Federal Government Introduces Legislation

[charliep]

Found it interesting to note that the CWB board of directors has not commented one way or the other (with deal with at today or tomorrow's meeting).

Will also note the arguement some have made that CWB support is not related to size of operation. If you believe this, then removing people who deliver less than 120 tonnes should not have any impact on CWB director election results or farmer surveyed attitude on CWB activities/role.

Will note that the CWB survey in past and the upcoming one have results segrated by farm size, age and a number of other sample (read farmer) characturistics. This survey would answer the question of the impact of this decision.

Perhaps that would have me raise the real issue behind your concerns. Do you believe the CWB system evens up the market power of big and small farmers? Should this be the role of the CWB?

[parsley]

wilagro,

An election promise is not usually called a preconceieved idea, but I can accept the term.

The Conservative Government won the election and one of their election promises was Marketing choice.
Marketing choice.

I am unhappy because we are talking about marketing process.

If I have a choice, I am gone from CWB Marketing channels, and I don't really give a damn if the Voluntary Marketing arm of the Canadian Wheat board require all their participating farmers to dress in drag.


Parsley

[charliep]

Just thought I would toss up the demographics of the 2007 survey (new one released shortly). If you assume the survey sample was developed to accurately reflect the demographics of permit book holders, then you can likely use this to figure out what the change to 120 tonnes minimum will have on the voting list.

From the 2007 survey, 24.5 % of the respondents had less than 640 cultivated acres. Based on a 4 year rotation, would potentially struggle to deliver 120 tonnes of wheat. In the same survery, 10.6 % of farmers grew no wheat, a further 7.2 % grew less than 100 acres. and 20.3 % grew between 101 and 250 acres of wheat. People in these bottom categories would potenially struggle to meet the 120 tonne minimum.

[parsley]

The legislated role of the CWB is twofold:

1. License all wheat and barley moving interprovincially or exported.(Licenses should be freely given)

2. Marketing the grain offered to the CWB.(Do the best job they can do)

If the CWB sticks with their legislation, there is no problem.

I don't want to offer my grain.

If wilagro wants to offer his grain, go for it.


charliep, the CWB doesn't have the capability to issue press releases and chew gum at the same time.The CWB spends farmers money as if it was their slush fund.

That's what this resistance is about...it HAS been their slush fund, and the reckoning is a-comin'

Parsley

[parsley]

charliep.

Until the elevators and the railroads and the cleaning mills are no longer considered "works for the general advantage of Canada", it is important that every farmer can vote. It effects every farmer, not just wheat and barley farmers.

The CWB regs/leg goes hand in hand with that generalworks cgc legislation.

[parsley]

Correction:
That should read cga, not cgc.

Parsley

[just_wondering]

I think that Ritz put in an alright bill all the while knowing that it cannot pass without the support of all parties before the house rises. this bill will not likely get proclaimed B4 the next CWB election, It's all about appeasing those of us in the Choice movement, I for one won't be happy until we all get a choice.

[just_wondering]

I think we can push this hard and get it through Parliament. Talk to the farm groups, all presented to the review committee, and all (with possible exemption of the NFU)supported all the recomendations including the tonnage idea. Call WCWGA, WRAP, KAP, SARM, APAS, WBGA, and get them to come forward with letters of support.
Have to note the NFU's response

"The people that are called producers, most of them are legitimate farmers or farmers who have rented out their land ... and are still relying on the income from that land. They have a legitimate financial interest in how that grain is marketed.''
Well's figures my land lord has a right to a vote as he/she is getting income from that land - why would any landlord have any legitimate right to a vote if they are not the ones actively taking all the risk to produce the crop and market it??
Lets push this through, Bill C-46 needs to be vetted out in the Ag Committee, this Bill C-57 comes out of then Minister Reg Alcock's government, and has been sitting on a shelf now for over 2.5 years. In Gerry Ritz's one words, "get her done" !
Erik

[stubblejumper]

ext will be changes to the elections act. Only Canadians who gross over $100,000.00 will get to vote in federal elections.

[parsley]

1. One has to follow the speed with which the Government moves a bill through the house, in order to determine if it is a priority bill.

And the Wheat Board Bill is stalled.

Some of you are intent on increasing the rpm of the mouths who want the bill passed.

I have concluded that he intent of the legislators obviously differs from the intent of those wanting change, or the deed would have been done two years ago.

They are engaging in what is commonly known as pissing on your leg and telling you it is raining.


2. Governments encouraged farmers to value add and many farmers bought cattle. They grow thousands of bushels of barley and feed it. They don't flood the market with barley, they feed it. They are legitimate farmers who no longer will have a voice. Those justifying saying cattlemen should not vote will inevitably justify supply management.

Parsley

[parsley]

stubblejumper,

You've always embraced restrictions, so don't complain. "Restrict farmers from selling what they grow", screetches Stubblejumper.

It's your mantra. Swallow it.

Ritz gave a ministerial order to the CWB to shut up. According to the CWB, they tippytoe with every press release, with every word, so they do not break their MInisterial order.


Hmmmm.

Ministerial order remains in effect, methinks.

Think about this, all of you meek who will inherit the $2.00 wheat from your Prairie earth, IF THE MINISTER HAD ORDERED THE CWB TO PROVIDE YOU WITH EXPORT LICENSES TWO YEARS AGO, how much cash would you have gotten from the open market, shipping grain directly into the USA and ALL countries of the world when the price was high?

A bold question. Too scarey.

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

Parsley I'm more or less with you on this, I do understand the rational behind this, but really if creating marketing choice was compared to building a house, these election ammendments are the equivalent of sweeping up sawdust at the end of a day.

It's just not something that really is going to amount to much.

I want out, period. Easy access to an export licence any time I wish to sell wheat works for me. I need the continuity of an AT ANY TIME, NO COST /NO BUYBACK LICENCE.


And by the way willy, you think Ritz and the Cons are the only ones who listen to only one group of farmers?

Ever heard of Ralph Goodale, the only people he would even see were CWB supporters. I remember during the Kroeger/Estey process I went to Ottawa with 20 or 30 other farmers and was slated to meet with the Messiah from Milestone and he ditched on us the last minute, wouldn't even meet with us.

So willy quit getting your hoity-toities in a knot over Ritz. Ritz needs to raise the bar much higher to even approach the esprit de pugnaciousness of Ralph Goodale.