Dear Vader;
You wrote:
"Why did the Minister say over and over during the plebiscite that it was "Advice to the Minister"?
Why did the Minister say over and over that the plebiscite was not binding on the government?
Perhaps the Minister was not prepared to accept the answer as it related to his obligation under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The only question which had any relevance to the CWB Act was option 3.
The ballot should have read.
Please indicate if you in favor of the exclusion of barley from Part III and Part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Yes or No."
ACTUALLY VADER
IMHO It is VERY simple... now we can construct from the Regulations Gazetted...
Folks who indicated option 2 on the CWB plebicite... were telling the CWB Minister they wanted the CWB to retain Part III... and wanted barley removed from Part IV of the CWB Act... the part that creates the "single desk" power.
In a first past the post system... Option 2 wins hands down...
What is the logic of adding Option 2 and 3 together...?
IMHO... when I voted for Option 3 in the CWB Plebicite... I was sick and tired of the CWB Directors ranting about the "single desk"...
I am satisfied... others frustrated with the CWB Directors rants... could express themselves in an appropriate manner... that is a fitting response to those extreme views.
I was always expecting the CWB Minister to add my Option 3 vote to Plebiscite Option 2 votes... clearly both require the CWB Regulations remove Barley from Part IV of the CWB Act Regulations. It was fine with me and my family if the Honourable CWB Miister had removed the CWB from both Parts III and IV.
CLEARLY the Option 3 vote was a logical "snap shot" of my frustration against CWB Directors refusing to respect my property and civil rights... and those of my family and community.
I respect others "rights" to have a CWB Barley marketing option through Part III of the CWB Act... and fully understood that I could vote Option 3 in the plebiscite... and not have to be concerned that the CWB Minister would remove Barley from CWB Act Part III, therefore still allow my neighbour the option of using the CWB to market their Barley. It is unlikely with present CWB management that I will use CWB barley marketing services...
The CWB will have to EARN my trust and respect back... before I will.
The Honourable CWB Minister said over and over... that he would remove the "single desk"... but not the option of Part III CWB marketing of Barley.
I still obviously have concerns with the CWB using Part III to distort the marketing of Barley... by cross subsidising between malt and feed... and through the Pools over the year... & between years... in a way that users of barley could be disadvanteged by Contingency Fund subsidies.
I trust the CWB Minister will closely monitor this subsidization/distortion issue... and act to stop such distortion if CWB Directors step out of line.
You wrote:
"Why did the Minister say over and over during the plebiscite that it was "Advice to the Minister"?
Why did the Minister say over and over that the plebiscite was not binding on the government?
Perhaps the Minister was not prepared to accept the answer as it related to his obligation under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The only question which had any relevance to the CWB Act was option 3.
The ballot should have read.
Please indicate if you in favor of the exclusion of barley from Part III and Part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Yes or No."
ACTUALLY VADER
IMHO It is VERY simple... now we can construct from the Regulations Gazetted...
Folks who indicated option 2 on the CWB plebicite... were telling the CWB Minister they wanted the CWB to retain Part III... and wanted barley removed from Part IV of the CWB Act... the part that creates the "single desk" power.
In a first past the post system... Option 2 wins hands down...
What is the logic of adding Option 2 and 3 together...?
IMHO... when I voted for Option 3 in the CWB Plebicite... I was sick and tired of the CWB Directors ranting about the "single desk"...
I am satisfied... others frustrated with the CWB Directors rants... could express themselves in an appropriate manner... that is a fitting response to those extreme views.
I was always expecting the CWB Minister to add my Option 3 vote to Plebiscite Option 2 votes... clearly both require the CWB Regulations remove Barley from Part IV of the CWB Act Regulations. It was fine with me and my family if the Honourable CWB Miister had removed the CWB from both Parts III and IV.
CLEARLY the Option 3 vote was a logical "snap shot" of my frustration against CWB Directors refusing to respect my property and civil rights... and those of my family and community.
I respect others "rights" to have a CWB Barley marketing option through Part III of the CWB Act... and fully understood that I could vote Option 3 in the plebiscite... and not have to be concerned that the CWB Minister would remove Barley from CWB Act Part III, therefore still allow my neighbour the option of using the CWB to market their Barley. It is unlikely with present CWB management that I will use CWB barley marketing services...
The CWB will have to EARN my trust and respect back... before I will.
The Honourable CWB Minister said over and over... that he would remove the "single desk"... but not the option of Part III CWB marketing of Barley.
I still obviously have concerns with the CWB using Part III to distort the marketing of Barley... by cross subsidising between malt and feed... and through the Pools over the year... & between years... in a way that users of barley could be disadvanteged by Contingency Fund subsidies.
I trust the CWB Minister will closely monitor this subsidization/distortion issue... and act to stop such distortion if CWB Directors step out of line.