Larry Hill says...

[Fransisco]

<b>For the principle</b>

There is a very important reason why the Canadian Wheat Board recently tried to take a case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was neither "frivolous" nor driven by politics, as some have alleged.

The reason was this: we believe that Prairie farmers should have the right to control and direct their marketing organization through their democratically elected CWB board of directors. We did not agree with a previous court ruling about the federal government's power to direct the CWB. We believed that sweeping changes to the CWB Act in 1998 were intended to pass control to farmers. Why else does the CWB board of directors exist?

We believe it is important to respect democracy and the will of farmers as expressed through a democratic process. We sit on the board because farmers voted us here. We are therefore the voice of farmers. Four federal government appointees bring additional expertise to the board table and share our singular mission: to ensure the CWB maximizes value to producers.

It is no secret that the CWB board of directors and the current federal government do not share the same vision for the future of grain marketing. But when the government overrides the CWB board of directors, it is overriding the democratic will of farmers. That is why we wanted the courts to overturn a 2006 government directive (also known as the "gag order") because, as farmers, we have the right to run our own organization. That is why we applied to the Supreme Court. And that is the principle we will fight to preserve.


Larry Hill

CWB board of directors

Swift Current, Sask.

[Fransisco]

Sounds to me like someone is still trying to fight a battle they already lost.

[parsley]

Dear Larry Hill,

Honeybunch, you asked the question:

"Why else does the CWB board of directors exist?

You know,you've just forgotten because you listen to yourself! :

"The farmers were revolting and jailed, so Ralphie and his Liberals let some steam out of an angry electorate by "giving" the Board farmer representatives.

But the Minister remained intact.

It was a dandy trick but it backfired when the Liberals lost the election. Pars

[Fransisco]

So does Larry Hill and his merry band of power hungry monopolists speak for you? They certainly don't speak for me.

There are few things more arrogant than claiming you speak for everyone.IMHO

[oneoff]

Just like the rest of us; the CWB will have to learn to live within the law. The first step is to accept the law. Then you work within the law. Its true that some are slower learners than others.

[Fransisco]

From this weeks AGRIWEEK...

<b>"Would you like fries with that Mr Hill?"

Humble pie is on the menu for the militant Wheat Board directors</b>

There was never much chance that the Supreme Court of Canada would hear an appeal petitioned for by the farmer-directors of the Canadian Wheat Board of a Court of Appeal decision that re-confirmed the right of the federal government to exercise oversight over the Board’s management. Last week it was made official. Without giving a reason, the top court advised the
Board’s $1,000-an-hour Toronto lawyers that it would not hear their appeal. The Wheat Board has won many legal battles against the government and other comers, but it has just lost the war. This maneuver has clipped the wings of the strident, militant
elected directors and it has the potential to completely change the atmosphere, including the Board’s relations with the government and the grain trade.

This case goes back to 2007, when Madame Justice Dolores Hansen of the Federal Court ruled that then agriminister Chuck Strahl exceeded his authority and violated the Board’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms free-expression guarantees when he issued
an order prohibiting the Board from spending producer pool account money to promote and popularize its monopoly
powers. The government appealed, and last June Mr. Justice Roger Hughes of the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that not only was Strahl’s so-called ‘gag’ order within his authority, but also that the Wheat Board Act permits and even requires the government to exert supervision. It allows the federal cabinet to overrule decisions of the directors, to direct them to do or not do certain things and even dismiss elected directors. The Board cannot sabotage government policy.

The June 2009 decision of three Federal Court of Appeal judges was unanimous. The all-important phrase in the written ruling was that the federal government has the authority “to direct the Wheat Board with respect to the full range of activity conducted by the Wheat Board.”
Strahl’s October 2006 directive was not rescinded and the Board now more clearly than ever does not have the authority to lobby, agitate, promote, advertise or propagandize to gain or keep support for its monopoly powers. Practically all ‘information’ material that the Board issues includes some statement or implication alluding to the alleged success and superiority
of the single desk marketing system. Even the farmer meetings it has long held at this time of year (now cutely named ‘GrowerLink’ meetings) are heavily focused on extolling the monopoly’s virtues.

At the time last September that the Board sought leave to refer the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, Wheat Board chairman Larry Hill said the “vital question” was “control of the Wheat Board” and that “western Canadian farmers believe strongly that they, through their elected directors, are in charge of their grain-marketing organization.” It was not just a matter of how the Board spends money. Last week he was quoted as saying that “We have to accept the fact.”
The claim or farmer support made hundreds of times was never strictly true. Only a minority of farmers, as clearly established by several votes and the Board’s own opinion polls, now support the monopoly single-desk system. A sizable majority either want the Board to be a voluntary marketing service or want it disbanded. Furthermore it was never the intent of the Act to place the federal treasury at the disposal of the farmer directors of the Board. And no agency that has regulatory powers such as given to the Board can expect to exercise them without oversightfrom the elected government.

A couple of NDP-sponsored private members’ bills were introduced, and will be re-introduced when parliament resumes, to confirm and expand the authority and power of the Wheat Board directors. They have no chance of being seriously debated, let alone passed. The way is now open for substantial Wheat Board reform by order -in-council: a simple, straightforward, commonplace, everyday directive from the federal cabinet.
However that does not seem to be in the cards just yet. Agriminister Ritz said only that “the government welcomes the court’s decision” and that the Board “wasted farmers’ money” with a “frivolous” court action. He most emphatically did not say “watch out, here I come.” There was no sign that he will soon take advantage of these new conditions.

Opponents of the monopoly, including the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Assn. and others, demanded that the Harper government direct the Board to issue no-cost export licenses for wheat and barley to prairie growers on the same terms as they are automatically given to literally anyone who applies for them outside the Wheat Board area. At a minimum, it wants the Board to be forced to provide such licenses for any grain contracted for delivery to the Board but not accepted. Freely-available export licenses would, of course, immediately create the dual market that a majority of western farmers
desires. The effect would not be limited to farmers located within efficient trucking distance of U.S. elevators. Conceivably the right to ship producer cars of wheat and barley now controlled by the Board directly to American buyers could be created.
Nothing now prevents the Harper government, legally or politically, from introducing a true, functioning dual market up to and including a voluntary Wheat Board.

[parsley]

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;EC_style8ptBK&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;[URL=" https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7954002841446804737&postID=432687 045931759916"] (Click at the top to read 2004 Agriville after you read the comment)[/URL]&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2004 until now for the court to agree the Minister can issue an order to provide an export license? Do you suppose Toyota puts up with this kind of crap? Pars

[Muskeg4dirt]

Come on Already Kill this debate and kill the CWB I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS TORTURE PULEASE GIVE US THE FREE MARKET WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO!!!!! Go ahead and let farmers voluntarily support a CWB, but don't tie in the free thinking, progressive rest of us!!

[Raven]

Muskeg, The CWB will not give you marketing freedom, but the courts say the Government can. Write to Minister Ritz and ask him to order the CWB to grant export licences to producers in the designated area just as they do to producers in eastern Canada.

He can do it, but you have to ask.

[cropduster]

"We believed that sweepimg changes to the CWB ACt in 1998 were to pass control to the farmers." So, Mr. Hill what was your involvement in those changes??What was your input ,prior to 1998 to bring those changes forward??The fireplug from Regina just didn`t have an vision.What were your words to him??The message if you please?? My answer......Sweet dogmanure nothing.He owe`s his soapbox now to those disgruntled farmers who were testing the law at the border.Various rallies and scribes across the prairies.Prior to the 1998 amendments Larry Hill was where?????? Someone CORRECT?INFORM me here PLEASE !!

[bucket]

And this is the guy at the top of a 4 billion dollar corp. greeeeaaaaaat!

On another note I see in the WP that cammy goff wants the government, through the cta, to tell CN how to run its affairs in regards to producer car facilities. Ironic isn't it, the cwb's philosophy - don't tell us(the cwb) what to do but could you (the government) please tell everyone else what to do on our behalf.

IF the cwb had an ounce of intelligence between them all - alot of the problems would go away with negotiation. A little give and take -well let's call it compromising.

You catch more bees with honey.

That why I get the impression these guys are just spoiled kids running daddy's farm. No art of compromise, negotiating skills amongst them. Just its' my way or no way.

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket...

I find Agriweeks article revealing...

'Strahl’s October 2006 directive was not rescinded and the Board now more clearly than ever does not have the authority to lobby, agitate, promote, advertise or propagandize to gain or keep support for its monopoly powers. Practically all ‘information’ material that the Board issues includes some statement or implication alluding to the alleged success and superiority
of the single desk marketing system. '

What exactly is Chair Hill doing in the letter he just sent out?

GOING back on his word... instead of following the Supreme Court decision which affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal decision.

Perhaps it is time Chairman Hill resigned... if the kitchen is too hot to play in... after all the fires the CWB has lit over the last 12 years!

We should have a very long time ago... had market driven, unrestricted cash markets, a decade ago...

If the CWB had become a 'facilitator' of our markets...

Instead of claiming to be 'God'... and knowing what was best for my farm.

CWB Chair Larry Hill... still does not get it... especially since the 2008 disaster in marketing... was caused by a bankrupt system of arrogance and lazy marketing... called the CWB Monopoly!
We had to sign our personal guarantees last week... to finish selling/delivering our 09-10 wheat crop to the CWB through our PPOs... Again done just to annoy me.

Well... it worked!

[ProFarmer]

Lets start a countdown clock to the end of the CWB. I is time to let it go and let the farmer decide who they want to sell too. I have had enough, down with the board.!!!! Larry Hill maybe go to the store and buy your self a lollipop.

[Raven]

Cropduster, bucket and Tom4CWB

Do you just want to change the guards and warden and get better meals, or would you like the freedom to sell your own grain like eastern farmers?

[cropduster]

Raven,I like your word FREEDOM ! If we had those licences,heck even a tonnage exemption,we`d have the "farmer control" that Hill is talking.How can we have "farmer control" and still be locked to the board??