[fifeboy]

jeff744 jeff744:

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

Only Liberal politicians.

[Robair]

They aren't breaking a law, the way I understand it. They are changing the law. The law was written with that safeguard, that a farmer vote is required to remove the single desk. They know how farmers are going to vote, so they're skipping that part by scraping that law. They are also scrapping the farmer elected board members, and replacing them with government appointed ones. Anybody still thing this is about farmer freedom?

They are lining the pockets of huge agri business companies at the expense of farmers and fully deserve a kick in the junk for their efforts.

I get asked a lot of the same questions over and over again on these threads, here's a video that I think answers them all:

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

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.

I've read it. Doesn't answer how the CWB can't just become a farming co-op (even if it might struggle due to its current lack of assets), nor does it explain the need to keep the 40 or so percent of farmers who do not want to be in the system to stay in the system, outside of your statement that they made the choice to become wheat/barley farmers, and they should shut up. Fearmongering about agribusiness aside, I don't see the true benefit of the CWB as a Canadian consumer.

[Robair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I've read it. Doesn't answer how the CWB can't just become a farming co-op (even if it might struggle due to its current lack of assets)

You... just answered your own question.

commanderkai commanderkai:

, nor does it explain the need to keep the 40 or so percent of farmers who do not want to be in the system to stay in the system, outside of your statement that they made the choice to become wheat/barley farmers, and they should shut up. Fearmongering about agribusiness aside, I don't see the true benefit of the CWB as a Canadian consumer.

And you watched the video above? I don't know how else to explain it, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

The government is already talking about a bailout for the port of Churchhill, and forming a committee to figure out shiping options. The CWB is paid for by farmers, not the taxpayer. So maybe you can see the benefit as a Canadian taxpayer. You are paying for that bailout and the task force-committe- whatever Ritz called it.

[Robair]

Forcing choice takes it away

$1:

For the farmers who own Engine 5353, the track and the sidings alongside it, the Canadian Wheat Board is bigger than partisan politics - it is a lifeline

But don't worry, Ritz is going to form a workgroup. This railway is one of many short line railways and grain terminals that could be toast.

[Caelon]

First I am not a farmer, but I have been made aware of some of the issues both pro an can for the CWB. Some issues that have not been addressed in this discussion are

1. The CWB is a single desk for proairie farmers only. There are exceptions in BC and participation in Ontario is voluntary. It has no enforcemnt east of Manitoba.
2. If you are a farmer in the three prairie provinces and sell your wheat outside of the system you are subject to penalties and the CWB will press charges and take you to court to enforce the rules. If you are an Ontario former you a free to do as you please.
3. The increased acreage in western Canada sown to crops not covered by the CWB like canola, rye and pulse crops is attributed by some as a way of avoiding CWB rules. Others may say it is due to increased return of the non regulated crops or diversification. Take your pick all the reasons put the risk and returns on the open market and not the CWB.

Robair has done a good job in answering a lot of the questions on what would happen to the CWB if their exclusive arrangement was removed. In addition to the above points it would be interesting to address the issue of if the CWB is so good for the 3 prairie provinces why isn't their mandate increased to include all of Canada? Should their mandate be increased further to include other crops like canola, peas and lentils? Should they be allowed to build infrasturcture for 10 years so they could compete on the open market and be an alternative for farmers to choose such as the pools versus private elevators.

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

commanderkai commanderkai:

I've read it. Doesn't answer how the CWB can't just become a farming co-op (even if it might struggle due to its current lack of assets)

You... just answered your own question.

I did? Didn't the Australian Wheat Board survive privatization, even with the issue of lacking assets? Plus, the considerable human assets of basically having every single farmer being a current member, as well as the numerous contacts both in Canada and overseas to help the transition.

$1:

And you watched the video above? I don't know how else to explain it, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

The government is already talking about a bailout for the port of Churchhill, and forming a committee to figure out shiping options. The CWB is paid for by farmers, not the taxpayer. So maybe you can see the benefit as a Canadian taxpayer. You are paying for that bailout and the task force-committe- whatever Ritz called it.

I get it plenty. The Canadian Wheat Board is going to lose it's government enforced control of the wheat and barley production in Western Canada, and they don't like that, because they're going to be competing with private business. Did I hear any real justification for their existence? Nope, not really, other than they're going to have to compete with "agribusiness", seemingly the boogeyman of the issue.

And no, the Canadian taxpayer suffers when it has to pay excessive food prices because of supply management regimes. Not exactly a net-benefit for the Canadian taxpayer. It is possible I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Maybe there's something I can't comprehend, not being a farmer, or working with agriculture, but I just don't see it.

[Robair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I get it plenty. The Canadian Wheat Board is going to lose it's government enforced control of the wheat and barley production in Western Canada, and they don't like that, because they're going to be competing with private business. Did I hear any real justification for their existence? Nope, not really, other than they're going to have to compete with "agribusiness", seemingly the boogeyman of the issue.

You don't get it at all.
-The wheat board does not control wheat and barley production.
-The wheat board is not an agri-business, it is a marketing board.
-The wheat board has legislated control over the marketing of wheat and barley.
-The wheat board has a government operating loan every year that it pays off every year. No capital base.
-Legislated control over barley and wheat, and the operating loan are it. That is the wheat board. No terminals, no railways, no ports. No capital base to invest in any of these things or even pay employees. The companies the board would have to compete against would accept CWB grain at their ports because...?

commanderkai commanderkai:

And no, the Canadian taxpayer suffers when it has to pay excessive food prices because of supply management regimes. Not exactly a net-benefit for the Canadian taxpayer. It is possible I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Maybe there's something I can't comprehend, not being a farmer, or working with agriculture, but I just don't see it.

Almost all of the product the board handles is for export to other countries. Any price premiums the board gets translates to more money entering Canada from these other countries. The effect could be higher prices for consumers in these other countries, but I don't think you need to worry about that.

They are already talking taxpayer money for a system once supported by farmers via their CWB. Yes, THEIR CWB. They pay for it, they elect the board members that run it.

You might as well fork that tax money over to Viterra and Cargil because that's where its going.

[Robair]

Caelon Caelon:

In addition to the above points it would be interesting to address the issue of if the CWB is so good for the 3 prairie provinces why isn't their mandate increased to include all of Canada? Should their mandate be increased further to include other crops like canola, peas and lentils? Should they be allowed to build infrasturcture for 10 years so they could compete on the open market and be an alternative for farmers to choose such as the pools versus private elevators.

The difference between the prairies and everywhere else, is that prarie farmers have a long way to move grains that are for export. Either coast is a long ways away. Churchhill is closer, but any companies motivation will be to put as much product through their own port facilities as they can. Vs the CWB mandate to maximize returns for farmers. This is why Churchhill is a little alarmed at the way things are going.

A plan was put forth by the CWB that included building infrastructure, it was dismissed outright by our Conservative government. They just want it gone.

[Robair]

Canada's tiny Arctic port faces uncertain future

$1:

The CWB has previously favored the northern port for its cost savings, thanks to its proximity to Prairie farmers and access to some European markets.

But big grain handlers like Viterra, Richardson International Ltd and Cargill may be more likely to use port terminals they own on the Great Lakes and or on the West Coast to ship grain overseas.

Who pays for that extra distance to port?

Farmers.

[Caelon]

Robair Robair:

Caelon Caelon:

In addition to the above points it would be interesting to address the issue of if the CWB is so good for the 3 prairie provinces why isn't their mandate increased to include all of Canada? Should their mandate be increased further to include other crops like canola, peas and lentils? Should they be allowed to build infrasturcture for 10 years so they could compete on the open market and be an alternative for farmers to choose such as the pools versus private elevators.

The difference between the prairies and everywhere else, is that prarie farmers have a long way to move grains that are for export. Either coast is a long ways away. Churchhill is closer, but any companies motivation will be to put as much product through their own port facilities as they can. Vs the CWB mandate to maximize returns for farmers. This is why Churchhill is a little alarmed at the way things are going.

A plan was put forth by the CWB that included building infrastructure, it was dismissed outright by our Conservative government. They just want it gone.

While true that the prairies are farther from the shipping ports it still does not address the issue that if it is good for prairie farmers it should be good for all farmers in Canada. Why not extend the mandate to other crops? By the limited mandate of wheat and barley and only the 3 prairie provinces it adds weight to the arguement of doing away with the CWB. You will find farmers argueing about doing well with canola and pulse crops because they have the freedom of marketing without the CWB. The CWB is a single desk with accompanied bargaining power for a limited region of Canada. It happens to be the biggest area for wheat and barley, but it is not exclusive. The power of the CWB would be enhanced if it represented all Canadian farmers. Perhaps corn and soy should be added to the crops as these have greater prevalence on Ontario and add all Canadian farmers having to market their crops through the CWB.

If it is only wheat and barley and only 3 provinces then it makes the CWB vunerable to attack.

[Robair]

Getting a little ambitious aren't ya? Considering the board in it's current form, the one that's taken a lifetime to build and shape, probably won't last another month.

The CWB mandate is to increase profit at the farm gate. At the farmer's level. Any change has to go towards accomplishing that. But again, my argument is that you are drastically changing a system that producers have been working with for a very long time. The same would hold true with what you are saying. It wouldn't be fair to those who have built a business under the current system to see it taken away with a politician's signature. That's what is happening right now.

[Caelon]

Robair Robair:

Getting a little ambitious aren't ya? Considering the board in it's current form, the one that's taken a lifetime to build and shape, probably won't last another month.

The CWB mandate is to increase profit at the farm gate. At the farmer's level. Any change has to go towards accomplishing that. But again, my argument is that you are drastically changing a system that producers have been working with for a very long time. The same would hold true with what you are saying. It wouldn't be fair to those who have built a business under the current system to see it taken away with a politician's signature. That's what is happening right now.

I think you are missing the points that the CWB is a single desk for some farmers by legislation and not for others by exclusion. The same can be said for products. The arguements that only wheat and barley farmers in three provinces can have the benefit or penalty (with no choice) and on only two products is the weakness for keeping the CWB as is. If a farmer from Saskatchewan can market his Canola on the open market successfully why can't he do the same with his wheat? An Ontario or BC farmer can market their wheat on the open market without penalty, but a Saskatchewan farmer will be taken to court and fined. Either it is good for all of Canada or it loses its best reason to be.

[Robair]

Caelon Caelon:

I think you are missing the points that the CWB is a single desk for some farmers by legislation and not for others by exclusion.

The excluded farmers are close to shipping ports.

Caelon Caelon:

The same can be said for products. The arguements that only wheat and barley farmers in three provinces can have the benefit or penalty (with no choice) and on only two products is the weakness for keeping the CWB as is.

The only weakness is a lack of common sense in the Conservative party of Canada. The one that told farmers there would be a plebiscite before any mayjor wheat board changes. But once elected changed their tune.

Caelon Caelon:

If a farmer from Saskatchewan can market his Canola on the open market successfully why can't he do the same with his wheat?

A lot of Canola used domestically. 25 million or so tons of exported wheat vs 3 million of Canola.

Caelon Caelon:

An Ontario or BC farmer can market their wheat on the open market without penalty, but a Saskatchewan farmer will be taken to court and fined. Either it is good for all of Canada or it loses its best reason to be.

If you think a price premium is it's best reason to be. Shipping costs from the middle of land locked Canada to any export market are huge. The CWB, acting as a single supplier, can cut a lot of that cost for prairie famers. Farmers in BC are close to a coast, farmers in Ontario are close to the Great lakes. They would not realise this same benefit.

It could be that an expanded CWB would get those farmers greater returns as well, but it wouldn't be to the same extent as Prairie farmers producing crop for export.

[Caelon]

You are focused on distance to market and freight costs as the reason why only three provinces have the CWB. That is not the arguement the CWB uses as there reason to be. The issue is legislated exclusivity for a few (with penalties for trying to bypass) and choice for the rest of Canada. The single desk concept has been used to great advantage by a number of marketing boards (eg dairy and eggs) so there is not a question of whether the concept has benefits it is the perceived discrimanatory implemntation by the CWB. The weakness in the CWB arguement is its limted geographic mandate. If other areas of Canada can bypass the CWB it is not a single desk except for the legislated few and that adds substance to the 40+% opposition by praire farmers.