Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board?

[blueblood]

Why does it only apply to Western wheat and barley? You do realise that Eastern farmers are free to sell wheat in whatever manner they want?

It only applies to Western wheat and barley and durum because when the board was created that was what was mostly being grown, now there is canola which doesn't fall under it. I do realise that Eastern farmers are free to sell and its bull****, they should be going through it too. This is a rare moment when I have to agree with gerry here, but this is due to keeping small business active in Canada, now if we can get royalty rates we'll be able to afford to shut down and put the market back into synch. Like I said might be some orange seats this time around...

[geoffrey]

What does this have to do with small-business and royalty rates blueblood?

[Technocrat]

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.

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.

[geoffrey]

It works for some farmers, maybe most farmers. But does it work for Canadians?

Quebec's milk control in Canada prevents us from having competitive milk sold from Alberta farms or even imported from New Zeland (sad that it's cheaper to produce and send milk from New Zeland than Montreal). In response, Canadians pay millions too much for milk compared to what a market solution would provide.

Do we pay too much for wheat? Or not enough? How does the market distortion affect Canadian consumers?

That should be the real issue.

Who cares about farmers, they are business people, they'll deal with their own products and marketing. What I want to know is how the CWB affects consumers of grain products in Canada. That should be what we care about, not the state of affairs of private businessmen.

[Technocrat]

Removing the CWB is in line with the rightwing ideology that the market is God.

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

[Technocrat]

It works for some farmers, maybe most farmers. But does it work for Canadians?

Quebec's milk control in Canada prevents us from having competitive milk sold from Alberta farms or even imported from New Zeland (sad that it's cheaper to produce and send milk from New Zeland than Montreal). In response, Canadians pay millions too much for milk compared to what a market solution would provide.

Do we pay too much for wheat? Or not enough? How does the market distortion affect Canadian consumers?

That should be the real issue.

Who cares about farmers, they are business people, they'll deal with their own products and marketing. What I want to know is how the CWB affects consumers of grain products in Canada. That should be what we care about, not the state of affairs of private businessmen.

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.

[Renegade]

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?

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.

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.

Just following your logic buddy.

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.

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.

[geoffrey]

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).

Sure, why can't I buy it though? Why do you distort the market? Do you not believe in free-trade? I hope you don't drive an import car, turning your back on unionised Canadian workers!!! GRR!!

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.

I'd be grateful too if my business was guarnteed financial well-being by government programs. Unfortunately, that's not the reality for anyone but farmers. It's ridiculous. If they can't make money doing it, it's time to get out of the business and let a more efficent domestic or international producer take over.

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...

Who cares, it's a cow. I'll eat them. If it's more efficient, then I support it. I don't think Gerry is proposing that though, just to correct the error.

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.

I'll certainly take the well-being of a freakin' bird into consideration... I eat those too.

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.

Good, better Weston drive a new Benz then an ugly monopoly grow stronger.

[Technocrat]

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?

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.

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.

Just following your logic buddy.

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.

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.

[blueblood]

It works for some farmers, maybe most farmers. But does it work for Canadians?

Quebec's milk control in Canada prevents us from having competitive milk sold from Alberta farms or even imported from New Zeland (sad that it's cheaper to produce and send milk from New Zeland than Montreal). In response, Canadians pay millions too much for milk compared to what a market solution would provide.

Do we pay too much for wheat? Or not enough? How does the market distortion affect Canadian consumers?

That should be the real issue.

Who cares about farmers, they are business people, they'll deal with their own products and marketing. What I want to know is how the CWB affects consumers of grain products in Canada. That should be what we care about, not the state of affairs of private businessmen.

Well ho hum. A market solution is not the quick fix for everything. The wheat board exports nearly all of the grain grown to foreign markets. This market solution is bunk, it took nearly a world wide drought to raise the price of wheat just a little bit, if the weather smartens up we're all SOL. No you don't pay too much for wheat, if you got a problem with paying too much for prices take it up with production.

The CWB is a measure to help small business (farmers) compete with grain handling companies in marketing grain, its saved agriculture and worked. It is the fact that we have over 200 000 farm operations running that keeps food at a low cost as it is right now, if it was like the oil industry where a few large firms control output with 90 cents a litre gas, you get a 15 dollar box of cornflakes, i think the smaller way works and you should be caring about keeping it small. Sorry but your big business isn't as noble as you make it out to be.

What I am proposing is royalty rates on food products sold that go straight to the farmer (oh around 10%)just like they have in the recording industry and with Monsanto's little royalty rate on GM canola, and the provincial governments with oil. A program which costs the government VERY LITTLE, keeps some money in Canada, and in an essence creates an industry. With this money we will be able to afford to shut down and stop the dumping which is hurting the ag industry. Oh and bring on Biofuels nothing like popping up plants and creating job opportunities plus helping the environment.

[geoffrey]

If it's in the farmers best interest, they'd organize one themselves in the absence of the CWB.

[jdobbin]

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.

Yes, every farmer should be in the marketing board if that is what the majority decides.

[jdobbin]

What kind of logic is that????

The majority???

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

Hyperbole aside, we are talking about an organization with broad support. We are not talking about something that makes another human being property.

The Conservatives said they would respect farmers decisions on the Wheat Board. This doesn't sound like that.

[jdobbin]

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.

Why?

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.

The Canadian Wheat Board can't operate in a dual market system. All attempts in Canadian history to operate in pools without a single desk has ended bankruptcy.

There is no opting out of things as the CPP. The CPP couldn't operate efficiently and successfully with opt outs. So it is with the Canadian Wheat Board.

If farmers want to try the market system, let them vote on it. If they don't agree with it, don't destroy the What Board for purely idealogical reasons.

[jdobbin]

Why does it only apply to Western wheat and barley? You do realise that Eastern farmers are free to sell wheat in whatever manner they want?

The grain industry is far bigger in the west. And farmers in the west wanted the Wheat Board. They still want the single desk Wheat Board according to polling of their membership.

I'm sure there have been some farmers who have opposed it from the beginning but it has operated successfully since 1935 and has won every fight against the U.S. there is in regards to being a fair trader.

Wheat farmers in Canada don't receive subsidies on the scale of European and American farmers. Will the Conservatives suddenly provide subsidies if things go poorly for them post-Wheat Board? Or is rural life dead under the Tories?

[blueblood]

Why does it only apply to Western wheat and barley? You do realise that Eastern farmers are free to sell wheat in whatever manner they want?

The grain industry is far bigger in the west. And farmers in the west wanted the Wheat Board. They still want the single desk Wheat Board according to polling of their membership.

I'm sure there have been some farmers who have opposed it from the beginning but it has operated successfully since 1935 and has won every fight against the U.S. there is in regards to being a fair trader.

Wheat farmers in Canada don't receive subsidies on the scale of European and American farmers. Will the Conservatives suddenly provide subsidies if things go poorly for them post-Wheat Board? Or is rural life dead under the Tories?

The Liberals are just as guilty as killing rural life as the Tories, who's left the NDP???

[jdobbin]

The Liberals are just as guilty as killing rural life as the Tories, who's left the NDP???

The provincial NDP are killing rural Manitoba.

[hiti]

Quote: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have identified an internal enemy that does not fit their ideology. Using their power as the government, they have started a campaign of suppression and disruption supported by a flood of propaganda and misinformation, utilizing the federal bureaucracy.

The target of this attack, an organization 100 per cent funded and democratically controlled by its members, has been permanently stripped of its right to free speech by ministerial order.

Their organization is also the subject of Harper government propaganda attacks on an almost weekly basis; it is restricted by a Harper cabinet directive from expending any corporate resources to defend itself.

These attacks come in the middle of this organization’s democratic elections for membership to its board of directors.

Part of Harper’s attack was a ministerial order attempting to rig the election by removing almost 40 per cent of the organization’s members from automatically receiving a ballot. Worse, the minister deliberately issued the order in the middle of the election so the organization’s members had to incur extra costs to send more than 16,000 letters to those bounced from the electoral rolls in an effort to reinstate eligible voters.

The Harper regime is also attacking the organization from within, by using its power to fire appointed directors and replace them with government puppets.

Who could this fearsome foe be, and how did we go so many years without recognizing this menace from within? The object of this attack is none other than the Canadian Wheat Board, the marketing arm of the wheat and barley producers of Western Canada, the organization that enables farmers to have some power in the global grain market.

In his tenure at the National Citizens Coalition, Harper had almost unlimited funding from undisclosed sources to attack the wheat board, which he did with vigour and stealth.

The board returns 98 per cent of its from the global grain market directly to the farmers who produce the grain. This amounts to $4.5- $6 billion per year.

That is a tempting revenue stream, which the big five transnational grain companies, who already control 80 per cent of the world grain market, would love to acquire.

In Canada, grain farmers recognized this could never be a level playing field and banded together through marketing boards to take on these giant grain privateers.

The vast majority of farmers have always understood that there is no future in the proposition that they would do better for themselves by selling out the collective interests of all farmers. These farmers know that the wheat board is the only protection they have for their livelihoods and their communities from the predatory practices of transnational grain companies. Harper appears determined to eliminate farmer market power, and so far his methods have been less than democratic.

The farmers who were not removed from the wheat board voting list will indicate their decision on how the board runs when they complete voting for the board of directors on Dec. 1. If they vote true to form, Harper and his supine agriculture minister can expect a stern rebuke in the form of a slate of farmer directors ready to defend the board. If Harper is true to form, we can expect more dirty tricks, propaganda, and autocratic efforts to sandbag the interests of farmers.

Ken Larsen is a graduate of the University of Alberta and a full-time farmer. For the past 30 years he has produced grains, forages and cattle west of Red Deer.

© Copyright 2005 Red Deer Advocate-end quote

Sorry I cannot link to this article but we all know who the big five transnational grain companies are and which country they pay their taxes too. Why is Steve selling Canada out to Bush and company? What is Steve getting in return?

[Renegade]

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.

While amusing, your response doesn't at all address the question I asked. Here let me repeat it for you:

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.

Go ahead, try again.

[Renegade]

The Canadian Wheat Board can't operate in a dual market system. All attempts in Canadian history to operate in pools without a single desk has ended bankruptcy.

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.

There is no opting out of things as the CPP. The CPP couldn't operate efficiently and successfully with opt outs. So it is with the Canadian Wheat Board.

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.

If farmers want to try the market system, let them vote on it. If they don't agree with it, don't destroy the What Board for purely idealogical reasons.

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:

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.

[Technocrat]

The Canadian Wheat Board can't operate in a dual market system. All attempts in Canadian history to operate in pools without a single desk has ended bankruptcy.

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.

There is no opting out of things as the CPP. The CPP couldn't operate efficiently and successfully with opt outs. So it is with the Canadian Wheat Board.

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.

If farmers want to try the market system, let them vote on it. If they don't agree with it, don't destroy the What Board for purely idealogical reasons.

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:

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.

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.

[jdobbin]

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:

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.

This has been the goal of the Conservatives all along: to destroy the Wheat Board. What they haven't proven is whether it will benefit farmers. Are there any grain farmers in America and Europe who don't receive subsidies way and above whatever Canada has in supports? Just who is the fair marketer here?

The discussion on CPP is very pertinent because the conservative think tanks are out to change it as well despite the fact that is fully funded and one of the best operated in the world. Unlike the U.S.

Wheat farming in other countries has needed government support for risk reduction. Those come in the form of subsidies. Whatever the farmer does personally cannot even match what the government has to bring to the table. Perhaps you could point out to a successful grain industry somewhere in the world that is not laden with subsidies that dwarf Canada's.

[Renegade]

This has been the goal of the Conservatives all along: to destroy the Wheat Board. What they haven't proven is whether it will benefit farmers. Are there any grain farmers in America and Europe who don't receive subsidies way and above whatever Canada has in supports? Just who is the fair marketer here?

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?

The discussion on CPP is very pertinent because the conservative think tanks are out to change it as well despite the fact that is fully funded and one of the best operated in the world. Unlike the U.S.

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.

Wheat farming in other countries has needed government support for risk reduction.

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.

Those come in the form of subsidies. Whatever the farmer does personally cannot even match what the government has to bring to the table.

Are you saying the CWB is a subsidy? As I understand it the CWB's purpose is price stablization, not subsidy.

Perhaps you could point out to a successful grain industry somewhere in the world that is not laden with subsidies that dwarf Canada's.

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.

[Technocrat]

This has been the goal of the Conservatives all along: to destroy the Wheat Board. What they haven't proven is whether it will benefit farmers. Are there any grain farmers in America and Europe who don't receive subsidies way and above whatever Canada has in supports? Just who is the fair marketer here?

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?

The discussion on CPP is very pertinent because the conservative think tanks are out to change it as well despite the fact that is fully funded and one of the best operated in the world. Unlike the U.S.

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.

Wheat farming in other countries has needed government support for risk reduction.

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.

Those come in the form of subsidies. Whatever the farmer does personally cannot even match what the government has to bring to the table.

Are you saying the CWB is a subsidy? As I understand it the CWB's purpose is price stablization, not subsidy.

Perhaps you could point out to a successful grain industry somewhere in the world that is not laden with subsidies that dwarf Canada's.

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

[Renegade]

please outline the 'risk reduction techniques other commodity producers use'. Enlighten us all please.

Its called forward contracts and commodity hedging. Go read up. Here's a link to get you started: Commodity Hedging - Hedging Risk with a Commodity Futures Hedging Strategy

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.

The ones that get hammered are the ones that don't mitigate risk. Just as the small business owner who doesn't buy fire insurance gets hammered when his place burns down.

Not exactly the farming types.

What are you implying? That "farming types" don't have the ability to understand and manage risk?