Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Future of Werner Patels

Today I blogged my complaint of internet stalking and harassment by Werner Patels.

I requested blog sites to cease supporting and publishing his rantings, he remains a member of the
Green Bloggers as well as being a member of Peters Politics aggregator.

He now appeared again on Canada Conversation, but in another of his multipleblogpersonalities, this time as
"The Future of Alberta" blog.

Is this the kind of person you want blogging on your aggregate reader? I would hope not. And I would hope his mutlipleblog personalities would be removed post haste from access to Canadian Conversation, Breen Bloggers and Peter's Politics.

On the Future of Alberta he posted this defamatory comment, and it is indeed defamatory under Canadian law Herr Patels.


Another case of criminal libel involves an individual by the name of Eugene Plawiuk, in Edmonoton. A self-described communist, he, for some reason, feels the need to post silly articles about me, in which he lies about things I supposedly wrote or did not write, and he too incorrectly assigns ownership of other sites to me.


For Herr Patels sake I have some experience as a published writer, an editor of several publications, a former Vice President of Canadian University Press, and one who has experienced both ends of the defamation laws in Canada. There is defamation and there is libel but there is no such a thing as 'criminal libel'.

Because blogging is considered a form of media, I have published the Media Guide to Libel and Defamation below.

In the left hand corner of the sidebar of my blog you will see that I use the term, This Is A Fair Comment Blog and I use the defense of Truth.

So Herr Patels if you believe you have been defamed take it too a lawyer spend some money and weep cause it will get you nowhere. The truth hurts I know, but there is not much you can do as long as you publish your blogs and comments, I have the right to respond as this is public space and public debate. So put up or shut up.

As for the Truth, the other defense I claim in my right to publish, I do not and never have incorrectly attributed ownsership of sites to you. In my Fair Comment blog articles have correctly attributed some of the following sites to Werner Patels. Here is a complete list;

Calgary Observer
(defunct slandered and defamed other bloggers had to shut down, now known as Alberta Avenue)
Alberta Avenue
The Future of Alberta
Alberta Liberal (aka Werner Patels Running For Alberta, Running For Alberta)
Abacus Translation Services
Translator: German-English-German & Spanish-English
Learn English - Learn German

Abacus Blogs

Welcome to Abacus Translation Services (old Site when Werner lived in Toronto in 2003)
Alberta-Canada Now (defunct slandered and defamed other bloggers had to shut down)
Google Search of Werner Patels

Welcome to the Internet Herr Patels where you can be tracked.

His claim that Alberta Avenue is an online magazine and he is just a contributor is another example of his pathological personality. If you check out his page
Learn English - Learn German you will find that it is the same layout design template as Alberta Avenue.

And as Herr Patels has shown once again he pop's up with another blog once he is challenged and criticised for harassment and stalking of bloggers he opposes. This from someone who claims to be a professional translator who specializes in 'law' ! Herr Patels is obsessed with attacking people he disagrees with. Period. Along with his multipleblog personalities this is another aspect of his pathological condition.


Which he has done in the past and there is public documentation to this effect. For example;

Censure Werner

We have been had. A well known member of the Canadian blogsphere spent the past year or so lying about who he was, who he represented and the nature of his opinions. This morning, he admitted to me that it was all part of some "experiment". When I think about this, I am just sick about how much this sort of immaturity hurts the credibility of blogs. I hope that bloggers from all parties will agree with me that for this sham, the former Calgary Observer and current AlbertaAvenue deserves to be censured.


He attacks fellow Albert Blogger Grandinite.

He attempts to get Blogging Tory CIVITATENSIS FIRED!

Last August he was a tried and True Liberal, attacking Alberta, today he is a Tried and True Alberta Conservative attacking Ottawa. My what a difference a few months make for Herr Patels. Flip flop indeed, the term Kook was used to describe him and not by me.He has managed to tick off everyone equally. Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives and yes this Libertarian Communist.

Herr Patels is a one man Flame war not only in the Alberta and Canadian political blogosphere but in his own professional community.

He trashed
ProZ.com - Directory of Professional Translation Services by Freelance Language Translators & Translation Agencies. in a letter to Translation Journal in 2002 to which one of the moderators replied;

ProZ—Pro & Con (again)
I noticed Mr. Werner George Patels wrote a rather nasty letter about ProZ com. While he's, of course, entitled to whatever views he may hold, you may want to know that he's been 'evicted'/'expelled'/'ousted'... from ProZ.com on two different occasions after careful consideration by a.o. the ProZ moderators (there are about 100 moderators now).
Herr Patels was accused of Flaming, ( we have all experienced that) and Racism over his comments he made regarding non English speaking Translators;

k’alebøl » Translation bidding systems
Any site that does impose minimum prices would be discriminating against workers who are able to produce more for less because they are better translators or because they live in cheaper countries. (Werner Patels, the trade’s biggest price maintenance flamer, is openly racist in this respect).

To which he replied, and all of a sudden I am having a Deja Vu flash;
  1. Werner George Patels says:

    Saying that a certain group of people are not native speakers of English is not racism.

    You are making it very easy for me to sue you. In fact, I can have you charged with criminal libel.


His attacks on me however have gone beyond comments on my blog or comments about my blog. He has taken to contacting people and threatening, this is stalking and harassment. Stalking and harassment Herr Patels are criminal acts. Stalking on the internet has consequences. Internet Harassment is a criminal act.You have been advised.

Werner G. Patels cease and desist in contacting anyone associated with me, cease and desist in refering to me by name (Eugene Plawiuk) or by my blogs name in your blogs, or any other public pronouncements that may be published by you.

Should you continue to do so I will be forced to take action in this regard.


LIBEL AND DEFAMATION

It's the civil aspect of libel that is most likely to affect the modern media. This is the non-criminal circumstance that arises when an individual feels he or she has been damaged by published information or comment, and seeks relief ($) from the courts.

If material is accurate and fair and prepared with normal professional care, the chances of being landed with a libel suit will be minimal, especially if the media person exercises some common sense and issues an immediate retraction, correct errors and apologize for the mistake if a statement that could be construed as defamatory is made.

1. Defamation is the umbrella term for libel and slander. Libel involves publication of defamatory matter in permanent form; slander involves publication of defamatory matter in transitory form. Thus, spoken defamation, uttered over the back fence, constitutes slander, while broadcast defamation constitutes libel (more serious than slander).

2. Libel is the false broadcast or publication communicated through words, pictures, sounds or gestures that harms a person's reputation by exposure to hate, ridicule or contempt in the minds of the average member of the community. Forms of harm include: damage to personal reputation, social contacts, and occupation. Ridicule and contempt are forms of damage. Some words used in a description can be libelous such as crook, slut, murderer etc.

False names are not necessarily protection if the circumstances are well known. A person's name does not have to be broadcast to be identified. Pictures, voice impersonations, physical descriptions, actions mimicked or described, specific job descriptions, addresses given, circumstances described, innuendo, omissions, extrinsic facts, can lead to identification.

Watch Those Guests and Callers

In law, liability for defamation doesn't depend on whether a media outlet shares or agrees with the opinion of guests or callers, it depends on whether it "publishes" the opinion-and "publishes" in this context means broadcasts or conveys to the public. Causing the opinion to be broadcast on the airwaves will be publication, so if it is defamatory, the media outlet, not the guest or caller, is exposed to liability regardless of whether it agrees with the opinion, and regardless of whether it has issued disclaimers.

Legal Defenses in a Libel Action

In all jurisdictions, the media person who has been hauled into court as defendant in a libel action has three basic courses of defense. However, if malice is proved it could defeat most defenses. Malice is intentional ill will in libel. It could involve a reckless disregard of the facts.

1. The Truth
Such a defense seems simple enough, but "the burden of proof rests upon the defendant." If proven, truth is an absolute defense that cannot be defeated by malice.

2. Fair Comment
Statements of opinion made upon matters of public interest fall under the protection of this defense (fair comment) if they are made in good faith and without malice. It must be a comment, it must be fair, it must be based on facts, it must be of public interest, there must be no malice.

3. Absolute and Qualified Privilege
There are some specific situations in which journalists enjoy the indirect benefit of complete protection, absolute privilege, regardless of the fundamentally libelous nature of works reported. There are other situations where journalists may benefit from a similar, but more limited protection, usually described in the law as qualified privilege. Qualified privilege can be defeated by malice!

Absolute Privilege: applies only to media coverage of court proceedings. Must be fair and accurate, without comment. Must be broadcast contemporaneously with the proceedings. Must provide a reasonable statement of explanation or contradiction on behalf of the plaintiff.

Qualified Privilege: a fair and accurate report of a legislative body (parliament), public administrative body (CRTC), a commission of inquiry constituted by a public authority, a meeting of any public authority in Canada (PUC), a meeting to discuss any matter of public concern whether admission is general or restricted, a notice given for public information by any aforementioned public authority, also art, science, religion, learning, trade, business, industry, professional, game sport or pastime organization.







Could It Be Satan

Welcome to the bible belt, home of every kind of Christian sect and cult and nutbar. Here we go again, what was old is new again.

Remember when you ruined your record collection and stereo needle trying to find all those hidden Satanic messages in Led Zepplins; Stair Way To Heaven. Welcome to the digital age
. Albertan finds Satan in music downloads Say it ain't so.

I always thought of Bill Gates as Moloch but Steve Jobs is Satan, who knew!




"I grew up hearing and believing there were satanic messages in rock music and I wanted to find out for myself," said Milner, a 26-year-old University of Lethbridge new media student. "I think it's cool, but there are some people who find it so gripping they spend the whole day listening. You might call it obsessive."


Yep I would. And I would call this generational satanic hysteria, since it was passed down from Father to Son.

"My dad thinks it's Satan influencing rockers to put it into the songs," he said.


You don't need to play the songs backwards there are lots of Satanic Black/Heavy Metal Bands out there, and then there is always Diamanda Galas.

The Black Metal/Death Metal movement is highly popular in Norway. And is associated in the public mind with Satanism. Norweigans also believe that George Bush is a satanist.




Norwegians confused by Bush family's "Satanic salute"

Associated Press
January 21, 2005

OSLO, Norway - Many Norwegian television viewers were shocked to see U.S. President George W. Bush and family apparently saluting Satan during the U.S. inauguration.

But in reality, it was just a sign of respect for the University of Texas Longhorns, whose fans are known to shout out "Hook 'em, horns!" at athletic events.

The president and family were photographed lifting their right hands with their index and pinky fingers raised up, much like a horn.

But in much of the world those "horns" are a sign of the devil. In the Nordics, the hand gesture is popular among death metal and black metal groups and fans.

"Shock greeting from Bush daughter," a headline in the Norwegian Internet newspaper Nettavisen said late Wednesday above a photograph of Bush's daughter, Jenna, smiling and showing the sign.

Bush, a former Texas governor, was simply greeting the Texas Longhorn marching band as it passed during a Washington D.C. parade in the president's honor, explained Verdens Gang, Norway's largest newspaper.

Just the same, the Internet was abuzz Thursday with speculation about what the Bushes really mean by the sign.


TAGS








Private Day Care Abuse

This is what happens when you allow unregulated, privatized Day Care. The real choice that the Conservatives are offering Canadians.

Day care denied licence renewal

A northeast Calgary day care must close its doors in 30 days after reports of corporal punishment and restraining children in their beds.

The owner of Creative Play Daycare said he will appeal the ruling and issued a statement to parents saying "we do love your children," and "we need you now."

On Monday, Child and Family Services notified day-care owner Jeff Dever and the facility's director, his wife Eva, that their licence would not be renewed on Feb. 10.

The decision followed a month-long investigation into complaints about the centre, said Blair Riddle, communications manager for the Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority.

While Riddle couldn't discuss specifics of the infractions, he said there was inappropriate physical discipline, inappropriate child restraints and an insufficient staff-to-child ratio at the centre.

"You can't use corporal punishment, plain and simple," he said Monday, adding he was not aware of any physical injury to the children.

Riddle said cases of the department refusing to renew licences are "quite rare."

In August last year, Child and Family Services did not renew the licence of the Berkshire Christian Daycare after repeated violations of provincial regulations.

In February of 2004, the licence for Treehouse Child Development Centre was cancelled after children were sent outside for a fire drill without shoes in -30 C weather.

Investigators said the drill was a form of punishment.

For more on child abuse see my article Christianity Is Child Abuse. Also see my articles here and at Defend Public Day Care



TAGS


Werner Patels is a Blog Stalker

The sick twisted multipleblog personality that is Calgary Observer, Alberta Avenue, etc. et al aka Werner Patels has really done it this time. Instead of keeping his comments about me to my comments section or to his own personal blog he has decided to email folks and let them know his opinion of me.

This is harassment and stalking and is unacceptable.

He has been dropped from the Progressive Bloggers list, but is still on other lists such as Canada Conversation. He should be dropped from any lists he is on since he insists on violating my rights by harassing folks I know.

In a comment to my blog article about one of his Alberta Avenue posts he wrote;
Anyway, I will be contacting all the organizations you mention in your banner and let them know what sort of idiot you really are. Let's see if they still want anything to do with you.

I took this with a grain of salt since he also threatened to sue me. Since he published information that was incorrect in his comment I removed it. To which I responded with this.

Since he has decided to go above and beyond the bounds of what I consider fair comment about me on his blog, which he is entitled to as I am on mine, by making personal attacks on me to associations and associates of mine then I feel justified in asking for the blogosphere to censor Herr Patels as a serial harasser and stalker.

Since you could be next if he decides he doesn't like you. Poor deluded sick puppy that he is.

Tags





Harper Isn't Scary But This Is

A Conservative Majority Government.

Repeat this Mantra; Conservative Majority, Conservative Majority, Conservative Majority.

Because even Harper knows that scares the bejesus out of Canadians. So he is backtracking on the polls and his musings the other day about having a majority. It killed them in 2004 and if we keep repeating it maybe it will work again. But this time the alternative is NOT the Liberals but as Layton kept saying last night, it's the NDP.


Harper muses on possibility of majority win

Alberta Tories muse majority

Klein not unhappy election prediction may be wrong
Klein added that a Conservative government in Ottawa would be good for Alberta, because it would address issues important to the province, such as same-sex marriage, the Kyoto accord and the Canadian Wheat Board.

Klein pleased with Conservatives' new numbers




An interesting question to Harper about whether it would be better for the Conservatives to win a majority rather than try to strike an alliance with the Bloc. Harper wisely doesn't bite on the majority government question, and repeats his pledge to govern on an issue by issue basis.

Moderator: That's our time I'm afraid. Let's move on to the third question in this national unity phase. Mr. Harper, this is a question for you. A year and a half ago, many observers say that the Liberals won because you asked voters to give you a majority government in the last days of the campaign, and that spooked a few people and, as a result, many of them rushed back to the Liberals and, as you know, you didn't win. So let's try to go at this question again. Would it not be better -- tell me this; would it be better for you to win a majority government rather than a minority so you wouldn't have to make deals with the Bloc to stay in power?

Stephen Harper: First of all, let me just say that I dispute what occurred in the last election but I will say this; I'm certainly not going to be drawn in to any questions that can be used to have me making predictions. My role here is not to be a political analyst. My role is to explain to Canadians why we need a new government, a new government that will bring in accountability, and a new government that will deal directly with their concerns. What I tell Canadians is that I will be respectful, I will accept whatever wisdom they deliver at the polls. If, through that wisdom, they happen to give us a mandate, we'll accept the mandate that they give us. That requires us to work with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis, of course we will work with other parties. We're not naive. We have three national parties here. They have different platform planks. We have one party that's not a national party. That party may sometimes agree with us. We know when they do agree with us, even when they do agree with us, it's for entirely different reasons. We're not naive about that. We will govern this country in the interests of Canada as a whole.


Tags












Is GST Best Tax Cut?

Well no. And folks keep forgetting that. The biggest tax cut that the Harper is offering Canadians is his 1% GST cut. Forget the other 1% it won't come into effect for five years, and no government is going to last that long after this election.

Leaders divided on cutting taxes

Harper said the best way to help low-income earners is to trim the goods and sales tax, which every person pays. And Harper said that, overall, "our tax package is larger, people will pay lower taxes."

So what did our earstwhile Globe and Mail blogging panel have to say about that part of last nights debate?


Marcus Gee, 8:59 p.m. It's encouraging that the 2 major parties are arguing about who would give the biggest tax cut. Last time around, Martin said Ottawa had no fiscal space for cuts. Now he's falling over himself trying to pose as Mr. tax cutter.

Marcus Gee, 8:59 p.m. I don't know. The GST cut is easy to understand and sell. Plus voters will trust the tories to do it, while they're not sure when and even if they'd get the Liberal cut.

Marcus Gee, 9:01 p.m. Even Layton says he wouldn't raise taxes!

Brian Milner, 9:01 p.m. But the GST cut is a stupid move.

Marcus Gee, 9:03 p.m. Agreed. Even the folks at the Fraser Institute, Harper's intellectual soulmates, say so. But it's smart politics all the same.

Yep thats all it is politics to get elected, and by the polls its working. As a trax cut well its useless. As soon as your gas prices or consumer prices increase, poof there goes your tax cut.

Economists dump on Harper's GST-lowering plan

Tory tax plan worries some business leaders


Tags






Leaders Debate Winner is....

According to today's National Post the loser in the English language debates is.....Duceppe, do I note a bias in English Canada here....I thought he did well......and the winner is......a tie.

Post-debate poll finds Harper wins, but barely
National Post, Canada

Published: Monday, January 09, 2006

MONTREAL -- An Ipsos Reid poll conducted for CanWest/Global News just minutes after the english language leaders debate has found voters were pretty evenly split between the three major party leaders.

Stephen Harper was the winner, but both Paul Martin and Jack Layton exceeded the expectations of people polled before the debate.

Finally, when asked after the debate who they thought sounded and acted most like a Prime Minister, Paul Martin was the winner. He was the choice of 43 per cent of respondents.
And the Calgary Sun agrees that it was a tie.

Still confused in Calgary

Local voter remains undecided in aftermath of vote gabfest

QUESTION: How would you rate the overall performances?

ANSWER: "Harper did a good job, but I think he could have been stronger on a couple of issues. He didn't do any blunders. Martin was a very competent debater, but knowing his government's record, I don't know why anyone would vote for him. Layton did a really good job, probably because he wasn't being attacked."

QUESTION: Who won?

ANSWER: "That's a good question. I don't think anyone won the debate per se. I thought Layton was a bit too scripted at points, but I thought they all did a really good job representing their parties."




Tags












Harper Steps In Cow Pie On Farm Issues

As I wrote here last night Harper has abandoned Western Canadian Wheat farmers to the rump lobby group out of the old Reform party that wants to get rid of the Canada Wheat Board. Even though the Wheat Board is now farmer controled and still gets the best blended price for Wheat and cereal grains.
See;Harpers Pre Depression Farm Plan

Then in 1998, in response to farmer pressure for the CWB to be more accountable to farmers, one of the most significant changes in the history of the CWB occurred. On December 31, 1998, a 15-member Board of Directors assumed overall governance responsibility for the CWB and a single full-time President and CEO was appointed. Ten of the members of the Board of Directors are elected by Prairie grain farmers and five of them, including the President and CEO, are appointed by the federal government. Under the new "shared governance" corporate structure the CWB is much more at arms' length from the federal government than it was previously and is more directly accountable to the farmers it serves.


This small group of rightwing farmers, mostly from the Mormon and Dutch Reform communities in Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, who came here after the great depression and who live on the border, insist on instituting a dual desk program, that is open borders for them to bargain directly for their 'own' wheat without having to sell it to the CWB.

Harper supports this. But in Eastern Canada he says no such thing, he in fact embraces the sole monopoly power of the Supply Management system.

So which is it Mr. Harper a dual desk for all of Canada's farm products or just a discriminaTORY policiy of supporting your Alberta Right Wing rump and only trying to destroy the sixty year old Wheat Board?


Stephen Harper: But this government's best proposals are always the ones that never actually took place. Let me just outline some other things we'll do. We're going to continue to defend supply management in the international bodies and the three pillars of supply management. This is the one sector of agriculture that has actually been from time to time making a profit in the last few years. We want to defend it. We want to make sure that our farmers get market access. We're going to fight for that in trade negotiations. I should just add about the wheat board. Prairie farmers have been arguing for dual marketing options and that's the system we want to see.

Moderator: Mr. Martin, you've got a 30-second rebuttal.

Paul Martin: We voted very strongly for supply management. In fact, there was only one party leader who did not show up to support supply management, and that was Mr. Harper, and he was in town that day.

Here is the Globe and Mail blog take on Harpers farm debate last night.

Brian Milner, 9:03 p.m. That's a joke. Martin loves the dairy and poultry farmers in Quebec and Ontario, because he keeps protecting their subsidized incomes and shelters them from competition.

Marcus Gee, 9:05 p.m. The sad fact is that all 4 parties have folded under the weight of the farm lobby, even the free marketing Tories.

Brian Milner, 9:05 p.m. I'll say. Listen to Harper defend supply management.

Mary Janigan, 9:06 p.m. "This government's best proposals are the ones that never actually took place." Great line from Mr. Harper. But all of them are claiming roots in the land -- when many farmers are now agri-businesses. And should be.

Marcus Gee, 9:08 p.m. This is weird -- a one time neo-con, Harper, vowing to protect the already over protected farm market. I wish he'd sound even a little bit of like the conservative he is.

spacer
Feature:
spacer
spacer

Jump to . . .
» Introduction
» What's the Wheat Board?
» History of Regulation
» Structure of the Board
» Wheat Board Effective?
» Internal Pressures
» External Pressures
» Links and Further Info

Internal Pressures on the Canadian Wheat Board
Do Western farmers need the Canadian Wheat Board?

The Canadian Wheat Board has its critics. Despite the fact that farmers were the driving force behind its creation, organizations representing groups of farmers are actively lobbying for significant changes to, or the outright abolition of, the Wheat Board.

These groups have voiced a number of concerns over the Board’s structure and operation:

Monopoly over the marketing of grain

Some argue that the original concept behind the Canadian Wheat Board, that a single organization will have more power negotiating contracts for the sale of grain than individual farmers, no longer holds true. Changes in technology mean that farmers can use computers to obtain up-to-the-minute data on grain prices. Under a more open system, farmers (or groups of farmers) could then use this data to obtain the best possible price for their grain, whether by selling it to buyers over the Internet, transporting it across the border to sell to US markets, or through some other method.

Others have argued, however, that the ability to obtain the most recent data on wheat and barley prices does not necessarily give farmers the skills required to sell these grains in a competitive marketplace.

Does Canada Really Have a Monopoly?

Furthermore, some argue that Canada’s ability to obtain the best possible price for farmers in the international market is limited. While Canada has a monopoly over the marketing of the majority of wheat that is commercially grown in Canada, it does not have a worldwide monopoly over wheat sales. Canada accounts for less than 20 percent of the worldwide wheat export market, which means that it must compete with other sellers when setting prices. Setting prices too high will reduce sales.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that while Canada does not have a monopoly over worldwide wheat exports, Western Canada’s wheat and barley are respected around the world for their superior quality. Therefore, having a monopoly over the selling of these two grains, and not having to compete with other sellers, helps the Canadian Wheat Board obtain the best possible price for farmers. Furthermore, combined with “Single Desk Selling,” a monopoly allows the CWB to price differently to different markets on any given day. This allows the Board to sell wheat to one customer at a lower price (in order to secure a sale), without being threatened with the loss of “premium markets” that are charged a higher price.

Voluntary versus Mandatory Participation in the Canadian Wheat Board: “Buy-back” Licenses

A particularly sore point with many farmers involves the issue of “buy-back” licences. A farmer wishing to sell his wheat or barley to a third party (for example, by transporting his grain across the border to take advantage of higher prices in the United States) must first deliver the grain to the Canadian Wheat Board and buy it back again. The price charged for the farmer to purchase the grain (the price that the Canadian Wheat Board would charge to sellers on that particular day) essentially removes any advantage that would be gained from selling it to a third party. Furthermore, Canadian Wheat Board officials are free to refuse the farmer’s request for a buy-back license.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that buy-back licenses are consistent with the philosophy of price pooling, whereby all farmers who deliver wheat during the crop year share in the profits. Requiring farmers to purchase a buy-back license allows other farmers to share in the proceeds from the sale.

Price Pooling

Some argue that the system of price pooling, like any bureaucratic system, inevitably leads to a time lag between receiving information about market conditions and acting on that information, both at the micro and macro level. At the micro level, since they are receiving the pooled price for their grain and not the market price, farmers may be slow to respond to changes in demand. In the 1994/95 crop year, the CWB was unable to undertake a potentially lucrative contract to supply Japan with barley, as it could not attract enough barley into the pool to fill the contract. At the macro level, it can lead to poor marketing decisions, such as selling grain to the export market when it would have received a higher price on the domestic market, and vice versa.

The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that any financial losses that may have been experienced in specific cases are minor compared to the overall financial benefits to farmers of the system of price pooling and single desk selling.

Alternatives to the Canadian Wheat Board – An Open System or Dual Marketing?

Some critics of the Canadian Wheat Board call for a completely open system, in which wheat and other grains are bought and sold on the open market. Others favour a “dual marketing” system, where farmers could choose between selling their wheat independently and participating in the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board’s position is that, as with any other monopoly, being the sole provider of Western wheat gives it greater clout in negotiating the best possible price for the product. Furthermore, the system of “price pooling,” whereby all farmers share equally in the risk, could not continue if the CWB was in direct competition with other grain sellers. Therefore, a dual market is neither practical nor in farmers’ best interests.

Supporters of dual marketing point out, however, that a type of dual market operated successfully in the 1920s, when approximately one-half of Prairie farmers participated in provincially run Wheat Pools, while the remainder marketed their own grain. Furthermore, they argue that a dual marketing system exists in Ontario, where farmers have a choice between selling their wheat themselves, or through the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board. The Canadian Wheat Board acknowledges that Ontario farmers have more flexibility in choosing how to market their wheat, but point out this does not necessarily lead to higher profits.

Do Farmers Support the Canadian Wheat Board?

In recent years, several polls have been conducted to gauge the level of support for the Canadian Wheat Board among farmers. The results illustrate the lack of a clear consensus among farmers as to the future direction of wheat marketing in Canada:

  • A 1997 non-binding referendum, conducted by the Canadian Wheat Board, found that 63 percent of barley farmers preferred a single market for barley, while 37 percent preferred an open market.
  • A 2003 poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 64 percent of Alberta wheat growers would like to see changes to the way their wheat is currently marketed.
  • The same poll found that 68 percent of Alberta barley growers would like to see changes to the way their barley is currently marketed.
  • A 2005 poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 48 percent of wheat farmers preferred the current “single desk” market for wheat, while 46 percent supported the implementation of a “dual market.”
  • The same poll found that, in the absence of a dual market, 64 percent of wheat farmers preferred the current system over a completely open market.
  • With respect to barley farmers, the 2005 poll found that 56 percent of barley farmers preferred a dual market, while 32 percent supported the “single desk” market.
  • In the absence of a dual market, the same poll found that 53 percent of barley farmers prefer an open system without the Canadian Wheat Board.

Tags











Monday, January 09, 2006

Martin Blames Gun Collectors

In tonights debate Paul Martin blamed the increased incidence of gun crimes in Toronto not on gangs and Hip Hop culture, or ghettoization of marginalized communities, or illegal gun smuggling across the largest undefended border (due to staffing cuts by the Liberals) in the world, nope he said; Gun collectors are to blame for gun violence.

Paul Martin: The second point I would like to raise is there are 500,000 handguns in the hands of collectors. They are one break-in away from being used in a crime. The mayor of Toronto has pointed out it is handguns stolen from homes that are killing people. We've got to stop that. We've got to ban handguns.

Ah uh Paul right all those guns are not just in Toronto, and they have to be locked up tighter than a bank vault. The Liberals keep using one single case of a break in to justify this stupid arguement. At least Jack Layton gets it.

Jack Layton; And that would include tougher penalties and sentences, particularly for possession and sale of handguns and assault weapons. We've got to deal with sale of weapons over the Internet, doubling the maximum penalty for importing illegal arms as well, and arm the officers at the border so they can be safe and do their job. But we also have to strengthen witness protection so people can come forward and help the police as well as respond to the needs of victims. And, you know, it's important to get addicts off the street with programs that help them. It's important to get to the inequality that lies at the root of it with housing child care and other investments.

So the only party NOT supporting the gun ban is the NDP. Surpise, surprise. This used to be Reform Party territory. But once you play the law and order game you have to play me too which is exactly what Harper said tonight.

Stephen Harper: I support the handgun ban. We've had a handgun ban enacted for decades in this country. This is the first government that couldn't control the flow of guns. Even Mr. Goodale and Ms. McLellan, Mr. Martin's own ministers, admit his proposal will make no difference whatsoever.

The NDP offer the only realistic Law and Order platform, more border patrols, armed, better laws for victims protection and legal drug clinics for addicts like the one in Vancouver. Exactly what the Conservatives want to ban.

Also see my articles on the Handgun Ban
and
Kate/SDA Is Pro Union


Tags
















Liberal Bombshell & Harper Lies

Wow just finished watching tonight's Leadership debate. Much better format, got to actually have some debate. Excellent moderator. Exciting to watch.

The Liberals are absolutely desperate, Paul Martin dropped a bombshell tonight announcing that he will bring in legislation to eliminate the Not Withstanding Clause from the Constitution. This was planned in the war room. Though I think Martin pulled the pin on this particular handgrenade too early and had to toss it into the fray early.
Jaws dropped, Harper sputtered and defended the status quo.

Duceppe great line of the night Martin runs like an NDP and governs like the Tories and he got Martin to say Fiscal Imbalance then he got Martin to admit that Quebec is a country.

Harper remembers something about the Conservative plan for the constitution and says if there is any Constitutional change he wants private property put in.

Duceppe and Layton tag teamed it tonight like the good old days of Stampede Wrestling. Beating up on both the Conservatives and Liberals alike.

Martin, Duceppe and Layton ask Harper for his list of leadership donors. Harper lies and says its public. Duceppe and Layton pipe up oh really when did that happen.

Layton stayed on message looked at the camera and said if you want change real change vote NDP.

Harper says that the lowest paid Canadians will get no Liberal tax cut, so his GST cut will help them. Martin reminds economist Harper that his government took hundreds of thousands off the tax roles. Harper says his tax cut will help them. Layton reminds him that his tax cut will hurt working poor and middle class still pay taxes. Harper can't give cost of his promises, and insists his roll back of the Liberal tax plan won't hurt average Canadian taxpayers. He lies again.

Tory tax plan worries some business leaders


Duceppe reminds viewers that when he raised Options Canada, $4.8 million dollar secret National Yes campaign slush fund for the 1995 referendum, in the house the Torys and Liberals defeated his motion. He says Options Canada is not a Liberal scandal but a Liberal, Tory, Federalist scandal. Uh oh.

New book on unity fund adds to Liberal woes


Harper defends supply side management and monopoly of agricultural products in Eastern Canada and Quebec but says he wants to get rid of the Wheat Board and replace it with two tier market model. Wheat Board and open borders.

Harper smiles and looks into the camera. Harper actually smiles not grimaces.

Martin looks like death warmed over.

Layton has a winning smile looks into the camera and talks to viewers.

Duceppe smirks.

Leaders bring grim game face into English debate


Martin, Layton, talk about the 'working class' in Canada. Let me repeat that, no not working families or working Canadians, both Martin and Layton say working class Canadians. Martin says it first. Buzz must be rubbing off on him.

Duceppe in the background 'answer the question' he says repeatedly until Martin says yes he has always said Quebec is a nation.

Harper says he can work with anybody if he is the government. Won't say if he thinks he will be a majority or minority government.

Layton says he can work with whoever is government, outlines his program, five points, repeats it several times. Calls for a vote for the NDP for change.

Harper praises Ed Broadbents NDP plans for electoral reform says they dovetail with his.

Layton hits everyone on supporting his better balanced budget, clarifies that it was the NDP budget not the Liberal budget last summer that passed and Harper and Duceppe opposed it.

Layton doesn't worry about Quebec being a country he says he wants a flexible confederation and get Quebec to sign the Constitution.

Tonights winner, a tie, the tag team of Duceppe and Layton.

Loser Harper, no big hit on Martin, almost looked prime ministerial, took body blow, lied.

Bigger Loser Martin, looks punch drunk, challeged Duceppe and got beat up.

But pulled constitutional rabbit out of the hat which will be THE news story tonight and tomorrow.
Martin vows to end federal notwithstanding clause



Tags