Off to a Parlimentary vote----Please respond

[Barleyman]

All the judge really said was follow the rules. Vote first and then a vote by parliment. Here is the issue, the liberals drafted this legislation and rammed it through. Should the vote go to the house, wouldn't the liberals etc. be in contempt of parlimentary law if they vote against rules[law] that they wrote and insituted? I think they would be, i'm looking for more opinions on this.
The other issue here has been mentioned before. We are all Canadians and yet we have no choice in the west while Ontario producers can pool or go open market. Rights are supposed to be equal across Canada and right now they aren't. This is where i believe the real legal challenge should be brought, no federal party can get around peoples rights, legally, ever.
Please respond.

[AdamSmith]

Could someone explain to me what is to be lost by taking this to parliament.

Today there is no open market in Barley.

If parliament has a vote, and all three opposition parties vote against the farmers wishes (63% for choice)and voted against an open market, we still won't have an open market but we will know that Libs, Dippers, and Seperatists all disdain western farmers and all are hypocryits when it comes to "Democracy"

Just like the cwb.

So Yes, absolutly yes there should be a vote in parliament, and while they are at it they should include separate items, approval for the removal of winter wheat, cps wheat, durum, and finally cwrs. Althought not to come into force until the specific growers of all those classes of wheat have voted in favour. A weighted vote based on tonnes grown.

[AdamSmith]

Or they bring forward a bill to repeal the cwb act, make it a confidence vote and force the opposition to force an election over the cwb.

That's my greatest wish.

[liberty]

To win a vote on freeing up the barley market, the Tories would need the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Given that 8/10ths of Canadians couldn't care less about the CWB, the opposition parties are not going to want to force an election over an issue that so many people see as irrelevant. Given the fact that the BQ's support is down substantially in Quebec, they have a lot of incentive to keep this minority government going. The Harper Tories should use this dynamic to their advantage, and on more issues than the CWB.

Having said that, if the Tories do try to push some legislation forward, be prepared for weeks of whining and wailing from Friends of Slavery, who will be pulling out all the stops to convince anyone who will listen that the sky will fall if barley marketing is made voluntary. Being subjected to torrents of nonsense from those people will be the most unbearable part of the whole process.

But as I've said before on this forum: make it known to your Tory MP that you are going to withold financial support from the Conservative Party until they announce some concrete and believable measures to resolve this issue once and for all. Let them know that alienating their core constituents will carry a financial price.

[liberty]

Taking the CWB Act to Parliament might be the best solution. Question is do we support a voluntary CWB or just eliminate it?
The issue the CWB, Friends, NFU, WRAP, and Canadian Federation of Ag will press is that any move on the CWB will mean that supply management is next. CWB is a member of the CFA and as we know SM runs the CFA.
We are starting to get an idea that the world trade talks might be coming to a conclusion. WTO talks are moving forward, Canada has been but out side the room due to our stance on SM, yet we have stated that at the end of the day we will sign on.
Using the threat of loss of SM won't work this time. As mentioned the Bloc have too many other issues to concern them rather than save the CWB.
The CWB is in dire straits, McCreary today stated that pooling will be the savour of barley farmers as it will recoup the losses suffered the past few days. Makes one well ..........
Erik

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

Will you use the CWB pool to sell your feed barley and take the 1$/bu less the CWB pays "designated area" growers normally?

Why is the CWB even in feed barley in the first place?

[tower]

Adam Smith, interesting spins people can do with numbers, eh? 63 % wanted the choice to not market through the board, and yet looked at the other way something like 86 % voted to have the choice of dealing with the board. And I think those numbers would hold so long as the board was a viable choice.

What would it take to make the board a viable alternative given the nature of the system. If the board choice became impossible, how popular would the government be? Not very, I suspect. I think the various parties understand this as well

[liberty]

It's quite a stretch to suggest that 86% voted to endorse the board. You simply can't lump those who want a dual market with those who want nothing but the single desk. One group wants an entity that competes for farmers' business, the other wants an entity that levies fines and jail terms for those who try not to do business with it. There's a world of difference between those two positions that no amount of "spin" can erase.

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,

If the barley market had gained $20/t because the "single desk" had been restored... your logic could be justified!

Instead we just lowered the CWB lowered the feed price base on every tonne of fed grains in western Canada.

Please tell me what justification there is to have this huge subsidy on fed animals and beer drinkers, paid by grain growers straight out of their bank accounts?

[tower]

liberty, were you conducting exit polls at the vote? Farmers who voted for choice logically want a viable choice. We've had to deal through the board through all these yers of low grain prices and I expect we've been better off than if we had not had them. Prices would have been lower yet.

I say give the board a chance if we
're going into a cycle with higher prices.

[charliep]

tower

There has been a exit poll. The CWB survey showed 19 % of farmers want no CWB involvement in barley marketing, up from 14 % in the plebescite. Suspect that number would be even bigger today.

[kamichel]

Tories would need the support of the Block in Parliament, still a problem because supply management would get drawn into it.
Plus the Lakers are Quebec owned and the Ports along the ST. Lawrence believe they will be out of jobs if not for the CWB. I believe they cannot flip flop on the issues.

[tower]

charliep, do I understand then that you think it's the tories democratic duty to incapacitate the cwb so that 15 to 20% can market their grain where the rest of us can't?

[liberty]

Other than a parliamentary vote, what options are there? An appeal process could potentially drag on for years. We'll have an election long before that.

Morris Dorosh has an interesting take on this in his latest Agriweek. He says that even if there is an election in the near future, it's unlikely that the outcome will change the makeup of the House of Commons dramatically. Which leaves the Harper Tories still in charge, and an opposition that will not want to be calling yet another election. At which point the Tories can present a bill to allow dual-marketing without fear of being defeated.

I still believe that the best option for the Tories is to force a vote on legislative change right now. I think that the Bloc will reluctantly support it due to the fact that its seat count can only go down in an election.

[charliep]

You have to convince the rest of the people to buy your argument. I only read the CWB survey.

Slide 28 of overall 2007 survey done by Gandolf Group 19 % asked for open market only.

Slide 29 When the 42 % of farmers who chose the middle road (choice or dual market depending on your bent in life) were asked if they knew the removal of barley from single desk would end the CWB, 42 % said they still would chose choice. 53 % said they would change their vote (this would be the ones who buy your argument).

When asked the direct question of open market versus single desk, 46 % said open market. Single desk but when you put a 95 % confidence factor in, the single desk versus open market is effectively a draw.

This is the CWB survey - not the plebescite. It is of permit book holders - not barley producers (lots of overlap but they are not the same). Apologizing to Erik for taking off topic but to bring back to the theme, these are the numbers parlimentarians.

Tower - I love using CWB numbers to refute their own claims.