So You Really Don't Get It!?!?

Just in case this long drawn out battle with the Wheat Board has been too hard for you to understand, analyze or care about. Perhaps you need to see it from a slightly different point of view.

Another gentleman who has been trying to educate us mainstream ag guys for decades, and getting mostly ignored, has been Brewster Kneen, editor and author of the Ram' s Horn. He has recently written a lengthy, but illuminating article about the whole sorry affair.

It's length precludes my posting it here but I'll start you off with a taste. If you really want to understand this struggle, I believe Brewster has the history and the knowledge to make it clear for you.

A SAMPLE:

Ideological Individualism: “Choice”

The business government we are currently saddled with in Canada is busy dismantling the structures which have been built by farmers to protect themselves from The Market. While our focus in The Ram’s Horn is the food system, we must also note the other ways in which this government displays its ideological individualism, lack of morality and contempt for the public.

Lack of morality: unqualified support of Israel’s extraordinarily vindictive and destructive assault on Lebanon, its people and its infrastructure (roads, bridges, power stations, water supplies, schools etc).

Contempt for the public: acting on behalf of its special-interest supporters and right-wing ideology regardless of its minority status.

Individualism: offering tax benefits (which don’t help poor and working-class people) to deliver a ‘child benefit’ rather than the promised public funding of quality child-care facilities.


Certainly there are those farm businessmen and organizations (Canola Council, Canadian Agricultural Trade Alliance, Western Canadian Wheat Growers, etc.) who support the Harper government and the grain companies, as they have for years, in calling for an “open market,” the end of agricultural subsidies (but not until Europe cuts its agricultural support programs) and “choice” in how they market their grain.

Ah Ha!!!!

The most recent Environics Poll showed Conservative support was down generally across Canada with the biggest losses coming in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Hmmmm?!?! One might think the people in those two provinces have a reason for loss of faith.

AND

I finally found the elusive Western Farmer article..... from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy..... however, at this point it appears to be the same article and everyone is referencing it twice (?) -CG

2007-01-04
Supply Management Days Numbered: Minister Barry Wilson, Western Producer, December 21, 2006
Canada's supply managed sectors are being put on notice by trade minister David Emerson that their protectionist interests cannot continue to limit the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to win stronger concessions.

He said Canada for too long has pulled back from signing trade access agreements if the trade-off was to open sensitive sectors like dairy, poultry and eggs to greater import competition.
"We've got sector sensitivities and we've always deferred to this industry or that industry that felt that they couldn't cope with free trade and so we tended to put aside agreements that were largely in this country's best interests but because of narrow sensitivities, we just didn't bite the bullet.

"I'll probably get hell for this but I can envisage a time where we are just going to have to say to some resistant sectors that there is a national interest and we should work with sectors to see if they can, with some modest support from government, transition to a globally competitive stature or we're going to just have to go through the painful adjustment."

Emerson made clear he included supply management as a system that has dictated a Canadian defensive trade negotiating policy at the expense of competitive exporters.

"We cannot for long sustained periods of time be defensive traders or we will wither and die the death of 1,000 cuts. And we won't win. We can protect but we won't win."

The official Canadian position for several decades, including by Emerson's Conservative government, is that the country can maintain a balanced trade position - winning market access for exporters while also protecting sensitive sectors.

So far, Emerson's views notwithstanding, Conservatives have insisted supply management protection will not be threatened.

What About David Orchard?

How many people have followed the activities or know much about Mr. David Orchard? He is an interesting man.

I happened to come into contact with Mr. Orchard about 14 years ago, when I happened across his material, just as the the first real concerns over the WTO/ GATT discussions, were heating up. His book, entitled: The Fight For Canada- four Centuries of resistance to American Expansionism is a fascinating read. In my view it is a MUST read for anyone seriously interested in trying to maintain Canadian Sovereignty.

I believe that the survival of supply management and producer power, is dependant on the survival of Canadian Sovereignty.

From his book flyleaf: David Orchard, a fourth generation Saskatchewan farmer, is National Chairman of Citizens Concerned About Free Trade, a nonpartisan organization that has conducted large public meetings across Canada on the Agreement and that mobilized citizens to convince the Senate to block it in 1988. CCAFT also played a major role in opposing both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

Over the years this determined man has: set up a website and group called Citizens Concerned About Free Trade; written the above book; fund raised to go on speaking tours; has visited countless small venues all over Canada; been interviewed on television (never really very high profile); enlisted volunteers to call for donations or to hear him speak; been very active and vocal during any free trade(NAFTA) or WTO event threatening Canada and agriculture; came out of nowhere to place second to Joe Clark in the 1998 Progressive Conservative leadership race; had the second highest number of delegates to the 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership convention; was kingmaker at the last Conservative leadership event; was purloined and betrayed by McKay (this was his highest profile activity to date); joined the Liberal party of Canada and now quietly, carefully, delivered for Stephan Dion at the last Liberal leadership convention.

I have always wondered why, supply management isn't working with this man hand and glove. His single minded goal has at its heart, the survival of Canada, her institutions, resources and her food systems, as chosen by her farmers. To me, it is a mind blowing example of what one, very determined person can do.

Of course we are at war, it is just a very different kind of war. Any student of history should be able to give you examples of American Imperialism/Expansionism. The problem is that not many of us value this history and the past for the warnings or lessons it can give us.

While reading some of the available material at Vive le Canada, I came across this article about David Orchard:

The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon), Friday, December 8, 2006

Orchard's strategic influence
by Randy Burton

If delivering support to the winning candidate means anything in politics, then David Orchard's star must surely be on the rise in the Liberal party.

The longtime critic of free trade, two-time candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party and new Liberal can be credited for playing a significant role in Stephane Dion's rise to the Liberal leadership.

Exact totals are unclear at the moment, but Orchard's organization managed to deliver close to 150 delegate votes at the Montreal convention -- 32 of which came from Saskatchewan.
In fact, every Dion delegate from Saskatchewan but one was part of the Orchard camp.
Some were prior Liberals, but many were personal supporters of Orchard from past campaigns. The Orchard camp helped many of them raise the money to go and most of them stayed together at the same hotel, where they had booked a block of rooms.

If Dion was the outsider from within the Liberal establishment, then it seems somehow fitting he should have the support of a consummate outsider like Orchard.

Their partnership could not have been more successful. As the record shows, Dion garnered 854 votes on the first ballot, beating out rival Gerard Kennedy by just two votes on the first ballot. As a result of their prior agreement, Kennedy wound up throwing his support to Dion, which sealed his win. Had the first ballot gone the other way, Kennedy might be the leader today.
There were many reasons why Dion won, but he obviously would not have had the horses to overtake Kennedy without Orchard's support.

Once again, the man many dismiss as a political gadfly has proven it's a mistake to underestimate his influence.

Through organizations dating back to the mid-1980s, from the free trade wars to two runs for the Progressive Conservative leadership, Orchard has built a huge list of contacts. His chief organizer, Marjaleena Repo, estimates they now have some 39,000 names in their databank.
There may have been other people supporting Dion with this kind of reach, but certainly no one who reaches the variety of people who tend to support Orchard. Some are environmentalists seeking pesticide bans; others want to promote organic farming and the Canadian Wheat Board. Still others believe Canadian foreign policy is tilted too far in favour of Israel.

What they have in common is that they see Orchard as a means of empowering ordinary people. In an era where party affiliation means little, Orchard has managed to construct a portable power base that has now influenced the outcome of three different national leadership campaigns.

This turn of events raises some very interesting questions about Orchard's future. There's no doubt he intends to remain active in Liberal politics, and there are a number of issues he intends to press.

The Canadian Wheat Board issue is one of those, as is tighter controls on pesticides and the ongoing problem of low farm income. At the convention, Orchard was rubbing shoulders with former agriculture minister Eugene Whelan, and he's now in conversation with John Turner's former ag minister, Ralph Ferguson, who wants his help on farm policy issues.

If Dion should eventually become prime minister -- and every elected Liberal leader since 1896 has -- Orchard will be well-positioned to play a role in a Liberal government.

How intoxicating the prospect must seem for him. The perpetual outsider who had so much difficulty gaining the respect of the Progressive Conservative hierarchy now finds his opinion sought out by players in the Liberal party.

Should he decide to run for the Liberals and actually win a seat, he might even have a shot at a cabinet post.

Many will blanch at this prospect, but stranger things have happened.

Orchard is noncommittal at this point, but admits he's considering running.
In an interview this week, he said he has had invitations to run for the Liberals in a variety of ridings across the country.

"I have to take a look at all of them and decide where to go," he said.
However, his farm and his history are in Saskatoon Wanuskewin, where he recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of his family's farm.

Wanuskewin remains firmly in the grip of Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, but Orchard is clearly tempted by the prospect of running against him.

Whether it's the Conservatives' efforts to undermine the wheat board, or Vellacott's "whole-hearted support for the bombing of Lebanon," Orchard says his current MP leaves plenty to be desired.

As other high-profile candidates such as Chris Axworthy have learned, Vellacott is not easy to beat. But there's a certain symmetry to the idea. Who better to take on the ideologically driven Vellacott than the equally hard-nosed Orchard? It would pit Vellacott's disciplined group of evangelicals and pro-lifers against Orchard's coalition of greens, anti-free traders and social democrats.

In many ways it would be a microcosm of the national campaign, right here on our own doorstep.

You could sell tickets to a contest like that.

2007...?!?

What will it bring? If our climate IS changing , certainly the challenges of the weather will be there to plague us. For farmers, this could be and many times is, a cross to bear. One more thing to make a difficult job, harder. This green Christmas and the warm temperatures, while grudgingly welcomed, is eerie..

What about world agricultural issues? Excluding the WTO and the extraordinary evolution and influence of the 'developing' countries, does agriculture in Canada think about what is happening out there? I sure hope so.

The North American Union (NAU) is set to become an issue for all. The only portion of this discussion I have heard anything about is the SPP ( Security Protection & Prosperity ). Many bureaucrats and business leaders are working on this. Ostensibly begun to improve our security after 911, the big picture is being ignored by Canadian Media.

These include Regulations and Agriculture and Food related issues. The documents are long and many, but several groups in the US and Canada are certainly viewing this agreement and many of it's elements with alarm.

If you examine the list of people who are doing this work and the Manufacturers and businesses involved, I am troubled by the fact that agriculture, more specifically, those affected by any 'harmonizing' discussed (like Supply Management) are not at this particular table.

In September 2006, one enemy who has worked tirelessly to undermine Supply Management was there: Mr. Thomas d’Aquino Canadian Council of Chief Executives . This was an invitation only, event. See: Deep Integration Planned at Secret Conference Ignored by the Media
A Canadian group called : Vive le Canada has a warehouse of information that agriculture should be sifting through. If you are tempted to put this one off, remember the struggles the industry had with NAFTA as it was being developed. Complacency is NOT a tool for survival.

View a complete history and time line.