Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board?

[jdobbin]

http://sympaticomsn.workopolis.com/servlet...061221/EWHEAT21

From the Globe and Mail editorial on Thursday.

Under the WTO and the North American free-trade agreement, state-trading enterprises are allowed to exist -- provided they have exclusive or special privileges akin to monopoly power. But what happens when those monopoly powers disappear? "My concern is that if you remove the monopoly powers of the wheat board, you arguably are disestablishing the wheat board as a state enterprise," says Toronto international trade expert Larry Harman. "That means that any of the privileges and entitlements of the wheat board under international trade law are arguably gone."

So in effect, a Canadian Wheat Board that loses its monopoly might be breaking WTO rules.

The Conservative move might mean no choice for the farmers because the Wheat Board might cease to exist in a year or two after it loses its single desk.

[hiti]

CWB employees get paid $1000 bonus which some are questioning and wondering if it is "hush" money. Link to story

And the CWB is not a crown corporation. In 1998, the structure of the CWB changed from having 5 government appointed commissioners to a board of directors with 10 board members directly elected by the farmers and 5 board members appointed by the government. This changed the CWB structure from a Crown corporation to a Shared Governance Corporation.

[jdobbin]

CWB employees get paid $1000 bonus which some are questioning and wondering if it is "hush" money. Link to story

It certainly has been pissing off farmers all day, especially ones that are supportive of the Tories ending the single desk.

Even the employees don't know what to make of it.

[jdobbin]

Farmer protests in Alberta fear that wheat will go same way as cattle industry.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...107?hub=QPeriod

Profiteering in the beef industry has been widely publicized. Cattle ownership by Cargill and Tyson resulted in the firms getting $45 million of the $400 million in mad cow compensation from the Alberta government a few years ago.

Alberta Auditor General Fred Dunn said this drove down cattle prices and helped the companies triple their profits.

Art Macklin, a former wheat board director, cites recent examples of what could happen with grain prices if private buyers are left to dominate the market.

"We had a surplus in durum for the last two or three years," says Macklin, who operates a mixed farm in northern Alberta. "If the wheat board had not regulated the supply into that market, we would have driven down prices.

"That's exactly what will happen if the big companies control the market and we have a surplus," he said. "They will not manage supply for the benefit of producers. The weakest seller will then set the price."

[jdobbin]

Wording of Plebiscite confusing and non-neutral.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscribe...p-4458943c.html

A Winnipeg pollster has called the plebiscite's wording "bizarre.''

Scott MacKay, president of Probe Research, said the language the Conservatives are using for the three options on the barley vote are not only inconsistent but also far from neutral.

In particular, MacKay said he finds it strange that the second option for farmers -- the vision for the CWB favoured by Strahl -- is described in the first person unlike the other two.

Click here to find out more!

MacKay said the wording of that option (I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer) makes it more personal and a potentially warmer option.

"These people are extremely incompetent or they are diabolical,'' MacKay said of those who designed the ballot's wording.

In fact, MacKay said he thought the wording was so bad that the ballot question Strahl released on Monday must have been an error.

Strahl said the questions were developed in consultation with all sorts of people from both sides of the debate. Strahl said they went out of their way not to use inflammatory language so as not to offend the interests of either side.

Strahl said he believes the three questions provide a summary of the options farmers have to select from: retaining the status quo; creating more marketing choices in addition to the wheat board; eliminating any CWB role in the marketing of barley.

[Luc Trudel]

You want to know Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board? Right?

Well Here's what you have to read...

http://www.wlym.com/~montreal/en/Crown%20Wheat.htm

or

just download and print the PDF file http://www.wlym.com/~montreal/pdf/British%...tacks%20CWB.pdf

__________________

British Crown Assaults Canadian And Australian Wheat Boards

In Grab for World Grain Control

By Rob Ainsworth and Jean-François Sauvé

Canadian LaRouche Youth Movement

An abridged version of this report appears in Executive Intelligence Review’s January 26, 2007 issue.

Acting through its Canadian and Australian Privy Councilors, the British Crown has launched a coordinated assault to destroy both the Canadian and Australian Wheat Boards, to the benefit of its assets in the international grain cartel. Combined, the two nations account for an impressive 30-35% of global wheat exports, control of which would give the Crown and its food cartel unchallenged dominance over world wheat prices and supplies.

As documented in this and in an accompanying article on the case of Australia, the assault on the two nations’ wheat producers is moving in lockstep. Single desk wheat boards (export monopolies) were established in both nations in the 1930s to protect their respective farmers, and to guarantee national food supplies. In 1998, under pressure from dissatisfied farmers, the Canadian government changed the composition of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) – which controls on average 15-20% of world wheat exports – to allow farmers more direct control over its operations, albeit without handing over complete operational autonomy. ..... to be continued...

http://www.wlym.com/~montreal/en/Crown%20Wheat.htm

[Who's Doing What?]

Holy crap man. Trim your post and just put in some links.

[madmax]

Holy crap man. Trim your post and just put in some links.

Unless the poster has since trimmed down the size of his post, I find the length, content and additional links not too excessive, and just informative enough to let one decide whether to follow the other links.

[blueblood]

Riiiiiggggghttttttt. Quite the conspiracy theory

[Who's Doing What?]

Unless the poster has since trimmed down the size of his post, I find the length, content and additional links not too excessive, and just informative enough to let one decide whether to follow the other links.

It is currently about 1/20th of the original size.

Good job trimmming that down Luc.

[Luc Trudel]

Unless the poster has since trimmed down the size of his post, I find the length, content and additional links not too excessive, and just informative enough to let one decide whether to follow the other links.

It is currently about 1/20th of the original size.

Good job trimmming that down Luc.

Yes Sir. It was pretty lenght-y. Sorry about that ...

[jdobbin]

Dion does campaign swing in Saskatchewan and debates the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070224/...ion_cwb_meeting

n a speech to about 40 farmers, Dion criticized a plebiscite that the federal Conservative government is holding on the future of the wheat board's barley monopoly as unclear and unfair.

"The prime minister knows you don't support what he wants to do. That's why he won't ask you an honest question," said Dion.

"He's trying to leave farmers the impression they can have both a Canadian Wheat Board and an open market. But everybody knows you can't have it both ways."

"You deserve an honest question, a clear question, asked through a fair process," said Dion.

The three questions on the plebiscite are so poorly worded that many pollsters couldn't believe it. Nor could they believe the lack of neutrality of the questions.

[Saturn]

So what the heck are the questions? Or will that info become available after the plebiscite? And why does this plebiscite matter anyway? It's not binding and the gov't will do whatever it wants whatever the outcome.

[jdobbin]

So what the heck are the questions? Or will that info become available after the plebiscite? And why does this plebiscite matter anyway? It's not binding and the gov't will do whatever it wants whatever the outcome.

Here are the questions:

http://www.2007barleyvote.ca/Question.aspx

* The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

* I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

* The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

Many pollsters have commented that the questions are so poorly worded as to be void. A pollster never poses a question in the first person.

The government, as you say, is probably going to do as it pleases anyway.

[Saturn]

* The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

* I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

* The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

Many pollsters have commented that the questions are so poorly worded as to be void. A pollster never poses a question in the first person.

Hehe, everyone will pick the second option of course. It's a clear case of leading the respondent. Yep, they'll do whatever they want and will have the full support of farmers based on the above questions

[margrace]

When will people smarten up to the fact that we have a maverick in parliment who will do as he wants and to H**l with what the farmers or anyone else wants.

[Posit]

Perhaps it is time to get the western farmers off farmer welfare. If they want to market barley themselves, then them let run it as a business without government grants, subsidies, tax-free status and guaranteed quotas.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps it is time to get the western farmers off farmer welfare. If they want to market barley themselves, then them let run it as a business without government grants, subsidies, tax-free status and guaranteed quotas.

There is no subsidy, there are no grants, there is no tax free status, there is guaranteed quota. Perhaps it is time you did a little research on the subject.

[Canuck E Stan]

There is no subsidy, there are no grants, there is no tax free status, there is guaranteed quota. Perhaps it is time you did a little research on the subject.

Interview with Peter Dowling

In Motion Magazine: So there are Canadian subsidies?

Peter Dowling: Yes, there are. It took quite a bit of effort on the part of farmers but there are some. We call them safety net programs in Canada. In bad years there is money available to help farmers.

In Motion Magazine: Where do these subsidies come from?

Peter Dowling: They come from federal and provincial agreements. Farmers have pressured both federal and provincial governments to put together programs that will help in cases where farmers are experiencing low incomes for reasons that they cannot control - like foreign subsidies, the weather, things that effect farming. Commodity pricing is a thing that we cannot control.

Call it what you will but....

Farm Safety Nets

Income Disaster Program

Crop Insurance Programs

Income Insurance Programs

[jdobbin]

Call it what you will but....

Farm Safety Nets

Income Disaster Program

Crop Insurance Programs

Income Insurance Programs

And this pertains to the Wheat Board how?

And none of these programs are considered subsidies under WTO.

[PolyNewbie]

Its to put globalists in charge of the food supply so that they can more effectively run things and create food shortages if the need should arise to control a woken up population from rebelling against the banks & financial oligarchy - same reason they want cameras everywhere and to have the police hold people for no reason.

[BubberMiley]

I can't believe anyone would support a government that comes up with such a crooked ballot. They have no shame at all. It's actually far worse than even the PQ would do with a referendum ballot.

[Posit]

Agriculture Subsidies

"The Ottawa plan is expected to offer farm aid of $5.2 billion over five years, with the same proportion offered in 1999: 60 per cent from Ottawa, 40 per cent from the provinces. If the provinces kick in the 40 per cent, it could amount to an aid package for farmers of about $8.18 billion over five years."

Farmer Welfare

[hiti]

Agriculture Subsidies

"The Ottawa plan is expected to offer farm aid of $5.2 billion over five years, with the same proportion offered in 1999: 60 per cent from Ottawa, 40 per cent from the provinces. If the provinces kick in the 40 per cent, it could amount to an aid package for farmers of about $8.18 billion over five years."

Farmer Welfare

From your link;

On the farm subsidy front, farmers in Europe received subsidies of about $6 a bushel, U.S. farmers got $2.50 a bushel, Canadian farmers received subsidies of only 40 cents a bushel.

The farm aid rescue package of 1999 amounted to $1.5 billion, $900 million from Ottawa, $600 million from the provinces.

Ottawa announced a similar farm rescue package Friday, for essentially the same reason, to battle foreign farm subsidies. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief appeared in Spencerville, Ont., to deliver the news.

[Posit]

Ah so now you "rational lies" the welfare by saying others are doing it so we should too?

Ya right!

But the point is, that is farmers want freedom to sell ~some~ of their products while many others are being protected, and marketed by Boards, then perhaps it is time to give all their freedom, get them off all corporate and farmer's welfare and get into the real job of running a business without subsidies, quotas or guaranteed income. The fact is that the average farm production is a failure and the failure is hidden by the layers of government protection and interventions. Farming could be profitable if they would simply do like real businesses, get rid of the government's farmer aid and the middle men who are stealing the profits, and sell directly to the consumer. However, their laziness when it comes to the business of marketing and managing is protected by the Wheat Board, milk quotas and egg marketing is what is killing the profit.

I can buy eggs at $1.99 from the supermarket. They would be at least a week or two old. I can also buy eggs from a local producer for $1.99 (Grade A Extra Large) usually 1 or two days old. Guess who I spend my money with? And why?

There are market farmers through-out my region and most of them do quite well. Those that don't don't last very long.