"The government's response so far really reinforces this notion that we have that they will do or say anything in order to destroy the Wheat Board. They are not remotely interested in trying to work constructively with the farmers of Western Canada and let the farmers of Western Canada decide," said Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union. "If there's to be any kind of a change in marketing whatsoever, the farmers should recommend those changes to the Wheat Board directors and the Wheat Board directors should go to the minister and recommend those changes and then the minister triggers the formula that's set out in section 47.1 of the Wheat Board Act and that's how changes should be made, whether grains are added or deleted from the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. Of course that's not what we're seeing. That's grassroots democracy. Changes of any kind should come from the farmers of Western Canada."
"If they want to indicate that they were going to start working with the Western farmers instead of against them, they would announce immediately that they're not going to appeal this ruling,"
"the anti-Wheat Board farmers, the anti-Wheat Board machine wants to present this as a fight between the Canadian Wheat Board and farmers and that the farmers are poor, downtrodden farmers that are first oppressed by the Wheat Board and now they're oppressed by the Federal Court decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Federal Court decision was a victory for grassroots farmers."
"Change" should come from the farmers, what a novel idea.
The government held a plebiscite in March asking farmers to vote on three questions. Of the 29,000 voters, 37.8 per cent voted to retain a single desk for barley, 48.4 per cent voted for the freedom to choose where farmers sell their barley, either through the Wheat Board or through other buyers, so that the Wheat Board would not have a monopoly. Another 13.8 per cent of voters felt that the Wheat Board should have no role in marketing barley whatsoever.
The dishonesty involved in what the government is presenting, is staggering, yet it's barely been reported. Who reads the Hill Times, besides us, lol? Seriously though, media fell down on this and ate up Strahl's sound bites.
Harper is all about getting rid of what he disagrees with and he'll go to any length. It's telling though, in this instance, that he got so far.
Canada is not paying attention and we must. He's targeting issues that most people haven't a clue of. That's an insidious way of dismatling this country. He's doing it though and who is paying attention?
Knb, I read a quote from a pollster, who described the plebiscite questioning as "diabolical". What an astounding adjective, particularly when we hear all this nonsense about empowering farmers.
Are you trying to say the entire nation doesn't wakeup every Monday, grab a coffee and read The Hill Times?
Indeed a "Rove implication" tone to word.
As to "Hill" readers, I wonder what our numbers are? ;)
Perhaps the Wheat Board should be imposed on Ontario and Quebec farmers (who are now exempt if they want to be) so they can see how they like it.
It's sleeper issues like this and income trusts that are going to make the next election very, very interesting. They're flying below the radar but are shifting opinions on the ground.
Square this round peg for me so that I can understand you, please.
Article: "Changes of any kind should come from the farmers of Western Canada."
knb: "48.4 per cent voted for the freedom to choose where farmers sell their barley"
Steve: "Change" should come from the farmers, what a novel idea."
Article: "the Wheat Board directors should go to the minister and recommend those changes"
I'm waiting for the news release indicating that the CWB directors have recommended to the minister a dual market.
"I'm waiting for the news release indicating that the CWB directors have recommended to the minister a dual market".
Lance, that will probably happen when FARMERS elect people who favor that system, as opposed to the current situation, wherein they VOTED for the single desk candidates.
"Perhaps the Wheat Board should be imposed on Ontario and Quebec farmers (who are now exempt if they want to be) so they can see how they like it."
Imposed, through a democratic process, hardly jives. Lame.
Farmers who wish to retain the Wheat Board can do so, there would be nothing stopping them from paying a premium to keep the Board afloat.
Farmers who don't want to play the Board's game have a right to their own property and should not be put in jail for selling their own property. It's really that simple.
Funny turn-around isn't it? It was the Conservative government that set up the Wheat Board in the 30's in the first place.
The US has been trying to pressure Australia to dismantle it's wheat board and Howard (to my surprise) more or less told the US to east salt. Hmmm....has the US pressured Harper?
Anon: "Hmmm....has the US pressured Harper?"
No, eliminating the requirement of farmers to sell grain to the CWB has been a CA/CPC campaign promise for a long time.
That's one of the reasons why they win the west.
"No, eliminating the requirement of farmers to sell grain to the CWB has been a CA/CPC campaign promise for a long time.
That's one of the reasons why they win the west."
Lance, with all due respect, bullocks. If that is one of the reasons they win the west, then why praytell doesn't that support translate in the CWB elections????
Steve, come on. 51.5% turnout in the 2006 rounds for the odd numbered Districts, 15,960 votes of 31,081 eligible.
One side got their vote out, the other didn't, it's that simple.
The March plebiscite was limited to barley growers in the last 5 years and it got a total of 29,067 votes. (Self-declared)
Which vote is more representative of the barley producers decision?
You're dancing around a simple truth, that being the CWB uses democracy to get farmer feedback in the board.
"The March plebiscite was limited to barley growers in the last 5 years and it got a total of 29,067 votes. (Self-declared)"
Three seperate, INDEPENDENT pollsters, expressed concern over the questioning, one called it "diabolical". You can spin those numbers anyway you want, including arguing that barely 1 in 10 favored killing the CWB. That votes was a joke, everyone knows it, except those that defend their ideological slant. Here's an idea, ask a clear question, if you are so confident about the downtrodden, outraged farmers.
There is no way to ask a question that'll satisfy everyone and you know it.
Two options is unfair in my POV and three is to yours.
I don't think farmers who want choice would seek to eliminate others choice which a binary choice implies.
You think the CWB wouldn't be able to compete against private enterprise in a multiple question, which the multiple choice implies.
The majority want _choice_, not one or the other, choice. It's up to the CWB to get off their ideological back-ends and do something about it.
Complaining about the questions, as if the farmers were illiterate, wet-behind-the-ears, dirt in finger-nails, idiots is not only a red-herring, but is incredibly arrogant.
Complain about the Fed's interpretation of the results, sure, but don't for a minute think that no one understood what they were being asked.
Here's one for you, what options would you put on it for the three choices? Eh?
1. Force Western Canadian barley farmers to sell to CWB.
2. Close down the CWB's barley division completely and throw a couple of hundred people out of work in Wpg. you hard hearted bastard.
3. Allow the CWB to buy and sell barley, but give me the choice on who to sell it to.
"Complaining about the questions, as if the farmers were illiterate, wet-behind-the-ears, dirt in finger-nails, idiots is not only a red-herring, but is incredibly arrogant."
Oh please, I'm basing my conclusion on what polling experts say, what are you basing yours on? Ideology.
"There is no way to ask a question that'll satisfy everyone and you know it.
Yes or no? Don't muddy the waters, on such an elemental point. It's easy to satisfy, its called CLARITY. The fact the government purposely skewed the questions, and Strahl had the audacity to declare that only he would interpret what they meant, tells you all you need, as to whether this was a real choice, or terrible, gross manipulation.
Can we stop now, you seem determined to ignore the democratic elephant in the room?
I do believe the option of a dual marketing system can be included, but it should be done through two separate plebiscites. First one would be "Do you wish to retain the single desk of the Wheat Board? If the No side wins, then you ask in a separate question, "Do you wish to maintain the Wheat Board?" I believe the Ontario Wheat and Marketing Producers Board is a dual marketing system.
As for the PCs creating it, it was actually a dual marketing system from 1935 to 1943 and then made a single desk under the Liberals in 1943.
In terms of the views of the farmers, I don't think one can assume the Tories' dominance of Western Canada automatically means widespread support for Wheat board changes. Farmers only make a up a small portion of the population in the Prairies so even if 100% voted against the Tories, it would only affect the really close ridings. There are many other issues in the Prairies that probably had a bigger impact on the Tory dominance there than the Wheat board.
Besides, my understanding is most in Alberta want the monopoly ended, Saskatchewan is close to evenly split, but a slim majority want to keep it, while a clear majority in Manitoba want to keep it.
Post a Comment