I, too, wrote to Ms King and got the same drivel. What a bunch of absolute crap we get from the WFP.

I'm thinking that should be the motto on the SDA award for investigative "journalism".

On the other hand I'm kinda preoccupied with crime myself. Now where the hell is that crowbar.....

Syncro

What happened to checking your sources.

And you know what's the most saddest thing about all of this? I can hear all the sheeple say "that's what the CBC told me, so that's how I voted."

[for all you sheeple out there, that means voting Liberal or NDP if you weren't sure what that meant] Canada is sick.

In Norman Spector's Letter of the Day is a letter to the Globe from Ralph Goodale on the subject.

"That's what he told me, so that's what I wrote."

Is that the same approach taken for the crime stories as well?

are there a lot of "I didn't do it" quotes in those articles?

Jordan

I imagine it was an uncomfortable christmas with uncle Reg. Oh well..you can pick your friends and your nose. Unfortunately you can not pick your friends nose or your family.

Syncro

'Journalists' in Canada apparently go to schools to learn their trade, for 3 or 4 years no less, and they pay these schools money too! Why?

Phil

So they can be properly indoctrinated and mom and dad relieved of that burden that 40-50 grand causes.

Syncro

Totally off topic, sorry Kate, didn't see any no new Reader Tips section.

Ha, just found who the Shaw TV log fire guy is:

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/unwind/story.html?id=3cf8dc85-517a-4b09-a8c2-cf999378664e

the traditionalists just dont get it yet.

its called the in-ter-net. a way of dispensing factoids and tips at lightning speed.

including the scoop on oh, say, supporters of an anachronistic heavy handed gubbamint regulatory body.

really, I would bet 50/50 fossay would be hopelessly lost to so much as sufficiently explain the general workings of a blog let alone navigate one or gawd ferbid, RUN one.

they dont 'get it'.

and it looks REAAAAAL good on them.

These independent farmers still have me confused. At the risk of showing my eastern ignorance, exactly how prevalent are these corporate farms?

Are you singling out people (farmers and/or pro-CWB farmers)?
Reading your post and the comments, looks like you folks are gearing up for personal attacks or have the eye on them. Why else would you be posting real person's names?
That's one of the lowest of the low things that can ever be done on the prairies: talking bad about your neighbour.
Prairie folk and farm folk are very pragmatic and open-minded, and allow their neighbour an opportunity to air their grievance and talk about the problem; most times the community reaches a solution or a compromise which allows for well-being all round.
Goes to show that most of you yipping your yaps are NOT farmers, nor good neighbours.
If HALF the blogs and comments ran a farm with their skills, there'd be stink to high heaven for miles around from the dead they'd cause by their ignorance.
Ahhh! Hence you are the Small Dead Animals!

Locusta emersonia; The people being discussed were mentioned by name in the dead tree media. How the reporters picked these "independent" farmers out of the crowd for their opinion is a matter of some conjecture. Regardless, these people all allowed their names to be printed. And further to your little rant. Talking about the neighbours is one of the main sources of entertainment in the rural community.

Ace Reporter King: "one who covers crime, mostly".

The CWB is the crime beat? Tell us more. Are there any links to the Librano$? Who is kickbacking? Bribes are hidden? Who is paying hush money? Any grifters on the Board? How many Librano$ at HQ? Dig into the guts of the CWB, please. Who is the cousin of the uncle of the brother of the manager....? The AWB* was the crime beat.
...-

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Australian wheat scandal widens
The inquiry heard on Wednesday that AWB inflated the price of wheat it sold to Iraq through the UN-managed oil-for-food programme in order to recover ...-
*Australian Wheat Board
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4623974.stm

I agree. All quotes from farmers must declare whether they support the Liberal or Conservative Party.

Kate,

You are totally owning this story... Congratulations...

MtG

You miss the point, Bob - there is a difference between a local farmer who has shown up at a rally as a true "independent", and political activists who just happen to farm. If executive members of these political organizations are quoted, their opinions should be presented in the proper context.

That is quite a different question than whether a farmer supported a Conservative, Liberal or NDP in the last election.

Liberals are all waiting to be financialy rewarded for supporting CWB. Remeber how Alcock used it to reward his workers and Liberals.

Canadian Wheat Board Pays a Political Debt with Farmer’s Money
(August 30, 2004 - Airdrie) "The board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are using farmers' money to pay a political debt to the minister responsible for the CWB, Reg Alcock" said Douglas McBain, President of Western Barley Growers Association, when commenting on the hiring of Avis Gray, Minister Alcock's re-election campaign manager, to lobby government for the CWB.

The political debt to Minister Alcock results from his not carrying out a promise to do a review of the CWB as a result of the $85.4 million the federal government was forced to pay to cover guaranteed initial payments in 2002-03. Bringing out details of the CWB marketing failure in 2002-03, when world grain prices were reaching record highs, would have caused considerable embarrassment to the CWB board of directors.

"Putting Avis Gray on the CWB pay roll is not any different than the CWB board of directors attending Liberal fund raising events using money out of farmers' pool accounts" continued McBain.

"With five government appointed members paid for by farmers today, and as the CWB is a legislated monopoly reporting to the federal government, why is a government relations lobbyist even required?" asked McBain.

Since the change from government appointed commissioners in 1998 to a board of directors which are elected and appointed, the CWB cost to farmers has grown by 15 to 20% annually.

"We ask that the CWB board of directors cancel the appointment of Avis Gray and put more effort into conducting farmers' business instead of initiatives which are solely self serving" said McBain.

Kate,
Nice comment on the CTV blog. I expect to see the comments closed off shortly with the CTV types runing away with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears.;>)

Bob, the term is "vested interest". An individual that obtains favour by associations with organizations that benefit from a synergy with one another cannot declare to be unbiased unless the lack of bias can be proved. The "vested interest" precludes it.

Its the journalist's job to reveal and deal with the biases in the story. Otherwise, the story is what is known as "advertising", or more coloquially, "shilling", and the journalist ceases to be a "journalist", and becomes a "shill".

Journalists who can't or won't fathom the issue are known as "biased", or, "dumb". Too many big words for you?

Collusion between the press and Liberal activists, posing as something they are not in order to sway public opinion. A typical tactic employed by the felons who are still felons and unredeemable.

'Locusta Emersonia' is probably a Liberal activist as well, though posing as something she is - a twat.

Locust said that farmers are pragmatic and open minded.

If that is true, then why do the wheat board supporters feel it is proper to force all farmers to market their grain through the board? What is so important about their neighbors grain that they shouldn't be allowed to sell it where they want?

This debate isn't about the wheat board as much as it is about imposing a liberal ideology on anyone that desires freedom of choice.

I farm. I don't care what my neighbors want to do with their grain. I hope they won't care what I do with mine. I support freedom. I support the conservatives creating free choice.

How's that?

I think I may have stumbled on to something here. Bear with me for a moment and remember that there are a lot of Canadians out there that still believe that what they hear in the MSM is actually fact.

Definition of Journalism:
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Looks like more 2c than 2b is popular today.

Definition of new journalism:
journalism that features the author's subjective responses to people and events and that often includes fictional techniques meant to illuminate and dramatize those responses.

Bingo!!!! I guess the public is being fed "new journalism".

The CWB is being portrayed as a Canadian institution like universal health care, the Red Cross and mom's perogies. To question them is akin to sacrilege. Oh wait, wasn't the Red Cross blood program found to be a bit corrupt?

Locusta, you're obviously not from rural -name your prairie province-. Talking bad about your neighbors is the number one pasttime - just not to your neighbor's face. Why do you think they have coffee rows, drop-in centres, rink cafeterias, hotel pubs, quilting bees, bingos, etc? And some of the biggest feuds occur between rural neighbors...and not from some sort of open-minded, grievance-airing, community-solution-oriented claptrap you're on about.

Next time, rant about something you either know, are not in a state of denial, or haven't learned about from "Little House on the Prairies."

Some local farmers from my home town are rabid supporters of the CWB. They also have classical ag training from the U of S. Coincidence? Check out: www.kis.usask.ca

And maybe Bill at CTV should pay attention to the story he quoted and note that the Liberal Party is John Howard's party, and not the "Conservative" party. Or at least change his upper-case-C Conservative to "conservative" in his closing comments. BTW, Bill, FYI, the opposition in Australia is the Labor Party that's closer to our NDP than to our liberal Liberals, and Australia's Liberals are about where our Liberal Party was pre-Trudeau.

WHAT IS A CORPORATE FARM: That word, corporate farm, is misleading to the majority of non farmers. These non farmers think of a corporation as a bad thing, if they follow the ndp. What it really means is that a farmer with as little as one section of land, or more, has formed a limited company for tax purposes. The shareholders of said farm are usually the farmer and his wife, and/or children. The farmer puts his assets into the company, some put in their land, others do not. The company pays the farmer a wage, and issues T4s to him. The farming operation is no different than before, just a lot more bookkeeping and paper work. When the farmer dies, he leaves shares to his family. Tax rates for corporations are lower, after all deductions etc. The problem for these farmers comes when family squabbles, age, kids don't want to farm, death, etc cause the breakup of said company. Those shares have increased in value and the owners want their money NOW. The biggest shock for farmers who form companies is they no longer own anything. The company owns it. They decide to pay themselves a dividend, instead of wages, because of the tax advantage, then discover that dividends can only be paid out of profits, and are paid once a year, not whenever they need money. Some who formed companies over 30 years ago, are now trying to get out and sell their land. The tax man is smiling, and farmers are crying. There is more to it than this short explanation, but it should let all those eastern liberals and dippers know that corporate farms are not the big bad wolf they think corporations are.

How does a journalist "find" a quotable source?
From my limited personal experience they go around at the event asking people if they can point to anyone willing to give them an interview.In this case an independent would be an otherwise unknown, so if an indepedepent happens to appear in front of them and is willing to talk [remember many people are not interested in the limelight] then the journalist can complete their story and get it filed.Beware of apparent "independents"

Another fine example of our MSM attempt to write the agenda for the upcoming election. It is completely obvious that most of the MSM see themselves as the "anti-Harper" movement that is going to "save" this country. If that means bending the truth, publishing only the parts of the story that fit their agenda, or outright lying, so be it.

It has also become the number 1 reason blogs have become so popular. People can read the truth, fliter out the political spin and judge for themselves. I read a great editorial in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday about why we (soldiers in the CF) are the newsmakers of the year. It makes sense too. I do not wish to cast any dispersion on myself or my fellow soldiers, but this editorial spells out the main reason we were picked. If not us, the top newsmaker of the year would have been PM Harper. Can't have that here in Canada. It is bad enough TIME Magazine picked him, we can't have the very editors that are trying so hard to topple his support base picking him as well. How left wing, how socialist....how Liberal.

The Pontificating Ralphy Goodale, expert on all things, farming , finances, you name it, will have the answers to all CWB's woes ready for all CBC, CTV interviews for which he'll be sought after.

He is also seen hovering around brown-nosing Stephi Dion at every photo-op.

Dion may become a bit befuddled with all the fussification, having his puppeteer Chretien pulling his strings in French and trying to relay the message in Anglais. May they live in interesting times!

What bugs me more than the omissions pointed out by Dennis and Kate here, or trying to pass off a well known monopoly activist as an average farmer, is the onesidedness of the story.

Anyone following the Free Press coverage of this issue will have noticed that it bends over backwards whenever it can to write these things from only the anti-choice, monopolist\collectivist point of view, even though they know full well the farming community is equally divided on the issue. And then when a pro-choice story breaks they suddenly become reporters again and make darn sure to 'balance' the piece.

I think it's time we start calling them on it when we see this crap. A number of e-mail's simply asking the question ' hey, how come I didn't see the other side of the story here?' would get the point across real quick that readers are noticing the bias.

I agree that it is important for farmers to identify if they have any potential biases when interviewed by the media. However, that applies both ways and it's disappointing that there is little effort by those commenting here to identify the affiliations of farmers speaking against the CWB who are members of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, the Conservative party, and other organizations.

Dieter, example please.

Since you're "commenting here", why not put in a "little effort"?

Amazing how doskoch leaps to defend his opinion on the CWB. Isn't he supposed to be a reporter?
I can understand why he would defend his reporting, but he's defending an opinion, which obviously colours his reporting. And he sees nothing strange about this.

Isnt it funny the liberanos are OK with giving the "choice" to murder unborns but its NOT OK to give farmers a "choice" to sell there property to whomever they chose.

in my poli sci studies, we covered the wheat board raison d'etre. let me get this straight, it is supposed to 'pool' grain production from all farms including those in more remote marginal areas outside the convenient vicinity of the rail lines, right?

well, prior to that, I studied economics and this raises a serious question; why cater to the marginal producers at the expense of the cost effective ones? if the areas deemed 'marginal' are so difficult to turn a profit, w(hy)tf farm there in the first place? why not raise cattle or something?

long long ago I decided subsidies were a bad idea for numerous financial, social and psychological reasons and this wheat board crap is no different.
the efficient profitable operations are subsidizing the inefficient ones.

hard ruthless economics should be allowed to dictate that wheat production will cease in the geographic areas that are just outside the range where transportation costs gobble the profit margin. period.

and F*** the cwb

Kate,

If this post was meant to illustrate the fact that the media has been taking quotes from connected officials of farm organizations rather than one which is merely "independent" (whatever that means), then fine. Proper journalistic integrity has been slipping for some time and blogs have filled that role of media watchdog in many cases, yadda yadda yadda.

However, moving beyond this, I believe that the media (and this blog), far from using too many quotes from "biased" farmers who have an interest in retaining the status quo, take an disproportionate sample of farmers who despise the CWB (or, at least, call for reform) as evidence that most farmers in general feel they are being oppressed by a statist institution of which they have no say in their destiny.

I say disproportionate because I have yet to meet a farmer who has said he has a serious issue with the set-up of the Board or that they are demanding a change tout suite. The farmers from my hometown are satisfied with the service they've been provided by the organization and have no interest in dealing with the large international grain handlers. Outside what I've heard on the news and other broadcast media, this is the only position I've heard.

Of course, you may argue that a monopoly in handling prairie wheat is an abomination and must be abolished. That's your perogative. However, this debate is turning, as many do in the blogosphere, into a villification of the players involved. With suggestions in the commentary that only supporters of the Liberals or Dippers would support the CWB, that farmers have been indoctrinated by the College of Agriculture at the U of S, that these farmers have a "vested interest" in the outcome of the Wheat Board debate (as if looking after your own business interests is a bad thing) -- these are all antagonistic rhetoric which sidesteps the issue and does nothing but promote uninformed animosity among farmers and those involved in the discussion who don't grow wheat and barley for a living.

Not that Board officials are entirely blameless either; The biggest reason why this is such a hot debate to begin with is because Ken Ritter and company have done a lousy job in selling the benefits of having a single-desk system in this country. Instead of confronting criticism with a detailed yet readable analysis of what they do, they have hid themselves behind bland defenses of the Board and only come out of hiding to report to some parliamentary committee from time to time.

But that's all my opinion. What isn't my opinion is the fact that farmers of all political stripes support the Wheat Board. Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Green, it doesn't matter (Though the Conservative numbers in rural Saskatchewan will likely be slipping by the time the next federal election rolls around). To suggest otherwise is to make a broad, simplified assumption of a complex group of independent business owners and suggest that they are too stupid to decide for themselves what is best for their own operation.

I can only ask that those wishing to involve themselves in this debate remember that neither side is telling an unbiased story (and I include you in this, Kate) and that the livlihood of entire generations of families hangs in the balance. Please, people, attempt to contain your rhetoric.

Huck, your sooooo full of shit.
Lets turn over the rocks in the CWB and see.

Ditto, Free

Hello Ham,

I think you missed the point. I'm simply suggesting that those that have shared their concerns in the above postings about the "independence" of those being interviewed seem to direct their attention only to those they perceive to have Liberal or pro-CWB connections or the like. The same effort should be made to identify the affiliations of those who are anti-CWB. The game of politics is played the same by all sides. If you're truly concerned about the media and its representation of the issues, you should be concerned about misprepresentation on all sides.

More proof that you need to look long and hard to find a competent journalist in this Country!

Huck , there is a difference in the operation of a co-operative, and a monopoly. I don't think many here are calling for the abolition of the CWB as a co-operative, olny the megalith it has become, because it is a monopoly. Its certainly not clear that removing the CWB entirely would be in any western farmer's best interests. But its punitive monopoly is clearly not. Small producers are disadvantaged in obtaining best market price for their grain. There are trade offs - large sales to foreign nations are logistical nightmares for the seller - politics, transportation etc. These are deals the average independent producer can't do. There needs to be more administrative muscle. But, at the same time, there needs to be a broader range of market choice for the independent producer. Locking him into the current parasitic program that the CWB has become serves only a few agricrats, at the expense of the producer.

Huck, why don't you back up your own rhetoric with some facts. Kate's story is based on facts - the farmers interviewed were significantly affiliated with a political party. You just state that "What isn't my opinion is the fact that farmers of all political stripes support the Wheat Board. Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Green,..." How is that not your opinion?

If your comment "that farmers have been indoctrinated by the College of Agriculture at the U of S" is aimed at my comment, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how hand-in-glove those two bodies have been working in the past decade or two, but it does take a word-twister to go from my asserting correlation to indoctrination. Wow!

Rob Huck,

I agree, the future of my families farm hangs in the balance of this decision.

But, how is it biased for me to ask my neighbors to allow me to sell my grain to whoever I want? And why should I have to ask my neighbors permission anyway?

Freedom is biased?

Like it or not, farmers are competitors with other farmers. Why should my competitors in Ontario or Quebec get to choose their marketing partners, but I only get the Western Canadian Wheat Board?

Huck, I don't presume to do journalism. I only demand journalists present the information and opinions they print in appropriate context and with full disclosure where warranted.

The Winnipeg Sun and Free Press are supposed to be staffed by professionals. As news media, they purport to present the facts without editorial comment or politicized filtering. They are supposed to fact check.

They don't. Thus, their reporting is suspect.

I've had an opinion on the CWB that predates this current debate by years. I don't presume to be "unbiased" - which in this case, means "having formed an opinion based on the facts and personal observation".

Furthermore - it's not my job to bring "both sides" of any debate to the table. I'm not a news service. I bring mine, and those I think are of interest or worthy of rebuttal. There is an open comments policy here. Those who disagree are welcome to speak up.

To throw back at you a sentence you wrote - "To suggest otherwise is to make a broad, simplified assumption of a complex group of independent business owners and suggest that they are too stupid to decide for themselves what is best for their own operation."

INDEED.

"Too stupid", in this case, means not having the opportunity to market these grains with the same freedom that producers in other provinces enjoy.

Hello Ham,

I agree with Rob Huck that farmers of all political stripes do support the CWB - that's fact and not opinion. I remember seeing or reading interviews with a number of farmers who acknowledged they were conservatives who said they did support the CWB.

ROAD ACCIDENT !!

Just INSIDE the CTV headquarters in Trawna, Ontario, there was a fatal mishap. On Dec 27 at 11:19 pm est, sda ran over a CTV so-called jurno.
Bill Doskoch was pronounced dead at the scene.

So called sources claimed that passer-bys were humming the tune 'Dead Skunk In The Middle Of The Road And It Is Sti......"

(CTV so-called Blog, Aussie WB, Where have you been)

And, yes, it may be news to the Media, but the blogs and their readers have known about Saddam's Oil-For-Food-Scandal for years now. Especialy the connections to Prominent Canadians. Hey, Journos, whose pocket are you in anyways ??

Huck, dont you find it more than passing strange that none of the interviews done by any of the media included someone who was against the CWB?
I suppose that we should then conclude that there is nobody in the west who opposes the CWB

Lets see: CWB
CSL contracts?
oil for food?
Liberals?
millions in kickbacks?
donations to the Liberal party?
all the other marketing boards?
"Honest Ralphie?" Minister
of Agriculture?
AWB?
liberano foundations?
graft and corruption hidden
in its books?
damn I could go on all day.....
and the question is, is how
are they all connected

How much have the crooks stolen?

Thanks, Dieter. Dieter's fact, Huck's opinion.

As per your post about effort and such, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm suggesting that you don't know what effort may have been spent investigating the background of CWB proponents or opponents. You have assumed no effort is expended on the CWB opponents side and additionally made no effort to prove it. A whole lot of "no effort" going on here.

I think you could have a profound impact on this dialog by uncovering a Conservative organizer bad-mouthing the CWB. However, the current topic IS about a Liberal-organizer talking up the CWB, isn't it?

Hello Ham!

Actually, I thought the post was about the media not investigating its sources. And when was it decided that Mr. Fossay was a Liberal organizer? I might have missed that post.

And this excerpt from the October 10 Globe and Mail:

"Doug Chorney’s devotion to the Conservative Party runs deep enough that he spent last winter hammering campaign signs into the frozen prairie on behalf of the local Tory candidate.

But Mr. Chorney, a 41-year-old grain farmer, believes the federal government is about to make an enormous mistake by dismantling the monopoly power of the Canadian Wheat Board.

“They’re really floundering on this issue,” he says.

The debate over the future of the Wheat Board runs to the heart of Western Canadian history and politics, pitting traditional Prairie collectivism against the ideology of the free market."

Dieter, apparently you thought wrong. Reread the post.

And thanks for proving that journalism kicks in when its a Conservative farmer being interviewed rather than a Liberal AND when he's a CWB PROponent. Or did you read this before you cut and pasted it?

This is all so stupid. Give ALL farmers a choice as to how they want to sell their wheat. ALL!!

Please correct me if I am wrong, re Ont, Que, Prairie Farmers.

Farmers in the west were at a huge disadvantage in Canada early in this century. Killer freight rates, brutal weather, no political power. For years farms had been failing and the rural prairies were destitute.

In the 1920s, 30s the Feds, in their wisdom, came up with the 'Designated Area" idea and the Crow Rate Benefit Subsidy. Eastern Manufactures were also given a virtual monopoly over prairie machinery customers. It was all about orderly marketing for prairie farmers. It would be that or the Okie's Grapes-of Wrath thing. Today, with Farmers mostly foregoing the chance to own all the land they farm, I wonder if Canada's GoW is yet to come.

However, I too, suspect the Federal Liberals have their hand in the CWB's pocket. After all there are more $millions there than in the Adsam kitty.

The Libs, as Chretien did, rationalize their criminal behavior as a "saving Canada" thing.

Still chuckling; ... another notch on the gun stock, Kate; Wells, Kinsella ect, now Doskoch, .. They do not stand a chance because they are so out to lunch, it's being proved daily. The Media will always interview 'certain types' because they say what they want to hear, and print. It fits the Media's agenda. POLITICAL CONTROL

Huck,
You said: "I have yet to meet a farmer who has serious problem with the set up of the CWB."
Yes Miss Pollyanna I am sure those nasty people who want change either do not exist or are being forever banished from the Magic Kingdom.
What a load of crap. In my area most of the production is by those that despise the CWB and demand change.
SDA eposes the overwhelming bias of the MSM and people like you who cry foul when people object vehemently to the oppression as long as it is in a direction to their liking.
However, what is really insulting to the intelligence is the childish passive aggressive manner in which you lambaste SDA for it rhetoric while convincing your tiny ego that your rhetoric is missed by the readers on this site.
This pretentiousness is what SDA exposes with ease so covering up your own rhetoric with a thin veneer of bullshit is easy picking.

Hello Ham!

Looking at the start of the post chain, the discussion is indeed about the media investigating (or not) the people it interviews.

As for the link, it is there to confirm a previous post in this chain from Rob Huck that there are conservatives who support the CWB.

Does anyone know why Conservative Inky Mark voted in favour of the 6th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food?

"I have yet to meet a farmer who has serious problem with the set up of the CWB."

I guess he never went to Lethbridge and did a jail visit!!!!!!

There seems to be a convenient leap here, that the decision to remove the mandatory marketing of wheat in Western Canada through the single desk that is the "Canadaian" Wheat Board will automatically result in the destruction of the wheat board? If that is true then the Wheat board and its supporters do not believe that they can survive in the real world! but surely they will still have a huge advantage if wheat is opened up?

The more collectivist monopoly's PM Harper puts down the better. I await the CRTC death by lack of money with anticipation. Particularly Government run business, in my estimation. A healthier Nation is the only drawback with less leeches. They may end up having to do a real job instead of looting others lifespan withering there work. by over taxation to enrich themselves. I bet yeah one Maurice Strong to three Dion’s the CWB is as corrupt as Australia’s, if not worse.

Time to distance ourselves from these psudo-communists. Bring back private property laws with the right to defend oneself like any animal on the planet is free to. Back to Natural law, not loony tune UN mandates full of platitudes none of them practice. By the way. How many CWB employee‘s live on the other side of the tracks. Nothing but the best for Liberals & friends.

As for Liberal French Citizen Dion. When have the liberals allowed Canadians to decide anything in our history. Quit while you’re a head. Lying thieving lefties. We know your plots by rote. PMPM gave the playbook away, don’t you know. Does anyone hear think they would have referendum like the Charlotte town accord. Not on your life. Just wind passing threw there lips. They promise the world but give back rinds of the rotten fruit of there endeavors if any.

Lets seriously think about getting out of that septic tank called the UN. Its time has come. There is NO chance of reform so lets start a new organization whose membership at the very least has to be trying Democratic reforms, with a semblance of human rights & dignity for Women.

All the UN produces are genocides by inaction, than send in the perverts to abuse children. Time to say goodbye to an idea that’s past. Its a failure at every level. Even its aids program is compromised & used by these opportunists. So lets get a body that actually helps people instead of bureaucrats , has beens , crooks, dictators, killers running a made up polity, for World control. The absconding of funds while denigrating any democracy.

Time to leave NYC. I think France is the perfect venue. Just like the League of Nations they can than die in there own inadequacy.

Keep up the Good work PMSH. A tip of the hat to John Howard as well.

Just my opinion.

Oh here's a $1000 bonus for 500 CWB employees.
VOTE LIBERAL.

Last election Bruinooge 17328, Alcock 17217.

Here's $1000 bonus.
Don't forget.
VOTE LIBERAL.
$1000 for voting Liberal folks.
Don't forget.
The Board of Directors of the CWB needs your vote. Because WE ARE UNDER A LOT OF STRESS and make really, really dumb decisions!

Kate,

Of course you're not unbiased, nor do I expect you to be. Your blog is your own; Far be it for me to tell you what to post. My concern is that I am looking for some serious debate on the issue and I am not finding it anywhere, including here, and I'm simply fed up with the lack of real debate.

I have not made up my mind on what I would like to see on the future of the Wheat Board and cannot get any straight answers. I hear of farmer after farmer who wants to see the monopoly dismantled but it is almost all anecdotal. When I go back home to visit friends and relatives who farm for a living, I ask them: Do you support the CWB? I haven't heard one farmer say that they'd like a change. Most are fearful of the American grain handling oligarchy and see no benefit to it over an organization with which they have a say.

It's not like prairie farmers cannot sell their grain at a higher price, they just cannot sell it cheaper. In exchange for this, they gain the leverage of the Canadian wheat producers on the world market. And, as my brother-in-law likes to tell me, product sold outside the Board have traditionally not fared any better.

I simply believe that this issue is not as cut-and-dry as simply an evil monoply infringing on the rights of the vocal minority of farmers, let alone a battle between Liberal and Conservative farmers.

Having said that, I do appreciate you covering the debate, no matter the bias. I just feel that we're not getting all the information needed for a proper understanding of what the Wheat Board actually does, and engaging in a "don't believe what he said because he belongs to such-and-such an organization" does not due this important debate any justice.

"It's not like prairie farmers cannot sell their grain at a higher price, they just cannot sell it cheaper."

Where pray tell did you pick up this alleged factoid? Hell, the farmer doesn't find out what the board will pay them until well after the fact.

LMAO!
That was hilarious...
Thanks rockyt

FACTS?!?!
We don't need facts.
Or at least that what the lying liberano that just posted would rather you believe.

You see there huck, we debate, but, if your gonna bullshit us we will call you on it.
...and call you on it and call you on it and...

Huck, then I suggest you do a search for older CWB posts, particularly the guest post by Larry Weber. There's lots of that informed discussion in the comments there for you. This thread relates to the quality of media coverage, so it isn't surprising that the debate would pick up again in earnest again on this thread. Search "rolf penner", too, if that post doesn't come up on its own in the Weber results.

What part of freedom of choice don't you understand Huck?

Just because your relatives are too afraid to step out of the comfort zone in search of better things, shouldn't mean that they get to tell their neighbors to be scared too should it????????

I ask again, (since you seem to have trouble posting a reply to questions) how is it that Ontario and Quebec farmers can do what they want to, but Western Canadians cannot? What is so special about us out here? Why are they not asking to be put back into a monopoly situation?

I eagerly await your reply. (or any others who support the Western Canadian Wheat Board)

Huck, I'm from your home town and I oppose the CWB and would like a free choice. There are a lot of very vocal farmers in our area who are pro-CWB but there are a few of us who don't agree. We just aren't out on the street shouting about it - yet anyhow. All I've heard from people who are pro-CWB is a bunch of fear (the multi-national bogey men are going to give us nothing for our grain or someone might be able to get more for their grain than me!!). No one can predict the future but fear of change is not a good enough reason to keep the board in tact. I think that the books should be open to scrutiny before anyone makes any decisions about the future - we may be wrong to oppose the board or we may be wrong to support it but I think the answer lies in the accounting books that no one has ever been allowed to see.

Sid,
It has been a pattern of people like Huck not to respond. Much like the others that took positions like Huck in previous discussions on the CWB they do not respond to the simple question on how they justify the oppression of their neighbors rights. They don't respond because they know there is no real justification only their absurd rationalizations with statements like "I have yet to meet a farmer who has serious problem with the set up of the CWB."

it is an axiom of business that one way to ensure your own (ie cwb) success is rely on people's (ie farmers) fear of the unknown.

'support' from farmers stuck with the cwb should not be confused with the real thing; they just dont know what if anything will replace it. so better to stays wit' da omnipotent benevolent massa 'den goes out on yours own a free man.

in the farming world you will either progress or regress but you won't stay the same because the rest of the world isn't staying the same around you. the cwb must be treated the same as any other 60 year old piece of farm machinery ...improve it for the times or haul it to the hill with the rest of the junk.

Yes and some are happy with the status quo. The forward price options are alloweing those useing them an adavantage over those who are not. As i understand it, all your money comes off the table in the forward priceing, so that leaves only those in what i call pool b. paying for hickups like, 1000 dollar bonuses, cwb court challenges, and im sure the odd demurrage charges on grain caught in the system during a strike etc.etc.etc.
Better learn to use those priceing options folks, and if the price isn't right leave it in the bin or don't grow it.
Better yet, give me choice Mr. Harper.

"If that is true then the Wheat board and its supporters do not believe that they can survive in the real world! but surely they will still have a huge advantage if wheat is opened up?"

Little known fact: The CWB is based upon a Fractured Fairy Tale from the 1960's cult cartoon series Rocky and Bullwinkle.

This is such a non-story. It’s completely understandable that people who support a single desk CWB would be involved with organizations and political parties that also support a single desk.

blue drew,
Suggestion, read before you post.
This disscussion is about the MSM presenting farmers as "independent" without disclosing facts like they are President a Liberal Riding association.