundaries of the electoral districts be changed? Should each
electoral district be wholly within only one province? If boundaries
of electoral districts are to be changed, how should the transition be
managed?
- How
should elections for CWB Directors be managed? Who should be
accountable for the process? Should elections be conducted by an
independent electoral commission rather than an Election Coordinator
as has been the case? Should the Regulations provide authority to
audit the financial statements of both candidates and third-party
interveners? How should elections rules be enforced?
- Reducing,
increasing or eliminating the current cap on candidate spending.
- Reducing,
increasing or eliminating the current cap on third-party intervener
spending.
- Examination
of alternatives to the current preferential voting system.
- How
should eligible voters be identified for candidates?
- Are
the criteria for candidate eligibility correct?
How can candidates’ knowledge and expertise in corporate
governance, skills and abilities be assured?
Should candidates be provided financial support for election
campaigns?
- Code
of conduct for: candidates for CWB Director; existing members of the
CWB Board of Directors; the CWB; during an election period.
Back
to top
Email
by which I received the terms of reference without track
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lise Jolicoeur>
To: <Eduard Hiebert>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: FW: Terms of reference - Canadian Wheat Board
Hi Mr. Hiebert - please find the attached as per your
request
Best regards,
<<CWB - terms of reference without track.doc>>
Lise Jolicoeur
Press Secretary/Attachée de presse
Office of the Honourable Reg Alcock
Cabinet de l'honorable Reg Alcock
Tel. /Tél.: (613) 944-6512
Fax/Téléc.: (613) 992-3787
Cell: (613) 282-9744
Back
to top
Request
for complete document and reply from Lise Jolicoeur
-----Original
Message-----
From: Eduard Hiebert [mailto:ehiebert@whpcn.net]
Sent: July 12, 2005 4:20 PM
To: Jolicoeur, Lise
Subject: Re: Terms of reference - Canadian Wheat Board
Thank-you Lise Jolicoeur for your prompt reply and passing this file on to
me!
Reviewing the attachment, it is limited to one being in point form, the
outline of the Terms of reference.
May I please have the complete terms of reference?
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lise Jolicoeur>
To: <Eduard Hiebert>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: Terms of reference - Canadian Wheat Board
The terms are reference in point form are as such to permit
the board to have the broadest scope of review as possible so limitations
of examination are not limited to any parameters. For example point
one can mean: An investigation of the merits of maintaining the
current one-person-one-vote system or moving to some form of a weighted or
partially weighted ballot system based on crop area, wheat and barley
area, or some other measure, which may better represent those producers
who have a more significant economic stake flowing from the decisions and
actions of the CWB. This investigation should consider whether
a weighted ballot system should include a maximum on weight for an
individual producer etc etc.
Does this clarify things a little better?
Lise Jolicoeur
Press Secretary/Attachée de presse
Office of the Honourable Reg Alcock
Cabinet de l'honorable Reg Alcock
Tel. /Tél.: (613) 944-6512
Fax/Téléc.: (613) 992-3787
Cell: (613) 282-9744
Back
to top
Reply
from Richard Phillips
----- Original Message -----
From: <Richard Phillips>
To: <Eduard Hiebert>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: Terms of reference - Canadian Wheat Board
Ed,
Lise Jolicoeur fwd'd me a message that you were looking for a more
in-depth backgrounder to the terms of reference.
I believe she has already sent you was the complete terms of reference,
and that her thoughts on the one point, were her way of clarifying an
example for you.
They were not part of a broader document.
I trust this clarifies the situation.
Richard Phillips
Back
to top |
