• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another interesting piece

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Another interesting piece

    Tue, November 21, 2006


    Corruption Icon Canadian Wheat Board entrenches Liberal legacy

    By Paul Jackson



    The Canadian Wheat Board is a powerful monopoly and western Canadian farmers have no choice but to sell their wheat and barley to this entity or face dire consequences.

    When the occasional farmer has dared to defy the dictates of the board and trucked his wheat or barley down to the U.S. to sell it for the best price he can negotiate, he's often ended up in handcuffs, leg shackles and tossed into a jail cell on his return to Canada.

    But now, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl are planning to follow a growing chorus from individual farmers and organizations such as the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and make membership in the wheat board voluntary.

    This has the Liberals hopping mad.

    The wheat board has often been described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal party and a huge patronage operation for Liberal governments.

    Despite its $6 billion in annual sales, and a large staff, no outside agency or official is allowed to look at its books to see just how profitable it is, where the money goes and how it is decided who gets contracts for advertising or polling.

    Indeed, when the Liberal-dominated Senate sent back to the House of Commons the Conservatives' Federal Accountability Act -- that's the act calling for more ethics and openness in government -- one of the 'amendments' struck out by the Liberals was the guarantee to an access to information clause covering the wheat board.


    Sounds like a pretty innocuous clause.

    But then why do the Liberals shudder at the very thought some outsider might be able to go through the board's books or see how directors are appointed and contracts handed out?

    Why are the internal operations of the wheat board guarded so jealously?

    Here's another issue to get suspicious about.

    Generally it's younger, more energetic farmers who want to go out on their own.

    The board's hierarchy knows this, so for years it has kept inactive producers on its membership list who get to vote in elections for new directors -- the ones the government doesn't appoint directly -- and they tend to vote for candidates who want to maintain the monopoly.

    The Conservatives are moving to de-list inactive producers, and just months ago found some 34% of 'eligible' electors had made no wheat sales in the past two years.

    Almost 10% had made no sales in almost a decade!

    So the Conservatives want to ensure future elections are conducted on a level playing field.

    The board -- and the Liberals -- do not like that at all.

    They want to ensure the board keeps its totalitarian powers and is allowed to continue to operate behind closed doors.

    One question that has never been answered is why only Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers come under the rigid authority of the board.

    Eastern Canadian wheat and barley farmers can sell their grain to any buyer, something that would land -- and has landed -- western farmers in a jail cell.

    Political colleagues tell me to watch for some startling revelations when the board's monopoly finally ends and when it does come under access to information laws.

    Revelations that may make the Quebec sponsorship scandal look tame by comparison.

    #2
    curious to where the piece orginated from. Hopefully it reaches those people who are being hoodwinked by the opposition parties.

    Comment


      #3
      http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2006/11/21/2432130.html

      Comment


        #4
        He also thinks George Bush is doing a great job and is comparable to a winston Churchill!

        Comment


          #5
          Agstar: quit posting while the CWB Directors are meeting - you are blowing the "Agstar is a CWB BOD theory"

          And what about this?

          Quote:

          Political colleagues tell me to watch for some startling revelations when the board's monopoly finally ends and when it does come under access to information laws.

          Revelations that may make the Quebec sponsorship scandal look tame by comparison.

          Unquote

          Comment


            #6
            Current Board members should report any illegal actions taken by the CWB or subject themselves to prosecution. That includes Johnson and his cohorts, even with the confidentiality oath. So where is it?

            Comment


              #7
              good one Agstar!!

              Comment


                #8
                Let's see, Johnson "and his cohorts" (I assume you mean Motiuk) just joined the BOD - first meeting for them going on as we speak. You must hold Johnson in very high regard if you think he could ferret out that kind of stuff this quickly. (Besides, I'm sure they are still enjoying the hospitality and camaraderie provided by Ritter and his cohorts as they are welcomed into the fold.)

                If you include Chatney as a Johnson "cohort", I understand Jim has asked to see certain information and has been refused. You gotta see it before you can report it.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Chaff , you understand doesn't cut it . If there is something illegal I would venture any of the appointed or elected BOD would speak-up or risk going to jail. Don't make accusations without PROOF.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Is the D&O liabilty insurance paid up at 423 Main?
                    _________________________


                    http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/reputation-is-everything-in-good-times-and-bad/2006/11/15/1163266638276.html


                    Despite the reputation of Australian farming products, the AWB board, for instance, faces the charge of not fully safeguarding its reputation.

                    The importance of the prudent and supervisory role of Australian organisational boards, with their independent members operating as the conscience of the organisation, ensuring there is some internal accountability, cannot be overstated.

                    A clear set of values and principles that are consistently translated into corporate strategies and communicated by competent managers may prevent damaging scandals.

                    Values and principles in themselves do not guarantee superior financial performances.

                    However, the board and its chief executive may hopefully not only create a competitive edge by appealing to the ethical values intrinsic in a good reputation in this increasingly scrutinised business world, they may also create an important and useful insurance policy for the shareholders in the process.
                    _____________________________
                    Dr Peter Verhezen is visiting scholar, co-ordinating governance and international business at Melbourne University's Department of Management & Marketing. He is also an associated partner with IndoConsult/Booz, Allen & Hamilton Management Consulting Group in Jakarta.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Agstar.......What accusation? I heard something, I shared it.

                      Take note that I didn’t say this was fact……."I understand..." is another way of saying "I heard...", or "Supposedly...", or "I'm told...", or “I read on the internet…”, or “Did you hear the one about…”.

                      What proof do I need to say that I heard someone's efforts to understand the workings of the CWB have been frustrated? I'm not accusing him of anything. Nor am I accusing the CWB of anything. Remember – this is not a court of law, this is an open forum where we can discuss issues of the day.

                      Many comments are posted as opinions – do these need proof? Some are clippings from internet sources – do these need to be proven?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Agstar – you will note that NUPGE has joined the “campaign to save the Canadian Wheat Board”.

                        Reading their release I noticed a couple of comments that I’m confident you would also notice; James Clancy is quoted as saying:

                        “WE UNDERSTAND your government is responding to the continuing complaints of the U.S. government about the CWB’s grain marketing monopoly.”

                        And

                        “WE ALSO UNDERSTAND that corporate agribusiness would dearly like to see the end of the CWB.”

                        Based on your concept that “I (we) understand doesn’t cut it, shouldn’t it also apply here?
                        Does he have proof the government is responding to US complaints? Does he have proof that agribusiness would dearly like to see the end of the CWB? If he doesn’t, how can we let him say these things with impunity? After all, isn’t he accusing the govt of caving-in to US interests? And isn’t he accusing corporate agribusiness of involvement in this farmers’ debate?

                        Comment

                        • Reply to this Thread
                        • Return to Topic List
                        Working...