• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Caution! Wire worms.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    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.

    Comment


      #17
      If you eat you are involved in Agriculture.

      Comment


        #18
        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.

        Comment


          #19
          Word is ado089 that the lady had her screen door eaten by wireworms, so please forgive her for the comment. (LOL)

          Comment


            #20
            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

            Comment


              #21
              No worries, Pars. I was given a couple of contact points by Prairie Land Services, and Lane Land Services out of Regina as to who might know. It's been a matter of phone tag. Thanks.

              Comment

              • Reply to this Thread
              • Return to Topic List
              Working...