Ritz gets serious?

[Vader]

Bluefargo, as John Gormley would say, "I call schmatzie on you".

People don't vote on any issue to express the wishes of their neighbors. It was a mail in ballot. Come on!!! People don't go to the trouble of marking a ballot and taking it to the post office except to express one thing - "THEIR OWN OPINION"!!!

If you want to do something productive and clear the air get your dearly beloved minister Ritz to set up a proper "Yes" or "No" vote. After all,....that is the law!

[Fransisco]

Since we are going round this mulberry bush again I'd like to point out that the hog marketing monopoly's in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have all survived in a voluntary environment. In Manitoba they market more hogs than they did before.

Government agencies do not need a monopoly to stay in business, FCC is another example of this, it successfully competes against banks and credit unions for farmers business.

The only reason a voluntary CWB wouldn't work would be if the folks there really didn't know what they were doing. Which after watching them all of these years, I have to admit, is a distinct possibility. If that's true then they don't deserve to be in business at all.

That's the thing about an open marketplace, you have to earn your business to stay in business.

Besides which no matter how many people voted for what, it doesn't change the fact that it is <b>MY GRAIN</b>, not the boards, not the governments, not the majorities, mine. I created it, without me it wouldn't exist, it is mine. Keep your thieve'n paws off of my property already. Go create your own.

[Fransisco]

Minneapolis has expanded their limits to $1.35 a bushel Vader. Is the board going to run away from the market again today with its tail tucked between its legs?

[BreadWinner]

"Vader or ROD" if you dont think farmers want a choice in selling their own grain you are as dumb as you are deaf and blind. You sit on that board to express the wishes of all the farmers you represent no just the ones pro CWB. You may be blinded by your $60000/year paycheque but if you really listened to people maybe you could hear some people that really make some sense. To start with, people were willing to put up with the CWB because they thought that they were looking out for farmers interests but allot has changed. Farmers are not so slow as you think, we have now figured out that the CWB is not looking out for farmers it is looking out itself and its 700 highly paid employees. It is ironic that it seems to be taking on that BIG BAD CORPORATION attitude. I think if you had a vote today most farmers would do away with your job and the entire CWB. So watch what you wish for and start listening to all people not just the ones that want the same as you.

[bluefargo]

Vader "schmatzie"? Sorry you lost me on that one.
Ofcourse I over simplified. Farmers who voted #2 were saying: WE WANT CHANGE. Lets keep the CWB as an option but give us the ability to sell outside the board. Not complicated. If farmers continue to support the board it will stay a viable entity - just like Ontario. And what's wrong with looking out for you neighbour.

As far as my "beloved Ritz" is concerned I belong to the 10% of the population that actually will change my vote and decide who gets elected. I don,t belong to any political party.

Right now Ritz is our only hope to accomplish change.

[FarmRanger]

“People don't vote on any issue to express the wishes of their neighbors”

I disagree, its not expressing, it’s respecting their neighbor’s wishes.

Option 2 respected the CWB supporting neighbors, but still allowed for an open market, which is why a lot of us made that choice.
Option 1 disrespected everyone who wanted market choice.
Option 3 disrespected everyone who wanted a wheat board.

Options 1 and 3 were tyrannical choices and I’m glad neither one won. Unfortunately the result is getting spun now to include my vote with the “CWB at any cost” crowd.

I say have another vote all right and this time phrase the question:
Do you want an open market in barley whether or not the CWB chooses to try to compete. Yes/No

[chaffmeister]

skhadenuf said: 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.

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

and: Option 2 cannot be added to anything else because it splits both pro and anti vote and therefore the results aren't clear.

I'm amazed that anyonre really believes this stuff.

The CWB would cease to exist? Give your head a shake. First, we're talking about barley here - not wheat and therefore not the total existance of the CWB. Second, if you believe the tripe from the CWB that they couldn't survive without elevators, just think about A.C. Toepfer. Or Interbrau. Two very successful companies built WITHOUT ELEVATORS. Then ask yourself what's different about the CWB?

cchurch - the stength viability of the CWB is really dependant on the prople at the CWB. Again - think Toepfer or Interbrau.

Option 2 does nt split any pro and anti vote. If you are PRO SINGLE DESK then you vote #1. If you are ANTI SINGLE DESK, you vote either #2 or #3. The only difference between #2 and #3 is the possible involvement of the CWB. BUT THEY BOTH REPRESENT AN OPEN MARKET. But this is really a moot point because the CWB's existence in an open market really depends on the CWB and its staff and supporters, doesn't it? Not whether people voted one way or another.

THOSE THAT STILL DON'T GET THIS EITHER (1) DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CWB AND THE SINGLE DESK, OR (2) DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT (EVEN TO THEMSELVES).

[chaffmeister]

Sorry for the mis-types. I'm using a foreign keyboard and things aren't what you expect the to be.

[silverback]

What sad, petty commentary from a man that is obviously only interested in what is in his best interests, not the rest of the farmers in western Canada.

The majority of farmers have respect for their neighbors and their property. The sooner we realize the fact that the same cannot be said for the cwb or its employees, the sooner we can get to free choice for all our grain, not just malt barley.

Lets quit screwing around with malt barley and get after the whole enchilada!

[Lifer]

mustardboy

what is with this "soft vote" bs.

I'm not completely clear why all the soft votes as you called them occured. Each person is entitled to their own opinion and I hesitate to lump all together.

I know why I voted soft as you call it and it was anything but soft. I would like the complete and free choice for myself but I do respect my neighbors and do not wish to impose my views on others.

It is harder to think of others, talk with them learn to understand them then just vote "I want".

At the end when you vote yes it is your own opinion. Doesn't the law say that a plebiscite has to occur. Does the law state that it has to be only 2 questions with yes or no as answers?

[FarmRanger]

No lifer, it doesn’t. And I would add that if you want to impose a mandatory marketing board, you should have more than a simple majority as well.

I strongly suspect everyone knew exactly what they were voting for last time, despite the spin.

[chaffmeister]

Can someone tell me where in the Act it says you need a plebiscite for barley? As I understand it, its clear you need one for wheat, but I think you don't need one for barley.

[cchurch]

I think next time Harper does a plebiscite it should include more options:

a.) I want to sell my wheat to the Russians for $100 dollars per bushel

b.) I want to sell my wheat to Iraq for $50.76 per bushel

c.) I want to sell my wheat to green men from Mars for $1000 per bushel

This way it will create more jobs for people that can write propaganda to stuff the ballot with.

[Lifer]

I agree people knew what they were voting for and more then a simple majority should be required before a mandatory marketing board is imposed.

ok. made me actually read the act. This has been gone through before and I still may have it wrong.


I would understand the CWB act on Barley is then as follows:

CWB ACT C 24

18(2) Except as directed by the Governor in Council, the Corporation shall not buy grain other than wheat

47. (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, extend the application of Part III or of Part IV or of both Parts III and IV to oats or to barley or to both oats and barley.

47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

the following being the explanation of the parts

PART III INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT MARKETING OF WHEAT BY THE CORPORATION

PART IV REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT


So then what has happened so far?

The Governor in Council has regulated the application of Part III and IV to Malt Barley under 47(1) (I don't know when this was done but I assume it must have happened)

The minister has consulted the board and a voting process determined by the minister happened.

To answer chaff's question 47(1)b

ok FR a plebiscite does not have to happen but a vote by the producers of the grain does and in effect that becomes the same thing as a plebiscite.

say that five times fast

[Lifer]

What plebiscite did Harper have?
Is he planning one?