All or nothing barley question.

[craig]

I find it ironic that CWB supporters want the all or nothing question in the barley plebicite. This is ignoring the fact that feed barley is currently traded ( dare I say )in a dual market environment.I don't understand the concern. If we get 57 million less for our barley in an open market then the problem will be solved. At those values we won't be able to afford to grow the stuff.

[parsley]

The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
January 16, 2007

Canadian Wheat Board asks court to fast-track gag order challenge: If approved, arguments won't be heard until halfway through voting period

WINNIPEG (CP) -- The Federal Court should fast-track the Canadian Wheat Board's challenge of a so-called government gag order so the board can play a meaningful role in an upcoming barley plebiscite, the board's lawyer argued Monday.

Even if the court agrees the issue is urgent, however, arguments would not be heard until halfway through the voting period.

Wheat board lawyer John McDougall said a quick, favourable decision would still give officials time to get valuable information to farmers who may be fence-sitting about whether they want the board to keep its monopoly.

"The Canadian Wheat Board is not going to decide this issue and it's silly to say so," said McDougall.

"But producers are entitled to a full understanding of the facts and the board has an obligation to ensure they have access to the information they need to make an informed decision."

Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl announced Friday that farmers will vote between Jan. 31 and March 6 on whether they want the wheat board to keep its monopoly on sales of barley for export or human consumption in Canada.

The government issued an order last October that forbids the board from spending money to advocate in support of the single-desk system.

The result is an environment where the board is gagged, said McDougall.

"You can't muzzle one side . . . You can't do that in our country. The law of the land is that the farmers decide."

Steve Vincent, a lawyer acting for the federal government, said if the board thought the matter was so urgent, it shouldn't have waited until early December to ask the court to quash the order.

Vincent said the board has known since October that the government planned to hold a plebiscite early this year.

He urged Justice Yves de Montigny to reject the board's motion and stick with the original timetable for a hearing March 23.

If de Montigny agrees to make the case a priority, arguments would be heard Feb. 15-16.

Conrad Bellehumeur, a spokesperson for Strahl, said the government's decision on the plebiscite's timing is about sticking to its plans to give farmers marketing choice.

It is not trying to rush the vote through before a judge can rule on the board's challenge, he said.

"We announced the plebiscite dates last week because we did not want to mislead the court about our intentions," Bellehumeur said in an interview from Ottawa.

He added that the government order does not stop individual wheat board directors from speaking out in support of the monopoly, but it must be "on their own time and their own dime."

Another board lawyer said the order is too vague and has left employees and directors uncertain about how to do their jobs.

"It gets very difficult to know with this order what's drawing the line between advocacy and simply providing information," Jim McLandress said outside the courtroom.

"One person's fact is another person's opinion, essentially. It creates an uncertainty, which creates a chill effect."

De Montigny is to release his decision Tuesday.

[charliep]

A related question is how short is the CWB to the trade (asked elsewhere) for forward malt barley sales. This would indicate the CWB would like wipe their hands clean of these transactions. As has been highlighted over and over again in this discussion area, no one knows the value of forward priced sales either for the current crop year or the coming one. Unraveling things will be an interesting process.