CWB Bill C18 to be proclaimed before Jan 1 2012

[Tom4Wildrose]

Stubble,

THere will be a vote... but with our trucks not with our pens!

The way it should have been since 1998... Goodales revenge will end!

You do have or can hire a truck... you could even vote to deliver Canola and Pulses... if you would like to expand your horizons!!!

[parsley]

Would the Canadian Western Barley Growers
Associatio be willing to write a letter to Rhe Law
Society voicing concerns about this judge' s
decision? And if they would, would you sign it?

Send a message. Pars.

[cottonpicken]

Soooooo,the senate cant kill this?

Issue a statement saying,"in light of resent events..."

I know the senate doesn't oppose much but?

[furrowtickler]

Stuuble - if a vote is needed it will happen. Simple question :
Would you support a volentary CWB - yes or no ?
Only active farmers eligable - no retired farmers or landlords. All farmers with 160 ac or more regardless if they have/had a permit book or not.
This would eliminate much of the b/s votes. One step further would be a weighted vote based on tons produced, but it would not be nessesary if only active farmers were alowed to vote. It would be 70% yes 30% no.
Fire away on comments....

[parsley]

I wished you felt you owned your grain so you
didn't feel this need to vote on whether you can
sell it or not.

How about your testicles. Do you own them?
Nothing personal. Just asking about body
property Pars.

[Tucker]

But we don't need a vote about my
property. Hey Stubble, let's have a vote.
You, me and ten homeless guys are going to
vote on who gets to sleep with your wife.
I think bachelor number three isn't THAT
hairy and looks like he had a bath last
week... I think I'm going to go with
him... Who are you voting for? C'mon isn't
that democratic enough for you?

[craig]

Think we should have a vote. Then the CWB can spend another few million to do town hall meeting and full page ads in all the media. Those who oppose the board will not sit idlely by this time. The board has no hope of winning the barley vote and borderline on wheat. If it comes to that I will be lobbying loudly for a vote to remove my province from the designated area. Would think there is enough precedence for this.

[freewheat]

Furrow, 160 acres is too small to me, and I am a small farmer. I think VIABLE farms should have a vote if it came to that. To me that would mean 640 acres. That should weed out the fly by night, Tax issue farmers, who really do not depend on the farm for aliving. Unless you depend on your farm to make a living, why should you vote against my right. I farm for aliving. It is all the farm, no wife who is a teacher or nurse, no inheritance, no fancy schmancy stuff.

If it came to a vote being necessary,(thankfully it won't), only farmers with a vested interest should vote. For me, this excludes anyone with less than 640 or 800 acres...

Not 160, jmo.

[furrowtickler]

Agree 100%, I was just throwin out numbers. Anything is better than the b/s they have been doing.

[liberty]

Should the appeal fail, then the government should employ the nuclear option: repeal the whole damn act. Sell off whatever assets are left. Whatever value the CWB had is long gone after this decades-long circus. Even if the legislation stands, I think the reputation of the CWB will be so badly damaged by this that I don't see many producers wanting to have anything to do with it. It's done like dinner anyway.

[freewheat]

liberty I agree with their reputation getting hammered hard by their stupidity. They are cutting into their support by being jackasses.

[FarmForProfit]

So how do you verify 640 acres? what if
i have 639? more affidavit etc
bullshit? use a tax return. if i have
the balls to file farm taxes i should
have a vote. acres are not equal and
what if i own land but i'm a non-
producer? landlords get to vote? so i
can buy a vote by purchasing or an offer
to purchase in bum**** saskatchewan for
400/ac because i only own 600 acres in
central alberta worth 4000/ac?
tax returns are the only thing easily
and honestly verifyable.

[cpallett]

Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is simple and clear,

"47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister."

So, Minister Ritz is not free in the law to abolish the CWB without a vote in favour by "the producers of the grain." Period. Not rocket science.

If Minister Ritz wanted to aboliosh the CWB without a vote he had two simple choices:
1. first repeal section 47.1, or
2. declare that the survey he took was equivalent to a vote.

He has done neither and the Fedral Court has done its job properly, which is to interpret and apply the law.

It is not that the job cannot or could not have been done efficiently, but rather that the methodology has been inept, with particular emphasis on lack of respect for the rule of law.

The Courts are the gatekeepers of our democratic freedoms, boys and girls. Be grateful that our judges take their jobs seriously and do them well.

Wish the same could be said of our politicians.

semper ad meliora

[furrowtickler]

Tax returns do make sense, anything is better than the b/s they were doing.
Should not even need a vote but if it does do it right and let those who farm vote and that's it. It may not be fair to do it on farm size, but life is not fair - you want fair - keep the cwb. I am just saying it was completely insane the way the last b/s plebicite was done. The amount of permit books one had translated itno the number of votes???