Technocrat

so if a single crackdealer wants to sell crack then it must be so? How about a single speeder? Single inside trader? Single marijuana farmer? Your logic is false... try again.

If you think my ass is on the line with this proposal think again. The ag community that i deal with is in no way shape or form affected by this proposal. My job is safe & sound thank you very much.

Yes, it is true that some grain farmers will not survive without supports. Those that do will be stronger because of it. That is the nature of adapting to change, and is not confined only to grain farmers. That sure is easy to say when its not your ass on the line isn't it.

I read your commodity hedging page. The CWB still makes a hell of alot more sense then relying on commodity hedging. I see one benificiary from this whole scheme, the financial sector. As each time a transaction goes through the financial sector get to keep their little sliver of pie. I think the banks and traders have found a new potential market to make profits in. It may seem very tin hat... but hey someone has to be pushing this. I doubt a small minority of farmers really hold this much sway with the PM. Always look for who stants to really gain.

You are sidetracking the discussion. I didn't dispute that farmers elsewhere are given subsidies. The wheat board is not a subsidy. Farmers keeps saying that over and over. I understand that. So let's not sidetrack the discussion unless your position is that subsidies to Canadian farmers are necessary. Is that your position? If you want to debate the CPP, I'm happy to do so; start another thread. It woudl get too confusing to do so in this thread. Again, why? There are a lot of other commodities who also incur price risk. There already risk reduction mechanisms available to commodity producers. Why can't those be used. Are you saying the CWB is a subsidy? As I understand it the CWB's purpose is price stablization, not subsidy. I would not consider an industry "successful" if it depends upon subsidies to survive. There probably isn't a grain industry elsewhere which is not heavily subsidized. It only takes one government to subsidize its farmers in order to give them a competitive advantage or the others have to follow suit. But it is madness to subsidize a money losing proposition. If the US subsidizes its grain and as a result Canadian farmers can't compete, fine. Let the Canadian farmers go out of business and we'll buy subsidized US grain at below cost prices courtesy of the US government. There we have it folks... he is advocating screwing over canadian farmers to the benifit of our southern neighbours. They subsidize, we roll over & go bankrupt... wow what a way to run a country

Of course it would. If you created a system where the farmers could sell to the market when market prices were higher but sell through the CWB when they could get a better price, it is a virtual certainity that the CWB would go bankrupt. As it should. I disagree. You could very easily create a system where people could opt out of the CPP and still have it work, but that discussion would likely have to be for another thread. It is not a decision which should be left strictly to the farmers. Idealogy is simply another word for priciples. The single desk system violates a principle of allowing farmers the choice of where they should sell their goods and therefore should be dismantled. -------- Maybe you can give it a shot at answering this question, since no one else seems to want to take it on: please outline the 'risk reduction techniques other commodity producers use'. Enlighten us all please. From my understanding most other 'commodity' producers get hammered pretty hard when the prices fall. Also many commodity producers are owned and operated by large companies. Not exactly the farming types.

I don't doubt you speak for farmers many of whom are seeking to preserve a protected monopoly. I work with consumers every day. In my opinion and those of many consumers, a free market is in line with a free society. Just following your logic buddy. Those farmers who are not free to sell where they choose are indeed opressed. It is too bad you don't see that. It is not just some farmers who are impacted. Commodity purchasers and ultimately end consumers pay the price of restricted selling practicies. So it is not a question which should be solely decided by farmers. There are thousands of different kinds of commodities, many of those flucuate in price far more than grain. The producers of those commodities find ways of mitigating the risks of price flucatations via the use of currency hedges and forward contracts. Maybe you can explain why farmers cannot use the same risk reduction techniques other commodity producers use, and why a protected system should be employed over a free market. By your logic crack dealers are opressed because they engage in an illegal activity. Just following your logic.. buddy I weep for the commodity purchasers of Cargil, Dean Foods, and Kraft... poor poor multinationals what ever will they do? Canadians food prices are some of the lowest in the industrialized world. I can't give you the stats right now as StatsCan is down for some electrical work.

Geoffery that is a load of bullshit. The consumers of the milk products that my company produces retail for $9.49 (3.8%milk 4L), I rarely if ever hear them complain. In fact they are much much happier to purchase products that are produced relatively locally. It is NOT cheaper to sent new Zeland milk to canada, you are mistaking milk for skim milk powder which is a completely different product (skim milk powder is used in cheap forms of yogurts... imho blech nasty... if you like cheap gritty yogurt eat up i guess). I am grateful that the DFO & Federation(quebec) exist. Not only does it mean that the farmers can actually get paid a living wage for their work. But it means that they will have the money to invest in their farms so the animals that they care for can live a fairly decent life. What Gerry is proposing is that we move to a feedlot style dairy system where we can have a few farms that contain tens of thousands of cattle, they don't go outside and are tied in a stall or contained to a feedlot. BTW the average life expectancy of one of those cow is about 3-5 years. One of the organic farmers that i work with lost one of his cows last year that was 22 freakin years old... Gerry i suggest you go to a truly industrialized chicken farm. I did... it was a life changing experience. Not everything in life can be measured in dollars and cents. To adress your question on how much impact the CWB has on the food you eat... very very minimal... raw inputs for the food you eat is a tiny part of the final price you pay @ the grocery store. If the CWB did not exist you probably would not even notice the difference at retail at all. The processors, distributors and retailers would eat up the extra margin and you would get shit all in the end. Of course George Weston could probably afford a nice new Mercedes.

The market is the closest thing that socialists will ever experience of God. those pesky socialists... always the god haters. Proof that God Hates Socialists (Gerry time to sober up man... youve been drinking to much Jesus Juice) /Just kidding *the above post was purely for fun & completely off topic* I do recommend reading the linked website... wow.. nutbarz

You misunderstand CAs' question. He didn't ask what was legal according to the act. He asked whether the intent of the act followed the princples of a free society. It is clear that it does not. It is hard to imagine a justificaiton more lame than the one you have posted. It would be like trying to justify aparthied in South Africa by saying the blacks agreed to aparthied by "choosing" to live in South Africa. Using your logic, even the "vast majority" of farmers who want to sell through the single-desk WB have a choice. If the CWB is dismantled as a mandatory organization, those farmers can "choose" to move to Australia and sell through the AWB. Your first response: In my opinion and many of the farmers that I speak with every day... Yes it does. I work with and for farmers... do you? Your Second Response: You call my case for the CWB 'lame', Yet you manage to attempt one of the most rediculous leaps of logic I have seen as of yet on these boards. Conradulations you win a cookie for that one. These farmers are not being oppresed... and this has absolutely nothing to do with aparthied(way to pull south africa out of your ass). It has to do with a government trying to undermine the CWB that is supported by the overwhelming majority of its members a government who is trying to impose changes that benifit the few and are detrimental to many.

Of course -- if the farmer forces ALL of the other farmers in his market to follow the marketing board. You are asking the wrong question. You should be asking: should Canadians be allowed to purchase produce from a farmer who does not follow the marketing board? or should EVERY farmer be forced to follow the marketing board? Now, we will hear how the Wheat Board makes sure that our wheat is safe and handled properly and not poisonous and not genetically modified and yadda yadda yadda. Lay it on. Question 1: No you may not purchase products from a farmer who does not follow the marketing board. That would be agains the law and serve to undermine the CWB. Question 2: Yes as a farmer chooses what to plant and grow as their crops. The choice to grow these crops comes with the stipulation that it must be sold through the CWB. If you do not want to grow these crops and sell through the CWB that is your choice. You can choose to grow another crop that is not covered under the CWB. The choice is grow wheat & sell it under the CWB. Grow something else. See there is still choice.

Wouldn't that be an indication that the Tories were non-committal on the issue? It is not possible to read Strahl's mind to know why he is now proposing a non-binding plebiscite. It is possible that he misguaged the reaction of some farmers and may consider the plebiscite as a way to appease them, rather than a fulfillment of an election promise. What is clear is that the Tories philosophically support freeier trade without restrictions. If ther farmers didn't understand that before they should now. What you have not shown is why giving farmers a choice of who to sell to is a bad thing. Yes, I know the Act provides these restrictions, but the Act heralds from a previous time and different philosophy. As they say, the times are a changing. Lolz... yeah... they really supported free trade when they caved on the softwood lumber dispute right. The CPC are real crusaders for free trade You think that removing the marketing boards will actually help canadian farmers compete with their southern neighbours? When was the last time you closely examined the subsidies given to farmers south of the border? Oh wait... clearly from your posts.. never. The vast majority of CWB farmers are happy with it, so it begs the question again... why destroy it?

Is an ass because it, under threat of violence, limits the ability of a farmer to trade his goods freely. And wasn't democracy followed by electing a government which will enact such a change to the act? Is any of what the government doing illegal? If so the CWB can persue it in court. lol violence...!? check you head man... incarceration & a fine is not violent. Why not put it to the members of the CWB and have them decide its future? There seems to be no compelling argument nor is there a logical explanation for bypassing a vote by the CWB members. If they are in favour of keeping the CWB then why dismantle it? If they vote against the CWB then I see no problem in removing the CWB. I would like to hear the arguments for removing the CWB without a vote. Are there any? or is this pure CPC bs.

No to 1 yes to 2. I think jail time is extreme, they should be faced with crushing fines. I would reccommend that they try to build support for their position and win the vote though. Seems like a better financial move. When the law is an ass, you need to reconigze it as one, and change it. Disagree. They are different situation. In the JP situation, the JP refuses to perform a key part of his job. With an employee, joining a union is not relevant to his job, and is only mandatory because the union says it is so. Many juristictions agree that the employee needs to be protected from such bullying and have passed "right to work" legislation Why is this law an ass again? If you know the law and proceed to break it, don't be suprised when you get punished for it. If you disagree with the legislation then work through the necessary legal channels to change it. Not everything is going to always go your way. Thats life, thats the law, that is how democracy works.

:puke: i second that motion.

If it is possible for a 50% + 1 of wheat producers to dissolve the board without serious amounts of red tape that would make the vote therotecially possible but practically impossible then yet again this government is out of line. The Wheat Board seems a lot like a union to me. I hate unions but if 50% + 1 or more of employees want one then great bring it in...however both the union and wheat board should be sent packing just as easily if 50% + 1 or more want to remove it. So should a farmer be thrown in jail if he refuses to sell to the Wheat Board, but instead sells his grain elsewhere? Should an employee be fired if he refuses to join a union that the 50%+1 of the employees want? The farmer should have known penalty for his actions, if he did not, I would suggest that he read the legislation & rules regarding the CWB. If break the law what exactly do you expect? I may not exactly agree with the penalty handed out, but that does not absolve him of committing a crime under the law. If i were the judge i would have probably slapped the guy with a fine and sentance him to read the legislation and pass a test on its contents. Legislation regarding agri-food products is pretty straight forward as to offenses and penalties. I have read the Ontario Milk Act, if you break the law, expect consequences.

The alternative to the Wheat Board people keep proposing is a co-op. That is like a union too. I say let the farmers vote. True they can be, however that still does not adress the fundamental issue. The CWB members should be the ones to decide its future. If properly run coops can be successful, however coops are not exactly easy to run & are often quite inefficient, poorly run and lack the expertise to succeed. Not to mention banks do not exactly like financing coops. I work in the marketing arm of a coop, however it would not work without a marking board (DFO). I agree if the farmers in the CWB vote to disband it... so be it. That is their choice... no one elses.

IMHO the wheat board should stay. Its foolish to think that a single farmer has any bargining power with the likes of agri-food giants such as Unilever, Kraft, Dean foods etc. They operate in the same way Wal-mart does, they will give you a decent price at first then they start insisting on lower prices or they will take their business elsewhere. (this is why many companies hate doing business with walmart, they know how to tickle your balls at first, but when they start to squeeze.. it hurts) Not to mention there are significant economies of scale efficiency gains when marketing & distributing agricultural products. How do i know? Im in the agri-food industry myself and see it every day. The small guys get stomped, the big guys survive. Price alone is a small part of the equation. The harper government is starting to behave like the Harris government did in ontario. Make a uninformed decision and the hell with the consiquences. My question is Why on earth would you not follow the proper, legal & democratic protocol for deciding the future of the CWB? I thought the 'new' government was supposed to be an open and accountable... so whats so hard about stating your case for dismantling the CWB. I have yet to really see a compelling case for ramming this through against the overwhelming majority of CWB members. Im curious if the CPC received campaign contributions from parties that would benifit from the dismantling of the CWB. I find it very strange that the CWB was also given a gag order... which is kindof odd.

I am watching the Liberal convention with much interest as I am planning to get a little more politcally active by joining a party and see what actually happens as a grunt in a political party. Im not terribly tied to any ideology other then im fairly so-pro and fis-con. I would have joined the PC party if it was still in existance however the CPC just does not fit quite right. My only real alternative left is the Liberals... which is fine by me but im not a hell bent supporter of a party just for the parties sake. My condition of joining the Liberals will be decided by who does not become leader. I flatly refuse to join the party under Iggy. IMHO Iggy should consider a carreer change to construction or mining, his real abilities seem to be in digging holes. I just plain cannot forsee the liberal party under Iggy forming a government. In fact an Iggy leadership win would prove to be a blessing to Harper. Oddly enough I kindof hope that ol' Bob Rae wins. I still have some misgivings on him... his NDP past is both a pro & con IMHO he can bleed the NDP of some of their support (i absolutely can't stand Jack Layton) while appealing to the center & undecided voters. I think Bob could probably deliver a Liberal minority government in the spring by about 12-16 seats. If Iggy wins Harper will be back where he is in a years time. Im still not quite sure what to think of Kennedy & Dion. I don't think either are quite there as far as leadership qualities however Dion does show some promise, however his english is a serious liability if he is going to win seats in the west and begs the question do we really want another prime minister from Quebec. I think a Rae - Dion combo in the next federal election would be a powerhouse, perhaps enough to thoroughly trounce the CPC. Im pretty sure Harper is hoping for a Iggy win... but thats just me... All i know is that this weekend shall be interesting. BTW i shall post if i actually end up joining the liberals (& i won't turn into a crazy partisan hack<- i can't stand them)

If that system gets implimented over here... im trading in my civic for the car in Deathrace 2000 GARAUNGA!!!

Im ready to become a card carrying member of the Liberal Party (im not dead set on any one party really but i would like to become involved in one just to see what actually happens @ the grassroots level). The only condition I have placed on my membership is that I will not join if Iggy is the leader after this weekend. IMHO if iIgy wins Harper will win the next election, anyone else becomes leader and Harper moves to the opposition.

Auditor General Strikes Again... Nice... another asshat bites the dust... I know the allegations have yet to be proven in court but cmon... this guy stole (allegedly) from taxpayers. And no small sum of money. Is it time we start throwing useless civil servants in jail for these sorts of crimes... I think so. No more slaps on the wrist and shaking a finger at these sorts of people, they lie, they cheat, they steal. I hope this man has a miserable retirement. Also of note from the report: sooo much to talk about... (if I have posted too much of this article just say so and I will edit it... i don't usually start these threads) *just to clarifly and not to be totally slanderous all charges are alleged* (CYA my friends CYA)

(if you can't tell im in a strange mood tonight) clearly i was... post was removed due to drunkeness

I lived in London North Center for roughly 20 years. The Conservative candidate was about the worst possible person that party could have chosen. Dianne Haskett was a pretty pathetic mayor(London has had a string of them) and really did not engage the voters during her campaign. The area is mostly suburban and fairly wealthy, basically the kind of place that the conservatives could make inroads. Not listening or engaging in your potential constituents is a foolish move IMHO.

I said: if. Your original post sounded rather adamant, with no evidence to back it up. I'll believe for now that you "heard it", but will reserve any further comment or judgement until I have more facts. As I also said, it's still very early yet. I heard it too... it was stated when he was taking questions after his little resignation speech