They are building on commitments to enhance rural broadband access, pay compensation for supply-managed industries impacted by trade deals and look to agriculture to be an economic driver in the fight against climate change from the throne speech that sparked cautious optimism.

The cautiousness came from reservations Ottawa would be able to follow through.

Some critics pointed to the lack of prominence agriculture received in the throne speech – but few other industries got more attention than farmers did. Throne speeches are meant to speak to all Canadians.

Plus, many other areas that got specific attention, like health care, are at least as integral to our everyday quality of life as agriculture is.

Seven days after the speech was made, Ottawa is already putting its money where its mouth is.

(A government doing what it says it will do is about the bare minimum voters should expect of elected officials, but these days it seems citizens can’t expect much more than that.)

The commitment to improving rural broadband access is being backed up by $2 billion to connect three-quarters of a million households and small businesses. How fast that money rolls out is worth watching, but it is significant how quickly the federal government moved to back up its pledge to better connect rural communities.

It’s also significant the federal government continues to strongly confirm its commitment to compensating supply-managed industries for federal trade deals. Surely those producers would prefer the compensation comes sooner rather than later, but by promising to pay at least some of the compensation by the end of the year, they are signalling money is coming sometime in the next two months.

Ottawa is also poising itself to help unlock agriculture as an economic engine, in part by committing $1.5 billion to help fund agricultural irrigation projects on the Prairies.

Critics will want to see more for the sector – and it’s fair to continue demanding more of your federal government.

Reforming business risk management (BRM) programs is the ultimate task of the federal government and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Marie-Claude Bibeau, at least in the eyes of many producers and the lobbyists who work on their behalf.

It will cost money to improve those programs, and the Liberals made no commitment to pay more money than they already are, or any commitment at all on the BRM front, in the throne speech.

At best, producers should hope the Liberals fulfil a promise they made while running for re-election in 2019, which is to do a “collaborative review” of the programs and be prepared “to increase federal support to farmers to help them manage risks beyond their control.”

Doing so successfully hinges on Bibeau’s ability to get belt-tightening provinces on board to do the same – which is no easy task.

So there are still reasons to be cautious, but credit should be given to the federal Liberals for moving quickly to pay for at least some of the promises they recently made to the sector.

The post Opinion: Federal Liberals making good on throne promises appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Manitoba Co-operator reporter Shannon VanRaes was on-hand in Ottawa as Canada’s new agriculture minister made his first public remarks on Parliament Hill. Lawrence MacAulay has represented Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons since 1988 was also a cabinet minister under Jean Chretien. He said his first order of business will be to meet with his provincial counterparts.

The post VIDEO: Lawrence MacAulay sworn in appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Other priorities include determining if farm aid programs are adequate, investing in infrastructure to protect soil and water and refocusing the government’s role in scientific research.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not coming back, but the Liberal government will dig into its apparent ‘giveaway’ to a foreign company and perhaps release the CWB’s 2012-13 annual report and financial statements that former agricuture minister Gerry Ritz kept secret.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, including an agriculture minister, were to be sworn in Nov. 4 — two days after this week’s Manitoba Co-operator went to press.

Grain transportation is a priority, Goodale said in an interview last week, noting that a review of the Canadian Transportation Act led by former cabinet minister David Emerson is supposed to be done by the end of the year.

“This presents an opportunity for significant improvements in the system. It will be important to seize that opportunity to put in place a system that will not be prone to the kind of disaster that happened in 2013-14.”

Canada produced a record crop that year, but a backlog developed in railway grain shipments. Farmers and grain companies blamed the railways for not investing in enough surge capacity; the railways blamed the big crop and the coldest winter in 100 years.

Although the new government will consider Emerson’s recommendations, it’s on record as supporting subjecting the railways to commercial penalties for failing to fulfil service agreements with grain shippers. That’s just normal contractual law, Goodale said.

“This is the only case where it doesn’t apply,” he added. “What seems astounding is that the railways seem astounded when you say the basic principles of business and contract law should apply to them.”

It’s also time to calculate the railways’ costs of shipping grain — something last done in 1992, Goodale said. The formula used to set the railways’ maximum revenue entitlement is based on those 1992 costs, adjusted annually for inflation. However, it’s widely believed by farm groups that many railway costs have declined due to increased rail and grain-handling efficiency, resulting in farmers paying much more than intended.

“It is reasonable I think, to update the arithmetic,” Goodale said.

TPP review

The new government is also keen to review the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before endorsing it.

While former minister Gerry Ritz was widely praised for his many trade missions to boost Canadian farm exports, Goodale isn’t impressed.

“The previous government seemed content to go from one trade negotiation to the other without a heck of a lot of followup,” he said.

“Once you’ve got the market access then you’ve got to make use of it and this government has not had a marketing or sales strategy. The end result is we’ve had 55 months of trade deficits under the Harper government.”

Ritz’s efforts lack the “pizzaz” of the Team Canada trade missions conducted by former Liberal government, according to Goodale.

The Conservative government cut farm program budgets and made it harder to trigger payments from AgriStability. Goodale said the new government will consult with farm groups and the provinces to see if the programs can meet farmers’ needs when commodity prices fall.

Some of the Liberal government’s infrastructure spending is intended for natural resources infrastructure, Goodale said.

“With the onset of more and more consequences from climate change we are very likely to have more frequent and more severe cycles of floods and droughts,” he said.

“The frustration is some years you have a flood and a lack systems to control it or save it and then next year you have a drought.”

More basic research

The Liberals plan big changes to government scientific research, including in agriculture. There will be more basic, curiosity research, not just applied research tied to a commercial outcome, Goodale said.

“Science within the Government of Canada is totally messed up and the scientific community within the government is obviously muzzled and intimidated,” he said. “The whole thing needs to be examined from top to bottom to get science policy right.

“There’s a lot of work to do to repair the damage that has been done.”

Although the Liberals won a strong majority Oct. 19, outside of Atlantic Canada they have few rural seats. Asked how the new government will avoid becoming city-centric Goodale replied: “We’ll just have to work very hard at it.

“The prime minister elect has made it very clear that he wants to be a prime minister for all of Canada and we’ll work very hard to achieve that.”

allan@fbcpublishing.com

The post New Liberal government has lots on its ag ‘to do’ list appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That leads us to as good a place as any to start a list of suggestions for the new government — appoint some farmers to the Senate. It may not be a popular institution these days, but the political and constitutional reality is that we’re stuck with it, so let’s fill it with good people. Prime Minister Trudeau has pledged that non-partisan Senate appointments will be made by a new third-party process. Farm groups should support that and make their case for qualified farmers to be nominated to fill some of the several vacant positions.

The next suggestion is one that many others have made, and that is that the new government must respect science and scientists. It should be acknowledged that those of us covering agriculture have been slightly better off than other journalists covering other departments, especially environment. Unlike those scientists who have been muzzled completely, some Agriculture Canada staff such as plant breeders have actually been able to speak to us and say whether one variety has better disease resistance than the other, though probably after checking with the minister’s office first.

The reign of terror that partisan ministerial officials have held over scientists and other public servants was not started by the Harper government. It’s been a creeping problem since the last Trudeau administration. The new one should set scientists free to speak about their work.

That policy should apply to all public servants. Again, it did not start with Mr. Harper, but this country has seen a disturbing trend of government employees being labelled as “bureaucrats,” a word which has mistakenly come to imply “meddlesome officials.” Prime Minister Harper missed no opportunity to portray them as that or worse — people doing unnecessary work at taxpayers’ expense. Prime Minister Trudeau should work to help restore the image of public service as an honourable profession.

Speaking of sound science and public service, there has never been a better example than the work of the former Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), which arguably saved Western Canada from turning into a desert in the 1930s. A few years ago the PFRA was absorbed into the “Agri-Environment Services Branch” of Agriculture Canada, suspiciously not long after releasing a major report which documented that the condition of soil and water in Western Canada was not as rosy as some would like to claim. In 2012, in a bizarre example of penny-pinching for no good reason, the Harper government unloaded the remaining PFRA community pasture and shelterbelt programs.

Given climate change, the decline of glaciers in the Rockies, increasing water demand, water-quality problems and essentially uncontrolled drainage, there is an urgent need for a Prairie-wide water- and soil-management strategy. A revived PFRA might be ideal to develop and implement one, and keeping the old name wouldn’t hurt. Farmers trusted the PFRA, and knew that its staff understood their needs as well as the needs of the environment, which will get a lot more attention under the new government.

Farmers and their organizations need to be prepared for that. The perception, if not the reality, is that since Prairie farmers have so strongly supported the Conservatives, they also support the Conservative position on the environment, especially the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change. That position has been grudging acceptance in public and outright denial in private.

Farmers and their organizations need to realize that if they want the regulations on the safety of pesticides and genetically modified crops to be based on the vast majority of scientific opinion, they had better accept the vast majority of scientific opinion on climate change. Otherwise they won’t be taken seriously.

Canada’s “big city” mayors have clearly done a good job of establishing a relationship with the Trudeau Liberals, and making their case for more money to rebuild crumbling urban infrastructure. Western Canada’s municipal and other rural representatives will need to work hard on building the same relationship. When they visit Ottawa, they can no longer drop in to see a local MP who is part of the government. It’s time to start knocking on some new doors, and speaking the same language when they get in.

The post Editorial: Knocking on new doors in Ottawa appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As the debate was unfolding at the Château Laurier in Ottawa, leaders from the 12 Pacific Rim countries were meeting to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership in Atlanta, Georgia. The day before farmers drove a convoy of tractors in downtown Ottawa to protest the potential implications of the trade deal.

Supply management is a set of policies that control the price of milk, cheese, eggs and poultry in Canada through marketing boards. The TPP would put that system at risk if negotiated to increase access for other countries into the Canadian market.

Other trade-focused groups are generally in favour of implementing the deal.

Agri-Food critic and NDP party member Malcolm Allen began and ended the debate by saying his party has unequivocal support for supply management.

He continued to ask Conservative agriculture minister Gerry Ritz why domestic markets are on the table in international trade agreements.

“Everything is on the table at the beginning,” said Ritz.

Ritz went on to say that if TPP final negotiations make any concessions to supply management that farmers would be compensated accordingly, leaving “zero impact on producers at the end of the day.”

Ritz was further challenged by Bloc Quebecois representative Yves Lessard who said Conservatives were sacrificing a piece of supply management with each trade deal.

Green Party member, Andrew West said the TPP doesn’t benefit farmers on any level.

“Simply put this hurts farmers.”

As for transportation within Canada, the Conservatives, NDPs and the Green Party touched on the importance of transportation infrastructure, especially to Prairie farmers.

Infrastructure in rural communities is lacking, making it difficult for western Canadian farmers to move production from the farm to processors, Allen said.

“The NDP is going to stand up to railway companies.”

The Green Party plans to fund transportation infrastructure by cutting subsidies to oil sands.

Ritz briefly touched on rural investment, saying the Conservative government plans on supporting it through better broadband access, roads and ports.

Mark Eyking, Liberal Party representative, said the party plans on working directly with farmers to develop plans that work for then, especially in research and agribusiness sectors.

Drought in Western Canada means farmers are going to want to trigger risk management programs, he said.

The Liberals plan to fund research and programs that would help with market volatility, saying the current government doesn’t do enough to help farmers, citing Conservative government cuts to the AgriStability program.

“Every other developed country helps farmers when they’re in need,” he said.

Allen said he has heard farmers complain about AgriStability, and that their dislike is founded.

He said the NDP would sit down with farmers and see what they need, and build a program beyond bureaucracy.

The post Federal candidates debate supply management as TPP talks continue appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Strengthening Canada’s Hometowns — A Roadmap for Strong Cities and Communities lays out a plan that would guide federal government in being a partner to create local jobs and spur economic growth while building livable, safe and environmentally sustainable communities, an FCM news release said.

“This is a guide for Canadians to the upcoming federal election,” said FCM president Raymond Louie in a news release.

It will be useful as a guide to compare how federal parties’ election promises stack up, he said.

“Compare federal party platforms to see which party will be the best partner for their community and improve quality of life in their hometown,” he said in a release.

The document will help Canadians raise questions of those vying for election such as who has the best plan to create local jobs, and help them decide which party will work to solve the housing crunch, the document says.

The road map was put together after extensive consultation across Canada where Canadians shared their ideas for what will make life in both smaller towns and larger cities better, and identifies key areas where greater focus and investment are needed.

Basic needs for good housing and clean water “should not be an issue in a country like ours,” the document says, adding that safer roads, improved public transport and public safety are also top priorities.

The road map also calls for increased investment in clean energy, more energy-efficient building construction and improved public transportation systems, noting that Canada’s best hope for lessening dependency on fossil fuels lies with increased investment in the infrastructure of Canada’s cities and towns, the document says.

The document was launched at a municipal leaders’ convention in Edmonton earlier this month where all three federal parties pitched their platforms to mayors and municipal leaders from across Canada. The FCM has called for a national leaders’ debate on municipal issues. As of this week three of four federal parties, including the New Democratic Party of Canada, The Liberal Party of Canada and the Green Party of Canada have all agreed to participate.

The FCM is the national voice of municipal government. In leading the municipal movement, FCM works to align federal and local priorities, recognizing that strong hometowns make for a strong Canada.

A pdf copy of Strengthening Canada’s Hometowns can be downloaded here.

The post Canadian mayors launch vision for stronger hometowns appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Saskatchewan, where fertilizer producer PotashCorp is based, wanted Ottawa to reject the Anglo-American mining giant’s $39-billion offer, the largest takeover bid of 2010.

It says a deal would rob Canada of a key strategic resource, as well as cutting jobs, Saskatchewan’s tax take and its royalty payments, and it says the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec also oppose the bid.

Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan alone account for 48 of the 142 seats the ruling Conservatives hold in the House of Commons, and the minority government needs those seats to stay in power.

“How do you overcome the strategic concern? … This is more important going forward for the country than maybe it ever has been because the world is prizing food security and energy security,” Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said in Toronto.

“Isn’t it time that we maybe got a little bit circumspect about deals that involve this size of a reserve and this size of a company? I guess that’s our position.”

PotashCorp is the world’s biggest producer of its namesake crop nutrient, demand for which is soaring as food prices climb and demand for fertilizers rise. It has flatly rejected BHP’s $130-a-share offer as inadequate.

POLITICAL CHALLENGE

The issue of whether to approve the offer has become a huge political challenge for the federal Conservative government, which said it would meet a legal deadline of midnight Nov. 3 to approve or block it.

If the government blocks the bid, it risks damaging Canada’s reputation as a country that’s open to foreign investment.

But accepting it might drive voters in Saskatchewan and in other provinces to other parties, jeopardizing the Conservatives’ chances of staying in power after a federal election widely expected in the first half of 2011.

Speaking to CPAC television, Clement said foreign investment had traditionally been a net benefit to Canada, bringing jobs, competition, innovation and production.

“We can’t close our borders, and nor would we want to, because different companies may want us to export to other countries, or invest in other countries,” he said.

“I think we have to be an open market, but at the same time everybody should know what the rules are. The rules are net benefit to Canada.”

A Saskatchewan Aboriginal group said it saw no net benefit from the BHP proposal, and said the federal government had a duty to consult it. It was not clear if these consultations would take place, or if that could delay any decision.

Polls put the Conservatives just six percentage points in front of the Liberals, their main rivals, and they would lose seats if an election were held now.

The Liberals and the left-wing New Democrats both oppose the BHP offer.

“This is one of the principal nutrients required for food production around the world and will be required for generations to come,” said Ralph Goodale, the Liberals’ only member of parliament in Saskatchewan.

“If one transaction can take that out of Canadian hands forever, that’s a pretty strategic, pretty serious consideration.”

Canadian government approval is far from the final stage in the process, and the Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission is due to hold hearings on Nov. 8 and 9 on whether to overturn Potash shareholder rights plan.

In a filing to the commission, PotashCorp said it had spoken with 15 strategic, financial and state-sponsored potential bidders and investors. But in a tough market, a white knight would need more time to raise financing, it said.

That slightly strengthened a message that the company has beamed out many times already, but at least one leading Canadian investment banker remained skeptical.

“We’re still waiting for them to show up,” said the banker, who asked not to be identified.

The post Canadian Provinces Push Ottawa To Block Potash Bid appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Liberal MP Frank Valeriote of Guelph, one of the party’s leading MPs on the Commons agriculture committee, didn’t mince words objecting to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s unbending opposition to the registry or NDP Leader Jack Layton’s stance during a Sept. 7 news conference.

MPs are scheduled to vote Sept. 22 on Manitoba Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s private member’s bill to scrap the registry. If passed, it would still have to pass the Senate.

Valeriote, a lawyer by profession, is one of the founders of the Parliamentary compassionate care caucus. It advocates for better care and understanding

for people contemplating suicide or euthanasia because of a crippling disease or end-of-life condition.

He’s considered a small-c conservative Liberal who backs a registry that’s less punitive and aggravating toward gun owners.

During a Sept. 7 news conference, Valeriote announced an online campaign to deliver a message in support of the registry to the government and the NDP.

“Layton’s refusal to support the gun registry stands in stark

contrast to Michael Ignatieff’s principled leadership stand to save it,” he said. “He had a choice – to side with police officers and victims of gun crimes, or stand with Harper – and he chose to play into Harper’s ideological campaign against the life-saving gun registry.

“Front-line police officers, police chiefs, paramedics, doctors, women’s groups and a strong majority of everyday Canadians know that the long-gun registry is an essential tool that helps keep all Canadians safe – and we want Layton to know just how costly it will be if he chooses to ignore them.”

In response, Layton’s office accused the Liberals of playing political games with the serious issue of the gun registry. The Liberals singled out six NDP MPs as wavering in their support of the registry, although the NDP say they all voted for the registry in the past.

“What do the six have in common? All are urban ridings where the Liberals finished second in the last election.”

Layton has also proposed changes to the gun registry to lessen public opposition to it.

———

“Layton’s refusal to support the gun registry stands in stark contrast to Michael Ignatieff’s principled leadership stand to save it.”

– FRANK VALERIOTE

The post Liberals Step Up Gun Registry Pressure – for Sep. 16, 2010 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Speaking on a farm just north of Toronto in late April, Ignatieff said a Liberal government would work toward making more homegrown food available, while pulling the farm sector back from the financial precipice.

“We need more homegrown food on Canadian tables – because our health and our economy depend on it,” he said. “While farmers and our agri-food sector provide one out of every eight jobs and generate $42 billion in annual economic activity, the economic crisis has strained the pillar of our rural communities – our farms – to the breaking point.

PROPOSALS

The proposed food policy promises healthy eating, safe food, sustainable farm incomes, environmental farmland stewardship and international leadership.

The main item for farmers is a “clean slate” promise to start over again in designing farm income programs. The Liberals say they will work “in partnership with farmers and restore AgriFlex to offer regionally flexible programs that help meet the costs of production.”

The Liberals also promised to strengthen Environmental Farm Plans and reward farmers for their role in clean energy production and protecting wildlife habitat. There was also a vague reference to “improving fertilizer and pesticide management.”

PROMOTION

The Liberal policy talks about promoting Canadian food internationally and expanding Canada’s share of high-value export markets.

Laurent Pellerin, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said the policy proposals sound promising, but urged the Liberals not to ditch all the existing farm support programs because of the impact on small-and medium-size producers. Instead, government needs to work in partnership with farm groups on developing income programs that actually help farmers.

He also said governments and consumers must realize that Canadians pay very little for their food compared to other countries and that only about 10 per cent of the grocery store prices get back to the farmer. “Our share is declining while the rest of the food industry is earning more and more.”

RESEARCH GAP

Richard Phillips, executive director of Grain Growers of Canada, says his group found positive ideas in the Liberal plan. “Getting Canadians to eat more homegrown food is a good step. Connecting consumers to farmers would be a really good thing.”

He also worried about the clean slate approach program if it led to serious gaps between programs in rich and poor provinces. “They could end up dragging us into trade disputes. We need to ensure a lot of caution in that regard so we don’t face trade challenges.”

At the same time, the Liberals must remember that most Canadian farmers are producing for export markets and that fair trade rules and promotion are essential, he said.

The Liberal policy was silent on the need for more research and innovation in agriculture, he added.

NEW PROGRAMS

Wayne Easter, the Liberal farm spokesman, said his party is “working with farmers to build new farm programs from the farm up, and not Ottawa down. Farmers have told us that a new National Food Policy must wipe the slate clean to create regionally flexible programs by farmers, for farmers.”

The Liberals promised yet another comprehensive review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada “to ensure Canada’s food safety system is effectively co-ordinated to minimize risks and assure Canadians that the food on their dinner tables is safe.”

They would also “invest an additional $50 million over four years to improve food inspection by the CFIA and to ensure the same food safety standards set for Canadian producers are applied to foods imported into Canada.”

The post Liberals Propose National Food Policy appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Since the CWB is a creature of the Liberal party, in Stephen Harper’s world, it must be destroyed. It has nothing to do with freedom of choice.

With a stronger minority Stephen Harper promised in his victory speech to carry out his commitments. One of those is the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. He will no doubt wait to see the outcome of this fall’s vote for directors of the even-numbered CWB districts, but should the vote go against him, he will not be short of other nasty and quite possibly illegal efforts to put an end to the CWB.

On the face of it, it would appear that the farm vote is quite solidly behind Harper. But does that mean farmers agree with Harper in the matter of the CWB? Time will tell.

Why does Harper hate the CWB? Only a small number of farmers want to get rid of it. He knows that it does an outstanding job for farmers in marketing and in standing up to such entities as the railroads, on behalf of farmers. He knows the returns to farmers are at least as good, and often better, than an open market would give them. Harper is no dummy. So why the zeal to eliminate the CWB?

Confrontational

One thing we can dismiss at the outset is concern for farmers. He has never sought consensus in this battle. He knows, when he says he will “walk over” those who stand in his way, he’s talking about bona fide farmers. And his election platform, while skimpy by any standard, was bereft of anything of substance for agriculture. In the opinion of this writer, Harper wants to get rid of the CWB because he is first and foremost a deregulator, in the style of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and, more recently, George Bush.

His second reason, I believe, is because he sees a threat in the CWB in that it could morph into a political rallying point against him. Do our present world conditions make deregulation and laissez-faire capitalism a popular stance for either political or financial people to take? After the most fervent pro-deregulation government in modern history resorted to a socialist-type bailout of over a trillion dollars to shore up its financial system, deregulation has taken on a bit of a bad flavour.

But against all evidence, our prime minister doesn’t seem to think so. Or does he? When France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy was in Canada, he had the opportunity to address the Quebec legislature. In his address, Sarkozy admonished Quebec separatists against trying to divide the country,

stressing that we are in a time when consolidation, not separation, should be our goal. He had barely time to close his mouth at the end of his speech before our prime minister, full of enthusiasm, almost climbed the podium in his haste to agree with Sarkozy’s comments.

So why is it good for banks, for credit unions, for countries to tighten up, to consolidate, to regulate, but a farm organization that has demonstrated that it can play with the big boys, that it can take on the railways, that it can protect quality control and raise the respect due to that quality worldwide, must be stripped of its mandate, disbanded and destroyed? What is wrong with this picture, and why are we even debating it?

Origins

The answer is Harper’s political agenda. It is Harper’s stated intention to permanently change Canada’s political complexion. He spent two years performing nothing less than character assassination on Stéphane Dion to that end.

Since the CWB is a creature, in its origins, of the Liberal party, in Stephen Harper’s world, the CWB must be destroyed. It has nothing to do with freedom of choice.

If there is a single message I would like to rivet on the minds of those few deluded souls who endlessly raise their caterwauling cry for “choice,” it would be that Stephen Harper doesn’t

care about you. To him, you’re just a dumb bunch of farmers who will vote for him regardless, and who have a perennial whine he can use in his drive to make us into a different country. He is clever, sly, willing to break the law and utterly ruthless. The country, in that inchoate wisdom that is so often seen in elections, has denied him a majority. Farmers, in their sparse numbers, didn’t have much role in that decision, either pro or con. But we can deny him a majority of yes-men at the CWB. Let us do so. It may be the most democratic thing we will ever do.

For me, it would be a wonderful thing to see the CWB in the input business. I would like to see trains with its logo have the running rights on the tracks which those monopolies that Harper likes, CN and CPR, have as their money trees. In the uncertain world in which we live, let us not get rid of something as valuable as the CWB. And don’t be lulled into thinking it can survive as one more (little) grain company.

– John Beckham is a farmer writing from Winnipeg. He does not belong to the Liberal party of Canada.

The post CWB vote may be farmers’ most democratic option appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.