McCabe running for OFA’s top job

© AgMedia Inc.

Current vice president pledges to help members of Ontario’s largest general farm organization ‘see a profitable, sustainable future’

photo: Don McCabe


“That won’t be completed in my term as a president. That is reality,” McCabe says.

Not getting anything done is the reality and McCabe brags about it?????

At least Crews “acknowledges that there is a great deal of unhappiness and anger out there among her members."

McCabe says nothing! Why?

Neither candidate mentions Adscam or nepotism!

McCabe says "I feel I have the skill set and a Rolodex to apply to serve whether local, provincial, national or international,and then, “we need to bring a biomass industry into reality by Dec. 31, 2014 for Lambton and Nanticoke?

Really. How much biomass would it really take to equal two coal piles in just two counties? How do 38000 members partake or benefit in a two county project? Then spread that revenue out over the reasonable trucking distance of these two locations and try to get your head around this being a provincial economic offset or the most important issue to reference provincially much less have a national or international benefit!

"No till" interpreted means, don't farm much, "Migrated" is a descriptive word with some accuracy but the facts are better described as finding another free lunch with OFA when OCPA cut off the expense account.

McCabe has followed government wishes and directives so long it is hard to see him take time to listen to producers directives or concerns beyond his chosen pet projects.

If Don intends to serve the members of OFA we need a strong tether as it is a provincial job requiring provincial vision and follow through not just a county or an international job with frequent flyer points.

No till interpreted means "steward of the land". There are many croppers out there doing 2-3000 acres no till. Certainly does NOT mean Mr McCabe doesn't farm much. Regardless of your opinion of Don, at least he is one of the small percentage who actually make the effort to get off the farm and contribute in a larger way. More of you should try doing that, see how many people you can please at once!

I agree with you but how do you explain his actions, or more correctly lack of with the advertising agency?

There are 3 sides to every story, left side verses right side, and then there is the real truthful story.

You would think the agriculture press would dig out the real story for the betterment of farmers, what about it BF ?

My vote would go to the first candidate with the courage to promise to do something about the almost-forty year tradition of supply management getting everything, while everyone else gets nothing.

That is the issue of the day, not only in Geneva, but at RR 2, Everywhere.

Any candidate promising to deal with that issue, would win in a landslide, and would stay in office for life.

So the people who set themselves up in a system (supply management) that reduced uncertainty and gave them a fair return are under attack by the losers like beef producers who opposed supply management and thereby succeeded in driving their own industry to near extinction in Ontario. Look at the pork producers in this province who fought against supply management and who worked a lifetime only to lose everything. It must make them crazy to see egg producers earn a decent livelihood and have something to retire on. No cries for government help from the egg guys. No bailouts. No subsidies.

What happened to beef and pork producers is a tragedy and the resulting human suffering is very sad but their industries brought it on themselves in some misguided belief that each farmer could go it alone and cope with the treasuries of foreign governments, manipulative processors, and changing political winds.

Winners and losers both make mistakes. One difference is that winners study their mistakes and learn from them. Losers tend to blame others for their failures. Decades after failing to grab the supply management opportunity the losers reveal the depth of their stupidity by blaming the winners for their problems.

Can you be any more cocky?? Let me inherited your quota or paid next to nothing for it?

when supply management collapses, and quota owners are demanding a government bailout for the loss in quota values, you and I will be leading the chorus of - "you brought it on yourself"

Supply management's arrogance and condescending attitude towards those who believe that we, as a country, are far better served by freer trade than by hiding behind 200% tariff barriers, is exactly the reason why supply management isn't well liked, and won't be missed.

Therefore, it's long overdue for someone like McCabe to run on the platform of eliminating, for the benefit of us all, the "dog-in-the-manger" known as supply management, and along with it, all of those supply managed farmers who believe that they are winners, and the rest of us losers.

Canada can t compete with other countries in poultry and dairy.Open trade would wipe out half the operations in canada,we are too small and costs are too high. One egg producer in the U.S. could supply most of the canadian market,,and cheaper. In dairy look at the size of some operations,20 to 30,000 cows,,one company in wisconsin is expanding to 20,000 cows to meet future demands,,even while prices are down.Better to leave the borders shut tight.

Agreed. Canada cannot compete on many levels with poultry and especially dairy.

But the McCabe is silent on other matters.

Poultry and dairy are high water consumers. Intense amounts of water is required to produce chickens/eggs/milk.

The largest dairy operations are in Idaho and Oregon. One Oregon farm produces ONE million pounds of milk a day. Thats a lot of water.

Oregon and Idaho has severe water shortage problems. As McCabe knows, the Great Lakes water resources are silent in the NAFTA agreement.

If the border opens to dairy that really means the border opens to trade of water.

Opening the border to milk could force the legal trade of our fresh water in the Great Lakes. We will be exporting water in exchange for water in the form of milk from huge dairies to the south of us.

Water is energy in a basic form and McCabe is the OFA energy advisor.

Is that what McCabe means when he said "McCabe describes the OFA’s job as “making sure the opportunities are there, the barriers are removed and (members) see a profitable, sustainable future for themselves.”

Does he want to get rid of the marketing boards and supply fresh water to the thirsty states?

Supply management has been a success for all involved in it,,plain and simple. Having a unifed voice gives it a signifigant political voice,and the politicians dont have to bail it out every few years,,it pretty well runs itself.

What does this involved in “no-till production of corn, soybeans and wheat.” mean? How many days a year can a OFA executive be away from the farm before the farm starts to suffer, it must be a burden for his wife and sons to maintain and help with the farming. But then again you have to be thankful there are people who will leave their farms to take care of business of the farming public, when other farmers are to busy or seem to care.

Leadership has its trials and tribulations with the help of Human Nature

In other sectors of society and politics, candidates to be elected are under the microscope for values, honour, ethics, morality, integrity, for what success they have achieved and are doing in their private and professional lives. This is no iron clad guarantee that society gets the best qualified leaders as witnessed by the Liberal adscam plot and others misdeads.

Does agriculture, farmers or the agriculture press do very much microscope watching or microscope reporting of our farm leader candidates involement ,question mark

How many farmers would run for election, under the microscope question mark

Announcing candidacy at the convention does not allow more than the delegate choir to be informed but not necessarily assured.

In this day and age of multi mass public communication would Mr McCabe promote and launch his campaign with an "at his farm" press release photo op? Is Mr McCabe willing to become more personal and informative of his at home success with the people he would represent as previously suggested?

An "at his farm" (backdrop)press release would be just the campaign ticket to showcase his farm talents! Meeting family and seeing the support and pride of his at home success would be a great confidence builder to voters.

Being represented by successful hands on expertise is terrific assurance our leading voice is coming from "can do" experience not just an academic travelling preacher.

At least with McCabe and Crews running for pres we will get rid of one. Maybe we should outsource leadership as there is none from within.

Restructuring Revisted
Late in 1997 the OFA Board of Directors decided it was time for another approach to restructuring the organization. The OFA “Vision Team” was elected to once again review OFA’s structure and operations. Lieven Gevaert of Halton Region was elected chair of the Vision Team with members Murray Porteous, vice-chair; Dona Stewardson, J. Peter Connell, Bill Mailloux and Loretta Smith.

The Vision Team examined the political structures of farm organizations in a number of countries around the world, using Internet technology, as they searched for ways of making OFA’s Board of Directors more effective and more efficient. The Team also looked at ways of making OFA more meaningful and responsive to its members.

A total of 11 recommendations were produced by the Vision Team and put in the hands of the Board of Directors. The Board responded by naming an implementation committee made up of Graham Warwick, chair; Lisa Alderman, Terry Otto, and Tom Anderegg. This group examined, in detail, the Vision Team’s recommendations and assessed what would be best for the OFA.

In the end, the implementation committee, after consulting with the Board on the Vision Team recommendations, and the future needs of OFA, decided on no change.

PRESIDENTS wilkinson , george, bonnett.keimz, crews come and gone with excess of $2O million spent by farmers on OFA membership . More restructuring the two last years and the only winners are ofa staff,omafra and supply management

It would appear the Vision Team was blind.

There is always a silver lining in everything. Now to get Wales for run against McCabe and Crews. That would be better yet.

--- pushing for 80 cents kwh for solar leave the burden on the livestock and grain farms too pay for it,,,,but if you are a supply managed commodity you can just pass it along...I agree that supply management for a little part of ag is hurting everyone else who has too compete on an open market system

the marketing was great in it,s day but the control now is by big farms that think small farms should be squashed? out so they can get bigger for very little and receive big profits. ofa does very little to make sure smaller farmers get their fair share of grant money to improve, because all i see is big money going to the big farms for bio-digesters so they can get their check every month.....

i heard of and egg producer,processor getting lots of money so it can help with their operation,so size really does make a difference marketing board or not. goverments like big farms they get the money at the expense of the small,medium farms and the consumers,so consider yourself lucky if you had your quota handed to you you hit the jackpot.don,t call the other people that work hard for their money a loser and get little for it a loser.....

I know the business you are writing about,,the largest producer and processor in the country, he received a large stimuolus contribution from the feds to upgrade shipping and receiving facilities,,great people,good community supporters,loved by all and keep the politicans on speed dial. You cant argue with success.

Here is what I am hoping that all delegates are looking for as they choose a leader for OFA - Ontario’s Voice of Agriculture:

Someone who is informed, visible, accessible and willing to represent Ontario farmers at every relevant meeting; someone who never shies away from a microphone, a telephone or a face-to-face meeting.
Someone who can stay up to date, learn, question, integrate new information with the old, provide advice and handle himself with ease amongst the seats of power – the press, politicians, bureaucrats and academics and yet, feel most at home on the tractor seat.
Someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to advocate for farmers. Holding governmental feet to the fire and preventing broken promises is part of the OFA history and mandate; the recent scramble over solar FIT “reprofiling” showed us who has the ability to move fast and to succeed.
Someone who is a “go-to” person for policy makers, not because of some formal title, but because they have integrity, first-hand knowledge of the issue and its implications, and sufficient diplomacy to have influence. Someone who has earned his reputation as a straight shooter who gets his facts right before he offers an opinion.
Someone who has a vision for Ontario agriculture. Someone who respects the hard work of farm families and the contributions that they make. Someone who realises that the farm lane leads to and from the world, not just the mailbox. Someone who brings our pressing issues to problem solvers around the world. Someone with the courage to say where we can do better. Someone with enough creativity to see the horizon, not just the speed bumps.

Vote wisely delegates - we need a real voice and real action.

Well stated. As for who this person is, I fear they are not presently within the OFA. I can not think of anyone capable of filling the shoes you have so eloquently described as the "need to lead". Worse I can not see the procedure to be able the parachute such a needed just in time person into a leadership position from within the present framework. The need for fresh views and approaches has never been greater.

In a past time of need, Mr. Gordon Hill filled just such a vacuum but the methodology of how directors and executive are chosen prevents such a reenactment. There also needs to be a clear determination as to the need for executive and their role directing staff vs staff directing executive. If staff is the directive there is no particular need for voting member representation at all! a real member disincentive.

It is a pity that the mechanisms of choosing from within put in place to give stability are now a hindrance. Goals of a bigger better unified voice to enhance our ability to respond in a timely fashion may and are hindering our very goals toward progress through simple lack of leadership and the "need to lead".

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.