CWB vs Farmers...

[HFL]

Democracy is where 51 percent of the people can tell the other 49 percent of the people what to do. No one has the right to tell me how I have to market my grain. There is no voting nessasary. If someone wants out......let him out.

[Raven]

dmlf,
I can't help but feel you hate the result of the court case more than anything else. Obviously the 10 years of the CWB telling us that farmers are now in control was clearly misinformation and propaganda. Do you hate that more than anything else?

While the Supreme court don't comment on their reasons for dismissing or hearing appeals, is it possible that the three SC judges after studying the lower court rulings and the arguments of both sides, simply decided that they are in agreement with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal. It seems to me that it is very much an issue of national importance that proper judgments of law are made by the courts.

Are you not trying to spin that perhaps the SC judges didn't study the substance but instead just decided there was no national interest, or even that they thought the Appeal Court judges got it wrong, but so-what its not nationally important.

I agree with your comment about spin.

Francksf,

I find it amazing that you would love marketing freedom, but not from the Government!

To me it seems similarily as bizarre as inmates opposed to the warden unlocking the doors because that should be a democratic decision of the inmates.

Reality-wise, the government clearly is in charge, but you are free to lobby them not to give us freedom. Or are you also opposed to freedom of speach because of the source.

[TOM4CWB]

dmlfarmer,

When the Supreme Court failed to grant leave to appeal to me in my court case... or the Western Barley Growers Charter Challenge... we had to accept that the lower Appeal Court rulings were the proper interpretation of Canadian Law. If the Federal Appeal Court rules against the Federal Trial Division ruling... and the Supreme Court fails to grant leave to appeal... the law on that issue is settled. The Minister Responsible for the CWB... IS responsible for the CWB... as long as this federal legislation is the law of Canada.

[rockpile]

Raven, I wasn't offering an opinion one way or the
other on the CWB. I was offering a non-biased
opinion of what I see as the Political reality.
Meaning, nothing changes. The fastest road to
change does appear to be through CWB Board
elections, providing the Government agrees. And
yes, in a democracy, the majority does have the
power to impose its' will over the minority. Frans'
ideas are a laughable anarchist philosophy whereby
the majority rules, but everyone is free to do what
they want. WHAT? Look around you, there are rules
governing everything you do! What bugs me is that
those who preach freedom and liberty are usually
the ones who end up micro managing every little
thing you do. Been to an airport lately?
Rockpile

[Raven]

Rockpile, I respect your opinion, but for those who want marketing freedom, how can we not ask when we have a government who claims to be on side, and this court decision enables the government to order export licences for those producers who want them. No changes are needed to the Act, and the CWB remains unchanged for those who want that system.

As for Franny, I agree with his ideas of property rights and freedom. Yes there are lots of rules but he never made them.

[dmlfarmer]

Tom, I don't know if in your case the lower court ruling was the "proper" ruling but without question when the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal it was the "final" intrepretation of the law and you and the barley growers had to live with the lower court ruling just as the CWB has to now. I agree with your last statement snd had this been the lead post I would not have had an issue with it. No question.

Raven: On what basis, or secret knowledge that apparently you are privy too, leads you to even insinuate that 3 Supreme Court judges are deciding cases behind closed doors, without testimony presented, but basing their decision on a 20 page argument of why the case should be heard. Please show me any evidence that this is occuring or is this just spin too?

To be fair, here is some evidence behind my statement as to why I believe the leave to appeal was denied.
This is a direct quote from the Supreme Court of Canada website (https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/reply.cgi?1264194770)
"Leave to Appeal
Most appeals are heard by the Court only if leave is first given. Leave to appeal is given by the Court if, in the opinion of the panel, the case involves a question of public importance or if it raises an important issue of law (or a combination of law and fact) that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court grants leave to appeal based on its assessment of the public importance of the legal issues raised in a given case."

Raven, please give us just even one fact to back up your statements

[Raven]

dmlf

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33334

If you go to this website the following is all neatly boxed.

Date Proceeding Filed By
(if applicable)
row 1 2010-01-25 Close file on Leave
row 2 2010-01-22 Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties
row 3 2010-01-22 Judgment on leave sent to the parties
row 4 2010-01-21 Decision on the application for leave to appeal, Bi F Cha, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-446-08, 2009 FCA 214, dated June 23, 2009, is dismissed with costs.
Dismissed, with costs Not applicable
row 5 2009-12-07 All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Bi F Cha

row 6 2009-10-30 Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2009-10-30 Canadian Wheat Board
row 7 2009-10-20 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2009-10-20 Attorney General of Canada
row 8 2009-09-23 Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal
row 9 2009-09-21 Book of authorities Canadian Wheat Board
row 10 2009-09-21 Application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2009-09-21 Canadian Wheat Board

Presumably Bi = Binnie
F = Fish
Cha = Charron

I note they call it a "formal judgment"

Incidently, for so much a page, the court registrar will send copies of everything to interested parties. I have the CWB's application arguments, Government's rsponse and CWB's reply.

[Fransisco]

Rockpile, the reality is that what the majority of farmers want is irrelevant. And the reason for this is the rules that govern the wheat board today. The appeal court made it very clear, it is the federal government who is in charge of the wheat board. If 100% of the directors were elected on a pro choice platform and we had a Liberal government in power do you really think the Liberals would allow marketing freedom to occur? They certainly would not and wouldn't think twice about it.

The reality is that the conservatives have the power to make a lot of necessary changes, they have promised to make those changes many times in the past, they should make those changes.

Your majority rules argument is a moral one, and there is nothing moral about a majority voting away a minorities rights to their life, liberty, or property. Take a look at our constitution and our charter of rights and freedoms there are all sorts of things in there which say hands off to the government and majority opinion. The conservatives are on the moral high ground by giving us back the right to sell our property. And they have the legal ability to do so.

[dmlfarmer]

Raven: Thanks for providing the details of the application for leave to appeal. Yes you are right, these judges did give a formal ruling dening the leave to appeal.

However, the role of the 3 judges in reviewing an application for leave to appeal is to determine if the case is worthy to bring to trial, not the merits of the case itself.

What I do not know, and what I asked you to back up with fact is your assertion that these 3 judges "decided that they are in agreement with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal" and "endorsed" the Federal Court of Appeal ruling.

If you have evidence to support these statements you made, than please present it. If what you claim is true and Supreme Court judges are predetermining the outcome of cases without fair trial then an investigation into these judges is needed. You are making very serious allegations of abuse of judical power.

[Fransisco]

Okay dml lets reverse the argument then, what proof do you have that the Supreme Court decided that they are not in agreement with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal" and have therefore not "endorsed" the Federal Court of Appeal ruling.

Are you really trying to argue that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case because they disagree with the lower courts ruling?

[dmlfarmer]

Ha Ha Ha! Talk about conspiracy theories. Fran you really brightened my day.

Contray to what you are insinuating, I have never claimed the Supreme Court was in disagreement of the Federal Court of appeal decision. (laughing again)

I believe the 3 judges did exactly as they were supposed to do when they received the application for leave to appeal. They reviewed the application and decided that this application did not call for an interpretation of the law, nor would a trial be a matter of great importance to most Canadians. Therefore it did not meet the criteria needed for leave to appeal be granted and a trial sheduled. The decision to deny was neither a rejection, nor an endorsement of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling. So the Federal Court of Appeal ruling stands.

[Raven]

dmlf, I give you full marks for being tenacious.

Read again your own words on spinning:

"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"

I try to follow what I once read: "don't let the wish become the parent of the thought"
(and no I cannot provide you with the source of that saying)

[Fransisco]

It's got nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just trying to clarify your nit-picky argument.

I don't think it is particularly unreasonable for someone to say the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision based on the fact that they see no need to review the decision. You may wish to put it on the razor's edge of a neutral position, but that's not a particularly convincing argument. If they weren't sure one way or the other they would have proceeded with another trial to clarify things.

Nevertheless the important thing in all this is that the appeal court ruling stands and is the law of the land, and the CWB will have to abide by it.

[Fransisco]

Back to the notion of voting on the whole thing, I think farmers should be allowed to vote with their trucks and their deliveries just like they do with all of their other crops. There's nothing more democratic than the marketplace.

[sumdumguy]

So sad for Canadian farmers. Who in the free world could ever believe the cunundrum faced by producers? It almost seems surreal. Bins full of durum and your hands are tied because you have to sell it through an agency who has no intention nor incentive to perform - how fun. Cruel game.