[jeff744]

Caelon Caelon:

You are focused on distance to market and freight costs as the reason why only three provinces have the CWB. That is not the arguement the CWB uses as there reason to be. The issue is legislated exclusivity for a few (with penalties for trying to bypass) and choice for the rest of Canada. The single desk concept has been used to great advantage by a number of marketing boards (eg dairy and eggs) so there is not a question of whether the concept has benefits it is the perceived discrimanatory implemntation by the CWB. The weakness in the CWB arguement is its limted geographic mandate. If other areas of Canada can bypass the CWB it is not a single desk except for the legislated few and that adds substance to the 40+% opposition by praire farmers.

Manitoba alone is able to outdo the non-CWB regions, now add to that Alberta and Saskatchewan. We could expand the CWB to the others but they have never had a need for it because eastern farmers as a whole have better soil, and have lower transportation costs.

[Caelon]

jeff744 jeff744:

Caelon Caelon:

You are focused on distance to market and freight costs as the reason why only three provinces have the CWB. That is not the arguement the CWB uses as there reason to be. The issue is legislated exclusivity for a few (with penalties for trying to bypass) and choice for the rest of Canada. The single desk concept has been used to great advantage by a number of marketing boards (eg dairy and eggs) so there is not a question of whether the concept has benefits it is the perceived discrimanatory implemntation by the CWB. The weakness in the CWB arguement is its limted geographic mandate. If other areas of Canada can bypass the CWB it is not a single desk except for the legislated few and that adds substance to the 40+% opposition by praire farmers.

Manitoba alone is able to outdo the non-CWB regions, now add to that Alberta and Saskatchewan. We could expand the CWB to the others but they have never had a need for it because eastern farmers as a whole have better soil, and have lower transportation costs.

The relative acreages for wheat by each province is indicative of a combination of climate and topography. Most of Ontario is non agricultural land. The main area is te Niagara peninsula with the Canadian shield being rock and forest. The climate is not conducive to #1 hard red wheat, but does well with corn, soy and fruit. Quebec is similar with a narrow band along the St Lawrence. BC as well has limited areas of areable land. So only the 3 prairie provinces have the large tracts and thus the acreage. Eastern Canada does not have better soil, but does have more rainfall and humidity. You will find large areas of #1 soil in the west.

It does not address the issue of why the CWB is mandatory for only three provinces and not for 10 even though wheat is grown in other areas. This is the issue for the 40% of western farmers who want to remove the CWB control over their crops.

[Robair]

I understand what you're saying, but it's a non starter. Under NAFTA, any government controls in place before the agreement, can stay. Once competition is allowed you can't implement new controls. Private companies could sue Ottawa for any future losses. You can't expand the wheat board without getting out of NAFTA first.

This is also why the speed at which Harper and Ritz are throwing away the single desk is alarming.

Once it's gone, we can't get it back.

[Caelon]

The NAFTA wrinkle is the big stickler. You can also understand why the farmers opposed to CWB control will point to crops such as canola, flax, pulse crops etc as proof of their ability to do fine without marketing through the CWB.

While I agree that the majority should rule and 59% have voted in favour of the CWB in one poll you know that a different poll with a different question could move the yard stick. Farmers are too divided on the issue. I would be in favour of an independent organization conducting a vote to remove the question of bias. It would help if the farmers also had access to unbiased reports showing the benefits of the CWB on the products it markets and also compare that to the performance of crops that are outside of CWB control. To date education is mostly through the media, which is not conducive to sober thought.

I do not think the anti CWB group will give up so it is only a matter of time before they succeed. The government may be acting too quickly based on the reported numbers and a slower approach would increase the likelihood that a decision is the correct one for the times.

[jeff744]

Caelon Caelon:

The NAFTA wrinkle is the big stickler. You can also understand why the farmers opposed to CWB control will point to crops such as canola, flax, pulse crops etc as proof of their ability to do fine without marketing through the CWB.

While I agree that the majority should rule and 59% have voted in favour of the CWB in one poll you know that a different poll with a different question could move the yard stick. Farmers are too divided on the issue. I would be in favour of an independent organization conducting a vote to remove the question of bias. It would help if the farmers also had access to unbiased reports showing the benefits of the CWB on the products it markets and also compare that to the performance of crops that are outside of CWB control. To date education is mostly through the media, which is not conducive to sober thought.

I do not think the anti CWB group will give up so it is only a matter of time before they succeed. The government may be acting too quickly based on the reported numbers and a slower approach would increase the likelihood that a decision is the correct one for the times.

We wouldn't oppose the destruction as much if the government actually looked at what it is about to do and had an viable way for farmer to act after the CWB was gone. Harper is about the shoot a racing horse without checking if it is even sick.

[Robair]

jeff744 jeff744:

We wouldn't oppose the destruction as much if the government actually looked at what it is about to do and had an viable way for farmer to act after the CWB was gone. Harper is about the shoot a racing horse without checking if it is even sick.

To further demonstrate that point:

Government's analysis of wheat board changes questioned

$1:

"the Conservatives finally confirmed in writing that they have NOT conducted a single credible study into the impacts, consequences, costs or benefits of killing the CWB’s single-desk marketing system."

"They are destroying that system based entirely on ideology and prejudice, not facts or evidence," Goodale wrote. "It’s a foolish way to govern."