Democracy Lovers

[parsley]

The CWB Act tells you:



"Chairperson

3.04 (1) The board designates one director to be the chairperson and may fix the remuneration of the chairperson.

Duties

(2) The chairperson performs the duties conferred on the chairperson by the by-laws, calls and presides at meetings of the board and determines the agenda at those meetings.


Absence or incapacity

(3) If the chairperson is absent or unable to act, the board may designate one of the directors to act as chairperson"


If I was MInister, I'd ask for a written opinion on incapacity. I think that would do the trick.

Parsley

[parsley]

rockpile, it's nice to have you back on again. I rather missed our set-toos!

Are mineral rights different in every province?

Parsley

[mustardman]

Francisco
I said it before the "questions" were ever released that if you want a "CLEAR" answer , ask a clear question. Consequently we have SKEWED results or garbage in - garbage out-
Question 2 Should not have been there!!

1. 38% for Single Desk
3. 14% for No CWB
So what do we do with the results of Question 2 which was picked 48% of the time??

Maybe take 1/2 of it and add to each of #1 and #2 ??
In that case 38 24 = 62 % CWB
versus 14 24 = 38 % open market

or do we just eliminate it altogether. So we then have 38% Singledesk
14% Open Market

TWO QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND TWO QUESTIONS ONLY. You then would have people Respecting the results as well as respecting the Ag Minister.

As it stands now I think Mr. Strahl either couldn't organize a 2 car parade
OR He was intenionally trying to mislead the voters.

[silverback]

Maybe you should be asking where 50000 pro cwb producers disapeared to off the voting list rather than moaning about the oh so confusing questions.

Do you like cheddar? brie? gouda?

[TOM4CWB]

Mustardman,

Clearly my dear wife was astounded by the information that was included with the plebiscite ballot.

While it did not surprise me that Honourable Minister Strahl allowed the biased and false information Murry Fulton included "...large voluntary pools do not exist for grain in any of the of the grain producing countries..."

Agricore United has a large dry bean pool in Alberta (it markets over 50,000 acres of irrigated production) that has been serving our pulse growers for decades. It is voluntary, and has withstood the test of time... and competition...

This pool comes out on top by producing grower loyalty and good will as its principal attributes.

THere are many pools in the Pedigreed Seed business that run without difficulty and with integrety.

All that is needed is trust... to market grain through a pool.

It is a crime the majority of CWB Directors have breached this trust, and destroyed millions of dollars of good will the CWB had earned... as was evidenced in the plebiscite itself!

It would be foolish to give the CWB one cent or grain of barley or wheat... with the present DIrectors in charge.

[Fransisco]

Mustardman, you guys wanted a vote. You got a vote. You lost the vote.

People didn't have to vote for option 2, but they did. It was not a trick, your side did everything they could and spent a semi-load of money trying to get them to vote number 1. It didn't work.

I didn't want a vote I wanted the government and other farmers to respect my inalienable right to my property and your right to yours. I stand by my principles you should stand by yours.

There are far too many monopolists who have no principle or any sense of honour or decency what-so-ever. That is becoming clearer and clearer every day.

The CWB wrote the question for goodness sake, it is the same question as on its surveys. If the CWB thought it wasn't a legitimate question they shouldn't have been asking it year, after year, after year.

Even though you didn't deserve it you got the process you wanted and you lost. Quite your sore loser whining, suck it up, and be a man for once.

[chaffmeister]

It's interesting that it's only the Borg that didn't like option #2.

Can one assume that if you don't understand grain marketing, that you also don't understand simple questions unless they are black/white, yes/no questions? I think there's a study in there somewhere. Someone call Richard Gray.

The Borg didn't like option #2 because the CWB convinced them that it's impossible. It even convinced some its own staff. When discussing recently how the CWB might operate in a choice market, one CWB staffer said, "We'd become just another Toepfer." Just another Toepfer?! For those that are unfamilar, A.C. Toepfer is one of the largest, most successful global traders of a wide variety of bulk commodities - in the world. The CWB would do very well to become "just another Toepfer". But more to the point, Toepfer has shown you don't need to own assets. CWB - take note.

Well, the CWB is wrong about its ability to succeed. Or, its posturing.

Remember Adrian Measner? You know - used to be the CEO of the CWB. Now he's a private citizen trying to be noticed by criss-crossing the country speaking to any group that will have him, extolling the virtues of the CWB while vilifying the Conservative government. (I'm expecting his next move will be to announce his candidacy as a liberal in the next federal election.)

Anyway - Measner said a while back that the CWB could "survive" in a "choice" market in barley. (BTW - to survive, you also need to be effective.) And yet Chairman Ken Bitter says that the CWB can't operate in a dual market and won't even try.

I think I see now why the board of directors were so strongly opposed to Measner's dismissal. They're lost without him.

So who's right? My money's on Measner. The CWB could do many things in a choice market. But I'm thinking if the CWB opts out of the barley market altogether, its not all bad news for the 48.4% that wanted it to be there in a choice market. Just watch - there will be a number of "marketers" emerge that are willing and capable to do just what the CWB is expected to. And competition for your grain is a good thing. Oh yeah, and these marketers won't even have elevators!

Stay tuned.

[parsley]

chaff,

As you say,

"And yet Chairman Ken Bitter says that the CWB can't operate in a dual market and won't even try."

He's better reonsider, or it is grounds for dismissal by the MInister.

The CWB Act states very clearly that the CWB must buy grain the producer offers:

"32. (1) The Corporation shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in interprovincial and export trade and for that purpose shall

(a) buy all wheat produced in the designated area and offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the Corporation at an elevator, in a railway car or at any other place in accordance with this Act and the regulations and orders of the Corporation;"

The Board MUST buy the grain if it is offered. To do otherwise is a breach of the Act.

If Chairman Ritter gives orders to breach the Act the CWB operates under, that is grounds for dismissal.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

And as far as 'skewed' results go, they were skewed in favour of the monopolists.

The 50.6% of farmers in Manitoba who want the monopoly retained account for no more than 4.5% of the barley grown on the prairies, those in Saskatchewan for 19.1% and in Alberta for 7.4%.

So even with one and a half hands tied behind the choice sides back they wiped the floor with you guys.

[mustardman]

Francisco "suck it up and be a man for once"

Step outside you little libertarian-spellchecker.

I don"t give a rats ass if barley went open market or stayed the way it is .

But even YOU LIBERTARIAN Spellchecker Francisco ,know that when it comes to pebiscites different results happen when the question is worded differently.
You don't think it would have been
more democratic to ask 2 questions ??

Then the answer would have been clear

concise and the issue would be over.

But no our vaulted little minister

from B.C has no other issues but stirring the pot.

If his majesty uses this same line of quetions for a wheat plebiscite
you can be damn sure a law suit will follow or maybe just a public hanging