The Conservative Party’s Fair-Weather Democrats

[FarmRanger]

..and the CWB plebiscite purposely excluded a
certain proportion of farmers they knew wouldn't
vote their way, and sent multiple ballots to others.

Never mind that nobody should have a vote on
trampling someone else's property rights.

[mbratrud]

Chuckchuck the Majority of Farmers have been fairly consulted. Look at the vote breakdown on the Prairies from the spring election, including the rural vote, which voted for a platform that ends the CWB Monopoly.

ChuckChuck I have lived with Ag Policy I didn't agree with for a long time, for precisely the reasons you pointed out.

I was supportive of the CWB operating in some form in the future. There are many good people that work at the Board and unfortunately the current Board of Directors is pissing away any chance of life for the CWB after the single desk.

I know of CWB staff that are already looking for work and they are good people and will find good jobs, I feel for them because they had a chance to be part of something new and exciting but instead they are working for and organization that has a Board that only knows how to look in the rearview mirror.

It is so over but you guys will be kicking and screaming in denial until after the For Sale sign goes on 423 Main Street.

Chuckchuck I know you are passionate about your position and you have every right to be.

Independence day is coming Aug 1 2012.

[Braveheart]

Once again, this is about business. You can't hold some phoney vote and think you have the right to force my property into the hands of someone I want nothing to do with!

Also, I predict that if this is not resolved there will be civil disobedience on a level not seen before. I know farmers that are usually easy going rational people that are saying they're going to the border with truckloads if the issue doesn't move forward.

So stuff that in your fair weather pipe!

[blackpowder]

Good points mbratrud.
I too for 30 years have had my head patted benignly everytime I asked a simple 'why' or 'what if' question.

[begood]

chuck You think "this is over End of story" I think not. Just for starters; part of the legislation might well be to immediately clean out the boardroom.

[chuckChuck]

So why do none of you want to address my central question as I posted above?

"So next time you end up with a government you don't support, will the federal election be the only vote that counts when it comes to ag. policy?"

[mbratrud]

Chuckchuck

I sort of answered your question but I will be more clear. If they clearly win a mandate in my region running on a platform with ag policy for that region yes. Unlike the Libs that shot the crow in 94.

If you look at the Majority of support for the Federal Conservatives and where it came from I think it is quite obvious they were given a mandate from Rural Western Canada to provide Market Choice.

Why doesnt the CWB release there Plebecite results by Province we all know what story that would tell.

[charliep]

chuckChuck

Is the CWB a political/social organization or a business one? If you believe the CWB is political/social organization, then I will buy your arguement. If it is a business organization, then the CWB has to win support on the merits of the services it provides its stakeholders/customers.

It would seem from the press conference the discussion is not really about democracy. It is able what protection for the CWB can be built into regulation (access to terminals at ports, rail capacity, etc) and how many tax payer dollars are required to back stop the CWB operations. The really interesting thing in the new CWB will be goverance, ownership structure and financing. Heard the word new generation cooperative many times although I don't think legislation exists in federal laws (does in provincial).

[craig]

Chuck chuck
Simple answer to your question. Whatever government
is in power has the right to form it's own ag policy.
How many years did we live under Liberal rule where
Ralph Goodale set ag policy for Western Canada.
Reality was no one else in his party really cared about
ag issues so he was given free rein. Right now at least
I can go to my local M.P. and he will invite into his
office. That opportunity was never there with Goodale.
He only talked to his friends.

[chuckChuck]

Charlie. The short answer is the CWB is political/social issue as well as in the business of selling farmers grain.
Just as supply managed industries such as dairy and poultry are clearly marketing board examples designed to protect farmers from cheap imports that would clearly run many of them out of business as it has in many other countries. Protecting farmers is social and economic policy. So are subsidies and safety net programs.

You can argue one way or the other whether the CWB has been successful in assisting small and medium sized farmers, but clearly it was designed and supported as a marketing agent on behalf of and responsible to producers. You can also argue that it restricts farmers freedom. I would also argue that without the CWB there is also going to be a loss of farmer power and perhaps less competition as the industry consolidates. There are no guarantees that many farmers will not be left at a disadvantage in an open market.

What would happen if the Conservatives opened up the market to cheap dairy and poultry products? Many farms would go out of business. And you can bet that they will compensated for quota.

[mbratrud]

If I hear one more person compare Dairy and Poultry to Grain Again my head is going to explode... You cannot compare short shelf life commodities with Grains and Oilseeds. Fresh produce, Milk and Eggs are a different animals. The Dairy Quota system is not even remotely close to the CWB Single Desk. Give your head a shake for even bringing it up! If you think it is comparible you truly are out of touch.

[charliep]

Supply managed industries produce for the domestic market and are protected from the export market by tariffs. They control supply to set price. Production is based on a manufacturing system. Put feed in the cow to a certain level and milk comes out.

Wheat is mainly grown for export market (about 60 to 70 per cent depending on the year) with farmer decisions and mother nature the determining factor. Prices are established by factors outside Canada. The new reality is the Ukraine, Russia and Kazakstan can produce wheat for the mid quality markets - the bottom end of the returns to pool table referred to in the August CWB meetings. If you use supply management as a model, you would cut Canadian wheat production by a third.

Barley is about 85 to 90 percent domestic and 10 to 15 percent export. Should give Canada control over prices (at least for feed) theoretically but corn/distillers grains cross with no limits and other feeding alternatives soon work in if feed barley/wheat gets out of line. From customer side, livestock feed industry has to be competitive with the US. The 20 percentish decline in livestock numbers is directly reflected in a similar decrease in feed consumption.

Politically, you can carry on the conversation. In the real world, two different industries.

[mbratrud]

Agreed Charlie,
Also very important to acknowledge the fact that the Dairy Market for example would be much more difficult in an non regulated system, because producers are forced to market their product in a short timeline. Grain as long as cashflow permits I can store until Market conditions are more favourable to my situation.

[chuckChuck]

Charlie and MB, I well know the differences with grain compared to supply management, but the question you posed is the CWB a business question or a social policy question and it can be argued it is both.

I am not suggesting in any way that we can supply manage the grain industry like we do poultry and eggs. But at one time we had a two price wheat policy. One price for domestic and the world price for the rest. Is our domestic market still around 20% or so? In any case we gave it up under CUSTA or NAFTA. But it provided price benefits to producers like import tarrifs do for dairy and poultry.

Any arguments about dairy and poultry being perishable products are not really relevant as almost all countries have gone to an open market and their markets function reasonably well. But you seem to agree that supply management works well? And I would agree it is good policy. But it is not good policy just because the products are perishable. It is good policy because it provides stable predictable incomes that are based on the cost of production. This has clearly kept smaller producers in business longer. Which must be social policy.

So from a policy position how can we support one group of farmers with a regulated market and import controls while removing the marketing boards of another group without raising some questions about ag. policy in this country. Why does one group get so much protection and not the other?

And if you are going to use the "freedom" argument which many politicians and farmers use, don't you think that should be applied consistently and not only for obvious political reasons?

[blackpowder]

Good points. I say keep supply mgnt as long as people are aware of the reason their products cost double. And, Canada is losing it's food processing industry at a brisk pace, how would that look without supp. mgnt.? I don't know.
Ag policy is often a mix of social and business policy.
What you do not want in some ways is what Europe has.
Powerful value added industry to be sure, and ag policy in the forefront. But a farm population so subsidized they themselves have become a social issue. Quebec dairy farmers perhaps?
I've been told they want us to keep our board.