CWB vs Farmers...

[Raven]

I believe we should congratulate and encourage the Conservatives. Under Liberal government, there would have been no Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or federal Court rulings. And especially no gag order. My observation is that the Conservatives have tried to do what was recommended to them by our farmer spokespersons. As well as the gag order, they changed appointed directors, tried to remove barley by regulation, fired the CWB CEO and have tried to make the elections more fair. All things that they were advised to do in my opinion.

Let's now ask for export licences for producers in the west, the same as eastern producers already get.

[dmlfarmer]

Contrary to what Tom posted, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule on this case. Rather they refused to hear the case. This is not an endorsement of the Federal court ruling as Tom and others state, rather a statement by the court (for reasons which have not and likely will not be given) that they will not hear the case.
This is not usual. About 600 applications are made every year for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and about 520 of these cases are denied leave to appeal.

Many are denied leave to appeal because the Supreme court does not consider the question to be of "public importance." And really other than for farmers who are a small percentage of the population, is this question really important? The other criteria which this question likely fails but which it must meet for the Supreme Court to hear the case is: Does the ruling go beyond just the parties seeking appeal?

The other thing people should consider before making a big deal out of a denial to leave to appeal is that the CWB has been sued a number of times in the past by farmers who lost in lower courts and each time the Supreme Court also denied leave to appeal. Anyone claiming this denial of appeal is a victory, must then also acknowledge that the CWB won cases such as that brought forward by M-Jay farms regarding export licencing and Ron Archibald re the CWB monopoly. By making this decision more than it actually is, you are in fact increasing the importance of these previous denial decisions as well and weakening your case for export licences and the monopoly.

And to make a big deal out of "with costs" shows how little you know about the supreme court and law. The "costs" are likely to be in the range of $1000.00 to $2000.00 only.

Without question, the leave was a setback to the board, and had the posts on this thread limited statements to this setback something positive may have happened. But by trying to overplay and propagandizing this decision, all you have done is bring past ruling in favor of the board back into play.

[tipsy]

I believe we should congratulate and encourage the conservatives. Congratulate them for what? Regardless of which government appoints the directors I can't remember a appointed director making a public statement or having a view or opinion about the cwb. Most if not all the directors that have been appointed are highly educated, and, or have been involved in big business. One would think they would have some thoughts about the cwb,but, be dammed if I've heard one. In my opinion appointed directors are inert!
The firing of Messner, what benefit or gain was done by that action?
The removal of several thousand names off the voters list,yes I'll give'em credit there. In a real election most of the names would not have been there to start with.
The gag order that was a good one and long over due idea.
The barley fiasco,well we all know how that was handled and fumbled.
Yes I know in a minority government what you want and can do has limitations but the gains that have made by the pcs on this cwb file could not be measured with a micrometer!
Congratulations,for the the gains the pcs have made on this file. I can guarantee you don't see me standing up jumping and clapping for joy.
Encouragement, dam-straight,although I'm running low and tank is just about empty, lets get moving on this issue and make some meaningful changes.

[Raven]

dmlfarmer

The M-Jay farms case was a challenge about the CWB selling farmers' grain too cheap, but it never did get to trial because the CWB and Government were able to have it thrown out on the basis that the CWB had no duty of care to producers, and when it came to selling grain, the CWB was only accountable to the government. First the Government won, then M-Jay farms won the appeal, then the Government unanimously won in the Appeal Court of Manitoba. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to them.

M-Jay v. CWB certainly is consistent with this lastest case that the Government controls the CWB and CWB selling is still only accountable to the Government.

Archibald was a Charter Challenge of the CWB Act by a group of farmers and some associations in the Federal courts. The farmers lost the initial trial and unanimously in the Court of Appeal and their application to the Supreme Court was dismissed. The fact that the CWB Act was found to be in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has little to do with the present case, except now we know that a Charter compliant statute gives control to the government.

[Raven]

Tipsy,

I am in agreement with most that you say, but are these not the things that farmers advised the Conservatives to do?

For me, the congratulations is for the Conservatives hanging in and appealing and creating this great Supreme Court win which shows the way forward.

But lets encourage the conservatives to change paths. The gag order and tinkering with the elections will not get you marketing freedom. Export licences will.

[Fransisco]

dml you're wrong this is a big deal.

Why? When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, for whatever reason, it does not put that case into some kind of limbo. What it means is that the appeal court decision stands, it is the law. And as Raven pointed out already that ruling made it clear that the feds run the show. The decision goes way beyond just the gag order, if Ritz ordered the board to hand out no buyback export licenses tomorrow it would have to comply or risk criminal prosecution.

[Raven]

dmlfarmer,

Another farmer loss dismissed by the supreme Court was R.v. Bryan (1999). The courts ruled that the challenged licencing parts of the CWB Act are valid legislation under the 1867 constitutional federal head of REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Relating to the current case, we now know that a constitutionally valid Act under Trade and Commerce gives control to the federal government.

R.v. Sommerville (1972) was the big win for farmers and actually was heard by the Supreme Court. This was when the CWB claimed monopoly control over feed grain. Sommerville grew wheat in Saskatchewn and trucked it into Alberta to feed his own cattle without a licence from the CWB. The CWB charged him, and then lost in every court including the Supreme Court. However, even though Sommerville was in clear violation of the words of the Act, the Supreme Court acquited him on the basis that the CWB Act is REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE but what Sommerville did falls under AGRICULTURE.

They stated that to convict Sommerville "would be to apply it for an object outside the intention of the Act and would involve the conclusion that the Act applied to purposes other than the regulation of trade and commerce."

The courts have consistently differentiated between trade and commerce and agriculture. This case resulted in the freedom to market off-board feed grains in Canada.

So question for you dmlfarmer. Does the grain that tipsy grew and has in his bin and not contracted to the CWB belong under trade and commerce or agriculture?

[silverback]

Just read that Larry Hill says he can't remember any such lobbying other than 1 print ad before 2006. (Reuters)

Wow.

[LWeber]

https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls65_ls61_ls72 _ls63_ls68;jsessionid=00017afg8Bh0cemplohEzoYKpkH: 32IPPVC4B0?_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls6 5=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_STRTG3=tr

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

You have said it very well; failure to get leave to appeal, to the Supreme Court, does mean the Appeal Court ruling is the proper legal standing on this matter.

It is a comfort knowing the CWB finally has been notified that it is no longer above the law... that it is a creation of and responsible to Parliament... and that the CWB Minister have legitimate and proper authority to direct day to day operations of the CWB.

God bless Canada... democracy finally is moving back on track!

[silverback]

That doesn't work for me.

Suggestions LWeber?

[rockpile]

A couple of thoughts. One, has Harper ever had a
real job outside of the political arena? Sure, he was
head of the NCC, so what? His masters thesis was
focused on government being immoral if running
deficits. Say WHAT? In short, his life revolves
around politics and nothing but politics. Which
brings me to number two. What does he have to
gain by stirring the CWB pot? He has the Prairie vote
locked up anyway. So, being the politico he is, why
would he want to trip media response to rallies and
protests against the Govt by pro-Board supporters.
Which brings me to number three - to get a
majority govt he needs to win in Quebec. Quebecers
like the CWB ( or the Commission as they call it)
and view the CWB in the same light as marketing
boards like dairy. So, connecting the dots, if dairy
farmers saw the govt go after the CWB, they would
immediately assume that other marketing boards
are next - bye, bye majority! So, expect the status
quo as long as Harper is the BOSS.
Rockpile