CWB Fighting DA Farmers for Pooled Money

[parsley]

The CWB should be on the sides of farmers on this one, but they are not.

From the Court Docket online:

Regina

September/Septembre 2005

T-215-02 RENOVA HOLDINGS LTD. ET AL v. THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ET AL
(M-English) / (R-Anglais)
Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]
Autres - Couronne (c. Reine) [Actions] 28 09:30 2h

DA farmers took the CWB to court because the Federal Government is supposed to be paying for ALL, and I mean ALL, national licensing costs.

That includes the costs of DA licensing.

That is what the Act demands.

Instead, the CWB has been stealing money from your pooling accounts to pay for national licensing costs.

(The Government would rather the farmers pay this cost, too.)

Wouldn't you guys like more cash put back in your pooling accounts? Why isn't the CWB on the farmers' side here?

Parsley

[parsley]

Yesterday, the CWB argued that the Court should not hear Western Farmers' actions against the CWB.

When this court action was first launched, the CWB put through a motion to dismiss it, but in an almost scathing reply to the Wheat Board's dismissal motion, the Court sided with the farmers. This day was the Board appealing that decision.

The Farmers' positon was that the Federal Government should pay for national licensing costs.

The CWB position was that the farmers have no right to challenge the Board and that the Board has no feduciary duty to the Board. That is also what they pleaded in the Jake Hoeppner's MJ case.


Counsel for the CWB, Brian Hay, could not disagree with the farmers' legal facts.The judge repeatdly queried Hay about the difference between discretionary vs mandatory requirements in the Act but Hay never came up with an answer.

The farmers await the appeal decision to see if the case proceeds.

The CWB wants farmers instead of the Government to pay licensing costs for every exporter even though the CWB Act requires the Federal Government to pay these costs.

Parsley

[wedino]

Thanks for keeping us informed on this, Parsley. I'm surprised Vader isn't "Flaman" you on this thread.

[parsley]

I'm not surprised at all wedino.

Ideally, Court cases are supposed to deal with facts.

One interesting note about the Courtcase in Regina this week:

The CWB's Brian Hay insisted that this Licensing Cost issue should be handled through a judicial review process, instead of a producer action that was in play, and that a judicial review process was previously done in an Alberta vs CWB case.

The Farmers'lawyer, Merchant Law Group, reminded the court that when the Alberta Government attempted a Judicial review, that the Court threw it out saying it should be FARMERS bringing this courtcase forward.

And here was a group of farmers!

The CWB argument looked inadequate, to say the least.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

The CWB tells us that the purpose of the Corporation is to "Maximise" Returns to western grain Canadian farmers.

I understand that National licensing costs have been claimed by CWB legal council as a "discretionary" expense of the CWB...

Even though the CWB Act requires the Gov. of Canada to pay for licensing and not the pool accounts.

Where are the CWB Board of Directors on this issue?

Silence, defening Silence.

Why is the "feduciary duty of care" of the CWB to the Liberals and the CWB minister; and not to grain farmers in western Canada?

Why would any western Canadian grain farmer believe for a second that the CWB is here to "maximise returns" when the actions of all management taken are in the exact opposite direction?

[parsley]

Maybe the CWB tells FARMERS that "the purpose of the Corporation is to "Maximise" Returns to western grain Canadian farmers",

BUT

The CWB told the COURT in the MJ Farms case that CWB does not have any duty of care to farmers.

What they tell the court and what they tell farmers is not the same.

Parsley