Off to a Parlimentary vote----Please respond

[charliep]

tower

There has been a exit poll. The CWB survey showed 19 % of farmers want no CWB involvement in barley marketing, up from 14 % in the plebescite. Suspect that number would be even bigger today.

[kamichel]

Tories would need the support of the Block in Parliament, still a problem because supply management would get drawn into it.
Plus the Lakers are Quebec owned and the Ports along the ST. Lawrence believe they will be out of jobs if not for the CWB. I believe they cannot flip flop on the issues.

[tower]

charliep, do I understand then that you think it's the tories democratic duty to incapacitate the cwb so that 15 to 20% can market their grain where the rest of us can't?

[liberty]

Other than a parliamentary vote, what options are there? An appeal process could potentially drag on for years. We'll have an election long before that.

Morris Dorosh has an interesting take on this in his latest Agriweek. He says that even if there is an election in the near future, it's unlikely that the outcome will change the makeup of the House of Commons dramatically. Which leaves the Harper Tories still in charge, and an opposition that will not want to be calling yet another election. At which point the Tories can present a bill to allow dual-marketing without fear of being defeated.

I still believe that the best option for the Tories is to force a vote on legislative change right now. I think that the Bloc will reluctantly support it due to the fact that its seat count can only go down in an election.

[charliep]

You have to convince the rest of the people to buy your argument. I only read the CWB survey.

Slide 28 of overall 2007 survey done by Gandolf Group 19 % asked for open market only.

Slide 29 When the 42 % of farmers who chose the middle road (choice or dual market depending on your bent in life) were asked if they knew the removal of barley from single desk would end the CWB, 42 % said they still would chose choice. 53 % said they would change their vote (this would be the ones who buy your argument).

When asked the direct question of open market versus single desk, 46 % said open market. Single desk but when you put a 95 % confidence factor in, the single desk versus open market is effectively a draw.

This is the CWB survey - not the plebescite. It is of permit book holders - not barley producers (lots of overlap but they are not the same). Apologizing to Erik for taking off topic but to bring back to the theme, these are the numbers parlimentarians.

Tower - I love using CWB numbers to refute their own claims.

[charliep]

Sorry barleyman - you initiated topic, not erik.

[charliep]

tower

Other interesting stuff.

Page 11 of the CWB survey. 25 % of farmers say the CWB do a good or excellent job of marketing feed barley 39 % who say they do a poor or very poor job.

Page 12 of the CWB survey. 36 % of farmers say the CWB do a good or excellent job of marketing malt barley 26 % who say they do a poor or very poor job.

The CWB surveyed was based on 26 % of respondents from Alberta versus Alberta share of western Canadian barley production of 50 %. No provincial results around the barley issue where released. In the plebescite, 79 % Albertan either wanted choice or no CWB. The numbers between the plebescite and the survey are consistent.

Don't know whether there will be an appeal. Don't know whether the federal government will try to achieve change through parliment. The above are the numbers that should be used in decision making.

[tower]

Sometimes spin is all their is. If you check out page 37 you will see the concernI mentioned expressed in a graph in the survey. more than 60% want a strong board whether they use it all the time or not. How, given the conditions of the board as a physical presence in the prairies, would it achieve that strength.

Politicians will see that as as much of a problem as farmers do, don't you think?

[AdamSmith]

This is totally anacdotal, but since I've barely spoken to anyone about this topic since the court decision, (swathing canola and combining winter wheat, 60 bpa, would have been 70 but had wild oat issues).

But any how, my father who voted #2 in the pleb, said "after this, the only way to go is to get rid of it (the cwb) altogether" No prompting from me other than I said if someone openly admits to me they voted for the cwb, I think I'd punch them in the nose" So there is one individual who was a two and is now definatly a #3.

I was a #3 all along, and I'll always be a #3, wheat and barley.

It's the only way the industry can function in any way of a normal fashion. The lunatics have to be removed from a dominating position of influance forever and that is done by repealing the cwb act, period.

IMO it's delusional to think otherwise, as the cwb will never, ever, be content to operate in competition with others, they will always, and forever desire to dominate. And that's why I believe people like that should never be allowed to have positions if influance in a free society.

[kamichel]

Also Adam as you and I know the CWB pricing options are a joke, When you only have one entity giving fixed , daily pooled prices. More of this is now what the CWB is now talking, they are so far out of touch. More of that is not what we need. Just look at all the export business that open market stirred up in the last few months, much more than the CWB could ever do or has ever done in my opinion. Now the CWB wants to talk to these farmers and businesses to take over the sales. Should they really be given that? The business was done without the board. Business that did not want to deal with the board. To the guy that stated should the board be sacraficed to give options to 20 percent of farmers that cannot access them? Yes if it is really so, remember that your price may be 50 cents per bushel higher because of the extra buyers end users even if you do not do producer direct sales. I have no intention to do producer direct, but who knows some day a door may open and the extra sale is good for all producers.