The Big Lie..........

Posted on Friday, August 04 at 11:14 by Ed Deak
In April 2002, following a meeting with top US trade officials, North Dakota Wheat Commission Chair Maynard Satrom assured growers "the common objective of both the U.S. government and U.S. wheat producers is the ultimate reform of the monopolistic Canadian Wheat Board." Two weeks later, in Senate testimony, the US Department of Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers gave "unfair advantages" to CWB farmers, adding that American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for Canadian rail shipments. Complaining that the practices of the CWB restrict US access to our market and make US producers less competitive on world markets, the USDA called for "fundamental reform" of organizations such as the CWB "to permanently assure that U.S. producers are treated fairly in the world market". In March 2003 a WTO challenge was launched. Canada won that action in April 2004, as well as its subsequent appeal several months later. In May the following year, the North Dakota Wheat Commission was at it again. In a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, it argued the CWB "has a longstanding history of … creating and developing a competitive advantage … in wheat markets around the world." Well done! And the results are impressive. A privately held member cooperative, the CWB ranked number 95 in this year’s list of the Financial Post’s FP 500 companies. Just behind SNC-Lavalin, Saputo Inc and Canfor Corporation. According to the Canadian Business Resource "…their status as the only seller of western Canadian wheat and barley positions the CWB to earn premium prices for farmers on annual sales of over 2 million tones of grain to more than 70 countries. All revenue, less marketing costs, is returned to about 85,000 Prairie farmers. The CWB has a proud reputation for high-quality products, reliable supply and delivery and unparalleled customer support." Yet on July 27th the Conservative government told farmers they are ready to implement legislative and regulatory changes to remove the single-desk authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. http://www.theholmteam.ca/col22.WP.the_big_lie.pdf [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 4, 2006]

Note: http://www.theholmteam....

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:54 pm
    Standing for Canada my ass.

    ---
    If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

  2. Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:13 pm
    Appeasement

    "The word in its normal meaning connotes the pacific settlement of disputes; in the meaning usually applied to the period of Chamberlain's premiership, it has come to indicate something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense." D.N. DIlks, Appeasement Revisited, Journal of Contemporary History, 1972.



    ---
    Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

    Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

  3. Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:23 pm
    Well, standing, but still grabbing their ankles.

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  4. by Deacon
    Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:09 pm
    My contempt for that bastard Quisling we jokingly call our "Prime Minister" only grows stronger with each act of betrayal.

    ---
    "and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

    "The Weapon" - Rush

  5. Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:22 pm
    The Canadian farmers who have been, and are, pushing for this action will pay a very high price when they lose their lands into the hands of the multinational agribiz mafia.

    I've never been a member of a marketing board, there's none for cattle anyway, and we're to small and at the mercy of the conspiracy of a few oligopolic companies who set the prices we get for our cattle and what people in the stores will pay, ensuring the obscene profits of the middlemen.

    What I find tragicomic is that when a certain product is under people control to ensure the survival of the producers, it is called a monopoly by our conservatives, economists and the WTO, but when whole sectors are taken over by multinationals, who then control the market, it is
    the usual "competitive equilibrium of the marketplace".

    The traditional fraud and expression to excuse, permit and force on grand theft in the name of "healthy market economics".

    Ed Deak.

  6. Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:29 pm
    In my opinion, good riddance. The wheat board was an affront to basic property rights. A farmer should have the freedom to sell his grain to anyone he damn well pleases. The Wheat Board should have been an opt-in organization all along, not a forced monopoly.<br />
    <br />
    How would you like to be forced to sell whatever you make to the state? Or go to jail.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://news.farmersforjustice.com/other-news/2002-10-24.htm">http://news.farmersforjustice.com/other-news/2002-10-24.htm</a>

  7. Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:33 pm
    Ideology over intelligence.

    This guy doesn’t seem to realize that being Prime Minister of Canada means that he is supposed to represent Canadians. One would think that his pay checque comes from private corporations or the republicans, as opposed to us.

    United States farmers are the most subsidized farmers on the planet, so their whining rings rather hollow.

    Mike
    Winnipeg

  8. Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:35 pm
    >>The Wheat Board should have been an opt-in organization all along, not a forced monopoly.<<

    I agree with this part of your point 100%.


    ---
    Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

    Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

  9. Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:52 pm
    Saw an excellent protest poster the other day too, wish I could find a picture of it.

    "Stephen Harper is George Bush's Monica Lewinsky"

    ---
    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  10. by RPW
    Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:12 pm
    <blockquote>the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions </blockquote> I must take exception to this. Harper is doing this through comlicity and admiration. If it actually WERE through fear and/or cowardice, I could understand it somewhat, as he would simply be a weak man. But he is actively and wontonly pursuing the big garage sale called Canada......<p>---<br>"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."<br />
    - Justice Louis Brandeis

  11. by RPW
    Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:17 pm
    It is an affront to the competitive spirit that doctors are required to be accredited before they can legally practice. Good riddance to the CMA, AMA, and any other "-MA". If I want to be a brain surgeon, all I should have to do is advertise.

    ---
    "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."
    - Justice Louis Brandeis

  12. by RPW
    Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:19 pm
    <blockquote>One would think that his pay checque comes from private corporations </blockquote> Perhaps his investment portfolio should be published for all the country to read......potential conflict of interest, perhaps?<p>---<br>"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."<br />
    - Justice Louis Brandeis

  13. Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:42 pm
    Idiot. That's a safety issue.

    I have no problem with any kind of health checks on wheat.

  14. by RPW
    Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:21 am
    You are taking an ideological stance, in arguing against the formation of compulsory "guilds" or organizations such as the Wheat Board.......and the CMA. You cannot pick and choose, unless you can formulate for we hoi polloi the criterea you use to differentiate. Merely stating that it is a "safety" issue just doesn't cut it. Define what you mean by "safety". Then pray tell, do tell us if anything and everything that can be construed as "unsafe" should in fact be regulated.

    I will save you the trouble.....you can't. You are walking in quicksand here, and it will soon enough swallow you up. Trouble with your "type" is that you are incapable of providing any kind of coherence to your objections and arguments. If you are against guilds, unions, associations, just say so. But if you are aginst only SOME of these, and not all as a matter of principle, then please, DO say that.

    Until then, I will accept your apology for calling me an "idiot", as it was surely an error on your part, caused no doubt by the same thing that causes hiccups.......

    ---
    "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."
    - Justice Louis Brandeis



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news