Reasons Why should CWB Directors Should Provide DA Farmers With Marketing Choice

[parsley]

If you are a CWB Director, and you will participate in various motions at the CWB Directors' Board Table in the next few days, please consider some of the reasons farmers give to you, for you to willingly provide marketing choice:



1. Western farmers would then enjoy what Eastern farmers have enjoyed all along. Parity.

2. Allowing farmers to market their own grain will establish harmony in the farm community.


3. The CWB often claims the polls/elections/studies support CWB marketing. That being the case, the few farmers who want to market on their own will have no impact upon the CWB's pooling anfd marketing functions.


4. The Western Grain Marketing Panel recommended taking barley right out of the CWB Act. The Panel Members spent a great deal of time in their deliberations and considerations. Act on them.

5. The CWB Act does not have to be compromised in their role as national licener IF you act with reason and judgement, and provide licenses to Western farmers.

[parsley]

6. All Directors at the CWB table should vote to grant license to all Prairie farmer applicants. It is a very simple policy procedure, at NO EXTRA cost to farmers.

Ian McCreary told us at a Senate Committee hearing that there are barley any licensing costs.

Therefore, that means few apply for licenses. If what he says is true, then there will be very limited licensing-application traffic to contend with. Marketing choice will occur without stupid costs, unecessary costs.

[parsley]

7. Don't rush into ripping open the CWB Act. Rather, recommend a regulatory ammendment.

Some of the Directors sitting at the B of D table have a duty to farmers to familiarize themselves with the CWB Act before they tear into it.

For example, did you ever wonder why the CWB makes "Handling arrangements" with the Accreditied agencies?

Farmers and Board memebrs should ask this question: "If the Accredited Agencies represent the CWB itself, then why do we need to make an expensive handling agreement?"

It is for this reason: It relates to ownwership. I cannot ever stress how much importance ownership has for a farmer.


Although the grain companies ship your grain, and insure the grain, and they borrow money for the purchase of your grain, it is actually the CWB who remains the owner of farmers' grain once you "offer it to the CWB.

We have the notion , and so do the courts and so does most likely the Government, that the grain elevator legally operates on behalf of the CWB in the CWB Act.

It does not.

I checked the Act online again today.

The Act , under Sections 20, 21, and 22 state:

"Every grain elevator is required to be operated for and on behalf of "The Canadian Wheat Board".

Sounds like a plan, BUT Legally, they don't have to, because these Sections are not in force!

I'll cut and paste the NOT IN FORCE statement from the Act to make it easy for you:

QUOTE

COMING INTO FORCE
Coming into force

*77. Sections 20, 21 and 22 shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

* [Note: Sections 20, 21 and 22 not in force.]

R.S., c. C-12, s. 46; 1972, c. 16, s. 7.1.

UNQUOTE

So,because the elevators are not required, by law, to act on behalf of the CWB, the CWB makes a legal agreement with them to do so.

That constant negotiating costs farmers a bundle.

The CWB Act has profound implications/oddities/ because it embraces/comes under the constitutional head of both Trade and Commerce and Agriculture.

So before the Directors sit at the table and do some fancy voting, they must understand their are implications involved that are hidden, unknown, resultory, and so on, in the CWB Act.

The easier method for the CWB Director is to grant licenses to Prairie farmers by simply putting up your hand, and passing the necessary policy.

Parsley

[parsley]

8. Western Farmers voted for marketing choice. Honor that vote.

9. Trust in farmers. If the CWB is doing a good job for them, farmers will continue to partner with them, ands support them. Your base will not melt.

10. If the CWB cannot trust the community it serves, and continues to use force to gain commerce, the CWB should be permanently shredded and publically shamed. There is not place for force and jailing in a democratic society.

Feel free to jump in. Give your Directors advice on how to provide Marketing Choice to Western grain farmers.

Parsley

[SASKFARMER3]

Parsnip lets just regulate every thing, God that's the same BS we have been doing since time began. Here let me hold your hand through the process.
God all we want is a right to sell to who ever We feel like.
God whats to regulate.
Just give me choice.

[parsley]

I di not advocate regulating everything.

Pick your poison:

1. Change the Act
2. Throw out the Act.
3. Change regulations
3. Change policy.

#1 will take forever. Just try to reason with a Liberal Senator. And do the Director's/ Gov't know what to change? On the one small example I gave, if they pass Section 20, will they contravene Property rights in the Constitution?


#2Dandy. Need balls. Also what will stop Rosann from putting in a Provincial Marketing Board for wheat and Barley? Your love notes?

#3 Can change regs. Take barley out, entirely, for example.

#4. Policy motion provide INSTANT licensing in 5 minutes Then they can work on regs and the Act later to permantize their decision.


Which poison do you want on your fig?

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Heck, I'm even willing to say... please.


Please give us Marketing Choice.

[parsley]

Saskfarmer,

You want choice in Marketing? Directors can give it to you tonight via a conference call. But you still need the damn license, in hand. Even Ontario does.

No licensing? You need to cut out Licensing from the Act or kill the Act.

Parsley

[Jay-mo]

If some sort of no-charge license is the only way to get market choice then so be it.
However, i have to agree with SF3. Why the hoops to jump? The CWB needs to take their hands off the barley and wheat no strings attached.
If they want to continue to provide a pooling option for those who want to use it, go for it.

[parsley]

The law of the land right now says that all wheat abnd barley being moved interprovincialy, or exported must be licensed by the Board.

Whaddya want to do with that law Jay-mo?

1. Change the Act via Parliament
2. Throw out the Act via Parliament.
3. Change regulations via Parliament
4. Change policy.by Directors
5. Break the law via farmers

I added # 5 for you

You want?

Parsley

[parsley]

11. The CWB should relieve marketing tensions immediately so that farmers can realize these times of record high prices, and lock in potential profits.

12. Three Western Governments agree with Choice farmers. Wake up and smell the roses.

13. Access to Information is probably going to decimate the CWB's credibility.

[BreadWinner]

The CWB has bungled the barley issue so badly that I dont think they can talk their was back into farmers hearts. Instead of proving themselves to farmers by working hard and getting us the prices we deserve, they wholesaled our barley and spent to much time and money on trying to hold onto POWER. They should hand the barley monopoly back to farmers as a token and they can try to save thier hides by getting us more for our wheat. I dont want to hear anything from the CWB about this issue. If you are a delegate or work for the CWB GET YOUR A$$ back to doing what you are suppossed to be doing or we will ripp the whole CWB from under you and you can get a new job that you have to be accountable for.

[AdamSmith]

#1 will take forever. Just try to reason with a Liberal Senator.

Parsley, the odds of reasoning with a Liberal Senator are ten fold better than reasoning with a cwb director IMO.

We've been trying to change the cwb from within for well over ten years now, and if the cwb monopoly was measured in distance, equivilent to the distance between Edmonton and Winnipeg, Edmonton being a free market and Winnipeg being single desk, my analysis puts the cwb directors in, oh, somewhere around Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.

Which director do you see changing his position?

#1 Bill Toews
#2 Bill Nicholson
#3 Rod Flaman
#4 Kyle Korychuck
#5 Ian McReary
#6 Ken Ritter
#7 Larry Hill
#8 The other guy who's name I forget

Now seriously tell me which of these gentelmen are all of a sudden going to abandon the single desk position in favour of anything that would give farmers the freedom to tell the cwb to piss off, I don't have to deal with you?

[parsley]

AS,

I guess I'd like
# 4 tonight
then everyone could export tommorow

followed by #2
as soon as possible...
first reading
second reading
third reading....

Parsley

And you?

[Fransisco]

I think Adam Smith is right, if reason where something these directors responded to we'd already have had choice years ago. They are not interested in reasoning, in rights, in economics, in what is best for farmers.

They are a lot closer to the"Butchie" Harder line of thinking than they would probably care to admit. That letting farmers sell their own barley will mean the end of medicare. It's all about the fight for global socialism for these blokes and I think they are ready to die on this wheat board hill so they can collect their 72 virgins or beaureaucrats or virgin beaureaucrats or whatever it is that good little socialists get when they go to socialist heaven(which I think is located somewhere in North Korea).