oats

[oneoff]

Pehaps parsley (and a very few other people) do more to try to make others think, than all the rest put together. Its very easy and understandable that attempts are made to margianalize such people. After all they frequently say things that most do not want to hear. Those few people tend to be more dedicated; persistant and broad minded than the majority of their peers. They are certainly not chronic complainers or whiners; but more likely than not just have a little broader perspective than most.
Keep it up!

[checking]

Interesting thought on the grab and spend by Western Grain of farmers' money that was received from railway overcharges.

Penalty - yes, keep the windfall, principal - Western Grain is as much a thief as the railways.

$12,000.00 came from this farm without so much as a thankyou for their confiscating that, because we can't think of any way possible to return it to the rightful owners. I'd bet that the Western Grain board really tore their hair out pondering that one, for a split second.

[parsley]

I made a suggestion about establishing property rights. Those who own the patents OWN the responsibilities.

With the basic pillar of owner-responsibility in absentia, any planning is faulty and will end up on the producers' liability sheet' and in court.

cpallett gave a rudimentary suggestion about impact analysis. perhaps you'd like to read it again.

Perhaps cpallett, you'd like to share a precis of the precedent?. Pars

[charliep]

You have those rights today. Nothing stopping anyone from suing a
company if they feel their rights have been violated or something the
company has done has negatively impacted them.

Not sure what you are asking for that is different from today. There is a
regulatory process in most countries for bringing new breeding technologies
forward. If you want change, this is perhaps where you need to start. That
may might mean adding the political process like in Europe and having things
reviewed at a non scientific/social level.

[cpallett]

Pars,

Tough to precis a legal concept that I spent the better part of three years driving with every bit of craft available to me. Better, I think, to quote one of the greatest jurists in Canada, The Chief Justice of Ontario, Mr. Warren Winkler (born in Pincher Creek, Alberta).

"Ridley Inc.'s assertion regarding the relationship does not, however, fully address the allegations in the Statement of Claim with respect to BSE. The thrust of those allegations is that one infected cow constitutes an outbreak resulting in cataclysmic consequences for the industry as a whole within the borders of a particular country. The current industry and governmental practice does not limit the reactive measures to what might otherwise appear to be proportional in terms of the traditional notions of proximity in physical, temporal or geographic terms in dealing with a BSE outbreak. Accordingly, where BSE is concerned, it brings the supplier of feed to one cattle owner into proximity with all other cattle owners. If feed is supplied which causes an outbreak of BSE, regardless of how isolated, all cattle and cattle owners are affected. In other words, all cattle owners are treated as one contiguous whole.

Proximity is a relative term. Here, there are recognized international procedures in place that in essence mandate a relationship between otherwise disparate interests where BSE is at issue. There does not seem to be any policy reason to ignore this reality in a consideration of whether a proximal relationship may exist between parties who, in other circumstances, might not be regarded as proximate. On the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim, I find that it is not plain and obvious that a prima facie duty of care could not be found to exist in these circumstances notwithstanding that there is no recognized category into which the claim falls."

The full text of Justice Winkler's rather brilliant decision can be found at http://www.bseclassaction.ca/c_docs/Winkler_5.Jan.06.pdf

In simple terms, if you know the risks involved to all producers from your product through the posibility of national market disruption, and you market the product without fully informing the users of the product of those risks, you may be responsible for the losses to all producers in Canada, whether they purchased your product or not.

The Feds are now the only remaining defendant in the BSE class action. we allege they were negligent (on numerous specific occasions in numerous specific ways) in allowing BSE from British cattle to enter the Canadian herd. Although we are now certified as a class action, we have not yet gone to trial.

We believe in accountability in both the public and private sectors. We believe that the future of Canadian agriculture is enhanced by acccountability to producers in both the public and private sectors. No mystery or magic to it, just hard work and lots of patience (not my strong point).

[gustgd]

Checking
Thank you, did that help?
And since you have given it such deep thought, I'll ask you please share?

$12,000.00 from your farm alone, is that an exact figure or just an approximation? Business decisions were made by every one in agriculture based on the freight rates we were charged.
If WGRF made a decision that was contrary to the ACT of parliament, going retroactive someone would not have been happy.

If The ACT needs to be opened up to allow for these extraordinary circumstances, I'll agree.

Not to be sarcastic about it this time Thank You. it still doesn't help
What traits are you hoping to see in Western Canada?
How much are you willing to pay to get those traits?
Do you want to spend money on pure science related to agriculture?
How about commercializing technology?
Do you want research chairs at the universities?
What's the mix? more invested in wheat takes away from canola , takes away from.....
Giving the money back would eat up dollars administratively, how much are you willing to sacrifice? going forward your not likely to get back those past dollars IMO?

Have you e-mailed or phoned anybody in the WGRF office or board with your thoughts?
Your likely paying commissions or membership on over half the board. Parsley was nice enough to post the list but it's online with all the contact details at. www.westerngrains.com

[charliep]

Will note there are lots of other breeding techniques in the tool other than genetic engineering (adding genetic material from another species into a gene. Most countries outside Canada have active plant breeding programs using biotechnology of all sorts. That includes. The European model is mostly private sector and levies paid to breeders including by farmers who use common/brown bag seed.

[oneoff]

I hate the thought that common/brown bag seed is so worthless; and spoken off as such. It would take the genetic engineers absolutely forever to develop their own plant from scratch. However they latch on to the product of billions of years of evolution (and past reseach and selection and preservation efforts of untold numbers of uncredited farmers etc.) By inserting a couple of new genes those upstart companies have the nerve to think they own the whole seeds.

[checking]

Did you know, gustgd, that in the 1980's Davidson was know by the name "Post City"? People said it was caused by the town's water supply. Are you a resident water drinker?

To answer your most important points. I send numerous e-mails to controlling creatures. The latest, last week, to Minister Ritz suggesting he direct the Board to issue no buyback export licences. I believe I'd never be required to exercise one as overnight Canada would be at world price levels.

Similarly, if the WGRF had done the correct thing with their largess, and given the owners the option of applying for their overcharges, the board may have found that just as farmers in high percentages leave their checkoff dollars with the foundations, WGRF may have found little administrative costs.

I seldom quibble over best efforts to do what is right. Estimates are fine by me! The last, and latest checkoff I left with WGRF was well over $2000.00. What's the chance that I will ever do that again? Do you believe the board spent more than a double split second pondering that one?

[parsley]

"Nothing stopping anyone from suing a
company if they feel their rights have been violated or something the
company has done has negatively impacted them."

I wished you were familiar with the Triffid trail of company transformations, charliep

Triffid.
Developed at U of S
Patented

Both Triffid's marketing rights AND seed sold to Western seed growers

Contamination. In Canada and in Europe.

Who pays?

Original Company(OC) buying marketing rights and seed is kaputska-defuncked. As CO1 becomes CO2 and CO2 becomes CO3 and CO3 changes names into CO4 and CO4 amalgamates and becomes CO5....er, we end up today, with a lot of the same people and it will, happen again.

Some poor storekeeper in Europe will take a loss ion his stock? (And who cares?)

How would that be viewed cpallet?
1. Imaginative?
2. Manipulative?
3. Good business?
4. Who cares

What about a new event?

It is registered as

"Peanile"

(ok, Kinda like the chem co's do with Ram, and Stud and Stallion and Tiger and Cougar, puma, duck(just joking))

And the rights are sold.

And the advertising sounds promising.

On your mark
Get set
Go..
Western farmers grow, Farmers export.

And CO>CO1>CO2>CO3>CO4 keeps changing (yawn).......nth

And the royalties clang

Meantime Peanile is brown bagged. Sells like hotcakes.

Thirty eight thousand people die over four years. But nothing is "proven"

Further investigation determine that 635,452 eighty year old men had developed severe allergic reactions worldwide to Peanile, lasting average one week. The particularly enthusiastic consumers of Penile didn't court court)

But suddenly, media ignited, the Canadian farmers who had shipped peanile overseas, are charged, because it was labelled and shipped as Peanile. Many of the farmers are incorporated.

I presume, charliep that's the kind of courtcase you refer to as "Nothing stopping anyone from suing a company"

For the thousands of events that ARE and WILL occur(ing)because Canada wants to be the first to grab the patents, farmer Joe is presently the only visible liable. (New term, lol, the "visible liable" and if farmers squawk we'll be the "visible libel"? I feel a bit humourous today, charliep, with humour not soley pertaining to funny LOL)

Hmm.
What am I missing here?

Ah, yes, the point I keep making.

Should the original agreemenet to sell the Peanile patent either retain ownwership responsibility or alternately sell ownership responsibility as part of the package, and subsequently remain part of any new CO2>CO3etal creation? Basically, should genetic modification responsibility be shed? At what stage and by whom? Think asbestos.

Severability.

And then there's the bankrupt property owners. Uh huh.

These are serious questions. And fellow farmers should be able to discuss them openly. Above all, be glad we can. In Nigeria you may not be so fortunate.

Any comment cpallet, on severability? Parsnip

[charliep]

Always back to flax.

I note you highlight Toyota response to their safety issue which I have to agree has been good. This is a design flaw which has killed people. Toyota may have had other design features which people didn't like/my impact their decision to purchase but they are not recalling cars over this issue.

I know this is irrelevant to the current (Europe has rules and Canada broke one) but is the presence of triffid variey flax a food safety issue or a market access one? If I measure risk as a flax consumer, am I more likely to be made sick/killed by eating raw spinach in a salad or triffid flax? Am I more likely to have long term health impacts from microwaving food in plastic or including flaxseed in my hot cereal every morning?

To the discussion, should market access issues be included an evaluation in CFIA evaluation of plants with novel traits?

Perhaps a frustration on my part is none of this discussion would be occurring if the flax industry had the foresight/backbone to register the triffid genetic event in Europe 10 years ago. Canada could likely work through that process today.

[cpallett]

Pars, I do not believe that you are actually speaking of the legal concept of 'severability', but rather the legal concept of 'proximity'. Please do not take offense when I say that much reading and study is required before we can all get into a meaningful discussion on 'proximity'. I've made a career out of trying to figure out what the heck 'proximity' means as a practical matter. The best I can do for you is refer you to a wonderful book by two wonderful people, Federal Court of Appeal Justice Allen Linden and Dean Bruce Feldthusen of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, entitled 'Canadian Tort Law'.

I will, however, leave you with a very famous, seminal quotation by Lord Atkin:

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

[cpallett]

charliep,

In response to your question:

"To the discussion, should market access issues be included an evaluation in CFIA evaluation of plants with novel traits?"

You bet. The CFIA should now and should always have conducted an evaluation of the potential effect on the market of genetic drift in the assessment of the safety of any new GMO before it is released for field trials. The fundamental question is who is the CFIA conducting the evaluation for? No matter what the answer to that question, the potential effect on the market of genetic drift of any GMO is important, whether at the developer, manufacturer, producer or consumer level. To ignore the potential effects on the marketplace of genetic drift is akin to treating the loss of a paper clip as equivalent to the loss of a thermonuclear device.

Different potential results require different levels of control/response. This is not rocket science.

[gustgd]

I don't know about the Post city reference. I'm going to hope that it was a compliment.

For what it's worth
Checking that you take the time to write letters puts you many steps up in my books.

My reference to the $12,000 was not to put you on the spot, but to make the point that when dealing with refunds it is an exact number that is needed.
That number could be easily taken from the CWB records for how much that was actually paid. The problem would be where someone made decisions to go off board and sell outside the CWB. If WGRF made a mistake in issuing cheques someone would cry foul.

As to board decisions and how long they take, you would be amazed in how long it takes sometimes to make simple decisions. Let alone ones that may require a legal opinion. Either way they are never made lightly

[oneoff]

Here's a little thought on the way that I am told the law can work:

When a person or company feels offended in some way (physically; financially or whatever) they have the liberty to launch a legal action. To cover all potential bases you name all parties that in any way may have caused your distress. The court will most likely hear the case and determine the per cent liability of each of the parties. Now the kicker; even though you have been determnied to have a relatively minor per cent liability; IF the others contributors are insolvent; or declare bankruptcy; or just don't have the means to pay; then 1% liability can turn into footing the total liability bill. Any lawyers care to comment on the above scenario?
Maybe this ties into the Triffid fiasco.