Barley Freedom Fighters' Day

[padron]

I would agree the plebiscite was flawed - in that it didn't proportionately represent barley growers in western Canada. It's nothing short of criminal that small production farmers and growers who do not even grow barley have a say in how a farmer, whose livelihood depends on barley, can and cannot market his production. If the vote were acreage based it would be a landslide in favour of "choice marketing". Who's kidding who that the process is in any way fair. No one buys that crap for a second. We all have our own perspectives on fairness. Mine is that if I grow 1000 acres of barley and another guy grows 100 then I have 10 times more at stake than he does. This isn't about democracy - save that for human rights and populist elections. This is about making a living in a country that is supposed to be open to free trade and individualism. The CWB doctrine prevents that and to me that is just plain wrong.

[wilagro]

padron: You know what you can do with your "weighted vote" scheme.

I think that "every" farmer capable of growing barley should have had a vote and every vote should be EQUAL. Just because one doesn't grow barley while using his/her rotation, shouldn't disqualify him/her from the eligibility to vote.

The marketing of barley affects EVERYONE, not just the big acreage grower.

I see that you believe that might equals right...perhaps in sumo wrestling or mid-east wars, but grain marketing...nyet.

[padron]

My view is not based on "might" but on impact. Who is affected most by a decision on barley? Barley growers. If you don't grow barley or grow a small quantity then you are not as impacted by someone who grows large acreage for the feed and malt markets. If barley is in a rotation then by all means you should participate. I know this approach will never get traction because there are too many variables - including rotation, non permit book holders, etc.

But, using Chaffmeister's plumber analogy, if I own a chain of stores and my rates are determined by a collection of independents working out of their trucks with cell phones, I'm going to be a pretty unhappy guy. My success has been built on reputation, service and quality of work - not on the collective results of all plumbers. If all plumbers got together and set rates we would go to jail for price fixing. (That was the state of things when prairie co-ops used the old Street Price system).

The beauty of a free market is that every "plumber" gets to set his own rates - high or low - and compete for business based on their own individual merits. Multiple buyers and multiple sellers in a commercial environment. Success based on value - not just because you are part of the club.

[parsley]

What kind of a vote it is shouldn't even be mentioned. Or what season it is to be held in. Or age. Or area.


THE POINT IS THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY KIND OF A VOTE ON MY PROPERTY.

PERIOD.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Padron is correct, if we are going to vote the only fair way to do it is by acres or tonnage.

But Parsley is right on the money, in a civilized society you don't get a vote on what I do with my property.

[craig]

Thought you might be interested. Just saw some numbers on barley produced in Western Canada.These are in tonnes produced and are an average over a number of years. Manitoba yearly average from 1995-2004 1474,200 Tonnes. Saskatchewan yearly average from 1982-2006 4523,000 Tonnes Alberta yearly average from 1995-2004 5491,000 Tonnes. As you can see Alberta almost produces as much as Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined. So we are just suppose to accept the fact that we should be dictated to by those that likely grow little or no barley ( Friends of the CWB) or those who no longer actually farm( interested parties in CWB Elections). What we need is the democratic process to apply so that we can have urban politicians from eastern Canada tell us what is best for us. Maybe the role of the CWB side of this discussion is to make it so difficult for the free enterprise side to operate that in the end we just get fed up and leave farming.

[parsley]

QUOTE


AAFC: Open Letter on Marketing Choice
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Aug. 3, 2007) -

August 1st was supposed to be 'Barley Freedom Day' for Western Canadian farmers.

Unfortunately, a Federal Court ruling prevented that from happening. It's a setback for sure, but not the last word on this issue of freedom by a long shot.

After meeting with the Prime Minister in Charlottetown, PEI last week, I can tell you that our Conservative Government is preparing to move forward. One way or another, we are going to provide marketing choice for farmers.

This Government has been clear and unwavering in its commitment to choice, starting with our election campaign in December 2005.

That commitment was recognized and in the 2006 General Election, a Conservative MP was elected in the vast majority of ridings within the CWB region.

We have been clear, open and transparent in moving toward this objective. Also, the plebiscite held last winter was dramatically clear. 62% voted to end the Board's monopoly.

On the strength of this strong democratic mandate we began the regulatory process. It was logical for us to think that since barley was moved into the CWB by regulations it could be taken out the same way.

If farmers needed any further proof about the positive impact that marketing choice would have on their bottom line, they need look only at what happened to prices following the court decision.

Many barley growers were looking at record prices for their grain, but the court decision wiped millions of dollars of potential off of their balance sheets.

A monopoly may work for some farmers, but thousands of others will be sure to tell those folks in the ivory towers of Winnipeg (and the provincial governments who funded them) of the frustration and outrage at what it has cost them personally. Their disappointment is palpable, and I share it wholeheartedly.

I am pleased to learn that the Wheat Board has finally recognized that the status quo is no longer an option. As Mr. Ritter has said, it can't be "business as usual."

Farmers and governments will be watching closely to see if those changes are real and substantial, or merely window dressing.

If the Wheat Board won't take care of people, we'll do it ourselves because we are the real friends of farmers.

Farmers gave us a clear message - a mandate for change - a change to marketing choice while preserving a strong, yet voluntary, Wheat Board. This is what western farmers want. And this is what Canada's New Government is going to deliver.


CONTACT INFORMATION: Chuck Strahl
Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food
& Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

UNQUOTE

[lohner]

I have a 'vote' idea. Dual market and we can all vote with trucks.

[kamichel]

And loaded with enough compost not ready but quite stinky so someone takes notice.

[mb_rancher]

Has anyone thought of maybe blocking some railways like the natives were going to do when the government took notice and offered them settlement on their land claims?

[Incognito]

Has anyone thought of taking it to the World Human Rights Court?

http://www.worldservice.org/wsalstat.html

STATUTE of THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

WE, THE DELEGATES OF THE WORLD GOVERNMENT OF WORLD CITIZENS, IN CONVENTION ASSEMBLED, 12 JUNE, 1974, IN MULHOUSE, FRANCE, REPRESENTING MORE THAN TWO MILLION ADHERENTS, AND ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY, UNANIMOUSLY

A) ESTABLISH THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
B) AFFIRM our commitment to a global order under the Rule of Law, guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction or dissemination;
C) AVER that humankind's human rights are interdependent and are not abstract concepts, and that public awareness of such rights is therefore a guarantee of their protection;
D) RECOGNIZE the obligation to create a world order in which humans neither have to kill nor be killed;
E) DECLARE that the WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, premised on WORLD DUE PROCESS OF LAW and PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, gives individuals and groups standing before a world tribunal;
F) ADOPT. the STATUTE OF THE WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
G) And DECLARE, that the WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
1) IMPLEMENTS the right to life;
2) AFFIRMS that concern for the SECURITY and FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL is greater than principles of JURISDICTION derived from TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, NATIONALITY, and other technical concepts;
3) ASSERTS that everyone has the right to liberty and the security of the person and the unity of the physical, spiritual and moral creation of the earth and the equality of all human beings to be free of oppression or repression;
4) CONDEMNS militarization;
5) ESTABLISHES the remedy of WORLD HABEAS CORPUS;
6) ASSISTS regional and global formulae for implementing fundamental freedoms and human rights;
7) RECOGNIZES that the dignity of the individual is in keeping with essential moral needs, and this dignity finds expression in human rights;
8) Limits the arbitrary powers of government;

[Incognito]

My reasoning for the World Court:

1) Canadian law over grain marketing is not equal to Eastern grain farmers or farmers in Creston, B.C. with farmers in MB, SK, AB.

2) The rest of the world can see the individual rights of farmers are treated differently within Canada. Hell, the rest of Canada might see it.

3) Canadian courts with Liberal judges have not addressed that the law is applied differently in Canada - only that Government is allowed to discriminate under national liscencing - not grain marketing.

[parsley]

Incognito,

The CWB has every righy t to market organic grain.

They have NO RIGHT to discriminate when it comes to national licensing.

Licensing duties in the CWB Act applies equally to all applicants. Even Western ones.

Certainly human rights applies.

Easterners would be up in arms if they were denied licenses.

Parsley