Canadian ChoicesWheat Letter - December 2, 2010

[grassfarmer]

francisco, I don't subscribe to your "he who yaps longest is right" philosophy so your words are wasted. As I said before - Destroying the cwb is not something the majority of prairie farmers favor despite the rantings on here. Face it you folks are the ones in the minority.
When that changes you will get your wish of a "free market" - then your education will really begin.

[FarmRanger]

<i>Face it you folks are the ones in the minority.</i>
I wouldn’t be so sure about that, especially in Alberta. For arguments sake though, let’s assume you are right, and a majority of farmers in the designated area want everyone to surrender their property rights to the CWB. Would that make it right?
If so, explain to me why bill 36 is wrong? Maybe the majority of Alberta voters want grassfarmers land to be a wildlife sanctuary.

If you want people to defend your property rights, don’t advocate for stomping on someone elses property rights.

[grassfarmer]

Scenario one with the cwb would make it the will of the people regardless of whether it is right or wrong - it is decided by democratic vote.

Scenario two - Bill 36 has been imposed by this Provincial Government effective retrospectively, with no compensation, no right to appeal or contest it in law. Citizens had no say or right to vote on this issue.

Rather a large difference between the two situations.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

WRONG on the Alberta legislation.

We can not stop the CWB because of eastern Canada...

Which is totally different than Provincial Legislation that can be changed easily by a new government.

Your argument holds ZERO relevance.

[Fransisco]

Sorry to burst your bubble again but the fate of the wheat board is in the hands of the politicos in Ottawa. Which way farmers vote on directors elections, plebiscites, etc are irrelevant. Once again the facts just aren't on your side there grassfarmer.

[grassfarmer]

Yer a pair o' twisters! - take anything and turn it round to make you look smart. If the cwb elections hold no relevance to changing things why do you get all hot and bothered about who can and can't vote? Why did TOM run unsuccessfully as a candidate? - go ahead and twist these facts around too I've wasted enough time responding to the pair of you living in your anti-cwb fantasy world.

[FarmRanger]

I don’t want to defend the government, but I find it hard to believe there is no compensation at all in Bill 36. It is very likely inadequate, but none whatsoever?
Kinda like the way I’m paid for wheat.

[vvalk]

grassfarmer. first of all the govt is elected. Second, what you are saying then is if we had a vote on property rights and the urban population( which is the vast majority)voted to take away property rights, then its ok? There is no difference with the two arguments.

Using sask numbers 19% of farms produce 91% of the production now. Grassfarmer, of the 19% of those farms what % of them would want a single desk? Maybe 10%, though I doubt it. So really 80 % of what the CWB sells is by farmers who are forced to sell to it. I bet you even the CWB wouldnt argue that. So your argument of most farmers want the CWB, your probably right. The problem is most of those "farmers" havn't stepped foot in a field for 10 or 20 years.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

"Why did TOM run"?

Tom Jackson ran in the CWB Director elections, 4 times;

District 1 1998,
District 4 2000,
District 4 2004,
District 5 2006.

Every time was to educate growers... and expose the 'single desk' deception.

TO make the CWB BETTER. STOP.

Whether or not my family and I were constructive... actually brought about change to the CWB... is for history to judge.

It appears we are further ahead today than we were in 1998... due to the vast and dedicated work of a multitude of folks... who strive to make Alberta and Canada a better home for our children to raise our grandchildren... should the Good Lord tarry!

[grassfarmer]

Farmranger,
Here is what the Act says about compensation:

"Compensation limited
19 No person has a right to compensation by reason of this Act, a regulation under this Act, a
regional plan or anything done in or under a regional plan except either
(a) as expressly provided for under Part 3, Division 3, or
(b) as provided for under another enactment."

Part 3, Division 3 of the Act deals only
with “conservation directives". That part of the Act does not deal in any way with the loss of rights or restriction of rights triggered by the sections listed above.

Furthermore, most other enactments do not provide for compensation for the cancellation of the rights under a ‘statutory consent’.

The first paragraph is direct from the Act. The last two paragraphs are the legal analysis by Keith Wilson of the Bill.

Why worry about only the compensation though? the bigger issue is their change to statutory consent.
Here is what the Act says about that:

"Statutory consents may be affected
11(1) For the purpose of achieving or maintaining an objective or a policy of a regional plan, a regional plan may, by express reference to a statutory consent or type or class of statutory consent, affect, amend or extinguish the statutory consent or the terms or
conditions of the statutory consent."

So some things that the cabinet has just decided they can "affect, amend or EXTINGUISH" at their will are as follows:
• a development permit, subdivision plan approval issued by a municipality;
• a water licence issued under the Water Act to an irrigation district, food processor, cattle feedlot, or municipal users;
• an approval or registration issued by the Natural Resources Conversation Board for a confined feeding operation (dairy, poultry, cattle or hog operation);
• a Crown grazing lease, grazing permit or other disposition under the Public Lands Act;
• approvals for drainage works under the Water Act;
• “instruments” under the Land Titles Act which are defined in that Act to include deeds,mortgages, encumbrances, or any other document dealing with land or evidencing title to land;
• Crown mineral leases, mining permits, and forestry management agreements;
• ERCB issued well licenses, facility approvals, pipeline permits; and
• AUC’s approvals for power transmission lines among others.

And the final touch according to Wilson is thus "In addition to the foregoing, the Act also contains a statutory bar against judicial review or commencing an action against the government for something done under a regional plan approved by Cabinet."

There we have it - a Communist style Government take over unprecedented in a western democracy and TOM and Co are happy to back it.