[fifeboy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's sad to see this shift from farmers to agri-business, which I'm sure in the long run will only mean an increase in food prices.

I'm not sure how. Canada's food prices are already extremely high compared to the United States, and the major reason for that is these sorts of programs.

Actually, it's not. Canadian farmers get far less subsidies than do their contemporaries in the US, which is a factor in food prices.

If you don't think that dealing with a multi-national corporation focussed on profits won't increase costs, you're living in a dream world. At least with the CWB we're dealing with an organization that isn't driven by profit (unlike the multi-nationals beholden to shareholders who will replace the CWB).

Thanks, I was going to post but looked ahead and saw what you wrote. 2010 wheat subsidy in U.S. was 1.172 billion. We pay at the till, they pay on tax day.

[Robair]

Agriculture Minister addressing concerns over wheat supply chain

$1:

Allen Oberg, chair of the CWB, added announcing the crop logistics working group at this late date is an admission that the government’s plan to eliminate the single desk was politically motivated and not well thought out.

“Normally, you would look at all the implications and, having seen those, you’d introduce the changes later,” Oberg said. “This has the cart before the horse, as far as I’m concerned.’’

No shit. Ready, fire aim.

The Conservative plan? They don't have one. "We'll dissolve the wheat board now and form a comittee to figure it all out later."

What a fucking joke.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Actually, it's not. Canadian farmers get far less subsidies than do their contemporaries in the US, which is a factor in food prices.

They aren't? You don't do much cross border shopping, do you? You don't actually think you can really claim that food prices in Canada aren't higher (a lot higher in dairy, especially) compared to the United States.

[peck420]

Commaderkai,

They are trying to point out that it is not the CWB that causes the higher prices. It is the subsidies in the US that artificially lower the prices south of the border.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Actually, it's not. Canadian farmers get far less subsidies than do their contemporaries in the US, which is a factor in food prices.

They aren't? You don't do much cross border shopping, do you? You don't actually think you can really claim that food prices in Canada aren't higher (a lot higher in dairy, especially) compared to the United States.

Sorry, poor wording on my part - the US subsidizes its farmers far more than Canada does, and that is a key factor in lower food prices.

Of course other things like population density and geographic location are factors too, but the CWB definitely isn't to blame for our higher food prices.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, poor wording on my part - the US subsidizes its farmers far more than Canada does, and that is a key factor in lower food prices.

Of course other things like population density and geographic location are factors too, but the CWB definitely isn't to blame for our higher food prices.

I don't know, dairy would be a much better example than grain, don't get me wrong, but dairy farming subsidies last year was about $75 million, though in 2009 they had a HUGE $1+ billion, which might have been a bailout of sorts. Even so, dairy products in the US haven't noticeably increased in the last few years

(http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips ... code=dairy)

Supply management is supposed to keep prices high, which will directly affect the consumer. Subsides can be increased and decreased depending on the situation. I'm not fully convinced that the CWB, or other supply management systems are all that better compared to just subsidizing bad years or blights (or just tossing money). Even grain subsidies aren't that extreme, almost a drop in the huge cesspit of the American budget.

(http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips ... code=wheat)

Plus, wasn't the CWB created to keep food prices down?

[Robair]

Subsidizing farmers is a better system then an unsubsidized supply management system controlled by farmers? You go that route, and we're paying more taxes. Those taxes will provide bonuses at Cargill and Vittera. When we could have just left the farmers with some marketing clout and a means to ship their grain.

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

A really well done documentry on the American food industry. We don't want that system here.

[redhatmamma]

I'm trying to understand this but don't completely understand why we would want to keep a system that was developed as an option around 1935 then made compulsory for WW2 purposes, and the same draconian wartime measures remain in place.

Will they not have a wider access to receiving the market price for their product as opposed to what the CWB dictates now, and isn't that better than a monopoly ?

[DrCaleb]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I'm trying to understand this but don't completely understand why we would want to keep a system that was developed as an option around 1935 then made compulsory for WW2 purposes, and the same draconian wartime measures remain in place.

Because after all this time, it has all the bugs worked out of it. The CWB also has the advantage of scale; it is able to directly affect the price of wheat on a world scale.

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

Will they not have a wider access to receiving the market price for their product as opposed to what the CWB dictates now, and isn't that better than a monopoly ?

Or just the opposite. As Robair said earlier, no one has studied the concequences. But what is likely is that our food production chain will be moulded to match that of the large US agribusinesses that will control the remnants of the CWB. Watch Robair's documentary.

What's the difference between a farmer controlled monopsony (I think that is the proper term for a single buyer, many supplier situation), and a one controlled by agribusinees?

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

Subsidizing farmers is a better system then an unsubsidized supply management system controlled by farmers? You go that route, and we're paying more taxes. Those taxes will provide bonuses at Cargill and Vittera. When we could have just left the farmers with some marketing clout and a means to ship their grain.

The current route makes us pay more in food products compared to the United States. Already indictated as well, farming subsidies aren't that huge portion of their budget ($6 or so billion) with 62% of US farmers not receiving any subsidy at all (according to the USDA http://farm.ewg.org/farms_by_state.php)

I don't know what's the better system, to be honest. I'm not a farmer, I'm a consumer of farm products. Prices of grain products aren't that higher compared to the USA, but other supply management systems (*cough cough*DAIRY) do contribute a significant price increase. As of this moment, I purchase food products from the United States because of the significant price increase (Before taxes, as well) compared to the United States.

The Canadian Wheat Board is empowered by government as well, and it forces all farmers into its program, and arrests farmers that refuse to comply. That alone makes me concerned about it, though. Would it losing these sorts of powers be a reasonable compromise?

[Robair]

When those farmers were arrested, the wheat board was entirely appointed by the federal government.

The fallout from those arrests is what gave farmers control of the board. Harper is now taking that away.

Losing the single desk means the end of the wheat board. There is no middle ground. I've answered that a number of times already.

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

When those farmers were arrested, the wheat board was entirely appointed by the federal government.

The fallout from those arrests is what gave farmers control of the board. Harper is now taking that away.

Losing the single desk means the end of the wheat board. There is no middle ground. I've answered that a number of times already.

And now farmers are still forced into the CWB, even if they would prefer alternative ways to market their grain, correct? So...does the CWB somehow just ignore farmers who transport and sell their grain to the United States, or it just suddenly stopped occurring?

You mention that the Wheat Board doesn't "own" anything, but why can't the CWB just become a farmer's coop? Voluntary membership, thus giving the significant minority the ability to market their grain as they see fit, while the majority continuing the CWB's policies, barring the whole "All must join or be punished"?

[Robair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Robair Robair:

When those farmers were arrested, the wheat board was entirely appointed by the federal government.

The fallout from those arrests is what gave farmers control of the board. Harper is now taking that away.

Losing the single desk means the end of the wheat board. There is no middle ground. I've answered that a number of times already.

And now farmers are still forced into the CWB, even if they would prefer alternative ways to market their grain, correct? So...does the CWB somehow just ignore farmers who transport and sell their grain to the United States, or it just suddenly stopped occurring?

You mention that the Wheat Board doesn't "own" anything, but why can't the CWB just become a farmer's coop? Voluntary membership, thus giving the significant minority the ability to market their grain as they see fit, while the majority continuing the CWB's policies, barring the whole "All must join or be punished"?

Here's a link back to ths start of tis thread: current-events-f59/pro-cwb-farmers-dump-wheat-in-front-of-mp-s-office-t98332.html

Repeating myself is getting old.

[Robair]

$1:

CWB chair addresses legislative committee

Prepared remarks from Allen Oberg to the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-18

Nov. 2, 2011

Good evening. I thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I will make some introductory remarks and then Stewart [Stewart Wells, farmer elected director for District 3, also in attendance] and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.

Since this committee is supposed to be focusing on the technical aspects of this legislation, I think I'll focus my remarks on Part 1 of Bill C-18, Sections 2 through 6 and Section 12, which removes the farmer-elected directors and Part 2 of the bill, which strips the CWB of its single desk.

Let me begin by providing some context.

Besides serving as the elected representatives for farmers in Districts 3 and 5, and myself serving as chair of the CWB board of directors, Stewart and I are also farmers. With my brother, I run a 6,500 acre mixed grain and cattle farm near Forestburg, Alberta. Like Stewart's farm, near Swift Current, and indeed like all Prairie grain farmers, the Oberg family farm is focused on quality, on producing the food that feeds the world. We are also entrepreneurial, innovative and market savvy. I am telling you that not to be immodest, but because the back story to this legislation that you are examining is that Ottawa is telling successful farmers like Stewart, my brother and me that we don't need the Canadian Wheat Board anymore, while ignoring the wishes of the majority of western Canadian grain farmers, who voted to retain the single desk. According to our minister of agriculture, the internet has somehow done away with the benefits we get through marketing together in a global grain system dominated by a small handful of giant companies.

I know. It sounds ridiculous when you put it like that. But really, that is the argument in a nutshell. That, and if even one wheat or barley farmer doesn't want to market through a single desk system, than that system should be abolished, regardless of what the majority of those farmers want. Of course, the same "free market rules" view doesn't apply equally to all farmers. Dairy, chicken and turkey farmers can have marketing boards, fully supported by this government - for now. I say for now not to try and scare my colleagues in supply management but simply to reflect the reality that what this government promises and what it does are two different things.

The Conservatives have won a majority and have decided this gives them the right to go ahead and make irreversible changes to Canada's grain industry without consulting farmers as they promised. For example, AAFC issued a news release on Jan. 16, 2007, in which then-minister Chuck Strahl stated: "I am announcing today that Canada's New Government will hold a further plebiscite on the marketing of wheat at an appropriate time. Western Canadian farmers have the Government's commitment that no changes will be made in the Canadian Wheat Board's role in the marketing of wheat until after that vote is held."

Minister Ritz made a similar promise to a group of farmers in western Manitoba in March of this year, when he said the Harper government "respects the vote" of farmers who have consistently elected a majority of CWB directors who favour the single desk. There wouldn't be any attempt to impose dual marketing on the CWB unless a majority of producers voted for it, he told them, in what was described by media as a campaign-style speech. "Until farmers make that change, I'm not prepared to work arbitrarily," he said. "They [farmers] are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too."

How ironic that those who first entered federal politics on a platform of direct democracy, plebiscites and reform are now calling for the very opposite. Who needs direct democracy and rule of law when according to the government, the May 2 general election was all the consultation with farmers that was necessary. I would argue, respectfully, to this committee that a majority government does not bestow absolute power. Parliament is sovereign, but not even Parliament can disregard the law of the land because it doesn't suit a particular agenda.

The Harper government broke the law when it introduced Bill C-18 on Oct. 18. It broke the law because it did not first conduct a vote among affected producers, as required by Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which is still the law. Ignoring Section 47.1 means the Harper government has denied all farmers their legal right to have a say on the future of the CWB - whether those farmers are big or small, young or old, organic or conventional.

Because the government refused to hold a vote among farmers, we held our own plebiscite this summer. Almost 40,000 farmers participated. A majority of them chose to retain the single-desk marketing system for wheat and barley. Why? Because the single desk system puts more money in their pockets, it's as simple as that. You can spin this issue as much as you want, you can compare spot and pooled prices, you can shout until you are blue in the face, but nothing can change the simple economic fact that one seller of a product will always be able to command a higher price for that product than multiple sellers. That is why farmers voted to retain the single desk. But the government refuses to listen to farmers.

I'd like to talk specifically about Part 1 of Bill C-18, Sections 2 through 6 and Section 12.

These provisions terminate the 10 elected directors who, along with five government appointees, lead the CWB. These provisions effectively end farmers' ability to have direct control over the organization they pay for. These provisions turn back the clock to a time of complete government control. Far from putting farmers first, as this government says it is committed to doing, it puts farmers last, sidelining them in their own industry. These provisions erase all the advances the CWB has made since becoming a farmer-controlled organization.

Parliamentary Secretary Anderson was quoted in a recent media report saying the purpose of this committee is to "focus on the future rather than go over what we've already heard".

Well, the one thing that has not been heard by this government during this sham of a debate is the voice of farmers. I'm not talking about the special interest groups which are funded by big agri-business, who represent only a small number of farmers, but happen to have the ear of this government,. No, I'm talking about the voice of all farmers, the voice that has spoken and would speak again through a plebiscite on a clear and simple question about what they want. We held our own plebiscite and 57 per cent of farmers participated - roughly the same amount who voted in the last federal election. This turnout comes despite a concentrated effort to have farmers boycott the process. However, farmers voted in our plebiscite in record numbers and their decision is the only real mandate on the CWB, and it is a clear and strong mandate to maintain the single desk.

This government has repeatedly attacked the process and the results but really, what they have been attacking is farmers' right to a voice. If the problem was with our process, then surely this government would have obeyed the law and lived up to its previous commitments to prairie farmers and held its own plebiscite.

I'll conclude by asking you all to consider the future, as per Mr. Anderson's wishes. Consider a future grain industry in which farmers are reduced to bit players in a global supply chain. A future in which farmer control and farmer influence is a thing of the past. A future in which farmers' voices are silenced. A future in which farmers will not be able to re-establish a single desk wheat marketing board if they want to, because once the single desk is gone, it is gone forever.

Stewart and I now welcome your questions.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/decision/remarksnov211/

[jeff744]

Does Harper's new crime bill include a provision for politicians that break the law?