Ritz gets serious?

[Ron]

Finally

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbmHJmQCeLpOGva1NCnY1DFzhE5Q


Federal government set to table bill to "crack the nut" of wheat board
58 minutes ago

WINNIPEG - The federal government plans to table a bill in about 10 days to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on western barley sales, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Wednesday.

Ritz accused the wheat board of ducking farmers' demands for marketing choice - the latest salvo in the battle for the hearts and minds of producers.

"Because of the wheat board's internal focus on survival, they refuse to even discuss change," Ritz told reporters on a conference call from Ottawa.

"The government will bring forward strong legislation to give Western Canadian producers the marketing freedom they demand."

Ritz made his comments a few hours after the wheat board announced it was breaking off talks with the agriculture minister on the future of barley marketing, citing a lack of progress.

"At this point in time, we just feel that there's not enough common ground to continue," said wheat board chairman Ken Ritter.

The federal cabinet tried last year to order an end to the board's monopoly and allow farmers to sell barley independently, but a Federal Court judge quashed the move. The judge ruled the change would have to be approved in Parliament - a tall order for the minority Conservatives.

The opposition parties have already criticized the government's plan, and Ritz called on them Wednesday to "stop blocking farmers' rights".

Barring a sudden election call, legislation to "crack the nut called the Canadian Wheat Board" will be tabled when the House of Commons resumes near the end of February, Ritz said.

Ritz's decision quickly ran into opposition.

"It's obvious he's not prepared to negotiate with the board to try to work in the best interest of producers, he's more concerned about delivering on his own ideology," said Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk.

Farmers are divided on the push to open up the barley market.

The wheat board, supported by some farm groups, says it fetches farmers higher prices by marketing for all of them, instead of having producers compete with each other for sales.

Many other producer groups, however, have demanded for years they be given the right to try to get higher prices by selling barley without going through the board.

Sixty-two per cent of producers who cast ballots in a federal plebiscite on the issue last year supported either a partial or full open market over the status quo. But critics, including the Manitoba government, said the three-option plebiscite question was misleading.

Manitoba held its own, symbolic plebiscite in 2006 in which most farmers within the province supported the status quo.

The Western Barley Growers Association, which represents growers across the Prairies, said it is time for the wheat board to accept that farmers want the right to choose how to sell their grain.

"We're very disappointed with the Canadian Wheat Board, extremely frustrated with them," said association president Jeff Nielsen said.

"And the frustration level has reached its maximum. Producers need to move forward on this."

SCREW THE CWB

[bucket]

Everyone knows the election is coming. I have supported the conservatives my entire life but I have to say they dropped the ball on this file. Will a majority get the job done?

The cwb thinks they are above the government - one of the strangest things I have witnessed.

If goodale had his way we would be slaves for life.

[tower]

It's interesting how that 62% keeps coming up in all the mainstream press, while the 86% that would rather market through the board or have the option of marketing through the board just gets lost in the paper shuffle.

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,

What is your point?

Last spring... 38% wanted to keep the 'single desk'.

And now... what is the number?

My bet is the CWB has even lost the majority on wheat... by now... and are down 20% more on barley.

Ritz is right, the CWB knows it, farmers know it, and even the Liberano's know it.

Are you going to deny this fact?

For what possible good purpose will you do this?

[FarmRanger]

I think that's a bit of a spin too tower.
Sure 86% either want only the board or a choice, but only 38% voted for no choice except the board.

[Fransisco]

Tower just can't admit he lost.

[AdamSmith]

Tower and the other pro cwb lurkers out there,

Here's some relevant info for you guys to mull over.

In Quebec, in order to establish a mandatory marketing board 75% of producers have to agree with it.

In 1973 or 74, not sure which, when then Liberal Minister Otto Lang conducted the vote to bring ****seed under the cwb system, he determined well before the vote that 65% support was required in order to put ****seed under a mandatory marketing system.

In America the Senate needs 2/3 support for a bill in order to make that Bill Presidential veto proof.

Notice a pattern here.

There is a principle involved here. And in the first two instances, responsible and thoughtful people understood that more than a pure simple majority is needed before you take away peoples free choices.

Our society is built on the principles and concepts of freedom and to take that freedom away you need overwhelming support.

A simple majority just isn't good enough when your dealing with freedom issues.

Also without ovewhelming support, things just breakdown and fall apart because of the sheer volume of discent that can never be ovecome.

This is the situation you have today with the cwb. If people today understood these fundemental concepts better, it would be understood by any thoughtful person that the level of support for the cwb monopoly doesn't even come close to what is needed for it to function in any useful way.

Your all or nothing approach doesn't even come close to reaching the required level of support in order for this issue to go away.

In Manitoba (a province in which cwb support is the greatest) Rosie had a vote last year and neither support for a wheat or barley monopoly could top the high bar neccesary for the cwb to functionaly properly and maintain it's position as a monopoly buyer.

You can spin and twist the numbers ten way from Sunday, but the reality is that the cwb just doesn't have the necessary level of support from farmers any longer in order to justify it's continued existence.

There is also the issue of level of support based on production. That one there is overwhelmingly in favour of choice.

Face it Tower, the cwb may or may not survive this fight with the Harper government, but the fight for the hearts and minds of real farmers was lost ten years ago. And the cwb will never get that vital component back, not ever.

[skhadenuf]

I know the vote results debate has been over debated, but would like to add that many of my neighbors that voted for the option of CWB and Choice to make up the 89% only voted for this option out of respect for those other neighbors who still wanted the CWB. The difference here is that those who voted only for the CWB are not willing to respect those that want their own choice. I sure hope this get resolved quickly because this garbage show circus that has occurred lately if continued is really going to distort next year's seeding intentions. Wheat and barley acres are going to be way down because of this circus which will put a drag on prices for other commodities. How can you seed a crop when you see what the world price is and you get a fractional unrealistic initial payment and dribbles throughout the year only to end up dollars per bushel short of anything near the world price.

[chaffmeister]

Plebiscite math 101:

1...Keep the CWB (single desk).........38%

2...OPEN MARKET including the CWB (NO single desk)............48%

3...OPEN MARKET without the CWB (NO single desk).........14%


To determine the proportion of farmers that wanted to keep the SINGLE DESK, add results of #1 plus ZERO.

To determine the proportion of farmers that wanted REMOVAL of the SINGLE DESK, add results from #2 plus #3.

To show you don't understand the question or to twist the results, add results #1 and #2 and pretend that these are both votes in favour of the CWB.

[skhadenuf]

Math 102,

Realistically option #2 results will be included with #1 or #2 depending on what your side of the debate is, and that debate will never go away either. The problem is that #2 really doesn't exist because I think in the real world of option #2 the CWB eventually ceases to exist, however as I maybe did not explain clearly earlier, many that voted for this option don't think that it would cease to exist, therefore sopposedly everyone ends up satisfied in their minds anyway. So realistically there were three things voted on 1. keeping CWB, 2. creating something not possible to create, 3. no single desk. Which in some ways makes the whole vote bogus, not really clearly anything was the clear choice.

[cchurch]

chaffmeister,

1.) The single-desk option 37.8 Voted for the CWB SINGLE-DESK)

2.) The "marketing choice" option is suppost to be a "strong and viable CWB in an open-market" (Illogical, therefore is void)

3.) is the NO CWB at all option. Only 13.8% voted for the COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE CWB.

All I see is 37.8% for the CWB single-desk and 13.8% against the CWB single-desk. Option 2 cannot be added to anything else because it splits both pro and anti vote and therefore the results aren't clear.

Option 2 and 3 cannot be added together, Options 1 and 2 cannot be added together.

[Lifer]

1 is status quo

2 and 3 are for change there fore can be added together.

Not to make the point to eliminate the CWB but as Chaff... pointed out eliminate the single desk.


I would find it interesting to know the breakdown in number 2.

How many don't want the CWB as an option for self but respect neighbors need. How many would like to choose when to use or not. How many just want significant change? others?

[Lifer]

cchurch wrote The "marketing choice" option is suppost to be a "strong and viable CWB in an open-market" (Illogical, therefore is void)

Do you still actually believe that "story" wow.

[mustardman]

Like I said before I even saw the 'plebiscite " these jokers wont ask a straight forward yes or no question.. they want to win the "soft vote " so they make sure they get option #2 in there. This would have been allover months ago but No,lets totally SCREW this issue up and drag it on for months and months and...

If were stupid enough to vote these guys in again we deserve what we get...

[bluefargo]

I can,t believe we are still arguing about this.
I am not sure why I am bothering to weight in on the subject except that I am getting very frustrated with the issue.
The question and the results were clear as a bell as far as I am concerned. I voted for #2 so as not to deprive some of my neighbours of thier beloved CWB. To suggest that farmers didn,t know what they were voting for is a real insult to farmers. To suggest that the CWB couldn.t exist in an open market is nonsense. If farmers support them they will.

In retospect I wish there had been only two questions. We would now have an open market for barley. We would be well on our way to an open market for wheat.

This is with the benefit of hindsight. I hope Ritz can staighten out this fiasco soon.