Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board?

[jdobbin]

As for the remainder of your comment - I am awaiting a clarification to the "asses handed to them". Better, I will ignore it as it appears off topic.

I was referring to some past Progessive Conservative farm policies that had farmers turn to the Reform party. Very on topic. The CP story today mentions that some farmers still sting from those policies. The link is above.

[blueblood]

I support the CPC on a lot of their policies, but killing off the wheat board is not a good idea, lets screw the people working for the CWB out of a career big thumbs up there. It's been to my understanding that the wheat board saved our bacon in the thirties when prices were in the tank and farms going bankrupt, lets kill something and start the process of bankrupting the little guy as the big boys muscle him out and put more people on social security. I don't believe that throwing a farmer in jail for not selling thru the wheat board is ok, he should be fined a percentage of his sales. I believe that eastern farmers not going thru the wheat board while we do is a huge double standard, they should have to go through it too. I'm not mad at the CWB this year, grain is the highest price it's been in 10 years, mind you there is drought everywhere else, they seemed to find me a good price. This is not a good thing to make the CWB a scapegoat in the ag crisis, that is the fault of the government letting big multinational corporations pretty much steal our grain and others milk us dry on our inputs, go after them. If the government wants to help us out, they shouldn't kill the wheat board instead pass a law stating that gives us 10% of retail sale of ag products and food sold in Canada, and pop up a quota system that is fair and very affordable, better to keep the money up here I say then see it go elsewhere. If this doesn't seem fair they have already passed a law that Monsanto gets their royalties on GM Canola, the entertainment industry gets their royalties and fought hard to get theirs. That is a double standard right there on the government of Canada.

[gerryhatrick]

I work in the agriculture industry serving farmers, and I can tell you it is absolute bullsh@t to say that the majority of farmers support what Harper is attempting to do to the Wheat Board.

[jdobbin]

Strahl gives Wheat Board President two weeks notice.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061130/...resident_notice

Looks like they the Tories are attempting to ram this down the west's throat despite whatever support the Board has.

[MightyAC]

Forgive me for jumping into a conversation so late and not taking the time to read the entire thread, but I do have a few questions.

1) Right now are all farmers forced to sell their wheat through the Wheat Board?

2) If the majority support the Wheat Board how would a small minority attempting to find their own deals significantly hurt the board?

3) Why is a Wheat Board preferable one or more private co-ops that could sell wheat as well as process it or even make and market branded finished products like flour, cereals, breads, pastas, etc? (Along the lines of Gay-Lea in the dairy industry)

[jdobbin]

Forgive me for jumping into a conversation so late and not taking the time to read the entire thread, but I do have a few questions.

1) Right now are all farmers forced to sell their wheat through the Wheat Board?

2) If the majority support the Wheat Board how would a small minority attempting to find their own deals significantly hurt the board?

3) Why is a Wheat Board preferable one or more private co-ops that could sell wheat as well as process it or even make and market branded finished products like flour, cereals, breads, pastas, etc? (Along the lines of Gay-Lea in the dairy industry)

Dual marketing doesn't work. The Wheat Board would go bankrupt just like previous incarnations of farmer boards did prior to the Wheat Board. A majority of farmers want to keep the Wheat Board. The Conservatives want it dismantled despite this.

Farmers have created co-ops in the past but they have done very little processing. The Wheat Board doesn't prevent them from doing this.

The dairy industry gets subsidies in ways that grain farmers could only dream of.

[Renegade]

Dual marketing doesn't work. The Wheat Board would go bankrupt just like previous incarnations of farmer boards did prior to the Wheat Board. A majority of farmers want to keep the Wheat Board. The Conservatives want it dismantled despite this.

If the board's survival depends upon forcing all farmers to sell to them, then the board deserves bankrupcy.

If you remove the boards monopsony, then any farmer who supports the board can still sell to them. By your own admission, they would not survive under those conditions.

It makes no sense that farmers would go to jail for selling to a buyer other than through the board.

[MightyAC]

Dual marketing doesn't work. The Wheat Board would go bankrupt just like previous incarnations of farmer boards did prior to the Wheat Board. A majority of farmers want to keep the Wheat Board. The Conservatives want it dismantled despite this.

Farmers have created co-ops in the past but they have done very little processing. The Wheat Board doesn't prevent them from doing this.

The dairy industry gets subsidies in ways that grain farmers could only dream of.

Our "new" government seems to have no problem imposing the will of the PMO on whoever it sees fit. I am bothered by that...but politics aside I don't understand how giving farmers choice is a bad idea.

If the majority of farmers still use the Wheat Board I can't see how it would go bankrupt, please explain.

The dairy industry is protected and supply managed in Canada, but it's not in other places. I believe New Zealand and Irish farmers have used co-ops very successfully.

[jdobbin]

Our "new" government seems to have no problem imposing the will of the PMO on whoever it sees fit. I am bothered by that...but politics aside I don't understand how giving farmers choice is a bad idea.

If the majority of farmers still use the Wheat Board I can't see how it would go bankrupt, please explain.

The dairy industry is protected and supply managed in Canada, but it's not in other places. I believe New Zealand and Irish farmers have used co-ops very successfully.

If it is about giving farmers a choice, then let them vote as per the legislation of the Wheat Board Act. Strahl doesn't want to do that.

The Wheat Board sets the rate by what it can sell on the world market. Previous dual marketing schemes have resulted in bankruptcies.

The idea of the Wheat Board was to avoid over selling grain at the time of peak deliveries during harvest. That is what usually leads to price decline. In other words, grain companies set rates at times where farmers were at the most vulnerable. Previous attempts to pool resources resulted in bankruptcies. It was the farmers themselves that demanded a single desk system.

New Zealand can't be that great for diary farms. The farmers have lost money five years straight. The prospects for the international market might be good but farmers have to get better prices.

http://english.people.com.cn/200611/16/eng...116_322067.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3881633a3600,00.html

[Renegade]

If it is about giving farmers a choice, then let them vote as per the legislation of the Wheat Board Act. Strahl doesn't want to do that.

The choice to give to farmers is the choice of who to sell to, not who to vote for.

[jdobbin]

If it is about giving farmers a choice, then let them vote as per the legislation of the Wheat Board Act. Strahl doesn't want to do that.

The choice to give to farmers is the choice of who to sell to, not who to vote for.

That choice is part and parcel of the legislation of the Canadian Wheat Board act. They can vote to dissolve the Board. Why doesn't Strahl let that vote happen?

[Figleaf]

deleted in protest

[jdobbin]

Exactly, except farmers are not monolithic in that regard. Some farmers are able to supply the Chicago market cheaper than others. So, they don't like the wheat board more often than other farmers.

The tory policy to dismantle the Wheat Board is in fact simply a stark choice they are making between which of two groups of western farmers they want to help more: bigger farms nearer the border and built infrastructure, or smaller farms more remote from infrastructure. The tory policy favors the former (by 'coincidence' I suppose).

I'd just like to know why they refuse a vote on it as per the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He is out to fire and bully anyone who says what might happen as a result of the Board losing the single desk.

[Figleaf]

deleted in protest

[Renegade]

If it is about giving farmers a choice, then let them vote as per the legislation of the Wheat Board Act. Strahl doesn't want to do that.

The choice to give to farmers is the choice of who to sell to, not who to vote for.

That choice is part and parcel of the legislation of the Canadian Wheat Board act. They can vote to dissolve the Board. Why doesn't Strahl let that vote happen?

For the same reason that our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. IOW, the farmers who want to sell outside the board should have the right to do so, regardless of what the majority want.

The Canadian Wheat Board act is nothing but a piece of legislation which is subject to change form the ruling government. It is not a set of rules written by almighty powers in stone.

[jdobbin]

For the same reason that our rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. IOW, the farmers who want to sell outside the board should have the right to do so, regardless of what the majority want.

The Canadian Wheat Board act is nothing but a piece of legislation which is subject to change form the ruling government. It is not a set of rules written by almighty powers in stone.

This is an argument that could be used about any piece of legislation from same sex marriage to the Wheat Board.

If Conservatives believe this, why not let same sex marriage go through? Shouldn't the rights of the few be above the rights of the majority?

The legislation was put into place so that a government could not act arbitrarily or without farmer input. Strahl is doing all of this ideologically and is shutting down debate and a vote on the issue. The anger of many farmers is red hot on this but he doesn't care.

[Renegade]

This is an argument that could be used about any piece of legislation from same sex marriage to the Wheat Board.

Exactly. And the same logic applies there.

If Conservatives believe this, why not let same sex marriage go through?

They should. And regardless of if they do or not, the SCC has already ruled it legal.

Shouldn't the rights of the few be above the rights of the majority?

The rights are not in conflict, so it is incorrect to state that the rights of the few are above the rights of the majority. The few do not have the right to tell the majority who to sell their wheat to. If the majority are so inclined they can continue to use the wheat board. Similarly the majority do not have the right to tell the few who they can sell their wheat to.

The legislation was put into place so that a government could not act arbitrarily or without farmer input. Strahl is doing all of this ideologically and is shutting down debate and a vote on the issue. The anger of many farmers is red hot on this but he doesn't care.

Farmers do have the same input the rest of us do. The ballot box at election time. Why should they get additional input on any one issue. No one asked or cared about my input when income trust leglislation was enacted. Welcome the farmers into the age of our parlimentary democracy.

[Hydraboss]

Let the Board go about it's merry business, but force it to do so without the legislation. If it dies, it dies. This argument is similar in nature to the debate about the CBC (remember that thread?). When the board ceases to exist, and I believe it will, then Ottawa has severed one more rope that ties the hands of people living in the Nation of Alberta (winthin a united Canada, of course!).

[jdobbin]

Farmers do have the same input the rest of us do. The ballot box at election time. Why should they get additional input on any one issue. No one asked or cared about my input when income trust leglislation was enacted. Welcome the farmers into the age of our parlimentary democracy.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not like the income trust act. It is a separate company from the government and was set up for farmer's input. You can be sure if the Liberals had done this, the Conservatives would have screamed bloody blue murder.

It is just another example of Tory arrogance that they can simply change the rules, fire people and bully people without input.

[jdobbin]

Let the Board go about it's merry business, but force it to do so without the legislation. If it dies, it dies. This argument is similar in nature to the debate about the CBC (remember that thread?). When the board ceases to exist, and I believe it will, then Ottawa has severed one more rope that ties the hands of people living in the Nation of Alberta (winthin a united Canada, of course!).

I have no problem if the Board is dissolved by farmers.

[MightyAC]

I'd just like to know why they refuse a vote on it as per the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He is out to fire and bully anyone who says what might happen as a result of the Board losing the single desk.

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

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.

[Technocrat]

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.

[Hydraboss]

I would have no problem with a farmer only vote, but it would have to be restricted to only those farmers that fall under the control of the Board.

50 + 1 against...goodbye. No questions.

That is fair.

[Renegade]

It is a separate company from the government and was set up for farmer's input.

You don't explain why the farmer's input via the ballot box is not sufficient to decide the issue.

You can be sure if the Liberals had done this, the Conservatives would have screamed bloody blue murder.

It is just another example of Tory arrogance that they can simply change the rules, fire people and bully people without input.

Your argument can do without the partisan posturing. It lends no credence to your case.