Caution! Wire worms.

[parsley]

Go easy furrow and be kind. Word is the poor guy's tomcat sprayed his workjacket he left lying on the step.

Makes anybody crabby. LOL Pars

[farmers_son]

That could very well be. But why not just let the sucker die. Allow Alberta Beef, Alberta Pork, Lamb and Potatoes a producer vote on the check off through a plebiscite. The Government has a graceful out here(OK not all that graceful) but they should take it.

I am hearing some rumours that the Government is starting to figure out Alberta voters are POd at a lot of what has been going on since the Provincial election. The next few days will tell...third reading on Bill 43 has been rescheduled for June 2. Better to let it die.

I was at a focus group meeting last night. Not to do about beef it was about energy transmission lines. Boy is everyone mad at this Government. I mean old time rock solid die hard Conservatives can't wait until these guys are turfed. Seems like the only ones happy with the Stelmach Government right now is the NFU and big feedlots (and aren't those strange bed fellows). Those two groups together do not represent enough votes for the Conservatives to win the next election.

[grassfarmer]

Ho,ho you're full of it today farmers_son. "Only the big feedlots and the NFU" indeed. In your dreams maybe, PC support is rock solid in red-neck Alberta. And how many NFU members do you think vote PC in Alberta anyway?

[per]

What ever happens with the bill will happen whether they step back or not. You bring another interesting point to the table fs. Not to hijack this tread but it is related. How can we find or create a "common sense" party that could gain traction in this province? Each of the alternate parties have planks in their respective platforms that kill the marriage for most small c conservatives and after all the disappointment and mad rhetoric is over they will mark their x for the conservatives. What we need is a sensible alternative that believes in less Government and understands the relationship between rights and privileges. Having said all of that on the issue at hand I still hear of lots of support for allowing the government to give us the choice of whether to pay the tax or not. The plebiscite idea was soundly rejected by the ABP until word of this bill and our MLA's are duly elected. You talk of ABP's list of members but never mention that membership is Mandatory. If stepping back and plebiscite is what happens OK but I am fine this way. By the way, I am not a big feeder nor a member of NFU.

[smcgrath76]

It is an interesting decision for sure.
Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
can't vote on the land use framework?
Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
comanies can no longer vote on Tar
Sands, Coal bed methane or other
development?
I think that the members are duly
elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
represent their constituents with some
semblance of professionalism and common
sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
vote to their personal detriment on a
specific issue if in fact it benefited
the constituency or the province as a
whole.
This recent logic should also mean that
only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.

[smcgrath76]

It is an interesting decision for sure.
Does that mean MLA's who are landowners
can't vote on the land use framework?
Or that MLA's who hold shares in oil
comanies can no longer vote on Tar
Sands, Coal bed methane or other
development?
I think that the members are duly
elected (OK maybe not always duly) to
represent their constituents with some
semblance of professionalism and common
sense. I would fully expect an MLA to
vote to their personal detriment on a
specific issue if in fact it benefited
the constituency or the province as a
whole.
This recent logic should also mean that
only rural MLAs are allowed to vote on
issues affecting Calgary and Edmonton.

[per]

If you eat you are involved in Agriculture.

[grassfarmer]

I would agree Sean, this is a very strange one for the ethics commissioner to intervene in. Not like any of the MLAs with farming relatives are going to get rich by withholding their $3 levy on their cattle sales. Certainly on other issues - energy, development projects etc the stakes have been a lot higher.

All this yapping the ABP has been doing, "speaking for the average producer" really is a bunch of crap. It's another case of instructions coming from above ie the directors as to what producers want. Never mind the phoney issue of a plebiscite - how about asking producers what they want before launching a several hundred thousand dollar campaign of opposition to this bill. We've had what now? 2 or 3 mailouts from ABP about this? why didn't they incorporate a simple tick box question on the back regarding the refundable levy? Are you in favour yes/no - based on that ABP might know what producers really wanted.
My guess is considerably less than thirty percent would have been returned - probably split roughly 50:50 in favor/against. 70%-80% would end up in the dustbin from producers either uninterested or couldn't care less about the ABP or the issue. Rather like attendance at ABP fall producer meetings - rather like anything else political in this province really.

[checking]

Word is ado089 that the lady had her screen door eaten by wireworms, so please forgive her for the comment. (LOL)

[parsley]

The comment was aimed at Wd9!

And checking, I haven't forgotten about your request re mineral taxes in the 50's . I just haven't had time to do the homework. Pars