The problem with marketing choice

[Cockshutt]

To try and bring this back to my point,

Here's a skill testing question.

Identify correctly the type of marketing system each of the following commodities operate under. Canola, Peas, Mustard, Lentils, Oats, Flax, Rye, Buckwheat, Corn, Soybeans, Cattle, United States Wheat, Corn, Soybeans, Barley, European Wheat, Canola, Barley, Oats.


Your choices are 1. an open market system 2. A single desk system and 3. A voluntary board system.

The correct answer is 1. an open market system, and I want exactly what those commodities have.

Again it's an open market system we should be talking about and striving to achieve. Yes a pooling company can operate within an open market system and if there is enough demand for that, I have no problem with it. But that pooling company must not, under any cicumstances have any regulatory power what-so-ever. None. Zero. It is also up to those farmers who demand pooling to develop and nurture that pooling company. And that pooling company must be free to survive and thrive or fail just like any other company.

[parsley]

Good Morning cockshutt,

These farmers who demanded pooling developed the CWB. These same farmers cheer when other farmers go to jail.
The CWB has run wild and enforced policy that the Act does not mandate. Farmers can protest politically to change the CWB Act, or go to court to show that the CWB is going beyond their legislation.

Now what do you propose we do about it?

Parsley

[Cockshutt]

parsley, what's at the end of your strategy? An intact CWB, with all it's powers (real and precieved), but just using those powers to benifit only those who want to bypass the Canadian grain handling and transportation networks and export directly to the U.S via truck?

Or is the dismantling of a destructive system and the creation of a true free market?

The idea of an intact CWB at the end of the day really doesn't turn my crank to much.

[parsley]

cockshutt,

1. Let's dismantle a destructive system and create a true free market.
2. The impediment that stands in the way is the CWB Act.
3. How do we get rid of it before the year 2070?

Parsley

[Cockshutt]

parsley, C4 plastique has a certain desire to it. Joking, Joking

[TOM4CWB]

Cockshutt;

Funny isn't it that the Act to ammend the CWB in 1998 was Bill C4!

Security at Parliament hill even joked about the coincidence!

The CWB Act as written has marketing choice directly written into it.

The CWB admits that by law it MUST keep the price inside and outside Canada the same, to observe NAFTA requirements.

Now we only have left "in the opinion of the Board" the "pecuniary benefit enuring the applicant" which is zero because the price inside and outside Canada is the same.

The CWB simply put only has a statutory obligation to market grain offered to itself through Section 32 of the CWB Act, and legally has an obligation to leave everyone else alone who wants nothing to do with the CWB.

The Alberta Gov. has a very good chance of providing market choice, IF the AB Justice Dept approaches this subject from the correct perspective!

Parsley; the CWB monopoly never did exist; and no-cost export licenses are still the fastest and easiest way to resolve this issue. The grain can still travel through normal Canadian ports, using Vancouver Warves or other commercial loading facilities.

I sincerely hope the farmers in western Canada who vote will respect their neighbours rights to offer grain to the CWB... or the right NOT to offer grain to the CWB...as is the inherent right of every citizen of Canada, the right to ownership personal property!

There is no problem with marketing choice... only a problem with those who do not respect the legal rights of their neighbours!

[parsley]

tom4cwb,

No cost, you say? Change the terminology because dealing with the CWB is like dealing with an eel. NO-BUYBACK licenses are the way to go. When you don't do the buyback, you don't sell to the CWB. (When you do the buyback, you sell to the Board. No-cost could be construed as a zero-cost buyback).

cockshutt, I think that the best way to get a system that will provide Prairie farmers the tools to market the grain, and bypass the Board, is by demanding and getting no-buyback licenses. In court, if that is the last resort. A judicial review. 30 days.

Like tom4cwb says, "the CWB monopoly never did exist; and no-cost export licenses are still the fastest and easiest way to resolve this issue'. The backroom policy of the CWB cannot withstand a court challenge.

Do you have another methodology in mind, cockshutt? A legal one.

Parsley

[Cockshutt]

Tom that is an interesting coincidence.

I think parsley, was looking for a more serious answer though.

parsley you asked, how do we do get a real free market before the year 2070?

Any attempt to remove the CWB from the prairie landscape will be met with vicious opposition from the extreme left. The key is, those who try, must have the nerve and the balls to meet these people head on and give no quarter. The fanatic's will stop at nothing to preserve the single desk and the CWB. The open market farmers must defend and promote free market principles at every turn.

I can't predict the actual timeline of events that lead up to the actual demise of the CWB, but I'm pretty sure the process is already underway. But I believe it will take some type of action at the federal level. Either the CWB goes so far beyond a point which even Goodale and the Government can't tolerate (an entirely plausible situation) thus forcing Goodale to shut the thing down. A new prime minister with a new CWB minister might change things. It might take another huge border run, more farmers in jail. Or the courts, but the courts are packed full of socialist type judges. I hold out little hope for a legal solution.

In order to be rid of this pestilence once and for all it's going to take a political solution. I know with Goodale and Chretien at the helm, we have about as much hope as the legal route, but I'm certain that Goodale and Chretien will be long gone and buried before we see anything other than liberal/socialist judges in this country.

[bmj182]

Just thought I'd throw another
wrench in! What are everyone's
thoughts concerning supply
management? I read an article
where it stated that the federal
government was using the CWB as
its "first line" in the defence of supply
management at the next round of
trade talks. If that is true the Liberal's
will fight like hell to keep the CWB
around, and so will all the eastern
provinces. I'd like to here thoughts
on this, thanks.

[parsley]

bmj 182, I agree entirely with your analysis. I don't think if every last Westerner bought a Liberal membership and elected a Liberal MP in every constituency would the East consider dumping supply management.

cockshutt, in the court system, it is the CWB who are following policy instead of legislation. That's serious stuff. The courts cannot avoid dealing with the facts. I agree that we must eyeball them. I'm sure as hell not prepared to blink as are hundreds of producers, and I think many on this site would hold firm.

We can beat them in court. And along side the bench, we fight them politically. These are nasty people with a lot to lose. This is going to get worse before it gets better. But I agree, we don't back down at all.

After all, the most important thing is that a group of out of control political fanaticists cannot be allowed to run our $4-6 Billion business as if it is their treasure chest, and ignore the law all the while.

Are you solid? Send an e-mail through the post office only if you are.

Parsley

[parsley]

cockshutt,
Glad you contacted me. You have some very interesting ideas and you are very knowledgeble and focused. The Board cannot withstand guys like you!

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

bmj182:

I have a theory that in the next WTO round, there will a lot of pressure on Canada to give up on a number of things in the ol' ag pouch, the two most prominant are supply management (particularly dairy) and the biggest State Trading Organization out there, the CWB. (The US has already served notice on both supply management and STOs). And with the US stating that they will be ready to cut their subsidies in half, the pressure for us to give up something will be immense. (Now we see the method in their madness with the huge Farm Bill!)

Now think about this - if you were the feds, which would you see as more important to keep happy: Quebec (dairy) or the praires (CWB). (Forget for a moment the fact that more than half the farmers in western Canada would like to market without the CWB.) Forced to give up one, I think the feds would quite easily place the CWB on the chopping block in order to keep the French vanilla ice cream machine.

Now, having said that, I also think that the feds will never give up the CWB unilaterally. The CWB's true value to the feds will be in using it as a pawn to protect supply management in dairy - and to protect all those francophone votes.

And THAT would be your first line of defense as I see it. But rather than fight like hell to keep the CWB, when the time is right, the CWB will get tossed like a bone to the dogs.

[TOM4CWB]

Chaffmeister;

I agree with much of what you have said, and many "designated area" farmers have been thinking this for some time.

Tooo bad we are just pawns in a game...

The prison terms make what Ottawa is doing... a crime... kind of like we slaves are here for the convienence of the east...

What a deal!

[chaffmeister]

Tom - sorry to say this but it's worse than you suggest. You are not just a pawn - you are a pawn of a pawn.