In a COURT of LAW in 2003 - the CWB states that they are only accountable to Parliament

[Incognito]

Who is lying today?

Measner, Ritter?

Who lied in 2003?

The Courts? The lawyers for the CWB?

Who signed this in 2003?

Measner? Ritter?

It did not say the CWB is accountable to the bylaws or the Act or farmers.

In a court of law, the CWB stated it was accountable only to Parliament.

____________________________________


Date: 20050317


Docket: T-215-02


Citation: 2005 FC 386



BETWEEN:


RENOVA HOLDINGS LTD., JOHN JACKSON,

DAVE BOUCHARD, and RON DUFFY each on

their own behalf and on behalf of all persons who have been

producers or are producers and do reside or have resided

in the designated area between July 5, 1935 and the present day


Plaintiffs


and



THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Defendants



REASONS FOR ORDER


HARGRAVE P.



[1]The Statement of Claim in this action is in the form of a representative action in which the Plaintiffs, wheat producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River District of British Columbia, referred to as the "designated area", claim against the Canadian Wheat Board (the "Board") and the Attorney General of Canada for improper use of pooled funds from the sale of grain produced by the Plaintiffs in the designated area. The motion giving rise to these reasons seeks to strike out the Statement of Claim either in whole or as to the Attorney General. I turn first to some relevant background.



BACKGROUND


[3] The Defendants seek to strike out the Statement of Claim on the basis that the Board is accountable only to Parliament and that neither the Board nor the Crown owe any duty to or are accountable to the Plaintiffs as producers of wheat. Thus, submit the Defendants, there is no cause of action or, alternatively, there is no cause of action against the Attorney General of Canada who should, in the view of the Defendants, be struck out as a Defendant.
______________________________________

This whole thing is a joke.

The last time farmers were lied to in this magnitude was when they were told the CROW rate couldn't be changed.

Does perpetuity ring any bells?

[Incognito]

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/judicial/pdf/affidavit_ameasner.pdf

3. Controlled by western Canadian farmers


13. In 1998, the Board assumed overall responsibility to direct and manage the affairs of the CWB

14. Since the ammendments to the Act in 1998, the Board has been directly accountable to the farmers it serves.

[peaqueen]

Pick the lie today:
1/ From the Federal Court: Statement by the CWB
"the Board is accountable only to Parliament and that neither the Board nor the Crown owe any duty to or are accountable to the Plaintiffs as producers of wheat. Thus, submit the Defendants, there is no cause of action or, alternatively, there is no cause of action against the Attorney General of Canada who should, in the view of the Defendants, be struck out as a Defendant."

2/ The statement taken from the CWB web page:
Myth:
The Canadian Wheat Board is a government agency.
Fact
The CWB is a marketing organization. It is governed by a board of directors, made up of a majority of elected farmers. As well, all CWB operating costs are paid by farmers.
Or
#3 The latest statment of the Chairman:
Ritters response: The CWB is not an agent of the government," said Ritter. "It is not a Crown corporation."
Surely their must be a few more.
In this game of pick the lie it is best to have multiple choice options.
This could ge the model for a great game: pick the lie today.

[peaqueen]

Pick the lie today! Is not limited to the definitions listed above.

Welcome players please feel free to add your definition! ...

[peaqueen]

heres another one too add:

4/ Dion on the National news:
It is really de
Canada Wheat Board

[parsley]

Look at page 5 of Adrian Measner's affadavidt:

Measner says:

"15. On a day to day basis, the federal government has no involvement in the CWB's activities and everything that the CWB does is directed towards adding value for farmers."

Measner doesn't tell the truth.


Just as important as regional marketing in the West is, the other just as important function of the CWB is national licensing.

Every load of grain moving interprovincially or for export is SUBJECT to CWB licensing.

Every load of flour leaving Canada is subject to CWB licensing.

Ask Measner and Ritter how providing EMFA licenses to all the feed mills that export,(at the Western farmers' expense) and all the while bypassing CWB pooling and marketing, is ADDING VALUE FOR FARMERS.

Parsley

[peaqueen]

I just spoke to neighbour who had just returned from Ontatio where he attended a conference.

An Ontario farmer was telling him about selling his durum for 7$ a bushel this past year.

Needless to say we know this can only happen in Ontartio, and would have nothing to do with having a dual market. He said the Saskatchewan durum growers just about lost their teeth their mouths were so open.

It makes you kind of sad to think that pasta plant did not get built in Southern Saskatchewan!

Oh and speaking of another lie:
We cannot have a dual market in Western Canada, only in Ontario.

And here is another one:
If we lose the monopoly, we can never get it back.

Dion says we can, who is right?

[TOM4CWB]

Peaqueen,

We have a dual market in pork right now.

And in Dry Beans in southern Alberta.

There are many examples. Profitable well managed pools that are good for everyone held together by simple production contracting.

But why would the CWB want to work for our business... when Goodale let them have the grain without having to work for it!

[peaqueen]

Now, TOM 4 goodness sake you know that you are defying another CWB myth with this suggestion:
The CWB cannot survive unless it has monopoly.

Goodness sake.

[peaqueen]

I agree
And here lies another myth, or is it a lie:
The CWB cannot survive unless it has a monopoly.