CWB vs Farmers...

[Fransisco]

I did find this...

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - A Supreme Court decision that backed the Canadian government's move to prevent the Canadian Wheat Board from spending money on lobbying to maintain its grain marketing monopoly shows the CWB wasted farmers' money, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Friday.
"This government has always maintained that the CWB should stick to its mandate of marketing grain, not spending farmers' money on lobbying for their own political purposes," Ritz said in a statement. "The decision to dismiss with costs proves the wheat board wasted farmers' money to bring forward a frivolous court action."

...not exactly what I wanted to hear.

[Raven]

Media Release
For Immediate Release: January 22, 2010

Wheat Growers seek marketing freedom in wake of Supreme Court decision

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association urges the Canadian government to move forward quickly in providing prairie farmers with greater marketing freedom, following yesterday’s announcement by the Supreme Court of Canada that it will not be hearing the Canadian Wheat Board’s appeal of a lower court ruling.

In June 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a government order directing the CWB to not spend money promoting its monopoly. In a unanimous decision, the appeal court judges ruled that the federal government has the power “to direct the Wheat Board with respect to the full range of activity conducted by the Wheat Board.”

Now that the CWB has exhausted all appeals, the Wheat Growers urge the federal government to use its authority to direct the CWB on a number of operational matters including the issuance of orders that:

Direct the CWB to provide export licenses to all prairie wheat and barley producers on the same terms and conditions, regardless of their method of production. Currently, the CWB board of directors gives preferential buyback rates to organic grain producers and discriminates against those farmers who produce wheat and barley in a conventional manner.

Increase and expand the processor exemption. In 2006, the CWB board of directors authorized an exemption from the CWB monopoly to niche prairie grain processors by allowing them to purchase up to 500 tonnes of wheat and barley direct from prairie farmers. The Wheat Growers would like to see this amount progressively increased and expanded to include all processors.

Instruct the CWB to provide no-cost export licenses for any contracted grain that it refuses to accept. In the 2008/09 crop year, the CWB accepted only 74% of durum wheat contracted by prairie producers, refusing to accept the remainder. In the current crop year, the CWB is expected to accept even less of the durum wheat offered.

Instruct the CWB to provide export licenses to prairie producers on the same terms and conditions as now offered to wheat and barley producers in the rest of Canada. Currently, the CWB provides no cost export licenses to farmers in Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada and all of British Columbia except the Peace River district. Farmers in the prairie region who wish to export their wheat and barley are required to buy back their grain on terms that often make the export sale prohibitive.
“This court ruling gives the federal government the opportunity to make good on its campaign promise to provide us with marketing freedom,” says Kevin Bender, President of the Wheat Growers. “In effect, the ruling provides the federal government with the authority to introduce a voluntary Wheat Board, where each and every farmer will have the right to decide how best to market their grain.”

[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.