Silent socialists

[LWeber]

I don't think it's a question of easterners just wouldn't put up with this kind of BS as Larry's friend thinks. When they have no choice they do. And it's the same in the west.
_______________________________________

It is about economics; nothing more - nothing less. Eastern Canada has been getting $1.50 or more for red winter wheat for a very long time - the U.S. from 50 cents to $1.00. If the single desk was extracting transparent premiums, why would you want to get rid of it?

There are no premiums for western Canadian wheat, barley and durum farmers - just discounts to the world price. The Americans get pissed because the CWB lowers the world price of wheat. That is reality. The CWB's spin is that the Americans don't like the market power the CWB enjoys.

If the CWB were raising world prices - do you think the U.S. would mind? Not for a nano-second.

[Fransisco]

It should be about economics but unfortunately for too many people it's not.

[mbratrud]

1 acre 1 vote cast by the principal operator... could we try it just once please....

[silverback]

20,000 Bushels Per year minimum = 1 Vote only (by the Principal operator).

[Raven]

mbratrud and silverback

If your goal is to give only larger farmers influence over CWB operations then your suggestions will certainly do that.

However, if your goal is to achieve market choice through elections it is illusional.
- It flies in the face of reality that the Government NOT farmers control the CWB;
- If CWB propaganda is so strong that it still has farmers believing in farmer control through elections in stark contrast to the clear ruling of the court, it is inconceivable that "open-minded" elected directors would not be bambuzzled by crafty CWB bureaucratic propaganda. We already see that one "pro-choice" director, (whether wittingly or unwittingly) implies on Agri-Ville that pooling is the monopoly rather than the single desk.
- It is only speculation that larger farmers would vote for market choice.
- It accepts the socialist principles that a farmer can vote on how their neighbor markets their grain. Not only is it morally unethical, but in Canada such intrusions on property rights can only be done legally by Parliamement or the provincial governments.

[grrrr]

I met a little old lady in a mall in Regina last weekend. We were sitting on a bench. I was waiting for my wife, she, for her daughter. My guess was she was mid 80's. She saw my J.D. cap and we started talking farming. Her husband passed away 17 years ago but she still owned "a half section of the best damn land in the world" just out of Moose Jaw. After we went our separate ways I got to thinking. She is the one who has been cancelling my vote all these years!

[checking]

If your objective is spending money on verification and maintenance records of acres and bushels, by all means make that a part of your government appeal.

I've kept my message simple for the agriculture minister. You have the authority to order the CWB to issue no buy back export licences for wheat and barley.

Everything else (if he would just get on with it) will take care of itself.

[Raven]

I fully agree with you checking.

Once farmers are no longer captive suppliers to this system, all the attitudes will change. The CWB will negotiate in good faith, elections will be about ability, and the grain trade, who benefit from the captive supplies, will lobby for a working system rather than a continuation of the status quo. And, the Conservatives will have honored their committment.