CWB result delayed till Monday 12th Sept by MNP...

[SASKFARMER3]

Holly Shit What a con Job.
1. Give bad news always on a Friday so buried by media over weekend.
2. Good news always on a Monday so can run with it all week.
Son of a Bitch they rigged it so that their side won. Let me out that's all I ask.
So the spin doctors can run with it all next week. Look out boys were on way for one hell of a ride.
Funny how people in Nursing homes and Morgues can out vote me a farmer.
I JUST LOVE THE CWB.
This pssis me off even more.
Shut them down once and for all.

[Braveheart]

If 11,000 all voted for it they still don't trump my right to sell my wheat and barley when and to whomever I want.

[mbratrud]

The results could be bad for them? I doubt it but you never know and they need more time to figuire out how to react. If they were really good I cant imagine that the Oberg and crew would not be jumping up and down shouting it from the roof tops.

[chuckChuck]

For a bunch of guys who don't like government interfering in your business you sure like it when Ritz and Harper interfere in he democratic rights of farmers to hold a plebiscite on a major policy issue like the CWB.

Perhaps you should think a little longer term. When this or the next government imposes an unwelcome policy decision on you without fairly consulting farmers you can just go suck wind. Can't wait to hear the whineing when that happens.

Read Bruce Johnstone's excellent colun below.....


Give farmers the vote

By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post September 10, 2011

Regardless of the results of the Canadian Wheat Board's plebiscite,
which are expected Monday, the federal government says it will ignore
them and proceed with the removal of the CWB's single desk on Aug. 1,
2012.

"No expensive survey can trump the individual right of farmers to
market their own grain," Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a
statement Friday.

While the Harper Conservatives are free to ignore the wishes of the
majority of Prairie farmers, they do so at their peril.

Naturally, there will be those who support the Harper government's
move to dismantle the single desk, the legislated monopoly the CWB has
over the export sales of wheat and barley produced for human
consumption in Western Canada.

And these groups have been working hard to discredit the plebiscite
even before the results were announced.

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers, for example, urged the government
to ignore the results of the plebiscite and "move forward quickly with
legislation that provides grain marketing freedom to Prairie farmers."

The Wheat Growers say the fact that plebiscite ballots were sent to
more than 68,000 farmers proves that the CWB "fixed'' the voting
process to favour the single desk.

The Wheat Growers argue there are no more than 20,000 commercial grain
farmers in Western Canada - less than one-third of the number of
farmers that received ballots from the CWB.

For its part, the CWB argues that 68,000 represents the estimated
number of Western farmers who have delivered wheat or barley or both
to the CWB and have an active permit book, or have grown wheat or
barley anytime in the past five years.

So which number is more accurate: 68,000 or 20,000? I'm no expert, but
my calculations, there must be more than 20,000 farmers growing grains
and oilseeds in Western Canada.

According to Statistics Canada's most recent census of agriculture,
there were 44,329 farms in Saskatchewan in 2006, of which 55.4 per
cent produced wheat, oilseeds or other grains.

That means approximately 24,560 grains and oilseeds farms in
Saskatchewan alone.

Allowing for four years of shrinkage, let's say there are about 20,000
grains and oilseeds farms in Saskatchewan.

Adding another 6,000 in Manitoba and 12,000 in Alberta and you have
38,000 grains and oilseeds farms in the Prairie provinces.

While that's a lot less than 68,000, it's a lot more than 20,000,
which is the WCWG's "conservative" estimate. Add in the fact that CWB
ballots were mailed to active permit book-holders, of which there may
be more than one per farm operation, as well as anyone growing wheat
or barley (who may have grown non-board feed grains) in the past five
years, and the number of ballots could easily exceed the number of
grains and oilseeds farms.

Of course, the WCWG actively urged producers to boycott the CWB's
plebiscite, saying that it was "bogus exercise." "No farmer should
have the right to tell another farmer how to market their grain," said
Cherilyn Nagel, pastpresident of the Wheat Growers.

So the issue isn't really about the plebiscite for the Wheat Growers,
it's about the monopoly, which has been in force since 1943, when
wheat deliveries to the CWB became mandatory (barley and oats were
added in 1949 and oats removed in 1989).

Should any producer have the right to tell another producer how to
market their grain? Well, it all depends. If the majority of producers
believe that the benefits of the single desk (the marketing clout of
the world's largest wheat and barley marketer, guaranteed payments for
producers, guaranteed quantity and quality of grains for customers,
etc.) outweigh the loss of economic freedom, then the answer is yes.

The reality is that no right is absolute. We infringe on people's
right to choose when we have single-payer public auto insurance or
health-care systems. But we accept this infringement of our rights as
reasonable, given the advantages of the single-payer system (universal
coverage, low cost, greater efficiency, etc.).

The CWB's single desk is not unlike our health-care and public auto
insurance systems. Would you want those systems taken away without at
least a vote on the matter? Shouldn't farmers have the same rights as
the rest of us?

Johnstone is the Leader-Post's financial editor

[TOM4CWB]

ChuckChuck,

Your entitlement attitude... that we should be FORCED to subsidise you... is annoying.

If five of us vote that you yourself should buy each one of us a brand new combine harvester each year...


The outcome is 4 in favour... you against. We had a vote. You lost. Now you must buy us each a brand new combine harvester (total 4) each year...


This would be an abuse of a normal reasonable persons' idea of a free and democratic society.

Yet... the 'single buying desk' CWB monopoly costs many western grain growers MORE than the biggest brand new combine harvester in the WORLD... EACH YEAR.

THis is NOT an issue that any should vote on... unless we are at war like we were in WW2.

[sumdumguy]

I wouldn't mind a farmer vote -
BUT it would have to be:

1. Vote NOT run by CWB
2. No MNP at all- Notta-none.
3. A vote for every ACTIVE farmer who declares farming income, not rental income, nor wheat income, not CWB employees nor directors.

[Fransisco]

Interesting, Johnstone's examples of medicare and autopac are both ones in which the general public didn't get a vote just like the wheat board. So much for "democracy"...

[jdepape]

1935 - NO VOTE on the establishment of the CWB
1939 - NO VOTE on adding barley and oats
1943 - NO VOTE on the single desk
The CWB was only meant to last five years. Every five years after 1943, the government decided to keep the CWB another 5 years. - NO VOTE
1963 - the government decided to make the CWB permanent - NO VOTE
1989 - oats removed - NO VOTE
1998 - changes to the CWB Act - NO VOTE

Interestingly, there wasn't even a call by CWB supporters for a vote on oats. I wonder if anyone even thought about it. The only reason we're talking about a vote is because the Act requires it for a change (Section 47.1).

BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ONE TO REPEAL THE ACT.

Even the CWB has acknowledged the govt can do what it is planning without a plebiscite.

So why is the CWB involved in the court case by the Friends of the CWB trying to force a plebiscite?

[highwayman]

Chucky chucky, does your warped sense of democracy include one farm of less than 1000 acres receiving 6 ballots and the next farm of 8000 acres receiving 1 ballot. Democracy MY ASS. Mr. Ritz kill this blasted thing now and let the real business men and women rise to the occasion. May the CWB die a quick and painful death followed by a complete forensic audit into every little bit of dirt that they have been trying to hide for 65 years. Those that are responsible for any injustices should be held accountable with prison terms which would include the current crazy 8. AMEN and hallelujah

[Braveheart]

To Bruce Johnstone, Chucky, et al: Healthcare and auto insurance aren't a business for me. Growing livestock and crops including wheat and barley is MY BUSINESS. We invest thousands every year to do it. We take the risk individually. It is not shared or pooled or have adjustment factors applied to it. Therefore, NO ONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHEN I CAN SELL THAT GRAIN and collect the reward for that risk. Nobody. Period.

Bruce Johnstone, that was the weakest, most lame attempt to rationize forced marketing I have ever experienced. Journalism school called, they want the diploma back.

[Fransisco]

Okay lets wrap our heads around this little gem.

Johnstone said, "The reality is that no right is absolute."

I don't buy that one, but for the sake of argument lets assume that he's right. Then the so called "democratic" rights he's talking about aren't absolute either.

There are exceptions.

There are all sorts of things to which democracy doesn't apply. <b>LIKE MY GRAIN!</b>

Not real strong in the old intellectual department there Mr. Johnstone.

[begood]

A lot of comments and opinions could be put in perspective if any conflicts of interest; pecuniary interests; entitlements and positions that are wished to be protected, were disclosed in the open.
For instance; those who wish to protect their basically free world market access by denying captive CWB wheat and barley growers the same rights; should have little credibility.
Those who might have the ear of CWB employees; and receive preferential treatment should be seen for what they are.
And those who are afraid that others may get ahead though their own marketing skills have no right to drag everyone down to the CWB pooled price.
Finally; I would ask how far CWB supporters are willing to allow anyone into their personal pocket book. Why not pool off farm income, and oil revenues; and lottery ticket winnings, and inheritances etc. etc.
A lot of the rabid CWB support is about protecting self interest, jobs, entitlements and special treatment that has been actively developed over many years. Get rid of this sickening mess; even if there are some costs.

[bucket]

Good points begood.

The first thing the cwb should start pooling is the savings of producer car farmers to the rest of us.

Then we can start pooling the returns of organic producers as well. Like that gem, Stewie?

Why do commercial growers pool but the "special" interests don't have to?

[Hopperbin]

Like the guy that hired back after he spent 3/4 ths of his time watching porn. Maybe its like our grain industry, we need to pay these guys so that we go on with our business. The world is so ****ed up these days.

[chuckChuck]

Most of you are so blinded by your "free market" ideology that you are not at all worried by increasing concentration of power in the hands of a declining number of multinationals?

If you haven't already noticed the grain industry is losing competitors. What happens when Cargill or Bunge buys controlling interest in Viterra? What is the guarantee that we won't have a large near monopoly player in the future who will use their multinational power to get rid of or buy out the competition?

Many ag sectors have little real competition. Like the beef industry. How many packers are left? American farmers have been complaining about captive supply and the power of packers to set prices for a long time.

Viable free markets require numerous competitive players actually competing.

Washington and Ottawa are full of industry lobbyists paid to represent the industry and their business. Guess who has more influence.

If you think multinational agribusiness cares about whether you survive as a family farmer, you will be sorely disapointed.

In the world of politics farmers have little power.