Even Some Calgarians understand the issue more than you jokers.

[Integrity_Farmer]

Calgary_Cowboy
12:45 PM on December 14, 2011
for crying out loud, what is the issue? Just have the
referendum and then act on the results. How much
easier and democratic could it be?

[BreadWinner]

Its only democratic if the election isnt rigged, and it wont be easy because the CWB doesnt want to die.

[kryger]

It will take a year or more to decide on the question to be asked, and another year to decide on who is eligible to vote.

Just scrap the whole thing.

Carry on Mr. Ritz, carry on.

[ajl]

There is two problems with the "vote".
You can vote on what you want to do with
your own grain but you do not vote what I
do with my grain. The other problem with
that idea is how do you get a
representative vote. I did not get a vote
on barley yet have grown and sold it the
last couple of years. It seems pro
monopolist can't get this.

[jdepape]

Anyone still calling for a vote doesn't get it.

The big question would be who gets to vote?
Farmers.
OK, define "farmers".

Who gets to determine the voters list?
The Minister.
OK, but regardless of what list he comes up with, the Borg will question and fight it.

Just as they will question and fight anything the government does in the interest of removing the single desk.

Think about it - the CWB did its own plebiscite using only a subset of known farmers - permit book holders. If it truly wanted it to be a "legitimate" plebiscite, why didn't it make sure it was beyond reproach - as in bullet proof? Why didn't it include all farmers - and just farmers?

And, since the govt is making the CWB voluntary, the plebiscite question should include that option - whether the CWB directors believe it is possible or not should not factor into the question.

If the CWB had handled its plebiscite like that, and won, it would have so much more credibility in its argument. And if it lost, we wouldn't be here now.

There should be no doubt that the CWB did its plebiscite the way it did because they knew if they were more open about it, they'd lose. (Their own surveys support that.)

Make no mistake - they don't want a real plebiscite. They just want to keep the single desk. Period. All the legal wranglings and calls for a "real" plebiscite are nothing more than stall tactics. If they ever got their way, they'd then start to argue over the question and the voters' list.

Delay, delay, delay - hoping to push this until the next federal election and just hope the Conservatives are defeated.

[blackpowder]

Yuppp.............

[furrowtickler]

I/F - i agree - leave out Landlords, retired and dead people, include all farmers wether or not they have a permit book and give one ballot for every one thousand acres farmed and I 100% agree lets get er done.

[Braveheart]

No more delaying tactics. Just pass the legislation.

[AdamSmith]

Hmmm, So according to this nutjob the wheatboard has rights. It seems to me someone just posted somewhere here on agri-ville where a judges decision said the exact opposite.

Funny how this issue has brought out all the crazies.

reading all these non farmers opinions about what the wheatboard is, what it does what it's all about facinates me. I've read new and invented histories, new and invented powers, and now new and invented rights.

I really should stop reading all these comments on the internet, but it's like trying to avert your eyes from a train wreck. I seem to be drawn to the idiocy as if my day isn't complete without rolling my eyes and shaking my head at the sheer ignorance of some of our citizens.

If you guys think burbert or chuckchuck arn't firing on all cylinders just go to the websites of the globe and mail or the cbc and you'll see their just mere babes in the woods to the insanity cases that post over there.

Anyway the following here was just to precious not to post here.


Parliament cannot revoke wheat board's right to exist
By D. Scott Barclay, Vancouver Sun December 14, 2011


Re: Parliament can change law, Editorial, Dec. 10

This analysis has missed two critical legal points:

a) Concerning Section 47.1: The government is subtracting all the grains. Therefore it is breaking its own law. Zero is a number.

b) Of course, in general, Parliament cannot be held hostage to every past bill. Times change and it has the right to revoke laws, with some crucial exceptions, the main one being trying to revoke a democratic right.

Once a legal entity (a person, corporation, group, territory) is created and, most importantly, given the right to self-determination by democratic vote, that cannot be reversed arbitrarily.

The right of women to vote cannot be revoked. The right of Newfoundland to be a province of Canada with all its rights and privileges cannot be taken away (without a plebiscite by its inhabitants.)

Similarly, without democratic consultation of members, the right of unions, condominium boards, or any other "legal" entity to exist cannot be destroyed.

Once created and brought into law, the right of the Canadian Wheat Board to determine its own destiny by democratic vote of its members cannot be revoked. That's how democracy works.

Contrary to public opinion, Parliament's power is not absolute in this respect.

D. Scott Barclay Georgetown, Ont.

[cpallett]

AdamSmith,

I find reading the non-lawyer opinions on the law equally fascinating. especially the press, and even some of the press who claim knowledge of the law. Sort of what it must be like for you to hear from a cattle producer the corrct rotation for your zone. Interesting.

As for Mr. Barclay's view, it is indeed precious. He is no lawyer. The view of the Chief Justice of Canada is a little different. She used to be a lawyer but has become quite a bit more than that. Must be the water in Pincher Creek:

[AdamSmith]

"Once created and brought into law, the right of the Canadian Wheat Board to determine its own destiny by democratic vote of its members cannot be revoked. That's how democracy works.

Contrary to public opinion, Parliament's power is not absolute in this respect."


Is this the next great show coming to a theatre near you?

47.1 granted the cwb special irrevokable rights.

Wow, I thought LSD was no longer in vogue?

[cpallett]

AdamSmith,

I find reading the non-lawyer opinions on the law equally fascinating. especially the press, and even some of the press who claim knowledge of the law. Sort of what it must be like for you to hear from a cattle producer the corrct rotation for your zone. Interesting.

As for Mr. Barclay's view, it is indeed precious. He is no lawyer. The view of the Chief Justice of Canada is a little different. She used to be a lawyer but has become quite a bit more than that. Must be the water in Pincher Creek:

“The government, as a general rule, must act in the interest of all citizens. It is entitled to make distinctions between different groups in the imposition of burdens or provision of benefits, subject to s. 15 of the Charter, which forbids discrimination.”

So yes, the government was free to create the CWB because while it arguably discriminates between Western and Easter grain producers, that is not one of the grounds of discrimination recognized by section 15 of the Charter (or analogous thereto).

And yes, the government does have the right to snuff out the CWB without a vote. Just wish they had followed proper procedure and respected the law in doing so.

The failure of the Harper Government to respect the rule of law makes us simple folk a bit nervous about what they may choose to do next, and how they may choose to do it.

[rhoff]

I_F. Why don't we use the results of 2006  
plebiscite? You know the one the CWB  
completely dismissed. Couldn't the government  
argue that they did in fact consult farmers in  
2006-so let's get on with it and move into the  
21st.century. And when you make a statement  
and someone challenges it why don't you defend  
your statement?

[wilagro]

AdamSmith: You are coming across as an "elitist" jerk with your condemnation of nearly all who oppose the destruction of the CWB. Can't you see what the government is doing?...they are going to leave the CWB a shell of what it is now and its usefulness to farmers will be close to nil. IMHO this is being done deliberately so as to set up the new CWB for complete failure so that it can be sold or shut down for ever. With no farmer control or input it is inevitable.

[Fransisco]

"all who oppose the destruction of the CWB"

aka; The Friends of Tyranny