Why Object to Plebiscite?

[agmaster13]

It seems as though the media and many posters on this site object to the idea
of having a vote on the future of the CWB.

Some reasons given for the objection include:
- cost of having a vote
- there wasn't a vote to install the
single desk so there shouldn't be one
to remove it
- vote would delay action on removing
the single desk

While these points are valid in some respects they don't seem (to me anyways) to be good enough reasons to not have a vote on the matter.

Can someone give me some other reasons as to why there shouldn't be a plebiscite for wheat as well?

It is only being prudent to firmly understand what producers want for the future of the wheat/barley industry before retiring the CWB.

[Incognito]

Agmaster:

Can you please tell us how the plebiscite law was formulated into the Canadian Wheat Board Act. When, why and by whom?

[agmaster13]

Incognito,
I am not sure if it was part of the original act or an ammendment.

Whether or not a plebiscite is needed to make changes to the board is not what I am considering by my post.

What I am considering is if a plebiscite should take place to gain an understanding of where we collectively sit as to the future of the board.

[AdamSmith]

So Agmaster13, if we collectivly continue to support the single desk, then we must collectivly be prepared to throw individual thinking farmers in jail if they try to sell their own grain right? So your ok with throwing farmers in jail so long as 51% of "farmers" agree?

What else should require collective decisions?

Why wheat? Why Barley?

What's the principle behind it? Why can't that principle apply to land purchases? Machinery purchases? Canola Sales? Fertilizer purchases? Seeding techniques?

Please someone explain to me why wheat and barley are so bloody special?

[agmaster13]

Adam Smith, you are correct in stating that if the majority of farmers voted to retain the single desk then the majority of farmers accept the fact that their neighbors will be thrown in jail if they break the law.

If the majority of farmers feel that it is irrational to be thrown in jail for selling your own creation then that is what a vote would show.


My point is, again, why not have a vote to find out where farmers stand on this issue.

[craig]

You may have a vote but it only opens up a bigger can of worms. Both sides will argue about who should be allowed to vote. The next thing will be the question. Again both sides will want to ask the question that they think will lead to victory on their side. For one I seriously question the validity of using permit book holders as the premise to who will vote. My definition of a farmer is clearly different than someone else.

[AdamSmith]

Agmaster13, I guess where I seem to differ from many others is that I don't believe that in Canada, the true north stong and free Canada, selling wheat outside of the collective doesn't fit within the category of criminal activity. Under any cicumstance, period. If selling wheat outside of the collective can be considered criminal activity, what else could be. And besides if we are to determine that selling wheat outside of the collective is a criminal activity, shouldn't all Canadians have a say in that? and isn't that what a federal election is for?
Who do you think should get to decide what is and what isn't criminal activity? This is serious stuff? This shouldn't be done casually. Yet this is what it has become, this plebicite makes a mockery of our parlimentary system in fact it makes a mockery of the rule of law in this country and the foundations which those laws rest.

But that's just my opinion, and thank goodness I won't get thrown in jail for expressing it, but who know maybe one day I will, I suppose that would be ok as long as 50.1% of the people think that's ok.

[AdamSmith]

I agree with Craig,The idea of using permit books for our voters list is absolutely insane.No wonder the monopoly wasn't done away with long ago.The last election had 45% of the voters list made up of non farmers.Why not have a weighted ballatt and fix this once and for all.Hopefully Chuck is going that way,some NFU member who farms 250 acres shouldn't get as much say as I do.

[Incognito]

Tell city people they need to have a vote to see if they can sell their houses to an American. Houses they bought and paid for.

Better yet, tell them they need to have a vote to see if they CAN vote to sell their house.

Through all of this, the Magna Carta has been lost and I do not know why.

At what point in time since 1215 AD did it become ok to confiscate private property and the Crown dictate individual property rights for the good of the Crown - ONLY FOR FARMERS!

Canada - where it is ok to enjoy the rights and freedoms of the Magna Carta morphed into the Constitution as LONG AS YOU ARE NOT A FARMER!

if this was in a third world country, they would nuke the dictator for infringing on human rights.

[AdamSmith]

So we have a situation where all federal political parties have agreed to take a shotgun to out constitution and blow a tunnel through it large enough to drive a combine through.

Farmers get to decide farmer laws.

How about Doctors and Nurses only, to decide Health care laws?

Or Only food providors, can decide our food and nutrition laws? But that could be broken down to Grocery store owners only get to make laws whether the fresh produce is safe or not. And Restaraunters only get to decide the laws that determine sanitary conditions of kitchens?

Let's let Ford, GM and Chrysler only determine auomobile saftey and emmision laws?

Parliament can be a rubber stamp only.

Think of all the money we can save in government costs.

[agmaster13]

Am I correctly summarizing the contributions against having a vote tonight?

-no vote because the question and results will never satisfy either side of the debate
-no vote because it is hard to decide who should vote (hobby farmers, landowners, urban residents etc.)
-no vote because it shouldn’t be up for debate in the first place

[cottonpicken]

Now you started it agman HA! I dont believe in the wheat board monopoly {dual marketing seems best to me}but... what about democracy? Where do you draw the line?When the crowd goes totally against you no matter what the subject,cwb,aborition,war,capital punishiment,taxes,etc,etc what is a man supose to do?Fight, or lie down and take it, or slowly constantly debate,debate,debate and change one mind at a time,or something else? I think there may be DEEP political issues at stake here.OPEC has oil we have food?I certainly dont know the answers to these questions but the only thing i constantly keep wondering is where is Tom?-maybe playing tricks on some unfortunate wheat board rep?

[AdamSmith]

Agmaster13, Yes, that's about it.

[silverback]

The only question that would be a valid one in my mind would be

"Do you agree that any farmer should be able to sell the products produced on their own land to anyone, anywhere, anytime, at whatever price he feels is right?"

A) Yes
B) No

That might be a valid plebiscite question.

[agstar77]

AS, all groups set rules for the group to follow. Doctors and nurses control who can practice etc. etc. Unfortunately you do not want someone else to set rules for you. Democracy does not mean everyone can do what they want just because they feel good. It means everyone gets to express their opinion in a free and open way, in hopes of swaying the majority to go along with them. Its way to late and this far too philisophical!!