• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barley Question/Voter Criteria

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Barley Question/Voter Criteria

    MINISTER STRAHL ANNOUNCES BARLEY PLEBISCITE QUESTION

    OTTAWA, Ontario, January 22, 2007 – The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, announced today the question that will be asked in the upcoming plebiscite on the marketing of barley in Western Canada and the criteria for voter eligibility.

    "Canada’s New Government believes Western grain farmers should have the choice on how they market their grain while preserving a strong, viable, yet voluntary Wheat Board," said Minister Strahl. "Farmers have told us that they want to be consulted on this issue – and that is exactly what we are delivering. I look forward to what they have to say so I encourage all those eligible to vote to do so."

    The question on the ballot will be:


    The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.
    I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.
    The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

    Canada’s New Government campaigned openly during the last election on providing marketing choice for Western grain producers. We are delivering on that commitment, and moving forward in an orderly and transparent fashion. Canada’s New Government believes that Western grain farmers take all the risks and make all the investments and therefore deserve the chance to seek out the best possible return that makes good business sense to them – whether selling to the Board or outside of it.

    In order to be eligible to vote, farmers must have produced grain in 2006 and must have produced barley in at least one of the past five years (2002-2006). Farmers who do not meet this first criterion but who are active farmers will be able to be included on the voters’ list upon declaration of their extenuating circumstances if they had planned to produce a grain crop in 2006 but were unable to do so. Those eligible farmers who have not received a ballot by February 8, 2007 should contact the election coordinator, KPMG at 1-888-3BARLEY (1-888-322-7539) and arrangements will be made to send them a declaration form and ballot.

    To help producers make an informed decision, three independent specialists in the field; Dr. Murray Fulton, from the University of Saskatchewan; Rolf Penner, from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy; and Dr. Barry Cooper, from the University of Calgary; have been retained to write a short, objective description of each question, which will be provided in the package sent to producers.

    #2
    The questions are quite strange.

    In theory we could answer "yes" to every question.

    How are the answers evaluated?

    Can one not answer one question without affecting the others?

    If so, how will this affect the outcome?

    Why three questions? Is this designed to confuse everyone?

    Wouldn't just one question be better?

    If one answers question three with a yes wouldn't this void any answers in 1 and 2?

    Will I need a lawyer to help me fill out the plebiscite?

    Who was the genius that came up with the form of the plebiscite?

    Is it skewed to get the government 'desired' results?

    So many questions...too few answers.

    Comment


      #3
      Excellent questions.

      Let freedom reign, not the oppression of it.

      Comment


        #4
        Agreed, excellent questions. However I dont really think they are questions though, more like, check-mark which option you want, not answering yes or no to each option.
        Not confusing at all, in my opionion.

        Comment


          #5
          Let me see. Two professors, one who leans towards the CWB, the other towards open markets. That is fine. But Rolf Penner? A hear this pig farmer on CJOB 680 AM radio- feeds on the internet. He is an advocate of lower priced feed grains to support his less than stellar pig farm. He is a Libertarian, more right than Steve Harper. He is anti-everything , hates all governments, and government subsidies, yet he is probably collecting a consulting fee for this "work". This is hyporitical. Surely Strahl could have found someone with more capacity? Isnt his farm in the red river valley of manitoba? How much was he paid for flood relief over all these years? I'm sure he proudly rejected all those government payments.

          Comment


            #6
            Jman,

            But he IS a fellow farmer, though, rather than a ballet instructor or a drag queen or a botanist studying June grubs.

            You don't mind if the professors are subsidized via scholarships, bursuries, or contract work, but you cannot seem to stand another farmer giving or getting value.

            What are you really saying?

            Parsley

            Comment


              #7
              The question on the ballot will be:

              The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

              I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

              The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.
              ===================================

              The "bomb" in this plebiscite is in question #3.

              IMO this question should NOT be included as #2 will convey producer's feelings quite adequately.

              By including #3 question, the government is subverting the whole process by introducing a third choice which would kill the CWB's handling of barley in its entirety.

              Sneaky?...yes. Ethical?...I think not.

              Comment


                #8
                Chaffmeister
                could you please run off a list of the top five most efective monetary arguments for a voluntary CWB.
                If you could provide some "hypothetical" examples would be much apreciated
                You seem to have the best handle of the real grain industry and are the posts I look forward to most , there are others that I realy like but to name them I would miss some and then feel bad about it.
                I hope not to see
                because it's my property and no one else has a right to it. perhaps the best argument but it does not convince any fence sitters.
                Cotton could you do a list too just try and be nice about it.
                j_w

                Comment


                  #9
                  Wilagro,

                  DOes the CWB deserve to handle barley any more?

                  CLearly the Western Grain Marketing Panel Report indicated over 10 years ago, by consensus, that we needed choice.

                  The CWB squandered that opportunity by rubbing our faces in keeping barley prices down for these past 10 years.

                  Livestock growers have been the big winners... with distorted prices keeping grains down.

                  Strahl is getting up to speed... and talked about the CWB having the ability to change the "buyback" policy it has... JUST like the Western Grain Marketing Panel Report asked the CWB to do 10 years ago.

                  The 500t exemption policy the CWB just announced for value added processing... show perfectly that the CWB knows without any changes to the CWB Act...

                  Marketing choice is valid, possible, nessasary, and within the mandate of the CWB today.

                  MEASNER is bluffing... Goodale knows better, and the CWB has few moves left.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Wilagro, just answer the questions!! There always has to a s**t disturber doesn't there!!!!!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      O.K. jw i'll bite but with half a 26 of vodka in my belly i reserve the right to change my opinion in the morning and i'll try to be nice.

                      Fundamentaly a farmer should be able to do what ever he wants with his product!!!-unero numo


                      However that same farmer may find it addvantageuoes(?) to market under a co-op type collective.

                      The five reasons for this are:

                      1-marketing is HARD 99% of proffesional traders dont make a decent return and actually lots lose money.
                      2-Do you ask a plumber how to fix your tractor?Everybody has a job and everybodys good at something.
                      3-Do suppliers not love the thought of a huge stable supply of a product.
                      4-Do the producers not love the thought of huge stable market to supply into.
                      5-Safety in numbers
                      6-Cash advandeses


                      I'll never tottally defend this government pig but in my mind the theory and idea is sound.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        snappy: The answer to your question is...wait for it...ratatat...

                        YES.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Answer for the question
                          The Canadian wheat board should not have a say in marketing my barley in Canada.
                          Thats 6 ballots for our farm.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Let the discussions begin! No matter what the questions were, someone wouldn't be happy. This is the same as alot of other ballots- although none of the candidates please you, pick the one that most represents your thinking.
                            2 ballots marked #3!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Just looking at the questions I have to ask:
                              Why have #3 as an option, when in fact #2 allows you to market however you choose, anyway?
                              What happens if 48% opt for #1, 38% opt for #2, and 14% opt for #3? Does that mean option #1 wins?
                              All you need is option #1 and option #2?

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...