• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Friends of tyranny lose case

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Friends of tyranny lose case

    A Federal Court judge has dismissed a farmer group's call for a judicial review of changes in how the voters' list is drafted for Canadian Wheat Board director elections.

    Federal Court Judge James Russell on Friday dismissed the application by members of the Friends of the CWB, in which the group sought a review of orders made by federal Ag Minister Gerry Ritz in 2008 before CWB director elections that year.

    The decision, which followed a hearing Jan. 20 in Winnipeg, also granted costs to the respondents in the case: the federal ag minister and attorney general, Meyers Norris Penny in its role as CWB election co-ordinator, and the CWB itself.

    "We believe that farmers should be the ones voting in directors elections, not landlords and bankers," Ritz said in a statement Friday in response to Russell's order. "It's good to have validation from the courts on this important issue."

    Ritz's order limited the number of CWB permit book holders who would automatically get a ballot only to those who delivered wheat or barley to the CWB in the 2007-08 or 2008-09 crop years.

    Other growers, or those who grow other grains, thus need to apply for ballots, whereas previously all valid permit book holders received CWB election ballots.

    In a copy of the decision forwarded from Ritz's office, <b>Russell on Friday found the group's allegation, that Ritz's order was meant "to disenfranchise a certain group of eligible voters," did not correspond with a reading of Ritz's order "as a whole."

    Furthermore, Russell wrote, "such a view of (Ritz's order) disregards the fact that it had no effect on the rights of any potential voter to vote."

    Russell also poured cold water on the FCWB's allegation that Ritz's order was "inconsistent" with regulations governing the CWB and its elections.

    Such an allegation, he wrote, is "based on the faulty assumption that being named in a permit book is conclusive proof of an individual's status as a producer."</b>

    A permit book, he wrote, gives a person the right to undertake a certain activity, but doesn't guarantee that the permit book holder will actually undertake that activity.

    "Devious ploy"

    <b>Russell also found "no evidence before me" that any of the individuals who filed the FCWB's application had been directly affected, or might be directly affected, by the order.

    The application listed 12 farmers including National Farmers Union past-president Stewart Wells and current president Terry Boehm, former CWB directors Butch Harder and Art Macklin, and former CWB candidate Paul Beingessner, who died last June and has been removed as an applicant.</b>

    Russell pointed out that but for one applicant farmer, Keith Ryan, all the applicants appeared on the initial voters' list. Even Ryan's right to vote "was not affected, and he may have even voted in the (2008 directors') election."

    "It seems to me," the judge wrote, that the FCWB members' concern was not how Ritz's order affects their voting rights, but to ensure the order doesn't lead to changes in how the CWB does business.

    Specifically, he wrote, there are "suggestions" from the FCWB members that behind Ritz's decision is "some devious ploy to load the board of (the) CWB with directors who will be sympathetic to new ways of grain marketing."

    However, he wrote, "there is no evidence before me to connect these speculative fears with (Ritz's order) and, even if there were, any personal impact upon the applicants would remain highly tenuous."

    On that basis alone, Russell wrote, the FCWB's application should have been dismissed, but the judge ruled on their application's merits anyway, "in the event it is determined I am wrong on the issue of standing."

    Russell wrote that he views Ritz's order as "an attempt to ensure that only (grain) producers get onto the voters' list and vote for directors. This is precisely what the (CWB Act) says must occur."

    Furthermore, Russell wrote, "measures aimed at ensuring the integrity of the voters' list do not curtail the rights of producers. If producers who do not deliver (grain to the CWB) choose not to have themselves placed on the (voters') list, then that is their choice."

    #2
    After all this there are still only 2 directors for market choice.

    Doesn't that mean that farmers want the CWB? Seems we are getting and retaining the CWB cuz we strongly support it.

    Comment


      #3
      .....Friends of State Control lose one too.......


      Tuesday, February 2, 2010

      For Harper, silence is golden at Wheat Board
      Court sides with Prime Minister on 'gag order'

      Kevin Libin, National Post


      Stephen Harper has managed to silence one of the most vocal and activist groups battling against his plan to give prairie farmers the right to opt out of selling their wheat and barley through the wheat board. Namely, the Canadian Wheat Board itself.

      The board's directors had, since the Tories' election, been running a relentless campaign to protect their "single-desk" marketing monopoly. They regularly funded studies and surveys that invariably concluded the CWB's model was the most profitable, most popular manner for grain marketing; when Ottawa held a plebiscite in 2007 that resulted in a majority of barley farmers voting for marketing choice, the directors launched a publicity campaign undermining it as rigged and irrelevant; they urged farmers to write the agriculture minister in protest.

      That may have all stopped, permanently, after the Supreme Court on Jan. 22 declined to hear an appeal from the board that challenged an order from the government requiring it to stop using members' money to fight political battles. The board's directors had initially succeeded in getting a federal judge to find what it called a "gag order" to be illegal and unconstitutional. An appeals court later ruled that to be a mistake. With the directors' last resort, the Supreme Court, declining to intervene, the appeals ruling stands.

      "I think it ends here," says Wheat Board chairman Larry Hill. "Certainly, I think the board of directors is disappointed that we cannot proceed with the appeal. And that's based on the principle of farmer control. As elected representatives, we think that the elected and appointed board should make the decisions as to how the CWB operates, not the government. And I think farmers think the same thing."

      The debate around the future of the Canadian Wheat Board has rarely had much civility. Or perspective. The "Save My CWB" website, operated by opponents of the Harper government's promise to end the agency's monopoly over Western wheat and barley sales, urges readers to "report rats" -- businesses and politicians supporting the government's reform efforts, and posts their photos online.

      Government appointees to the board are called out as "saboteurs." Ralph Goodale, the Saskatchewan Liberal MP and fierce defender of the Wheat Board's status quo, has blasted the Tories' deregulatory manoeuvres as "thuggish"; his former leader, Stephane Dion, accused the Prime Minister of spying on his Wheat Board opponents, part of "an assault more brutal than anything we've seen before."

      Mr. Hill says that Mr. Goodale, then the agriculture minister, told the directors explicitly that his government's amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act were intended to "pass direction onto the elected and appointed board," Mr. Hill says. It was an apparent response to growing Western fury over the board's authoritative control over the livelihood of prairie producers (growers east of Manitoba are exempt from the act).

      It now appears to have been mere political window dressing: The amendments arguably gave Ottawa more, not less, control, adding language the judges say "was intended to provide the governor in council with the authority to direct the Wheat Board on any matter of governance in the event of a disagreement with the board of directors."

      Any check against irresponsible directives, the judges ruled, would not come from board directors, but from political means: If Parliament or voters didn't like how the government was running things, they could deal with it their own way.

      "The reason why that's a good decision is because we still have a parliamentary democracy rather than complete bureaucratic control over the lives of western farmers and I think that's extremely important," says Barry Cooper, a University of Calgary political scientist.

      To date, the Tories have ordered the directors only to cease and desist from their campaign promoting the single-desk monopoly. Possibly the government could order the directors to promote marketing choice. Or perhaps to stop directors from launching legal challenges against Conservative efforts to deregulate, as they did in 2007 when they convinced a judge to overturn a Cabinet order that would have given western barley producers the ability to sell outside the board.

      At the very least, suggests Doug Robertson, president of the Grain Growers of Canada -- a pro-reform group -- putting an end to the CWB's political advocacy could put more farmers' opinions in play, possibly leading to changes in the complexion of the board itself. Currently the single-desk directors outnumber the marketing-choice directors by just one. "The board has been extremely good at getting their side across and the rest of us aren't as good at it and don't have access to the same resources," he says. "We don't have farmers' money to do it."

      Whatever deregulatory levers are available to them, expect the Tories to use them to the maximum extent: Mr. Harper first came to Ottawa promising an end to the Wheat Board's monopoly and has only vowed steadfastness in that mission following a number of subsequent setbacks. This, his first tangible victory on the file, can only re-energize the Tories' resolve.

      They will still need it: With the Wheat Board's opposition dispatched, the Tories must now find support from Parliament to proceed with any changes to the way the board operates. The Prime Minister will likely find no support from the NDP or the Bloc, who were convinced to see any deregulation as a threat to their own supply-managed agricultural industries.

      Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has made conciliatory sounds toward westerners since becoming leader; farmers will be watching to see whether he, now, will choose to make himself the last real hurdle to ending the Wheat Board's monopoly.

      klibin@nationalpost.com

      © 2010 The National Post Company. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.

      Comment


        #4
        That's two court cases now reaffirming that it is Ottawa who is in control.

        Comment


          #5
          I should have said two "recent" court cases. As Raven has pointed out in before, there've been numerous others before.

          Comment


            #6
            Hey monopoly saviors, here's a suggestion - Write to Minister Ritz and ask him to please not order the CWB to issue export licences to prairie farmers. You want to be able to vote on how your neighbor markets his grain and you consider that your democratic right.

            Comment


              #7
              Fransisco,

              It now appears to have been mere political window dressing: The (1998 CWB Act)amendments arguably gave Ottawa more, not less, control, adding language the judges say "was intended to provide the governor in council with the authority to direct the Wheat Board on any matter of governance in the event of a disagreement with the board of directors."

              Any check against irresponsible directives, the judges ruled, would not come from board directors, but from political means: If Parliament or voters didn't like how the government was running things, they could deal with it their own way."

              Finally, 4 years after Conservatives took over... the Courts are catching up to where farmers in the 'designated area' have been for decades.

              The NDP and CWB were counting on the probability that they could outlast the Conservatives in COurt... and change farmers minds.

              With the CWB's 2008 marketing disasters... and continuing 2009-10 gaffs at the same consistent fever pitch from CWB management... Farmers will continue to question the logic of having 423 Main in charge of grain growers futures.

              Perhaps World War II can end... sometime soon... for 'designated area' grain growers!!!

              CWB Votes on how my neighbour markets his grain... has never been a proud tradition in many families that produce much of the grain grown in western Canada.

              It is about time the western backwaters... were given more than just colonial status... that 'designated area' grain growers can finally become full citizens of Canada!

              God Bless Canada!!!

              Comment


                #8
                Obvious that the CWB is toast, based on this case, the end is near, or is it? Let's git the government to do something, other than appoint senators, I mean. Lets git them, to terminate the CWB rit now! Oh I forgot, theys on holidaays at the Olimbics, wit their fat backsides in plush seats. Will they ever git back to work. Who cares. This nation chugs along better, without them workin. Herd today that we'll soon be sellin Snow to the Olymbics. Winter Olimbics in Vancouver, that is crazy, isn't it? Must be the fault of the the CWB (Canadian Winter Board) is geese!

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'm wondering where Friends of Tyranny are getting the cash to go on all these wild goose chases. Someone behind this has got some awfully deep pockets.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    So his ruling sets the precedent that people who do not produce enough, whether it be grain, money, etc. do not have the right to vote.

                    I don't think this is what the fathers of confederation had in mind.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Yes, yes we know the only kind of democracy accepted by the wheat board apologists is of the Cuban variety.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Well, Ritz and company disenfranchised me and wont let me vote on CWB matters anymore...I guess it doesn't matter what happens to the small farmer as he contributes nothing to the CONservative cause.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          In a copy of the decision forwarded from Ritz's office, Russell on Friday found the group's allegation, that Ritz's order was meant "to disenfranchise a certain group of eligible voters," did not correspond with a reading of Ritz's order "as a whole."

                          Furthermore, Russell wrote, "such a view of (Ritz's order) disregards the fact that it had no effect on the rights of any potential voter to vote."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I've got to give you credit, Fransisco. You can sure get the gophers to pop their heads out of their CWB holes!!!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              So Wilagro when did you stop growing board crops?

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...