Now that you all have taken time to explore the extensive data Wendy Holm has collected, it is time for you all to have the benefit of the chatter from a discussion list that is widely ‘monitored’, by both farmers AND governments!!!
In response to Ms. Holm’s request for action, the emails below appeared on the list:
*********************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
and the next present on George Bush's breakfast tray is the Canadian Wheat Board. (emphasis mine-cg)
(If you don't know why, read The Big Fib http://www.theholmteam.ca/ the_big_fib.pdf)
But farmers can stop that, no?
This IS a minority government, yes?
(for more, click on http://www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html)
Wendy
***************************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
at present, the CWB is alive and well.... :-) and putting over $800 million a year
(through pricing and producer car benefits) into the pockets of prairie farmers.
money that the transnational grain companies of course want to put in THEIR pockets instead.
this isn't a CWB argument. (farmers in western canada know the cwb is working. that's why they consistently elect pro-cwb directors.)
its a farmers rights argument.
the CWB Act requires that ANY CHANGES to the Act must have been supported by producer vote.
section 47.1 clearly states:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period,... unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister
for some reason, harper thinks his new government is not bound by this.
this is a perfect issue for farmers to stand together on.
Bill C-30 must be stopped. this is not a partisan issue.
it is an issue of farmers' rights.
wendy
*************************************************
Wendy,
Don't take this the wrong way but I prefer those affected by the action to do the talking. I know your are an agrologist and I am only a farmer, but dual marketing is the only way to actually make the CWB effective. As most boards, they have become complacant and are not as effective as they could be. Competition seems to wake up even the worst of them.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to make whatever statement you wish. However your opinion although welcome holds no more weight in my book than any farmer who sells wheat.
Free votes in any marketing board setting are seldom actually free votes and change in all marketing boards is so slow that watching paint dry is more exciting.
Love to have all the droves of farmers wanting to keep the CWB actually write in. If they are so passionate, where are they?
By the way Wendy, grain companies already control price but they do it through Chicago. CWB is more a grain allocator than marketer.
Note: spelling not mine!-cg
*********************************************************
Thanks Wendy - I sent a letter to our MP and copied to Strahl and Harper asking that a producer vote be held before changing the way collective marketing works for the Western farmer. I think we would still have a collective marketing style board in Ont for wheat but it was too small and got neglected by producers - failed its job and was voted out.
**********************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
sigh...
do you really believe that legislative framework has no standing?
w canada grain producers are LEGALLY entitled to a vote on the matter. it is simply not up to harper nor anyone else to sweep those rights aside.
if such transgressions of legal rights are allowed, where are the boundaries?
agri-food trans-nationals are into margin capture.
ideally, they want to leave $1 more in the pocket of the farmer than would cause him/her to turn away from the land.
this is not a moral issue, it is the physics of capital.
capital, like water, moves predictably in accordance with immutable principals. like water flowing downhill to the sea, capital moves to its own aggregation.
the role of the state is to know where capital will go in any given opportunity topography
then construct the small, run of the river dams to make it slow down and stick a little (irrigate a strong middle class) as it moves through our communities.
we haven't done that... and right now,it is only the CWB that stands between canada's wheat and barley growers and a highly concentrated grain sector. without the wheat board, where do you think the bargaining power will rest?
and kid yourself not: if this "new" government can act in direct contravention of the CWB Act, farm enabling regulation cannot be relied upon, and no commodity group is safe. if the single desk selling authority of the CWB falls, SM is next.
opposing bill c-300 is not about supporting the wheat board.
it is about supporting and protecting farmer's rights.
let the farmers decide the fate of the wheat board.
farmers in the sector know the sector.
let them speak, for god's sake.
it is their legal right.
surely this should be supportable across commodity sectors?
(and this is my FINAL COMMENT! ;-) )
wendy holm, p.ag.
*****************************************************************
Yes - I do really believe legislative framework has no standing. That's why it's called "framework" - it's a guide, not an absolute.
That's why governments can, and do, change legislation when it's deemed to be in the "national interest" to do so, and they take their chances at the next election.
I don't know why anyone in Western Canada, or anywhere else in Canada, is the least surprised at Harper's stance on the CWB. I seem to recall his position was abundantly clear both during the last election, and well before.
As to a "vote" - why should it be restricted to grain growers? Do grain buyers, processors, and exporters, not deserve at least an equal say in the matter? - after all, they do pay a lot of corporate taxes, and provide a lot of jobs.
The welfare of grains farmers is only but one consideration in any decision to end the CWB monopoly. Politics, love it or hate it, is the process of weighing the concerns of all the competing factions in the process, and making a (hopefully) sound decision.
I suggest, with respect, Wendy, you are becoming so welded to the concept of what you believe your legal rights might be, that you "can't see the forest for the trees"
Furthermore, there's a well-known axiom in both law, and business, which is that "legal rights are what people hide behind when their position makes no sense otherwise". There's another more colourful, and equally apt saying - "the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - I'm not implying that either you, or your supporters are scoundrels, but when you hide behind the law, rather than justify your position solely on its merits, you do run considerable risk of being marginalized.
****************************************************
Welcome to the new democracy of Canada Wendy While you were worried about third world countries and their plight many of us here have had other atrocities perpetrated on us You are worried about rights for a vote?
When farm area elected mpp’s here voted to zone our land as greenbelt for the good of a country? With out compensation? These were/are our homes, our rural communities, our lively hood and our pensions. I did not see you rise up and cry foul when this was downloaded on us. I did not see you or any others from afar cry “foul our rights could be next.”
So what makes you think the same strong arm undemocratic procedures are foul if they are decreed and are the termination of a dysfunctional board? Dysfunctional because it is all about the money and no board with monopoly control could ever be said to have their producer members best interest at heart with a price that they set at less than COP What is the COP the board has determined for western wheat ...any wheat and why is that not the floor?
****************************************************
Fair enough, Howard, but lets be honest. Individuals who disagree and have opposing views of most boards are tar and feathered by current board members and staff alike. Theirs is an uphill battle just to be heard let alone become elected and have influence. I do not think that running for the board is an option for one who wants to do away with the board, nor would you a board supporter want to see an anti board board member elected.
So I think that your suggestion is rather simplistic and really not a wise one. There has to be a better way and government intervention is another way. Howard, would you really want anti anti SM board member on your milk board?
Kind of odd that dairy was forced into SM by government and yet you are campaigning against government involvement. If not for government you would just be one of us. Maybe just maybe, Harper might be right on this one. It worked out for you in dairy didn't it?
*************************************************
Further to my previous posting, not only was supply management imposed on the Ontario egg industry, there was no compensation whatsoever, for anyone adversely affected by this dictum.
Therefore, if supply management can come in, without a poducer vote, and with no compensation for anyone adversely affected, what would be so wrong to end it the same way?
More to the point, why should the "legal rights" of those adversely affected by the legislated end of something, receive any more consideration than the "legal rights" of those adversely affected when legislation established the system in the first place?
***********************************************
Good luck in your cause Wendy...although I KNOW that allowing dual marketing in Ontario made the OWPMB stronger and put thousands of extra dollars in MY pockets, period! In Ontario we have the Board, multinational players (that control the majority of export terminals) and independent players...I would suggest that your much lambasted multinationals have actually been the big losers since the market opened up!
Additionally dual marketing also allowed us to much more easily diversify our wheat production classes...without this I strongly doubt that I would have the chance to grow durum for the third year running next spring.
Furthermore, there is a very clear line between those that wish to continue to grow commodity wheat and those that wish to niche market and value add wheat. You may quote your flawed $800 million number but what has been the cost to the prairies by not allowing entrepreneurism to flourish?? What would be the multiplier of shipping frozen dough, pasta, etc overseas rather than raw wheat to be blended?
In principle and theory your argument holds merit however in the real world the CWB has become too bureaucratic, slow to respond, and created a culture of dependency. Must be my circle of peers because the overwhelming majority of my Western friends can't wait for the opportunity to control their own destiny...and they are considered the leaders in their sectors/communities.
What is the elevator price for HRS in the northern tier US vs what prairie farmers have in their pocket today? Enough said.
PS: "Alive and well"??? How much communist era debt is the CWB still carrying on its books as an asset? And treating compounded (but not collected) interest as income? If it is so 'well' why is it pulling out all the stops to prevent dual marketing, and why is it so afraid of some competition??
Spelling not mine again!-cg
***********************************************
What about the rights of everyone, not just the rights of those within a supply managed commodity.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we at the right of association. Does that not also mean that we have the right of disassociation? Meaning that we cannot be forced into being part of a marketing board?
I am hoping for the day, when the option is given for all commodities, as is being given now with the CWB.
IF SM, or CWB is so wonderful, the producers will choose to sell through them, instead of being forced.
*****************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment