Ignatieff continues to make overtures to farmers, west

[blueblood]

The difference is that Wheat Board is a single desk buyer. If they lose the single desk, they have no assets to help market grain in terms of storage and transportation.

think some farmers are seriously going to be surprised if they think they can have the Wheat Board and other options for selling. The Wheat Board would be dismantled the day the monopoly was gone.

There is no monopoly, there are board and non board grains. The very fact the wheat board has survived this long with so many options availible to farmers to market outside the board, shows that it can survive without a monopoly.

And he believes that that Wheat Board can sell things like wheat and now face tariffs from other nations once they lose the monopoly? Is this the question you posed?

We already have tariffs from other nations concerning our agricultural products. Last time I checked we have no FTA with China, India, and the Middle East. Then there is board and non board grains. Then the grain from Ontario that gets exported. Those two alone would be red flags, but for some reason they aren't.

The Wheat Board is a monopoly trader for the products it markets. Once it loses that monopoly, it ceases to have a role. As you point out, canola doesn't need the Wheat Board. It also can't have the Wheat Board. If the Wheat Board tries to market other products, it will face WTO tariffs

How many times do I have to explain this, the CWB representative and their site say nothing about WTO regulations regarding dual marketing, none. It already exists with board and non board grains. The only thing they grumble about is their assets and how they can't compete, which is baloney considering they are already competing with Ontario and non-board grains.

By all means, ask for a dual marketing but don't be surprised if the Wheat Board end on that day. Wheat Board officials themselves have said they would not market barley of they lost the monopoly. Do you think they would?

If those elected directors want their jobs, they would be best committed to continue selling.

[jdobbin]

There is no monopoly, there are board and non board grains.

There is a monopoly. Grain and barley are monopoly controlled by the Wheat Board in the west. Agree?

The very fact the wheat board has survived this long with so many options availible to farmers to market outside the board, shows that it can survive without a monopoly.

So you can drive to the States with your wheat and sell it? If not, then you don't have an option.

We already have tariffs from other nations concerning our agricultural products. Last time I checked we have no FTA with China, India, and the Middle East. Then there is board and non board grains. Then the grain from Ontario that gets exported. Those two alone would be red flags, but for some reason they aren't.

Grain in Ontario is not from a state trading enterprise. It is a marketing pool. Legal under the WTO.

How many times do I have to explain this, the CWB representative and their site say nothing about WTO regulations regarding dual marketing, none. It already exists with board and non board grains. The only thing they grumble about is their assets and how they can't compete, which is baloney considering they are already competing with Ontario and non-board grains.

How many times do I have to explain this? The CWB representative didn't mean that the Board would be able to operate in grain and barley if it loses its monopoly on those products in the west. It would have to become a grain company and would no longer be a state trading enterprise.

The Board itself said it would likely fold up since it has no assets beyond its building on Main Street in Winnipeg.

If those elected directors want their jobs, they would be best committed to continue selling.

You mean dealing in barley if they lose the monopoly? The Board has already said it won't if it loses the monopoly. That was in your own link that you posted months ago.

Once the Board loses it monopoly on wheat and barley, it will shut down. I can't see them converting to grain companies.

[blueblood]

There is a monopoly. Grain and barley are monopoly controlled by the Wheat Board in the west. Agree?

And feed wheat and feed barely are not controlled, along with canola, sunflowers, oats, soybeans, corn, etc. I can grow those if I want to, and there isn't anything the CWB can do about it. Monopoly on grains my eye.

So you can drive to the States with your wheat and sell it? If not, then you don't have an option.

I have the option to sell grain to my neighbour down the road so he can feed his cows, I can haul to Minnedosa, and better yet I can grow other crops.

Grain in Ontario is not from a state trading enterprise. It is a marketing pool. Legal under the WTO.

Your WTO argument has been refuted, the CWB rep says it's a non issue, and it isn't even on their site. If it was an issue, every CWB rep would be parading it around. However they are not.

If the board wants to get out of marketing barley, that's them that will have to go to the farmers and explain their incompetance. It's a farmer run organization now, and some farmers want their barley sold through them.

As for having no assets, it buys and sells farmers grain. The grain is an asset and we pay big time deductions for them to sell it, the same deductions we pay to a private company .

[jdobbin]

And feed wheat and feed barely are not controlled, along with canola, sunflowers, oats, soybeans, corn, etc. I can grow those if I want to, and there isn't anything the CWB can do about it. Monopoly on grains my eye.

And you can cross the border and sell your wheat?

I have the option to sell grain to my neighbour down the road so he can feed his cows, I can haul to Minnedosa, and better yet I can grow other crops.

But you can't sell wheat to the U.S. or China for kitchen tables because of the single desk. Why keep denying the single desk?

Why opposed to the Wheat Board if it means nothing to you?

Your WTO argument has been refuted, the CWB rep says it's a non issue, and it isn't even on their site. If it was an issue, every CWB rep would be parading it around. However they are not.

It hasn't been refuted.

You keep thinking that you can have the board once the single desk is gone. You can't. The board would have to be a grain company and even CWB people don't believe that will happen.

If the board wants to get out of marketing barley, that's them that will have to go to the farmers and explain their incompetance. It's a farmer run organization now, and some farmers want their barley sold through them.

It won't be incompetence. It will be tariffs against Canada on other products if Canada removes the single desk yet still uses the CWB. It is all in the WTO guidelines.

Your guy at the Board says there should be no problem with barley being marketed by the CWB after losing the single desk?

As for having no assets, it buys and sells farmers grain. The grain is an asset and we pay big time deductions for them to sell it, the same deductions we pay to a private company .

The grain isn't their asset.

Grain company assets are elevators, ships, rails, storage and sales staff around Canada and the world. The CWB has 500 people and one office that they own.

If it really was easy as a stroke of a pen to end the single desk and give farmers the option, don't you think farmers would have voted for it? The problem is that the once the single desk is gone, the Wheat Board cannot operate as a state trading enterprise without major penalties.

Edited February 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[KingIggy]

The word from the west is that Iggy is causing a great many old school Liberals to perk up and listen in on the debate.

It appears that Harper wants the political center, not realizing that it is historically Liberal turf.

As Iggy rebuilds the Liberal name, and makes it thoroughly respectable once again, it will be time for another election.

This is unavoidable.

[Progressive Tory]

As Iggy rebuilds the Liberal name, and makes it thoroughly respectable once again, it will be time for another election. This is unavoidable.

Despite the fact that some here have called him 'wishy washy' and even a 'slow learner', the man is playing this very smart. He's not allowing himself to engage in public battles with the Conservatives, over nonsense.

Stockwell Day's belief that a few years in the 70's when Ignatieff was getting his PhD from Harvard and five years spent heading up their Human Rights Dep't, adds up to 30 years, does not warrant debate. Day is an idiot. In fact, the other day he said 36 years, so the Cons better stop him soon or he'll be giving Iggy Noah status, having to make him 800 years old just to fit in with his story.

They're grasping at straws.

[Topaz]

Can anyone here tell me what the difference is between the Canadian and the US farming industry, ie the CWB vs US ?, they don't have one do they??

[blueblood]

Can anyone here tell me what the difference is between the Canadian and the US farming industry, ie the CWB vs US ?, they don't have one do they??

The US has almost an "ideal" farming industry. They are in close proximity to ports, which minimize their freight costs. It is also heavily subsidized, this however makes their country a lot poorer and this will take up about 10-20% of their deficit. They don't have marketing boards as they are very heavily subsidized. The US is also one of the largest ag producers in the world. The US does suffer though from water problems.

Under two different systems roughly the same proportion of the population is in the ag industry and farm size proportions are the same.

One advantage to having Obama as president however, is that he is promising to slash their burdensome deficit, this means that this sector will have to be looked at.

Europe on the other hand is more "ideal" than the US.

[WIP]

The word from the west is that Iggy is causing a great many old school Liberals to perk up and listen in on the debate.

It appears that Harper wants the political center, not realizing that it is historically Liberal turf.

No kidding it's historically Liberal turf! For those of us who have watched federal politics for several decades, it hasn't escaped our notice that the Liberal strategy for determining policy positions is for the leader to: wet index finger, raise it in the air, and determine which way the wind is blowing. In other words, the Liberal Party historically has had NO core principles other than getting in power, and maintaining that grasp on power for as long as possible.

If the public mood shifts to the Left, as it did during the Trudeau Era, the Liberal Party will match virtually every promise that the NDP comes up with; if the public mood turns against increased taxation and government spending, as it did during the 80's, Jean Chretien changes his public image as a leftwing Liberal, and outflanks the PC's, to make massive cuts in federal spending and provincial transfer payments to balance the Federal Budget.

Now, it appears that the great lesson learned by the Liberal Party is that advocating real solutions to difficult issues loses elections -- since Ignatieff is now repudiating the Carbon Tax proposal of Stephan Dion, and claiming that he can be an advocate for the environment and the Alberta Oil Sands projects, all at the same time. In a way, I guess you can, since talk is cheap, and even George Bush could make speeches about his concern for the environment.

I doubt this new Western initiative will fool many people in Alberta; it's more likely that Ignatieff wants to present the image of running a national campaign to the rest of the country.

It's a shame that most Albertans see the tar sands as their economic salvation, since 80% of the stock in tar sands projects is owned by American shareholders; they'll get most of the money if these projects continue, and Alberta will be left with a toxic waste dump to clean up after they're gone....and I wonder if we'll later learn that Ignatieff himself, is a shareholder in one or more of the oil companies who have a stake in developing dirty oil.