[redhatmamma]

According to an opinion piece this morning the judge is wrong,
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/12/07/c ... d-brodbeck

$1:

Trouble is, nowhere in the act does it say those are legal requirements government must follow before eliminating the single-desk system.
To be honest, Campbell’s written decision reads more like political commentary than a judicial ruling. It has more to do with the judge’s personal beliefs than the rule of law.
He has essentially read a rule into the Canadian Wheat Board Act — under Sec. 47.1 — that simply doesn’t exist.
He may want it to exist.
He may think the government has a moral obligation to hold a vote among farmers before eliminating the board’s monopoly. But that’s not what the law says.
What Sec. 47.1 of the act does say very clearly is that Parliament shall not introduce a bill under the existing monopoly “that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada” without consulting with the CWB and without getting the approval of grain farmers through a vote.

I'm not clear on it, but here's the 47.1

http://www.theholmteam.ca/RVC2.pdf

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

What infrastructure is paid by farmers that would have to paid by taxpayers?

Everything. In the case of wheat, as Robair mentioned, the port. There's not much point in growing wheat if there's no harbour to ship it from. I don't know enough about the wheat business to know what other services and infrastructure are funded by the wheat board. In dairy, all aspects of transportation, processing, distribution, quality control and marketing are paid for by the board. Get rid of the board and all of that either falls to the individual farmer to fund, which he never could, or the tax payer. The only 3rd option is to import all our dairy or subsidize the hell out of it, like the Americans do.

The only thing in your list I can see that would be funded by taxpayers is inspection for safety/quality. The others every producer has to bear. Why could dairy farmers not fund those items on your list same as other producers?

Lemmy Lemmy:

If a nation is going to take the "free trade" high road against marketing boards, they better be sure they're not involved in some other form of agricultural support system that also violates free trade. For most nations, that means subsidization.

I don't think NZ subsidizes - hasn't for a number of years. The US of course has nothing to squawk about.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

The only thing in your list I can see that would be funded by taxpayers is inspection for safety/quality. The others every producer has to bear. Why could dairy farmers not fund those items on your list same as other producers?

Because once the marketing board goes, the price falls and the profitability in producing falls. As the price falls, so does the quantity supplied. So the individual farmer is selling less at a lower price. He'd be lucky to be able to feed himself on his new revenue reality, let alone paying for milk trucks, processing, packaging, etc. Farmers are not like other producers.

[andyt]

How are farmers not like other producers? People have to eat, vs say buy i-crap, so you'd think farmers have an advantage in what they can charge for their products. Do you think it's vital that we keep farming alive in Canada? (Ie pay higher prices one way or the other to local producers?) We don't do it with fruits and veg, which seem at least as vital to me as dairy. I've certainly read economists in the paper argue that we should not prop up farmers but buy from wherever it's cheapest to produce the food. The old division of labor thing.

I'm asking questions here, not arguing against marketing boards. I do wonder if these boards for some reason make sense for dairy and chicken, why not beef and pork and even produce to some degree. And what other things we buy would it make sense to support with restrictive boards? Basically saying that a managed economy makes more sense than a free one in many cases. Commie stuff, that.

[Lemmy]

You need an agricultural economist. They have their own offices in a different building here. I've given you all I've got, andy. Take away the marketing board and the market becomes unprofitable. That's why those nations that don't allow marketing boards are forced to subsidize.

[eureka]

I tend to support subsidization of farm products to a degree since self sufficiency as far as possible is essential to national sovereignty and to independence. Where it falls down is when the subsidies are for the purposes of exports.In that, many poor countries - that actually have a comparative advantage in this, instead import food from developed countries at the cost of the collapse of their own agricultural economies.

wrt to this topic, it seems that 62% of farmers in the plebiscite conducted by the Wheat Board want to retain the Board. Nothing but selfishness and disregard for the industries involved can explain the wish to disband the Board by the minority. For reasons that Robair spelled out, some producers have great advantages over the majority.