Let's add up some of the damage:
Sided with the pools on changing the method of payment (WGTA benefit) wanting the benefit paid to railways instead of farmers. That's right, payrails instead of farmers. Talk about a crock. The result was an inefficient rail system and the loss of cattle feeding anywhere much but AB.
Fought to preserve the two price wheat system which resulted in a mass exodus of domestic flour mills. Our best market is the one closest but the NFU wisdom was to punish them with prices that made them uncompetitive to point that leaving was the best idea.
In the nineties there was interest in on farm milling, anything to pickup farm fortunes. But no, the NFU saw farmers wanting tp process their own grain as "cherry picking" and depriving the pool account of their due.
Around the same time period there was interest in apasta plant for SK. Again, the NFU saw this as only another assault on their precious central desk marketer.
During the railway turmoil of the late nineties, there was an opportunity to put the railways on a commercial footing with the accountability that a commercial, contractual system would bring, but the NFU opposed that of course and unwittingly played into the plans of the railways through the Estey/Kroeger circus.
Of course the CWB argument is there and to me it's still hard to believe that a farm group would applaud when some farmers went to jail for trying to market their own property against an unjust law.
Has there ever been a time when longshoreman or dock workers were on strike that the NFU rushed to demand back to work legislation? I don't remember one..
I'm pretty sure that back in the day the NFU would have been in opposition of the building of Weyburn Inland Terminal.
There's just a pattern of constant subterfuge. It's like they want to be farming villains of their TV counterparts, KAOS, SPECTRE, THRUSH, Dr. Evil, etc.
You want to bring up crocks? Maybe NFU should rebrand. Rename: Canadian Rejects Offering Complete Krap. CROCK.
Sided with the pools on changing the method of payment (WGTA benefit) wanting the benefit paid to railways instead of farmers. That's right, payrails instead of farmers. Talk about a crock. The result was an inefficient rail system and the loss of cattle feeding anywhere much but AB.
Fought to preserve the two price wheat system which resulted in a mass exodus of domestic flour mills. Our best market is the one closest but the NFU wisdom was to punish them with prices that made them uncompetitive to point that leaving was the best idea.
In the nineties there was interest in on farm milling, anything to pickup farm fortunes. But no, the NFU saw farmers wanting tp process their own grain as "cherry picking" and depriving the pool account of their due.
Around the same time period there was interest in apasta plant for SK. Again, the NFU saw this as only another assault on their precious central desk marketer.
During the railway turmoil of the late nineties, there was an opportunity to put the railways on a commercial footing with the accountability that a commercial, contractual system would bring, but the NFU opposed that of course and unwittingly played into the plans of the railways through the Estey/Kroeger circus.
Of course the CWB argument is there and to me it's still hard to believe that a farm group would applaud when some farmers went to jail for trying to market their own property against an unjust law.
Has there ever been a time when longshoreman or dock workers were on strike that the NFU rushed to demand back to work legislation? I don't remember one..
I'm pretty sure that back in the day the NFU would have been in opposition of the building of Weyburn Inland Terminal.
There's just a pattern of constant subterfuge. It's like they want to be farming villains of their TV counterparts, KAOS, SPECTRE, THRUSH, Dr. Evil, etc.
You want to bring up crocks? Maybe NFU should rebrand. Rename: Canadian Rejects Offering Complete Krap. CROCK.
Comment