We Won!!!!!!

[Fransisco]

I mean arguments.

[Fransisco]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE81N1A420120224

Manitoba court will not suspend Canada Wheat Board law

Reuters) - A Manitoba court cleared away some of the uncertainty surrounding Western Canada's move to an open grain market on Friday, rejecting a request to suspend a federal law that ends the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing monopoly.

The court case, one of several challenges to Ottawa's decision to scrap the Wheat Board's monopoly, was launched by eight former directors of the CWB who wanted farmers to decide whether to keep the monopoly.

The directors' case, which was heard before the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, had left the grain industry uncertain about the scheduled end of the monopoly in August and whether they should sign contracts with producers.

The judge dismissed the directors' motion and said there would be no injunction to suspend the new law.

"I have concluded that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried," wrote Judge Shane Perlmutter in the 29-page court document.

The Canadian government passed legislation in December ending the CWB's marketing monopoly over Western Canada's wheat and barley for milling or export. Once the law passed, the government took control of the board by removing the eight farmer-elected directors.

The new law allows grain handlers, millers and farmers to sign forward-delivery contracts for 2012 crops.

A Federal Court ruled in December that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz had breached the existing law by not consulting with the Wheat Board or holding a farmer vote before introducing the legislation. Ottawa has appealed that ruling.

That ruling did not kill the bill, but the board's supporters subsequently asked the Manitoba court to strike down the law until another court could decide whether it is valid.

Canada is the top exporter of spring wheat, durum and malting barley, which fell under the CWB monopoly.

The eight directors are still challenging the validity of the new law and two other groups are launching class action suits against Ottawa to recoup damages for farmers from the monopoly's removal.

The case is Court File CI 11-01-75257 before the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, Winnipeg Centre. It is between Allen Oberg, Rod Flaman, Cam Goff, Kyle Korneychuk, John Sandborn, Bill Toews, Stewart Wells and Bill Woods; and the Attorney General of Canada.

[wilagro]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82712435/CWB-injunction-ruling

Here is the ruling.

[Fransisco]

From the judgement,

"...it is my view that s. 47.1 is not addressing the revamping of the
single desk. The wording of s. 47.1 refers to the addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grains from the marketing regime established in Parts III and IV of the CWB Act. The Bill (and the New Act) does not remove a particular type of wheat or barley from the application of Part IV of the CWB Act. As such,
it is my view that s. 47.1 did not apply to the Bill."

[Fransisco]

Then there's this,

"...in my view, the evidence here does not establish irreparable harm."
and that ," There is conflicting evidence regarding the financial benefit of the single desk."

"Given the conflicting evidence, it is far from clear that producers'
incomes will be adversely affected. There is no clear evidence that these plaintiffs are being, for example, put out of business because of the change from the single desk."

and

"I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the plaintiffs will
sustain financial loss without an injunction. I have concluded that the
evidence of irreparable harm is not clear."

[Fransisco]

And this...

" "For the same reasons that I am not persuaded that the plaintiffs would
suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, I am not persuaded that the harm weighs in favour of a public benefit so as to overcome the assumed benefit to the public interest."

"Overall, the plaintiffs articulated concerns regarding the impact of the
New Act on the public interest are at their core financial and financial
loss has not been demonstrated."

[Fransisco]

Here's a juicy one...

"in my view the plaintiffs do not represent all producers, and there are producers who oppose the plaintiffs' position."

and

"In this case, suspending the New Act would affect all producers and others,
some of whom may not share the plaintiffs' view. For the reasons discussed in the balance of convenience above, the equities of depriving this important sector of the public from the New Act weigh against treating this motion as an exemption."

Surprise, surprise, the crazy 8 do not speak for all farmers. Thank-you Judge Perlmutter for pointing out there is actually two sides to this debate.

[Fransisco]

Oh and what was that about violating peoples rights that we've been hearing so much about?

"In my view, the CWB Act is not of a constitutional or quasi-constitutional
nature such as the Canadian Bill of Rights."

Turns out they weren't really real rights after all they were of the manufactured variety.

[parsley]

Farmers can learn from this exercise in futility; an
exercise that is expensive, that divides us, that
detracts us from production; that weakens our
entire industry; that hobbles the enthusiasm of our
successors.

Change 'is'.

Alumni who lament for the good old days of forced
participation will indeed miss their booze n bullshit
week at CWB paid reunions. The rest of us are
relieved to be relieved of their expenses.

The single desk mentality has not been castrated.
make no mistake; indeed it will always exist, but
at least wheat and barley growers are no longer
regulation-tied, and thus forced to feed the single
deskers who view us as their free dinner, our
property theirs', our wheat as belonging to the
common good, that, on the farmgate bottom line,
was no damn good. So, the lesson is : be ever
vigilant.

We have watched a segment of the farm
community slowly develop into the extreme and
ridiculous, much like the Occupy freeloaders
developed, certain they have rights; feeling they
are owed; concluding they are entitled; expecting
someone else to clean up their financial bowel
movements. A sorry lot. So, the lesson is: be ever
vigilant so you dont get stuck with their bills.

Lastly, make it a point to communicate with like-
minds. Who could believe anything the Wheat
Board used to spin? Any farmer or institution, or
government who supports jailing a farmer for
selling any crop he grows, will lie to you, will cheat
you, will decieve you, and we need to tell and
remind each other who they are. It will remind us
who we want to be .The lesson learned is: be ever
vigilant. Pars

[oneoff]

Despite the efforts of misguided souls; this has been a very good day. There were few times in this struggle that anyone ever was sure that the inevitable would ever happen.
Future problems will revolve around managing growth; rather than the sorry prospect of deciding who would be the one to turn the last light off.

[Burbert]

Lets see, the score is one win fer wheatie
bored folks, and one win fer chislers and
marketeers. More Court actions are
forthcoming, relative to law suits, not
just this injunk.......

[cottonpicken]

Guess i have to eat crow on things changing.

One gain that maybe missed by some is our lean
mean killin machine of production and costs,due to
the decades of pain we have had.

I see little competition in front of us.