Harvesting in the Snow...

[TOM4CWB]

I tried combining this morning...

Looks like about 10-15% ice plus the grain is about 25-30% moisture...

At 45% moisture, this is obviously not going to work... unless we make high moisture barley out of it after it thaws next spring!

Does anyone know how to keep ice crystals out of the sample?

AS far as I can see, without a miracle, what is not harvested now... will not be harvested this fall!

WHAT a year...!!!

[charliep]

Any thoughts on how much crop is still out. Provincial estimates seem to be finished harvest Manitoba, 85% ish Saskatchewan and Alberta 60 to 70% done.

[Vader]

On page FP13 of todays National Post Lawrence Solomon suggest that one part of the solution to meeting the Kyoto target might be to eliminate Canada's farm subsidies completely. He writes, under the heading:

Less overnment, less greenhouse gas

"Canada's agricultural sector, though it represents a mere 1.5% of GDP, accounts for almost 10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, more than is produced by all of Canada's manufacturing industries combined. The 10% figure, however excludes the fuel used by farm equipment, the energy embedded in fertilizer, and other major sources of greenhouse gasses. Once these are calculated, according to Canada's 1996 Greenhouse Gas Emission Summary, the agriculture sector's greenhouse gas emissions climb by another 40%.

Yet unlike the manufacturing sector, which turns a handsome profit for society, the agriculture industry - particularly the large-scale, mechanized farms, - runs at a loss: For every dollar of profit that the aveage farm earns, society provides $3.50 in subisdies. Wthout subsidies, most if not all of the large farms producing low-value export crops would disappear, many small, labour-intensive farms producing high-value crops for local markets would reappear, the farm sector would become a bigger employer and profitable, and the majority of gases from the once oversized farm sector would vanish. The conversion to an economically sized small farm sector has another greenhouse gas bonus, too: Unlike large mechanized farms, whose crude tillers deplete carbon from topsoil, small farmers tend to enrich the land through methods that pack carbon back into the soil."

[parsley]

You'll enjoy this one taken from Parliamenet yesterday, Vader:


Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance):

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has been notified of illegal activities at the Canadian Wheat Board in regard to licensing costs. Legislation clearly prohibits the Canadian Wheat Board from paying all export licensing costs out of the wheat sales of western Canadian farmers yet the board has done it anyway. How long has the minister known that this is happening and why has he not corrected the problem?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman alleges that I have been informed of something. Quite frankly I have not been informed of it. If there are facts to be discovered here I will find them out and I will take the appropriate action, but he should make no allegation that I have not acted upon information that has been known to me because it has not been.


Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance):

Mr. Speaker, the minister should read his mail. The Canadian Wheat Board Act states that the minister may direct the corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations shall be conducted. So clearly the minister has a responsibility for licensing. In addition to this, the buyback that farmers are forced to go through does not have a legislative requirement. This has become like an extra fee for Prairie farmers only. Ontario and Quebec do not have to buy their grain back in order to export or process. Why will the minister not correct this problem as well?


Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that falls within the purview of the management of the Canadian
Wheat Board. That management is responsible to the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and the directors are two-thirds elected directly by western Canadian farmers. As long as I have been minister I have never given the Canadian Wheat Board a direction. I believe its authority should rest with farmers. UNQUOTE

Perhaps the Minister better start giving direction to his Board if they are not capable of following their legislation, wouldn't you agree Vader?

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley,

I think you would like nothing better than for the government to tell the CWB what to do.

If the CWB is not controlled by farmers then ultimately it will die. And that I suspect is your primary concern.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

The government does tell the CWB what to do...

THE Budget;

The initial prices;

Approving the CEO President's position;

Appointing 5 directors;

Telling when long term debt can be issued, and when it cannot;

Having Customs and the RCMP Defend the CWB Monopoly, instead of telling the CWB to defend itself with hard work and innovation...

And this is farmer controled?

I however would agree if the CWB were to become farmer controled, and worked hard in a marketing choice environment, then it could survive if those running this new reformed Marketer were good managers, and respected farmers!

[parsley]

Vader

1. The CWB will do what the Government tells it to do.


2. Farmer Trust in the Wheat Board died in jail.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley,

Quoting from you own post

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that falls within the purview of the management of the Canadian
Wheat Board. That management is responsible to the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and the directors are two-thirds elected directly by western Canadian farmers. As long as I have been minister I have never given the Canadian Wheat Board a direction. I believe its authority should rest with farmers. UNQUOTE

If you were the collective "people of Canada". And if you were paying $3.50 in subsidies for every dollar of net farm income, and if you were guaranteeing the borrowing of the CWB and if you had the legislation that said that you got to approve the CWB business plan, would that make sense?

[Vader]

If I approve your plan does that mean that I told you what to do? It might mean I have the power to tell you what not to do. Perhaps that is a check and balance that is best left in the system. Regardless. For now that is the law.

Are you a proponent of breaking the law?

[Vader]

TOM4CWB,

There is a big difference between teling the CWB what to do and approving what the CWB does.

From Parsley's post,

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that falls within the purview of the management of the Canadian
Wheat Board. That management is responsible to the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and the directors are two-thirds elected directly by western Canadian farmers. As long as I have been minister I have never given the Canadian Wheat Board a direction. I believe its authority should rest with farmers. UNQUOTE

If you were the collective "Canadian people" and you were paying $3.50 of your dollars for every dollar of net farm profit, and if you were guaranteeing the borrowing of the the CWB, and if the legislation gave you the authority to approve the CWB budget, would that make sense? Perhaps some checks and balances do make a certain amount of sense. Exactly how much control would you want the 10 elected farmer directors to have? How far do you trust their business sense in running a 4 billion dollar operation?

Regardless, for the time being it is the law. Are you two proponents of breaking the law or do you simply encourage others to do so?

[parsley]

Vader,

The CWB, first and foremost, has a duty to uphold the legislation that gives it authority. Has the CWB done this? Taking farmers' money to license corporations isn't following the law. Did some of the Directors know they were breaking the law? They certainly did, but they decided that what they wanted to do was more important than what Parliament instructed them to do. Were they a preponent of breaking the law? I'd be interested in your answer to that one. Is the Minister apreponent of breaking the law because he allowed the CWB to break the law? The Minister IS ultimately responsible for what the Board does, of course.


By requiring farmers to do the buyback as a pre-requisite to getting a license, the Board of Directors are asking farmers to do something that Parliament does not. HOw about a cash under the table to get an export license kind of requirement? Would that be acceptable? How about a donation to the Hell's Angels and you can have a license? Because the buyback is not something Parliament requires, it is a cooked-up Wheat Board requirement. Farmers have reason to distrust.

Am I a preponent of breaking the law? No.


In this case, have the farmers broken the law?
1. The buyback is not a requirement so a farmer can hardly get thrown in jail for not doing an act that is not required in law.

2. The farmers have not broken the law for not having an export license when it is simply never available to them (even though the licensing requirements apply equally across Canada to all Applicants).

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley,

The law? What is the law? From time to time people go to jail who do not deserve to go to jail. We have seen that in Canada. Were they martyrs? Generally not. There was in fact a miscarriange of justice.

I see that we as a society are trying to undo what was done to Louis Riel. Too little? Too late? Perhaps.

The law is generally based on what society deems to be right or wrong. Over time courts establish precendent which should reflect the general will of the people. If the law is wrong that becomes a legislative process which again will reflect the will of the majority.

If the courts say you are wrong over and over again, then for the time being you are wrong in the context of the current law. If you choose to go to jail voluntarily for breaking that law then you are a martyr. There are probably more constructive ways to effect change. My sympathy goes out to the martyrs. I do feel sorry for them because they have chosen to be martyrs.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

I seem to remember a famous line, that was spoken by a famous person...2000 years ago...

And what was it?


WHAT IS TRUTH.

AND Pontius Pilate then decreed the innocence of the charged person.

But this fellow got crucified anyway.

Just because a court and lawyers say the law allows twisted actions by those who are in power, does not mean that the law is ethically or morally justifiable or helpful for society!

In the CWB Code of Conduct, the CWB Directors have sworn to make sure the CWB is applied in a manner that is morally and ethically responsible, and in a manner that respects personal freedom and personal property.

Just tell me Vader, how does the previous statement protect my personal property and freedom?

Are the CWB Directors living up to their personal responsibility to respect the needs each and every "designated area" farmer, over which they have power?

Since the Buy-back is strictly CWB Policy, and not required by the CWB Statute, doesn't this mean that CWB Directors even have a stronger responsibility (are even more liable)?

[Vader]

If you are to be respected does that give you the right to hurt other people?

Just because you are respected does not necessarily give you the right to speed down the highway.

And if I am the one saying that you can't speed down the highway does that imply that I don't respect you?

I don't think that respect for each other is where the problem lies.

It is easy to identify a problem. It is much harder to come up with real solutions that respect everyone rather than just a few.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader you said;

“It is easy to identify a problem. It is much harder to come up with real solutions that respect everyone rather than just a few.”

Think of the “What is truth” story…

Pontius Pilate decreed the innocence of the charged person, that he had done nothing worthy of death. In fact Pontius Pilate wanted to release this fellow, as was the tradition at the festival holiday they were observing.

What did the legal people and judicial court ruling the people say?

It was expedient for them (those in control of the people), that one man should die, so the whole nation (as they envisioned it) would not perish.

When Pontius Pilate heard;
If you let this fellow go, you are not … Caesar’s friend….,

Then… whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar (even though this fellow had already declared he had no interest in an Earthly Kingdom).

Ultimately Pontius Pilate ordered this fellow’s death, and he was crucified.

Not because he did anything wrong. The judgement clearly stated he had no fault.

Pontius Pilate killed an innocent man, the best man that ever lived, the man who cared… about the average person… more than anyone who ever lived…

He was killed so those …People in position and power…, could maintain their own self interest ahead of those they were obligated to serve.

What does history tell us about these People that put this fellow to death?

All of them, in the end lost all of their kingdoms.

If the rights of the few are not recognised, and respected,… then there are no rights left for anyone.