jdepape says: We have effectively exported our malting industry to China.
Yet he fails to mention China has an 10% import tariff on malt, compared to a 3% tariff on barley.
jdepape says: "the malting industry would not invest any more capital in the malt industry in Canada as long as the CWB has single desk marketing authority."
yet he fails to acknowledge that the domestic demand for malt in NA and the EU is falling, and currently malt plants are operating at less than 85% capacity. Furthermore he ignores the fact that areas where malt demand is growing (Eastern Europe, SA as well as China) have also see investment in malt plants further reducing the need for investment in Canada.
Most troubling, jdepape asserts: "Democratically, the majority of farmers have told the CWB over and over they don’t want the single desk on barley"
In fact "democratically, farmers have told the CWB and the government in every director election that they want the CWB and the single desk by voting in directors supportive of the single desk. Polls, surveys, and non binding plebicites do not form the basis of a democracy, elections do. Until farmers actually vote in a majority of directors who want change, "democratically" there can be no change to the single desk.
But if jdepape is honest in his statement that "its all about listening and responding" then I am sure he will not have any problems responding to the following simple questions I have for him.
1. In an earlier post on your blog you state: "Intuitively, the concept of the single desk makes sense. Farmers should benefit from collectively negotiating from a position of strength and the potential for better prices seems almost obvious."
My question then is Why does the CWB not work? What changes would have to be made to or in the CWB so Canadian farmers would benefit from collectively negotiating?
2. You state: "... the dual market, will not work. (I (jdepape) believe it can.)"
Could you please tell me exactly how you see the dual market working in light of the AWB existing for less than 2 years after becoming a dual market entity in spite of the fact it had prepared for the dual market by raising a capital fund.
Most open market supporters claim that a dual market will work but none I have talked to can tell me how it will work. hopefully you will support your claim that it will work with actual details and a plan.
3. You state: "They need directors sitting at the CWB board table who won’t override farmers’ interests with their own ideology"
So as a farmer voting in the upcoming election, how do I know a open market supporter also won't override farmer's interest simply because of ideology?
Looking forward to your reply!
Yet he fails to mention China has an 10% import tariff on malt, compared to a 3% tariff on barley.
jdepape says: "the malting industry would not invest any more capital in the malt industry in Canada as long as the CWB has single desk marketing authority."
yet he fails to acknowledge that the domestic demand for malt in NA and the EU is falling, and currently malt plants are operating at less than 85% capacity. Furthermore he ignores the fact that areas where malt demand is growing (Eastern Europe, SA as well as China) have also see investment in malt plants further reducing the need for investment in Canada.
Most troubling, jdepape asserts: "Democratically, the majority of farmers have told the CWB over and over they don’t want the single desk on barley"
In fact "democratically, farmers have told the CWB and the government in every director election that they want the CWB and the single desk by voting in directors supportive of the single desk. Polls, surveys, and non binding plebicites do not form the basis of a democracy, elections do. Until farmers actually vote in a majority of directors who want change, "democratically" there can be no change to the single desk.
But if jdepape is honest in his statement that "its all about listening and responding" then I am sure he will not have any problems responding to the following simple questions I have for him.
1. In an earlier post on your blog you state: "Intuitively, the concept of the single desk makes sense. Farmers should benefit from collectively negotiating from a position of strength and the potential for better prices seems almost obvious."
My question then is Why does the CWB not work? What changes would have to be made to or in the CWB so Canadian farmers would benefit from collectively negotiating?
2. You state: "... the dual market, will not work. (I (jdepape) believe it can.)"
Could you please tell me exactly how you see the dual market working in light of the AWB existing for less than 2 years after becoming a dual market entity in spite of the fact it had prepared for the dual market by raising a capital fund.
Most open market supporters claim that a dual market will work but none I have talked to can tell me how it will work. hopefully you will support your claim that it will work with actual details and a plan.
3. You state: "They need directors sitting at the CWB board table who won’t override farmers’ interests with their own ideology"
So as a farmer voting in the upcoming election, how do I know a open market supporter also won't override farmer's interest simply because of ideology?
Looking forward to your reply!
Comment