Friends of tyranny lose case

[Hopperbin]

I think since he found he cannot make any money growing them.

[TOM4CWB]

cchurch;

"So his ruling sets the precedent that people who do not produce enough, whether it be grain, money, etc. do not have the right to vote."

cchurch... as a simple accountability principal... the fact you or I can not choose the marketer of our need... means that our property rights are Not respected. Voting with our grain... should be the democratic opportunity... rather that forcing our neighbour to sell to the CWB.

What could be more democratic... that the choice to say NO... to a marketer that chooses to make bad choices and take our money?

[Raven]

Willagro has just as much right as anyone to vote on how I market my grain - zero!
And it is irrelevant whether the CWB is a good marketer or not.

[tipsy]

In this day and age I'm not often surprised by what goes on in today's world,but,I must admit that when I heard about this group,Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and their court case I think I raised an eyebrow. If I understand and read this right,does this group think/feel that because an organization staples a few pieces of paper together and calls this a permit-book,and,whoever has one, this group, considers this to be the definition for a eligible or bonafide farmer? If I have this right is this not another example of silly and some people,group or organization has to much money to spend!

[Fransisco]

<b>Ignoring the real issue with the Canadian Wheat Board</b>

Alex Binkley

The last two weeks have produced a couple of judicial decisions that may finally set the stage for some rational discussions about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. The venerable Winnipeg-based institution has the mandate from the federal government to sell the wheat and barley of Prairie farmers, whether they like it or not. In recent years, those who don’t like it have become increasingly restive and vocal in their desire to get out from under the CWB’s heavy hand and make their own decisions on marketing their grain. Those actions have inspired the Board’s defenders to seek every possible avenue to thwart them and protect the monopoly. The election of the Harper government, which wants to give the farmers’ marketing freedom, has helped bring the issue to a head. Its supporters want the government to plow ahead with changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to end the monopoly even though that would be impossible in the current minority Parliament. The opponents have tried many tactics to stop the initiative.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Federal Court decision that said Ottawa can direct the activities of the CWB. The case involved an order to the Board to stop spending farmers’ money on advertising that defended the monopoly. Last week, another Federal Court judge said Ottawa was following the law when it ordered the Board to allow only wheat and barley growers to vote in the elections for the CWB board of directors. Other legitimate farmers could seek the right to vote in the election. The appeal was launched by a group called the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

From a plebiscite conducted among farmers and the Board’s own polls, the percentage of farmers that want to market grain on their own was in the 20 to 25% range. About a third of farmers want the monopoly retained while the rest prefer to have the ability to sell both through the Board and the open market as they see fit.

Both sides make eloquent arguments to support their case. It’s worth noting that other western farmers, such as canola and flax growers, aren’t clamoring to come under the CWB’s wings.

Without the monopoly, its defenders say the CWB would disappear and farmers would lose its considerable marketing expertise. This is a matter of almost theological or ideological belief without any real proof of its validity other than the supposed gouging of farmers in other countries by multinational grain companies.

Now the Harper government had a window for tackling this issue head on in 2006 but blew it. A report on marketing issues in the grain industry, commissioned by former agriculture minister Chuck Strahl, suggested a monopoly-less Board could not only survive but continue to play a major role in the Prairie grain business. It wanted the government to take the time to develop the model for a new look CWB and sell it to western farmers.

However, the recommendation was ignored by Harper’s own advisors and Strahl was told to order the plebiscite mentioned earlier. Its results confirmed what supporters of change have said for years but it was rejected by opponents as illegitimate. Why? It gave farmers an alternative to either keeping or ditching the Board. Imagine letting farmers choose. It’s clear that a majority of western producers see an ongoing role for the Board even if they don’t want to sell all their grain through it. So that should be an obvious starting point for the government in charting a future for the Board.

Because of their bunker mentality, the CWB supporters couldn’t see their best opportunity would have been to participate in a study on a new look Board and hold out for conditions that would ensure its survival. An obvious one would have been allowing the CWB to market any Canadian farm product overseas at the request of producer groups. For example, Ontario rutabaga growers could enlist the Board to help export their wonderful vegetables.

Of course, the bunker mentality of the Harper PMO kept it from thinking long term and adopting the proposal for a study on a new CWB.

You have to wonder why the Board supporters want to force farmers to sell through it when they clearly have no wish to. That’s only going to encourage perpetual discontent.

When the 2006 report was ignored by both sides, it looked like the last best opportunity to prepare the Board for the 21st Century was lost. But maybe the courts have created the conditions to reset the clock to 2006 and get that overdue discussion going.

One can hope. Anything is better than the foolishness of the last few years.