CWB Reform; What do YOU Need?

[chaffmeister]

Parsley:

Don't mix things up - the Monitor/Ombusdman is not an Avis Grey position - quite and absolutely the contrary. I'm thinking of a watchdog - with teeth - looking for answers. A pit bull that the CWB can't shake. The one thing missing in your arguments with the CWB is the real facts - the CWB is continually allowed to present to the govt, the media, the public - anything it wants to, without any scrutiny. If the CWB is really lying (or misrepresenting things) - and I don't know for certain that it is - it certainly would serve your purposes as a farmer looking for policy change (export licensing) to cut through all the BS.

If the Cons govt is looking to change things with respect to the CWB, it needs facts. Under the current situation, I don't think it'll get them.

[silverback]

Parsley said it well.

Allow farmers to make mistakes or success with the products grown on their own property.

Of course the question then is, when do we get property rights?

[parsley]

So chaffmeister, a monotor-omnbudsman is hired to do the job. A guard to watch the guard. And paid well. Kind of like the Ethics Commissioner that investigated Dingwall?

You should know that a well paid appointment often brings mirrors the answers the guy writing his cheque wants to hear.

Either the CWB or the Government would be paying the bill.

Pick your poison.

Parsley

[parsley]

silverback

Propertry rights is what we need so that a 'havenot Ligslovania', in a futuristic world, cannot expropriate personal property.

Any suggestions silverback?

Parsley

[parsley]

melvill.

Farmers are not 'disgruntled customers', (maybe Russia is, if they cannot pay off their loan).

The CWB works FOR farmers. Isn't that what we are told?

Parsley

[melvill]

I wasn't talking about farmers as 'disgruntled customers'. Was talking about disgruntled customers of public companies (and public and private broadcasters). Although visioning the CWB as a customer of farmers is an interesting idea when thinking about the CWB debate. Maybe we haven't been thinking in those terms even though farmers have, in a sense, been buying CWB services for many years.

I'd assume that you would consider yourself a 'disgruntled cwb customer'. Correct?

[chaffmeister]

Parsley:

Which would you prefer:
Avis Grey, Kenny Ritter, etc telling Steve Harper and Chuck Strahl “the way it is”, or someone else?

Poison? Perhaps.
Lesser of two evils? Perhaps.

- Avis Grey lobbying the govt on behalf of the CWB: $100,000 per yr
- The CWB handling export licensing: $millions over the years
- The Federal government seeing clearly for the first time what the CWB has been doing to the Western Canadian economy: priceless.

[chaffmeister]

Another option would be to bring back the Auditor General and allow her to do a THOROUGH forensic audit.

Do you think she would give the answers the CWB wants you to hear?

[TOM4CWB]

DO we agree with Chaff?

Step ONE.

Back the Auditor General and allow her to do a THOROUGH forensic audit.


How many in favour, how many against?

[parsley]

Do you want to concentrate on CWB reform, or moving forward towards a free grain movement environment? charliep called it transition, not a Board overhaul.

Should transition discussions be about how players not dealing with the Board can adapt and function?

It seems as if we are leaning towards trying how to make the Board better in the new environment.

Board supporters have every confidence in how the CWB does business now, so why plan on how to improve the CWB, during a post-monopoly time?

Isn’t the issue at hand,moving forward to how do farmers and grain companies and transportation companies best deal with this new environment that can actually bypass the CWB?