Barley Court Decision

[cottonpicken]

Oban is my favorite, but not worth wasting getting drunk on over this, way too good of a scotch for that!
Erik

[peaqueen]

Show me the money! Show me the money, Ken Ritter & friends.

Every now and then the stars and the moon line up and farmers have their day, in a short market in the world. 2007, the Chinese year of the pig, this was the year, when wheat and barley would hit records highs in a competitive market. So, all I say to the as the pigs get slaughtered, and the sheep are in the pen to the friends of the CWB who have penned the sheep, and slaughtered the opportunity is something my mother used to say "with friends like this you do not need enemies.

Wheat is poised to hit world high prices, barley the same, this should indeed provide a unique opportunity to provide high prices to farmers.

So, Ken Ritter and friends, show me the money.

And as you rob us of the best rate of return in 30 years, oneday (yes too late) you may realize what you and the CWB have cost yet another generation of
farmers of the west.

If you are moving from this country, it would appear even Russia would be better they no longer are communist.

There is not enough Scotch produced to drown the reality of this lost opportunity, AGAIN.

Are we that stupid to allow this to escape?

[Fransisco]

Here is the judge's final point and reason for her decision.

<blockquote>[52] In my opinion, in 1998, Parliament did not intend to create two alternative regimes for the
exclusion of barley from the Act. Instead, I conclude that the 1998 amendments were intended to
create separate self-contained processes, one to extend the Act to barley and one to exclude barley
from the Act. The inclusion of section 47.1 reflects a contrary intention by Parliament that displaces
the statutory presumption in subsection 31(4) of the Interpretation Act.</blockquote>

[Fransisco]

Here's another interesting tid bit

<blockquote>[45] The first task in statutory interpretation is to discern the ordinary sense or meaning of the

relevant provision. In the present case, section 47 expressly provides the Governor in Council with

the authority to extend the application of Parts III and IV or either of them to barley. Section 47

does not expressly refer to the exclusion of barley or any grain. Section 47.1, however, expressly

provides that barley may be excluded from the application of the Act. As well, in section 47.1,

Parliament reserved to itself the power to exclude barley provided that certain conditions were met.

Within the Act itself, there is no express delegated authority to the Governor in Council to exclude

barley. <b>Read together in their ordinary sense, the power to include barley is delegated to the

Governor in Council, but the power to exclude is reserved to Parliament.</b></blockquote>

[Fransisco]

So apparently it's easier to put barley in than it is to take it out and a completely different process.

Now ask yourselves what this has to do with letting farmers decide, or putting the power in farmers hands.

[peaqueen]

The legacy of
Ralph.

[peaqueen]

The legacy of
Ralph.

[ProFarmer]

I signed a contract for 4.70 off the combine for malt and it will be filled. piss on the NDP and the CWB.

[liberty]

Even if an appeal is launched, I suspect it will have about the same chance of success as the last one. Even if it did succeed, Friends of Slavery would undoubtedly challenge it again.

Ken Ritter should have been fired months ago and replaced with someone who does not regard instituting a dual market as the equivalent of defying gravity. Not doing so was a critical mistake for Strahl. The fact that the government chose the path it did can indicate several things:

It honestly believed it had a good chance of success in court. As time goes on, this gets harder to believe.

Alternatively, the court battle may have been an attempt to mollify its supporters into believing that the government was serious about its goals, even though it knew the whole exercise was a long shot.

If the latter turns out to be closer to the truth, then marketing choice supporters have essentially been misled and played for patsies.

As far as I am concerned, I am withholding any financial support for the Federal Tories as of right now, and will continue to do so until they present a concrete plan that has a reasonable chance of success to resolve this issue and usher in marketing choice. Some creative thinking is what is required here instead of veiled threats to jail barley farmers.

The Tories have more room to maneuver here than they may think: the opposition parties are not going to bring down the government over an issue that 8/10ths of Canadians couldn't care less about.

The Tories need to be reminded once again that the number one rule of politics is: don't alienate your core supporters. Brian Mulroney did exactly that and we know what happened to him.

[IAMTHEMOLE]

Should we really be surprised. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Any thoughts where the barley price will shake out delivered Lethbridge. $3.5/bu, $3.25 or Sub $3/bu. I doubt sub 3/bu. I think 3.25- 3.4/bu once harvest settles. Not quite 4/bu but not too shabby either.

[rbgordon]

A poll question is being asked on the site www.saskatoonhomepage.ca

Are you happy with the decision brought down by a Federal Court Judge?

At 10:30 PM SK time 59% registered NO 41% said yes. These numbers are very close to the Barley vote of last spring prairie wide.

Support for the CWB side in SK alone indicates that their numbers are lower than the spring vote.

It is a very strange democracy that allows a single unelected judge to over rule a cabinet of close to 30 duly elected representatives of the people. The American system looks better with each passing day.

[charliep]

Alberta Agriculture Minister George Groeneveld response to the ruling.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/newslett.nsf/all/cotl11952