Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board?

jdobbin · December 1, 2006

Then I guess the bell rung when the CPC got elected. Deal with it.
I'm not sure if what he is doing is legal or not. As far as I understand he can't fire the president directly. Only the directors can. If what he is doing is not legal, the directors can ignore it. If what he is doing is legal, then happy job-hunting for the president.

The Tories promised to go to farmers after the election to decide this. Strahl is not going to the farmers. He is acting unilaterally. This is not what they promised in the election.

Renegade · December 2, 2006

Then I guess the bell rung when the CPC got elected. Deal with it.

I'm not sure if what he is doing is legal or not. As far as I understand he can't fire the president directly. Only the directors can. If what he is doing is not legal, the directors can ignore it. If what he is doing is legal, then happy job-hunting for the president.

The Tories promised to go to farmers after the election to decide this. Strahl is not going to the farmers. He is acting unilaterally. This is not what they promised in the election.

I'd be interested to see what they promised. Do you have a cite?

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

I'd be interested to see what they promised. Do you have a cite?

Right here. It was said over and over again in the election. A vote for the Tories would not mean a straight dissolution of The Wheat Board.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/prin...bhub=PrintStory

"...Tory MP Merv Tweed, who represents Brandon-Souris, assured him during the election campaign that a vote for him would not be a vote for changing the wheat board because farmers would have to vote in a plebiscite."

It was on CJOB radio, interviews on TV. You name it.

So why no vote when MPs were promising it?

Renegade · December 2, 2006

I'd be interested to see what they promised. Do you have a cite?

Right here. It was said over and over again in the election. A vote for the Tories would not mean a straight dissolution of The Wheat Board.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/prin...bhub=PrintStory

"...Tory MP Merv Tweed, who represents Brandon-Souris, assured him during the election campaign that a vote for him would not be a vote for changing the wheat board because farmers would have to vote in a plebiscite."

It was on CJOB radio, interviews on TV. You name it.

So why no vote when MPs were promising it?

dobbin, you missed the "He says" as a prelude to your quote. So the only evidence you have of the Tory promise is a second-hand hearsay account?

From your same article it would seem others had interpreted Tory promises differently:

She marked her X for Tory candidate David Anderson precisely because his party promised to end the board's monopoly.
"It had a tremendous role in how I voted," said Jolly-Nagel. "It was THE issue in all the debates in our riding."

From the same article:

Late last month, Strahl struck a committee to figure out the best way to keep the party's election promise. The seven-member task force will report to Strahl later this month about how the board could operate "in a marketing choice environment."
The Canadian Wheat Board turned down an invitation to participate, saying farmers aren't being given enough of a voice.

The issue has divided farmers and politicians for years, but the debate has intensified with this signal that the Tories are serious about making it a priority.

So it would seem that Strahl in fact promised to end the monopoly and signaled that intent to farmers.

------

I'm a believer that parties should be held accountable for election promises, so if the Tories made the promise they should keep it or call an election on the issue. So, far I haven't seen much evidence to suggest it was a promise they made. Even if we accept the hearsay, how do you know it came from Tory leadership instead of an assurance from a lone MP?

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

dobbin, you missed the "He says" as a prelude to your quote. So the only evidence you have of the Tory promise is a second-hand hearsay account?
I'm a believer that parties should be held accountable for election promises, so if the Tories made the promise they should keep it or call an election on the issue. So, far I haven't seen much evidence to suggest it was a promise they made. Even if we accept the hearsay, how do you know it came from Tory leadership instead of an assurance from a lone MP?

It was from several MPs that this was mentioned during radio debates. You call it hearsay but the fact is that even Charles Adler has said that many MPs from the Conservative party can't deny that they said a vote from farmers would come after the election.

Many people are totally confused if Strahl will be having a vote or not. At the beginning of November, he said there would be a vote only on barley. However, now we don't even know if that will be happening. So the minister himself promised a vote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/11/01/strahl-election.html

So, is that hearsay?

PolyNewbie · December 2, 2006

They want to remove protections from farmers - its part of their overall effort to destroy the country from the inside to convert to fascism and sell the country and its public asstets to the corporations and bankers.

They want corporate farms and slave labour.

Renegade · December 2, 2006

It was from several MPs that this was mentioned during radio debates. You call it hearsay but the fact is that even Charles Adler has said that many MPs from the Conservative party can't deny that they said a vote from farmers would come after the election.

So what you are saying is that it was only promised verbally but never reported in any newspaper story?

What I'm trying to understand is who promised, what they promised, and when they promised it. I'm not saying the promise didn't occur. I'm saying I don't know and I'd like to see the evidence. So far you haven't shown that.

Many people are totally confused if Strahl will be having a vote or not. At the beginning of November, he said there would be a vote only on barley. However, now we don't even know if that will be happening. So the minister himself promised a vote.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/11/01/strahl-election.html

So, is that hearsay?

Sure, it is very possible that Strahl is confusing, evasive and ambiguous. Take it out on him and the CPC in the next election.

None of the cite above at all pertains to what I had asked. What did the Tories promise prior to getting elected.

Charles Anthony · December 2, 2006

its part of their overall effort to destroy the country from the inside to convert to fascism

Stop.

The Wheat Board is a form of market control and protectionism -- pure and simple. Screwing the citizens by forcing them to pay more and get less.

I am not going to argue that Canadian wheat products are better or worse than others. None of that is relevant. The point is choice. If I want to eat good quality farm products or if I want to save money by eating poor quality produce -- fine. I should have that choice. If all of the consumers support poor-quality produce and the better-quality super-natural produce can not compete -- too bad.

They want corporate farms and slave labour.

Sigh. Same old argument - paranoia. Fine.

I am going to pipe in here by connecting it to my brief experience speaking with the Lyndon LaRouche club members who seemed to call the kettle black when it comes to protectionism. They were throwing out words and accusations of "fascism" on multi-nationals too.

Protectionism is fascism -- not the other way around. Anything short of 100% free trade in goods and labor is fascism. In other words, one group of merchants (in this case: farmers) forces their neighbors and fellow citizens to buy local or pay higher for imports. That is cronyism / fascism / protectionism -- they are all the same.

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

So what you are saying is that it was only promised verbally but never reported in any newspaper story?
What I'm trying to understand is who promised, what they promised, and when they promised it. I'm not saying the promise didn't occur. I'm saying I don't know and I'd like to see the evidence. So far you haven't shown that.

Sure, it is very possible that Strahl is confusing, evasive and ambiguous. Take it out on him and the CPC in the next election.

None of the cite above at all pertains to what I had asked. What did the Tories promise prior to getting elected.

Few candidates in the last election were allowed to comment in any form on the election. I have been looking for some newspaper stories about the promised vote but have not found too much because the focus primarily was on the five principle promises. Still, the impression was and remains that farmers would get a vote. Strahl certainly must have thought so because he has now said he will hold a non-binding plebiscite.

Time is running short and for even a barley plebiscite before the next election. If farmers were unclear about what their Conservative vote entailed last time, they will certainly know this time.

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

The Wheat Board is a form of market control and protectionism -- pure and simple. Screwing the citizens by forcing them to pay more and get less.
I am not going to argue that Canadian wheat products are better or worse than others. None of that is relevant. The point is choice. If I want to eat good quality farm products or if I want to save money by eating poor quality produce -- fine. I should have that choice. If all of the consumers support poor-quality produce and the better-quality super-natural produce can not compete -- too bad.

If farmers choose to keep the Wheat Board, should the Conservatives proceed to kill it?

Renegade · December 2, 2006

Few candidates in the last election were allowed to comment in any form on the election.

Wouldn't that be an indication that the Tories were non-committal on the issue?

Strahl certainly must have thought so because he has now said he will hold a non-binding plebiscite.

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.

Time is running short and for even a barley plebiscite before the next election. If farmers were unclear about what their Conservative vote entailed last time, they will certainly know this time.

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.

Renegade · December 2, 2006

If farmers choose to keep the Wheat Board, should the Conservatives proceed to kill it?

The farmers should be able to keep the Wheat Board only if participation is 100% voluntary. No one has any objection to keeping the Wheat Board as a voluntary organizaiton

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

The farmers should be able to keep the Wheat Board only if participation is 100% voluntary. No one has any objection to keeping the Wheat Board as a voluntary organizaiton

So you think the Tories should remove the single desk even if farmers want it?

Charles Anthony · December 2, 2006

So you think the Tories should remove the single desk even if farmer want it?

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.

Technocrat · December 2, 2006

Few candidates in the last election were allowed to comment in any form on the election.

Wouldn't that be an indication that the Tories were non-committal on the issue?

Strahl certainly must have thought so because he has now said he will hold a non-binding plebiscite.

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.

Time is running short and for even a barley plebiscite before the next election. If farmers were unclear about what their Conservative vote entailed last time, they will certainly know this time.

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 :rolleyes:

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?

Technocrat · December 2, 2006

So you think the Tories should remove the single desk even if farmer want it?
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.

Renegade · December 2, 2006

The farmers should be able to keep the Wheat Board only if participation is 100% voluntary. No one has any objection to keeping the Wheat Board as a voluntary organizaiton

So you think the Tories should remove the single desk even if farmer want it?

CA couldnt have said it better.

If simply the majority of farmers want it, then yes they should remove the single desk system because it is unfair to the minority of farmers who want to sell elsewhere.

If ALL the farmers want a single desk, then it is irrelevant if the remove the restriction on mandatory participation since all the farmers will voluntarily sell through the board.

jdobbin · December 2, 2006

CA couldnt have said it better.
If simply the majority of farmers want it, then yes they should remove the single desk system because it is unfair to the minority of farmers who want to sell elsewhere.

If ALL the farmers want a single desk, then it is irrelevant if the remove the restriction on mandatory participation since all the farmers will voluntarily sell through the board.

There are a lot of things that the minority are not given a choice about once an election has taken place.

It does matter if there is a singe desk or not. You are basically saying the Tories are dismantling the fundamental principle of the Canadian Wheat Board no matter what the majority decides.

Charles Anthony · December 2, 2006

There are a lot of things that the minority are not given a choice about once an election has taken place.

What kind of logic is that????

It does matter if there is a singe desk or not. You are basically saying the Tories are dismantling the fundamental principle of the Canadian Wheat Board no matter what the majority decides.

The majority???

What if the majority decided to re-institute slavery????? Does that make slavery right?

Renegade · December 2, 2006

Lolz... yeah... they really supported free trade when they caved on the softwood lumber dispute right. The CPC are real crusaders for free trade

If you want to discuss whether the softwood deal falls in line with the Tory's philosophy, there is a thread for that, but a discussion of it only sidetracks the issue in this thread.

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.

I don't recall sayin that "removing the marketing boards will actually help canadian farmers compete with their southern neighbours". Maybe if you want to put words in my mouth you can quote where I've said that.

I do not support giving subsidies to farmers neither in the US nor in Canada.

The vast majority of CWB farmers are happy with it, so it begs the question again... why destroy it?

So why couldn't the "vast majority" who are so happy with it, continue to sell through the Wheat Board, and let the "tiny minority" take their wheat and go their own merry way?

Renegade · December 2, 2006

There are a lot of things that the minority are not given a choice about once an election has taken place.

Such as?? I'm really not following your logic here.

Let's see, the farmers are a minority in Canada. The election has taken place. So by your statement above the farmers should not be given a choice in the future of the Wheat Board. Is that what you are trying to say? Seems counter to your argument.

It does matter if there is a singe desk or not.

Why?

You are basically saying the Tories are dismantling the fundamental principle of the Canadian Wheat Board no matter what the majority decides.

Of course. "Fundamental principles" should not be used as an excuse to steam roll over the rights of others. That is what this "fundamental principle" does. And the Tories would be right to dismantle a system where the majority bullies a minority even if the majority support such a system.

Renegade · December 2, 2006

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.

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.

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.

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.