Buckdog

Jebus bless the Wheat board. There is nothing righties hate more then a succsessful example of selling your product collectively. CBW forever man.

oops I meant CWB forever. you all know what I mean.

Yup! :)

The Wheat Board was created by the King government in 1943..King was liberal.

In the 1980s, Mulroney--a Conservative--saw the end of the grain transportation subsidiy commonly called "The Crow".

Mulroney's actions so angered western Conservatives that they formed a new party called Reform.

Now Harper wants to get rid of the
last traces of a Liberal government's creation--no doubt at the expense of western grain growers.

Why is he so intent on killing everything that has a Liberal legacy and why is he trying to kill off the Wheat Board?
Doesn't he like the country he's supposedly leading?

It should be obvious to every western farmer that the Wheat Board is in their interest given that the Americans continually challenge it. Yet many farmers still yap on about choice in marketing. Also, many many farmers who do support the Wheat Board nevertheless vote for Conservatives. I guesss some of them also believe in the tooth fairy and that Big Grain loves them!

Hi Ken ... AGREED! There is a small number of producers who live within a few Km of the American border who want to get rid of the CWB ... for those odd days when the spot price for a load of grain across the line may be higher that Board prices.

Nice to see you here Ken ... I look in on your blogsite regularly!!

Do you think the big grain companies support "marketing choice" because they think they will end up paying less or more for grain? The question answers itself. Viva the Wheat board!!!

As King Stephen has already been shown: the only people the CWB answers to is the farmers and the only way the CWB will fold is by parliamentary vote. However, that won't be necessary if the 2008 CWB Director elections put more "marketing choice" candidates into the leadership of the board.

By district, here's the breakdown of pro-CWB candidates (or single-desk) versus anti-CWB (or marketing choice):

District 2 - one choice, one single-desk

District 4 - two choice, one single desk.

District 6 - two single desk, two choice.

District 8 - three single-desk, two choice.

District 10 - two-single desk, three choice.

(Oh, and an interesting note: not one of the candidates is a woman.)

However, not all single-desk advocates believe everything is all well and good with the CWB and there is no need for reform or change. Which makes the labeling of pro or anti board tough. Is a voluntary model of membership in the board anti single desk? There is both a yes, and no to the answer.

What advocates for single-desk marketing of grain (wheat, canola, and barley - the big three) ought to watch are these elections rather than the goings-on in the House of Commons.

The biggest threat to the CWB is the idea that there can be a mixed system of membership and that a single-desk can operate in an environment where the Co-Op is fragmented. When the CWB becomes the buyer for the small farmer and corporate farms have the "choice" to opt in or out, depending on the year or whatever, you'll see the fall of the family farm quickly in Western Canada and the end of the CWB. These elections are big in a year when the CPC virtually swept the prairies and the NDP no longer identifies with, or addresses, the rural Western family.

If the CWB is directed by "marketing choice" advocates, even though to what degree they will give 'choice' to the farmers is debated amongst them, Harper won't have to make it a vote in parliament if the board itself decides to and it's single-desk.