AdamSmith,
I have always maintained that we need marketing choice (although my dear partner says I am foolish to stick with point of view)...
I am afraid this drought will change much on the prairies... big companies will take more risk, as farmers who were risk takers are squeezed out...
As Chaffmeister correctly stated, any one player, if too big, can control and make a futures contract unstable and not reliable...
If my vision of the future value chain system, which includes transnational food companies, a strong and viable CWB, that must compete in the market place, is bound to be a healthy for the market place itself...
I didn't ever mean that I though the CWB should keep a monopoly that is not even now legal, as section 32 of the CWB has always had the word "offered" as key to the CWB's orderly marketing mandate.
If the CWB were to respect section 32 of the CWB Act, then they would only have marketing access, power, and authority over the grain that was offered to them, which intrinsically means that competition is a given.
At this stage export licenses for those "designated area" barley producers, who did not offer their grain to the CWB, would be issued no more differently than for Manufactured feed, Pedigreed seed, or for the OWPMB.
From this perspective the Standing Committee got it right, a change in legislation is not needed for choice, cause the CWB Act already inherently includes marketing choice...
I have always maintained that we need marketing choice (although my dear partner says I am foolish to stick with point of view)...
I am afraid this drought will change much on the prairies... big companies will take more risk, as farmers who were risk takers are squeezed out...
As Chaffmeister correctly stated, any one player, if too big, can control and make a futures contract unstable and not reliable...
If my vision of the future value chain system, which includes transnational food companies, a strong and viable CWB, that must compete in the market place, is bound to be a healthy for the market place itself...
I didn't ever mean that I though the CWB should keep a monopoly that is not even now legal, as section 32 of the CWB has always had the word "offered" as key to the CWB's orderly marketing mandate.
If the CWB were to respect section 32 of the CWB Act, then they would only have marketing access, power, and authority over the grain that was offered to them, which intrinsically means that competition is a given.
At this stage export licenses for those "designated area" barley producers, who did not offer their grain to the CWB, would be issued no more differently than for Manufactured feed, Pedigreed seed, or for the OWPMB.
From this perspective the Standing Committee got it right, a change in legislation is not needed for choice, cause the CWB Act already inherently includes marketing choice...
Comment