No Explaination? Anyone?

[wedino]

I can't agree with you, Wilagro. In the past directors election only 30% of eligible voters supported single desk directors.

[wilagro]

When the last vote for barley marketing was held in Alberta I believe 60% of those voting voted to CONTINUE marketing through the auspices of the CWB. Check the figures if you will. Despite a concerted expediture of Alberta gov't money the vote was FOR the status quo.

Perhaps the next vote will yield different results. I can go along with change if the majority wish it so.

I don't have a closed mind...but I don't like to be stampeded by political shenanigans either.

[wedino]

But, political shenanigans by Goodale in '90's was fine. Give me a break!!

[wd9]

But see Wilagro, that is the whole issue here. The majority, the law or act itself and the questions Silverback is asking.

He specifically asked why does your grain need my grain to be pooled with it? Because it is the law.

Also, it used to be illegal to have a same sex marriage not that long ago. The values of those who did not want gay marriage were pooled with those who did because the law stated it that way.

Someone in Canada asked the question, why can't I marry my life partner because of someone elses beliefs. Total rights issue, not hurting or affecting anyone else, law was changed. Your MP who represents you voted on your behalf, changed the law and the law today allows either het or gay marriage - one of only 4 countries in the world. All of you and I voted by representation.

The CWB is an Act, a law, care and feeding of that Act by the federal government and the federal government alone. For those with any board governance knowlege whatsoever should realize the firing of the CEO by the feeder and keeper of the Act and not by the kangaroo court of a board should be a stark reminder that the CWB is a government policy to be changed at any time for any reason, albeit with political consequence.

Today is that time with the conservative government, or maybe tommorrow after the election, and the reason is market choice for those who want it. Freedom. That the rights for those wishing to market their own grain be allowed, that the values of the poolers not be forced upon the value of the non-poolers.

The Liberals and NDP on the other hand want to retain the CWB policy, but then that is what works in politics, doing the opposite.

A year or so ago was the time, and the reason was freedom to marry anyone a Canadian citizen of age wished to.

There are many more examples.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. This is an important issue for agriculture and needs to be discussed.

[chaffmeister]

Wilagro – I checked on the vote for barley marketing held in Alberta back in 1995 – as you suggested.

In November 1995, the Alberta government conducted a non-binding plebiscite on the CWB. Alberta producers voted 62.2% for wheat and 65.0% for barley in favour of a dual market approach to grain marketing.

The then Minister of Agriculture, Ralph Goodale, dismissed the vote as illegitimate and questioned the accuracy of the results. Goodale insisted that the only way to decide the legitimate future of the CWB monopoly was through the Western Grain Marketing Panel. But when the Panel recommended the establishment of an open market for feed barley (with the CWB as an option), Goodale then said it needed to go to a producer vote.

So I would say you were dead wrong on that one.

[wilagro]

chaff: Not the vote that I was talking about. Guess I'll have to dig up some info.

It certainly wasn't the SLANTED and fudged survey that the AB gov't ran...that is for sure.

I remember the vote as I submitted mine...de old memory has deteriorated since I got ancient. Oh well...dems the breaks.

[charliep]

While you are looking at surveys, check the CWB one from this past spring. The CWB own survey would support chaffmeisters thinking. May have trouble finding original version as seems to have disappeared off the website with a santized version replacing it. I am sure a CWB farm business rep. can find for you.

[charliep]

Page 25 and 26 if you need help finding.

[HFL]

Chaff - Thanks for setting the record straight on the Alberta vote.

[mustardman]

The marketing team that came up with the 1995 Alberta barley question do you think they were the same group who wrote the referendum question for Quebec ???
Even our new group brought together by the conservatives to push marketing choice has given up on the phrase "dual marketing" they know as well most informed people that there is open market or there is cwb.
That is why the Alberta question was flawed then as it would be today but after spending over 2 million dollars to try and end the monopoly they and the feds will no doubt use the same flawed questions as before and get the same flawed answers .

[mustardman]

Wilagro said earlier that dual marketers are closed minded, Mustardman sounds like the you guys are closed minded.

Mustardman, wilagro, read Tom4cb article about malt barley on a different thread. Can you expalin it to me??

[charliep]

There is a dual market today in barley. An open market for domestic feed barley and an export human consumption. The law of one price applies - the market that pays the highest price gets the grain.

I note the supply chain issues in the malt barley market. The issue today in malt barley is not price - it is the ability to get the signal through to farmers that would encourage malt barley contracting/delivery at prices above current feed value. I would encourage you to share with us what value the CWB brings you in the malt barley market.