So why have all the open market candidates for the CWB directors shut up about dual marketing, marketing choice, and an open market? Do they not have enough integrity and confidence to state their position in public? Perhaps they think weasel words will fool farmers?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Anti CWB Candidates Lack Integrity
Collapse
Logging in...
Welcome to Agriville! You need to login to post messages in the Agriville chat forums. Please login below.
X
-
Tags: None
-
From John De Pape
http://cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/2010/11/single-desk-candidates-versus-change.html
<b>Single desk” candidates versus “change” candidates</b>
It's been said that the CWB director candidates that have stated their support for the single desk are being more honest than the ones that have not declared. Kevin Hursh, the ag commentator from Saskatoon, even suggested the ones who have not declared were trying to mask what they truly believe. He and others in the media want candidates to come clean on this one issue.
This is fascinating to me; some candidates are being criticized for not stating "front and centre" their view of the single desk. Yet the single desk candidates are being lauded for taking a position on the single desk issue, even though they don’t have anything to say about real marketing issues in any of their election material. They just say we must keep the single desk because its what gives farmers power, or gives farmers better prices.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have some questions for all the single desk supporting candidates:
How do you rationalize your support for the single desk in the face of so much real evidence (even from the CWB itself) that shows that the single desk is not getting top returns for farmers and is arguable an economic drain on Western Canada?
Why do you state your firm support for the single desk and yet never talk about its marketing performance on behalf of farmers?
Why do you only talk about the non-marketing activities of the CWB – fighting the railroads, WTO, GMO wheat, and other advocacy roles – but don’t talk in detail about marketing?
Not one single desk supporting candidate has ventured a public comment about the durum wheat fiasco we are facing right now. None talk about feed barley exports and how the CWB program is costing all farmers. And none address the problems with feed wheat pricing.
If the single desk marketing system is a fundamental part of your platform, why not address these issues?
Arguing your case on the basis of whether you are for or against the single desk reduces the election to nothing more than an ideological exercise that is, for all intents and purposes, a stalemate. Apparently this is what the media would like to see.
You will never convince some people that there are any problems at all with the single desk. And others will never venture off the “just get rid of the CWB” position. Focusing on a singular issue like this disenfranchises the majority of producers out there that are sensible business men and women and would appreciate a sound business approach to CWB governance. When candidates put themselves in one category or another on just the single desk issue, it doesn’t give these people much to go on. Business-minded farmers want a director to just get on with the business of making the CWB work for them. As Vicki Dutton, candidate in District 5 put it in her election material, either “lead, follow or get out of the way”.
Embracing an ideological position without facts is an impediment to sound judgment. What should matter is if these candidates are willing and capable to make the appropriate decisions to make things at the CWB better for farmers. Sorry to be blunt, but those candidates that take a strong stance in defense of the single desk, just appear to be close-minded to me.
What would they do if it was shown that the single desk is not working and there’s a better approach? What if it was proven that a dual market could work very well? I suspect these candidates would still vote to keep the single desk.
If you're not capable of arguing about the details about marketing with or without the single desk, perhaps you don’t have the depth to be a CWB director. The real way to govern the CWB is to put your ideology aside for minute, and rationally and reasonably assess the issues for what they are. Then address them in the most effective way possible for the benefit of farmers (not for the benefit of the CWB).
What concerns me are directors who say they will protect the single desk on ideological grounds and ignore what the CWB’s own data is telling him. What I appreciate is someone who says – if it needs fixing, let’s do what is needed.
Single desk directors and their supporters have had their chances to fix the single desk and they have failed. It seems to me that if someone is willing to face reality and make things better, then they should have a crack at it, regardless of their "ideology".
And under the circumstances, it’s pretty clear that the single desk would be targeted - at least by those who have not stated their position on the single desk.
-
Perhaps my questions would be does the candidate have the
experience and knowledge to provide strategic direction, oversite and
leadership for a $5 to $7 bln business that represents 25 to 50 percent
of my farms gross income?
Can they articulate a vision for the CWB and its programs? One of the
questions that never seems to come up is what will the new CWB
structure (financial and governace) and financing look like in a world
without government guarantees? Can they discuss ways to improve
the effectiveness and lower the cost of the CWB's risk management
programs both internally and as passed on to farmers in the producer
payment options?
Once I had answered these questions, then I would look at the
candidates attitude on the single desk issue.
Comment
-
As avery open minded person and a farmer that is still just small enough to take advantage of value added local markets. I would like to ask you why the Eastern farmerms that are not forced to use the CWB are not taking advantage of its membersip as a single desk marketer??. I don't ask this question as a critic, but truly form the side lines.
Comment
-
chuckChuck,
Yoou still obviously DO NOT GET it.
You expect to make more out of less...
Grow the pie bigger. DO NOT cut it down... and then hand out smaller peices.
I have heard your mantra...
If only we had less wheat... we could get more money for it.
Guess WHAT!
That is just like the pool. It does not work.
WE must go to a system of cash prices and close the pool and start new pools... to extract value for growers.
If the CWB can be dippers... and take value from the pools and give it to Millers/Customers... there will never be an accountable or fair price for 'designated area' grain growers.
YOU are WRONG chuckChuck. Admit it.
The 'single desk' is only a problem when it sells my grain too cheap...
Which you obviously advocate in spades cause you operate in a dual market in Organic... and end up with both choice and higher prices.
Comment
-
Maybe because there are bigger issues to solve first. They can't change the cwb to open market or voluntary, that is the federal government's job.
Maybe they want a better cwb.
Stewart wells has only one purpose to get in and that would be to protect his organic interest. As a farm leader with the nfu he didn't accomplish much against the railways, high input prices, crop insurance reform etc., so why would anyone vote for him other than name recognition?
Comment
-
chuckChuck:
Why have "single desk" candidates avoided talking about what the single desk actually does - or doesn't do?
They want you to think like them - think that the single desk is a wonderful and powerful tool for them, yet give absolutely no evidence to support it and won't even counter the arguments that dispute that claim.
I find the platforms of the single desk candidates to be empty and without substance. I don't think that anybody that is unwilling or unable to tackle difficult issues has any place at that board table.
What do you think, chuckChuck?
Comment
-
-
cchurch/chuckChuck,
Talking about 'CWB Candidates [that] Lack Integrity'!
WHY are Pro Monopoly Candidates hypocrites?
1. These folks advocate handing out no-cost export licenses for pedigreed seed CWRS wheat (grown in the CWB'designated area')... which is supposedly the CWBfoundation and genetic secret to our 'special' CWRS highest quality milling wheat...
A FREE CWB Export License to supply any grower anywhere on the planet... with our special CWRS (or any other Canadian Western wheat) genetic quality!
The CWB insists that this is true...So much so... that if any other wheat... IS NOT one of these CWB approved very 'special' MONOPOLY CWB genetically enhanced HRS wheat varieties...
The rest of the worlds Hard Red Spring wheat is only worthy of;
'being cast into the feed bin for hog feed'...
Even those other CDN. milling Hard Red Spring approved varieties ... are also approved for Milling/Flour producers in Canada east of the Manitoba/Ontario Border(that the CWB supplies our CWRS wheat)!
WHAT a FARCE.
2. Then there is NO-COST EXPORT LICENSES GIVEN TO EXPORT FEED MANUFACTURERS... BUT REFUSED CDN 'DESIGNATED AREA' GRAIN GROWERS.
ANOTHER FARCE.
AND;
THEN
3. Very low-cost CWB administrative export licenses given any entity in the CWB 'DESIGNATED AREA'... THAT WANTS TO EXPORT AND SELL CWRS MILLING WHEAT... SO STEWART WELLS, ROD FLAMAN, AND ANY OTHER ORGANIC CWRS WHEAT GROWER CAN EXPORT THEIR OWN WHEAT... FOR MILLING PURPOSES... OUTSIDE THE CWB POOLING SYSTEM AND SINGLE DESK.
If growers of organic wheat outside the CWB 'designated area' need to export; they DO NOT EVEN PAY THIS LOW-COST FEE.
This is THE BIGGEST FARCE.
IF THE 'SINGLE DESK' and its 'MAGICal VALUE MYTH' were TO WORK... IT SHOULD WORK, IN THEORY, THE BEST ON EXTRACTING VALUE FOR ORGANIC CWRS MILLING WHEAT grown in the 'designated area' of the CWB; as well as the rest of Canada.
cchurch, chuck****, Agstar77;
Rod Flaman, Stewart Wells, Korniechuck, Lynn Jacobson, CHAIrMAN Alan Oberg... THESE FOLKS THAT PROMOTE THE 'single desk' yet practice the opposite... when it comes to adding value for their own wheat/barley or NFU friends...should all be forced to resign. NOW.
This is real fraud... and we put up with it... with hardly a word in protest said... except when you blame us for exposing the fraud.
SHAME on us.
Shame on wheat growers.
Shame on the NFU.
Shame on the CFA.
Shame on the NDP.
The Bloc should be proud... they are only there to wreck western Canada anyway!
THESE CWB 'single desk monopoly' PEOPLE practice being white washed HYPOCRITS AND truly DO NOT PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.
How we EVER... got to this stage of such CWB deceptional delusion... is beyond belief!!!
AND yes 'deceptional' is a word... exceptionally needed to describe the exceptional 'deceptional' CWB 'single desk' monopoly!
Comment
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment