Aristotle Oberg

[grassfarmer]

dalek, Truth hurts but thanks for pointing it out.

"Dave, reality is that, for all the complaining about the CWB, most prairie grain farmers don't have the backbone to actually do anything constructive
about it (with a few lonely exceptions). Point out that Ontario farmers actually stood up and told the
wheat board here to shove it and GOT THINGS DONE and they nod, and go back to whining for somebody ELSE to do the work to free them from the CWB.
Truth is, the whole myth about the independent westerner is just that, a myth."

I would say it applies equally to the beef sector and in fact to the whole political scene in Alberta....shrug the shoulders and do nothing seems to be the way of the west.

[Raven]

TOM4CWB
You state: "Liberals gave the CWB its life and soul... so liberal judges will not let Conservatives change the CWB... without complete control of Parliament."

But the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal States:

"[49] However, when these amendments were brought, subsection 18(1) was not only preserved but strengthened. Beyond subsection 3.12(2) which sets out the directors’ duty to comply with any direction given pursuant to subsection 18(1), subsection 18(1.2) was added to provide that compliance with a direction is “deemed” to be in the best interest of the Wheat Board.

[50] it becomes clear that subsection 18(1) was intended to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to direct the Wheat Board on any matter of governance"

So who is right? TOM4CWB or the Appeal Court endorsed by the Supreme Court?

[Fransisco]

dschill, you do have a point. But its not as easy as one might think. And to a certain extent has already been done a number of times to no avail.

Yes, as others have pointed out apathy rules supreme among western farmers right now. Most would rather work around the board when they have to and otherwise try to ignore it. The Board also has done a masterful job of insulating itself from farmer opinion, buying off the farm press and neutralizing the politicians who could actually do something about the problem.

The vast majority of the federal MP's out west are Conservatives who have promised change. They have been elected a number of times now and still have done nothing even though they have the ability to do all sorts of things. This is where the change must ultimately happen, with the feds in Ottawa. Our guys are already there, but they're sitting on their hands. Which is probably the most frustrating part of this whole mess.

[TOM4CWB]

"endorsed by the Supreme Court"

WHAT?

Where did you get the idea the Supreme Court endorsed this ruling?

The Supreme Court simply did not accept 'Leave to Appeal' in this case.

Just as it did not accept 'Leave to Appeal' in my case; or the Alberta Barley Commission case either.

The right to block the Canadian Wheat Board from spending on public advocacy for its single marketing desk for Prairie wheat and barley... ONLY that was ruled upon... and only by the Federal Court of Appeal.

It should be pointed out... that the CWB thumbs it's collective nose at that ruling every day on radio ads I hear at noon. Even the purchase of the two ships is about the 'single desk' monopoly... as the CWB is stealing money from the pooling accounts that it sells my PPO grain to.

It is obvious to me that just because the Supreme Court decides NOT to hear a case... does not mean more Court cases will be sought in different circumstances... Just as JOHN Husband, Myself, the Government of Canada in numerous cases...; and the Alberta Barley Commission: all lost against the CWB.

It was reinforced in concrete... by these rulings... that the monopoly itself cannot be broken by an order in council to CWB management. This is what you advocate... and the Supreme Court has ruled twice against this if you use your theory...

So then, in the converse, you could say specifically the 'Supreme Court ruled against the ending of the monopoly without Parliament changing the CWB Act.

Which is the interpretation most lawyers will tell you... if you care to ask!

If you challenge this... fine... you can... but you WILL end up in COurt.

Which was my point. Uncertainty and being in COurt both cost BIG time. Except CWB Directors and Managers... who do not personally pay the bill!

Which is why they thumb their nose at the Federal Court of Appeal ruling... and why I do not take them back to court!!!

Chairman Oberg/CWB Directors have no legal obligation... to be ethical or moral in their decisions... in their opinion.

The Ships prove this point... no doubt in my mind.

[bucket]

Fransisco

They are not sitting on their hands. Their hands are being used to pull their heads out of their asses.

[Fransisco]

Yes, that's another way of putting it bucket! LOL

[sumdumguy]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the producers in Saskatchewan actually organized and started their own wheat board. I'd like to see if the current feds would support it - at least in principle.

To really be taken seriously, it seems that some effort needs to be put into firstly starting a new board and then selling the fact that it could work well. Just like the special crops market.

I don't think that the West has really put their heart and effort into a real challenge.

[bucket]

If mission terminal didn't have an interest in all the independant terminals and producer facility it might work. But these are now tied to the boat purchase.

[FarmRanger]

Wd9
Continuing the hitchhikers fan club ..... I liked the
books much better than the movie.

On the 2nd Marguerita of the day. Hola.

Buenos Dias

[wmoebis]

No, what I am saying is non board supporters are more apt to respond to non support sponsored poll and supporters are more apt to respond to a support sponsored poll.

I think any way, I maybe wrong.

[jdepape]

Wmoebis:
Does a "support" based survey include the ones by the CWB? If so, how do you explain how the majority of farmers want marketing freedom on barley, regardless of how the question is asked?

Does your theory mean that an "independent" survey would show even less support for the single desk in barley?

As for questions being layman's language, do you have a problem with this:

Do you support the CWB's purchase of lakers as reported on Feb 8, 2010?

Answer yes, no, or don't know.

What wording would make it easier?

[Raven]

TOM4CWB, you say:

"...the monopoly itself cannot be broken by an order in council to CWB management... and the Supreme Court has ruled twice against this.." [based on refusal to hear.]

Which two cases would that be? As far as I know, the Jackson case was about whether pedigreed seed needed an export licence; the Husband case was about a producer wanting an export licence (which was never appealed to the Supreme Court); The Barley Commission was a Charter challenge of the CWB Act; and the Governments losing attempt to remove barley by regulation was ruled as against the words of the Act. (I don't recall it being appealed to the Supreme Court, but stand to be corrected.)

All monopoly issues, but not about whether or not the Government could order the CWB to do things within the confines of the Act.

[TOM4CWB]

Raven,

Mr. Husbands case had not sought appeal... and let stand... Jackson and Western Barley had sought leave to appeal. Both turned down.

There are a very confusing and a long list of court judgements against proceeding with the issuance of export licenses... by the CWB Minister; without CWB agreement.

Court action would be an assured next step IF the request from the Minister of the CWB came for an exemption of some kind with export licenses.

Reality.

This is what I am trying to point out.

IN COURT.

Cost is great, no solution for some time... while an election could be this spring with a Conservative majority not out of the question.

[Raven]

Thanks, TOM4CWB
I appreciate the discusion. I agree that courts can be costly and slow, but they also can be effective. For example, after the CWB loss to Sommerville in the Supreme Court, (1972) the open domestic feed market has been of great benefit to farmers.

There have since been a lot of losses challenging the CWB, but there has been something to learn from all these cases.
For example, in Jackson, it was made clear that the CWB administers the national licencing Part IV of the act ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Also, it is clear from the court that challenges against the legislation (CWB Act) are futile. (The Sommerville win was based on the application of the legislation)

You state: "There are a very confusing and a long list of court judgements against proceeding with the issuance of export licenses... by the CWB Minister; without CWB agreement."

I can't recall any of such cases so could you name some. I do know that in the 80's, the government ordered the CWB to grant export licences to Ontario farmers without court challenges.