CWB: Fair And Balanced

Excellent list! This is a perfect picture of the CWB.

FIRE.THEM.ALL.

just sayin'

What was interesting was another link on the linked page that showed a small majority of western grain growers actually support the CWB. The margin is small, and has bounced around between 57% and 64% over the last four years, which, given the poll's margin of error of 3%, suggests that about 60% of growers do support the CWB.

If that's so, it raises an interesting question. If the government does go ahead with its bill to abolish the CWB, despite the majority of growers wanting to keep it, what are the implications for "closed shop" unions? Surely there are unions where close to 40% of the members are disaffected with the union or its leadership (BCTF, I hope).

Could we get a review of Lavigne vs. OPSEU, where the Supremes held that the archaic Rand formula should still prevail? Better, could Stevie find the stones to legislate it out of existence (and find the real big ones to invoke the notwithstanding clause if the Supremes attempt to over-rule him)?

Here's the Supremes' specious reasoning given in Lavigne:

"When, however, the Union purports to express itself in respect to matters reflecting aspects of Lavigne's identity and membership in the community that go beyond his bargaining unit and its immediate concerns, his claim to the protection of the Charter cannot as easily be dismissed. In regard to these broader matters, his claim is not to absolute isolation but to be free to make his own choices, unfettered by the opinion of those he works with, as to what associations, if any, he will be associated with outside the workplace."

But, when the union heads of CUPE, OPSEU, and others all undertake a concerted political attack on the Tories, are they not, willy-nilly, making "associations" for workers who may or may not agree with that stance? And, since they are using these workers' dues (that is, money the worker would have been free to spend on the political party that best represents his views), is the union not, in effect, appropriating the workers' political voice?

Don't believe it will happen, but it's an interesting speculation. Let's see what happens with the CWB first.

we had a vote a few years back,.. if memeory serves me right, the majority voted for dual marketing option at that time.

and the opposition ran right out and got a judge to stop the consevatives from implimenting dual marketing.

first off, if there was another vote, who is going to run it....the cwb?
no thanks to that,..they can't even count their fingers, who would trust them to count votes.

this is pretty simple, if the farmer east of the manitoba ontario border has freedom of choice, then the farmer in the west should have the same.

the cwb is more conserned their gravey train is ending than they are of farmers welfare.

the consevatives ran on the choice option, they won the election, so lets get at it.

Kevin, on the same survey it also shows that the majority of farmers want something other than the CWB single desk. If you look at the three part questions, single desk, voluntary, or none on wheat and barley only a small percentage want only the single desk.

What's stopping those 60% in favour of the CWB from privately running the Pool on their own on a voluntary membership basis? If it is such a great institution, why does participation require the point of a gun? It's interesting that within a free market, socialists are free to act collectively but once they achieve power, no one is free.

If Harper doesn't follow through on this file, then he has merely re-branded the Liberals.

KevinB said "If the government does go ahead with its bill to abolish the CWB". I do not believe that it is the intention to abolish the CWB, but rather to make it dual or voluntary.

John Chittick, exactly.

This is all about job preservation for a redundant govt. organization and a pissing contest between the serfs and the masters. In this free country you are free to do as you are told. Always for your own good of course. Or the other standby........"think of the children".

peterj at July 7, 2011 3:05 PM

Aye. Sad thing is, many farmers like the Canadian brand of collectivism.

And those that don't, don't do much about it. Still sticking with the same old farm orgs instead of coming up with an alternative.

Jamie "some' farmers get a pretty sweet deal from the CWB, at the expense of other farmers. Big collective farms have clout and they don't mind using that clout. The ones who can buy the CWB do not want this advantage scrapped...sad but true.

Gerry Ritz said he would demolish that socialist black eye on western Canada; I believe that he will do just that. As for the collectives with their cheap labour - 'it's over'. This was always a socialist plot to drive out small independent farmers so Canada could farm like USSR (Ken Kulak can tell us all about that system) -mind you only in the west where the Feds could tramp on producers without fear of repercussions at the vote booth (we did not matter, things were decided in the east). It must have been a terrible shock to the CWB hierarchy when PMSH got a majority; now the greedy SOBs want a 'do over'. Squawk farmers not on the CWB 'kick back' list, squawk loud and long and let Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ritz know that you know what they said. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with farmers forming collectives, cooperatives, etc. to market their products. There are in fact many such successful cooperatives across the country. But there is an important difference with the CWB -- all the other cooperatives are VOLUNTARY.

The CWB is in fact INVOLUNTARY -- it is enforced cooperativism, and a holdover from the Stalin's agricultural experiment (which is why the NDP supports it) which resulted in mass starvation in the former Soviet Union. Of course we haven't experienced starvation in Canada because there are many other free market variables to balance things out, but the bottom line is farmers should have the right to choose.

Enforced Stalinist "cooperativism" is not the wave of the future.

Jema and Ken are some of the enlightened ones, very astute observations into every subject including the Communistic "Wheat Board". Hutterites are what a lot of govt.s want. They are easily controlled/they do it themselves within that cult, govt.s love the fact that 15,000 inbred Albertans are growing most of the food, no fuss and muss with free minded farmers kicking up a fuss over wheat boards and what not. If Stelmach had one shred of free enterprize capitalistic integrity, he would publicly back Ritz to abolish this abomination,( even by modern Russian standards), called the Wheat Board, alas but I forgot, the background of Ed is the collective, or the colonys give a lot of campaign money. What is it?

KevinB @ 11:26 a.m.: "... another link on the linked page that showed a small majority of western grain growers actually support the CWB. The margin is small, and has bounced around between 57% and 64% over the last four years, which, given the poll's margin of error of 3%, suggests that about 60% of growers do support the CWB."

Quite possibly true, but completely irrelevant. This is not a situation in which a "democratic" vote should carry the day, or even be held in the first place. The issue is that the individual farmer has the right to dispose of his own property the way he sees fit.

Or to put it another way: If a "small majority" of the community voted to have Rice Krispies for breakfast, I would still have the right to have Corn Flakes.

As for Lavigne, it was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the last 25 years.

Thanks bartinsky.

Bartinski - Thank-you. I agree with you about Red Ed; when is he going to be gone?

Jamie "some' farmers get a pretty sweet deal from the CWB, at the expense of other farmers...

Posted by: Jema 54 at July 7, 2011 4:25 PM

Jema. You can change that to:

"Many" farmers get pretty sweet deals - at the expense of tax-payers...

Jamie - you can change it, I will never do something that stupid. I am the daughter of rancher/farmer and I know how much the city taxpayer contributed to our bottom line - zero!! I know how the CWB forced my Dad to sell his wheat (no 1 hard) for a fraction of what it was worth, I know how little we had to spend compared to the guys in suits from the city.

You 'can' go tell someone else how to edit their comments - you are a fool to me.

Silly question from an American visitor: If you grow your wheat on your land, how does the government have any authority to tell you what to do with your property?