Barley Plebescite Deadline - Midnight, March 13

[charliep]

One final note to make sure everyone has voted in the barley plebescite. The mail in ballot must be post marked no later than tomorrow at midnight, (March 13) to count. I encourage everyone to both vote themselves and encourage their neighbors to vote.

My guess on results is that they will mirror very closely the Innovative Research Group results commissioned and released by the CWB spring 2006. The pages are 24 and 25 for those of you who have the report. With a three part question asked permit book holders, results were 29 % CWB only domestic human consumption, 46 % open market with a CWB alternative and 19 % no CWB at all. With the plebescite going out to non permit book holders, would suspect the numbers would shift to more of the open market questions but the real issue will be who votes/who doesn't express their opinion.

[charliep]

46 % should be domestic human consumption and export.

[Ron]

Actually if you believe the CWB the dual market isnt an option so instead of #2 we have to go with #3 and get rid of them altogether.
I was actually going to vote for #2 at first but the CWB helped me decide when they claimed they couldnt compete with an open market.

[charliep]

Monday morning.

29 % status quo. CWB maintains single desk status domestic human consumption and exports.

Would agree with Ron that a less will vote the open market with a CWB option.

[charliep]

Found the following exert from the press release issued last Thursday (CWB asks Minister to produce plan on barley marketing) interesting.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2007/030807.jsp

“We’d really like to see a concrete and detailed plan from the government,” said Ken Ritter, Chair of the CWB’s farmer-controlled board of directors. “Independent analysis shows that the single desk provides farmers with a materially higher net benefit. In examining the repercussions of the potential loss of the single desk on barley, the board has concluded that in an open market, farmers would not receive a materially higher net benefit from the sale of their barley.”

Does the last statement indicate the board of director feel farmers will be no worst off in an open market barely setting?

[parsley]

Interesting analysis, as usual, charliep.

[chaffmeister]

Why is the CWB asking the govt for a plan? Isn't that what the B of D and the high priced executive staff supposed to do?
Does this mean the CWB has no plan?


"When you fail to plan, you plan to fail."
- Lindsay Hoogie, ex WCE floor trader.

[chaffmeister]

funny the CWB claims not to have a plan, the Minister instructed them to come up with a plan a long time ago. Oh I forget the BOD of the CWB do not like the Minister and refuse to do any thing he says, funny thing to do for an arms lenght government agency!
Seems like they just don't want to play with the other childern in the playground. Some might say they need a good spanking!! Spare the rod spoil the child my parents use to say!!
All along most farmers know the CWB can and will work in a choice market environment with barley. We know the facts that they don't play a role in barley at all. Our maltsers have had growth and expansion curtailed by the CWB.
The CWB has a plan that can work I believe yet political grandstanding and continued fear mongering and interference from provincial goverments that do not want growth or change in those provinces have left a sour taste in most producers mouths.
Threats of more leagal challenges from the CWB BOD takes away any (if there is any left) credibility of the CWB.
Our international customers are seeing this, and no doubt are talking to the Canadian grain trade which has marketing conections world wide anyway to continue to supply the needs of those countrys once the CWB does crash and burn.
too bad, it could survive if it had the disire!!!

[parsley]

erik,

The CWB Board of Directors have indeed formulated a transition plan and a sound plan to work within an open market environment. To do otherwise, would cause legitimate ministerial wrist slapping.

They just do not want to reveal it, because that would mean that first of all, they admit they can work in an open market environment, and secondly, they have a plan to set into gear.

Hence, fighting, arguing, bitching, crying, moaning ,and throwing themselves prone on the floor over Option #2 would be an illegitimate antic.

And it is an antic. You can't even classify it as a tactic, because it is so poorly thought out.

Unfortunatley, it does serve to expose the depth of capability at the elected Board level.

Parsley

[Incognito]

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/agri/evidence/ev2584898/agriev32-e.htm#Int-1826565

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): …..Thirdly, the allegation has been made that the board has not done contingency planning in relation to a number of matters, but most especially what happens in the event that a plebiscite succeeds and therefore the process and the act is triggered, and so forth. Reference was made to contingency planning.
Mr. Measner, I think it would be important for you to give us the assurance in as much detail as you can, as the chief executive officer of the board, that this contingency planning has been in fact undertaken and that the board is in a position to cope with unforeseen circumstances should that contingency arise.

Mr. Adrian Measner: …..You have my assurance as CEO that we have looked at contingency planning very seriously. We are looking at the barley issue very seriously. We will be ready for whatever changes are going to be made there. I do want to know what those changes are. If there are going to be changes, I want to know whether there are going to be guarantees. If we're involved in barley, I want to know if we're going to be able to use the contingency fund to backstop that.