CWB vs Farmers...

[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

[Francksaskfarmer]

Ok, we know now that the government can tell the CWB what to do!
I am not so sure I like that... May be it is a good thing now with the PCs, but what if the tide turns???
I would much rather know that the decisions are made by farmer elected directors.
It might take more time, but leaving the decisions up the government of any color is something I see as potentially dangerous.

Francksaskfarmer

[Raven]

Rockpile, You think that the Conservatives under Harper will keep the status quo. Does that please you or is it a disgruntled observation?

Incidently, I note you have a different opinion about the importance of this issue than dmlfarmer who suggests the Supreme Court didn't hear the case because it wasn't of national importance and only involved the CWB and the Government. Anyone believe that someone who seemed so knowledgable wouldn't just say that to downplay the CWB's loss.

Francksf, your post implies that you support marketing choice for farmers. Is that correct?

If so, how much more time are you prepared to wait? 10? 20 years?

Even if a majority of farmer elected directors favor marketing choice, the government is still in charge and how will these directors (assuming they are dedicated and won't turn) handle the CWB bureaucrats and Liberal government together? How are the pro-choice directors working out for you now?

Besides, the CWB tells us that once the monopoly is broken, it can never be put back together again because of NAFTA. And we all know that the CWB would never deceive farmers.

[dmlfarmer]

Raven: If Tom had not said "and now the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter!" and you had not said "the Supreme Court's endorsement of the Court of Appeal Court's ruling" I would not have even posted on this thread. But the thing I hate more than anything else is misinformation and propaganda.

The only point I was making was the Supreme Court did not rule on this case nor did the SCC endorse the Court of Appeals decision. The SCC refused to hear the case, Period!

You can insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about with regard to why the SCC of Canada would refuse to hear the case. I only listed the two primary reasons the SCC refuses to hear a case. If you have reason to believe it is for a different reason why don't you post that reason instead of trying to spin this too.

Had you two of you said: "wow, the SCC denied the CWB's leave to appeal therefore the gag law stands. Now the CWB will have to listen to what the government says. I wonder (hope, wish, believe...) if the government could not use this denial to pressure the CWB to open export permits and permit off board processing." If the two of you had said anything like this, I would have agreed fully with your assesment and considered if this would, could happen.

Instead, your embellishment of what happened has me questioning not only what you said here, but it will make me look at everything you post in the future with a grain of salt. From now on, everything you write will have me wondering and asking myself is this really what happened, or is this another exaggeration.

Spin has a nasty habit of coming back and biting the spin doctor in the ass, especially if the spin doctor continues to try to mislead after being called on it.

"The truth, unlike lies, require no embellishment" Michael Mencias

[Francksaskfarmer]

Raven,
I do favour Marketing Choice.
I also favour democracy! To let the government dictate what is going to happen with the CWB or anything else allows for too much abuse. And again when the government switches sides you might not want to have it in charge.
In my opinion, your hatred of the CWB (I only get that reading your posts maybe I misread that) has you prepared to favour anything that is going to get rid of it.
You are right, it might take 10-20 years to get marketing choice with the current system. I would love to see it quicker but I am not going to justify the means to the end.
You might suggest that the Government is Democracy, however on this issue Democracy is either CWB elections or a well put together plebiscite.

Francksaskfarmer

[Fransisco]

I've never been a big fan of the democracy argument when it comes to the wheat board. Democracy is how we decide who governs, not how we divide up property. Besides which nobody voted to establish a wheat board in the first place, it was a war measures act.

“Casting a vote to give someone power does not make a man free; freedom is the knowledge that even if one doesn’t perform that ritual, nobody can exercise power over one’s life, liberty, and property.”—ILANA MERCER (December 18, 2005)

Private property trumps democracy.

[Fransisco]

Let me put it another way Western style Democracies are restricted to the protection of individual rights.

In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.

The Wheat Board elections are therefore not democratic, they are anti-democratic in the modern sense, because they infringe on the private property rights of individuals.

What the elections do represent is a primitive form of unlimited majority rule the classic example of which is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying. I don't think that is the kind of "democracy" any of us want to live in.