Barley Challenge argument

[wilagro]

adamsmith: For your information, I DIDN'T WRITE THE ARTICLE..I just passed on a link. If the CWB challenge wins out then THEY will have some answers for YOU and charliep.

It is nice to get all sides of the argument/situation. A different perspective is needed if we are to be assured that our own is the correct one to support.

In the meantime, watch out for the big black clouds with the nice white hailstones which have caused some premature harvesting in some parts of Sask. and AB already.

[Lifer]

What I found interesting is going to the gloden lake institute's website http://www.goldenlakeinstitute.ca/index.cfm and reading about the common good frame they as left thinkers strive for.

"Ideologically-driven fight against Board leads to charges government is acting illegally in stripping its powers" does not seem to me as "common good framing" according to their definition.

I don't see the government fighting the board. The government is working towards a stronger farm economy. The board continues to fight the government for a reason that does not suit the common good or the individuals.

[Fransisco]

<b>Ottawa has power to shift barley sales, court told</b>
Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:40 PM EDT

By Jeffrey Jones

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Ottawa can strip barley from the Canadian Wheat Board's sales monopoly without a parliamentary vote because it is only reversing a regulatory move, not changing legislation, the government's lawyer said on Thursday.

The Conservative government is trying to fend off the wheat board's Federal Court challenge to its plan to give Western Canadian barley farmers the choice to sell directly to export buyers and maltsters or through the CWB, starting August 1.

The government has the power under laws governing the board to repeal the inclusion of barley as part of the CWB's responsibility if it is not altering the single-desk regime, Steve Vincent, the lawyer representing the government, told the court on the second day of proceedings.

Barley was added without legislative change in the 1940s and there was no formal shift in rules regarding its inclusion or removal in 1998 amendments to the board governing act, Vincent said.

"The whole history of barley is a regulatory matter," Vincent said.

The board and its supporters hope to stave off the exclusion on Wednesday of barley from the single-desk selling system, a move Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has championed since the Conservatives took power last year.

Federal Justice Dolores Hansen has said both sides expect her decision by Tuesday night.

CWB lawyer John McDougall and attorneys for allied groups argued on Wednesday that the government could not make such a move without a vote in Parliament.

McDougall also said Strahl was wrong when he sought to force the CWB to make sure its communications and promotional material reflected his government's policy, which seeks to end the board's sole rights to sales of western barley and wheat.

Vincent said that argument was not relevant to the case. But he said that the government guarantees the board's operations and that the marketer is "subject to overriding control in a number of areas."

"The Canadian Wheat Board isn't a private shareholder company like IBM that has unfettered power to do what it wants to do," he said.

The CWB has said it cannot compete with private-sector grain firms for barley in an open market because it doesn't own grain-handling facilities.

Its 2.5 million tonnes of barley sales were worth almost C$400 million ($385 million) for the year ended July 31, 2006, accounting for 11 percent of its revenue, which comes mainly from wheat sales.

Canadian barley prices have recently surged to record highs, a jump some have attributed to Strahl's move but others have chalked up to strong demand combined with limited supplies in Europe and Australia.

Strahl has said he wants to make the CWB optional for wheat as well, but has no timetable for that process, which he said would require a vote by farmers and a vote in Parliament.

[Fransisco]

I sat in for the two days of hearings, some times was as fun as watching paint dry but thats life.
Firstly I'd like to ask if SK and MB felt they got their money out of the "Freinds" With in the first 10 minutes A Bruun had giving all his arguments that were revelent to the court - that section 47.1 states any changes to the Act removing a commodity must go to Parliament. For the next 80 minutes he went through all the lefty claims of harrassement, firings, false missleading questions and bluntly the BS the Friends layed out in the WP this week. NOTE THIS HAD NO BARING ON THE CASE AND THE JUDGE NEW THIS AND PAID VERY LITTLE ATTENTION.
McDougall for the CWB tired his best to distance the CWB from the Government showing atomomy - with no responsibility to the Government.
In a previous case before the courts the CWB stated "The board was not and is not responsible to individual producers, rather the board is accountable only to parliament. Therefore, niether the board or the Crown owed any legal duty to the plaintiffs (farmers).
Manitoba's lawyer actually did his job right, he focused on what was at issue, is it sect 47.1 that rules or 47?
Vincent for the feds responded in his arguments to all the bs spread the day before. Did he have to? no, as none of it was revelent to the case and the judge is fully aware of that. But it was good he cleared the air.
The feds and Alberta did an excellent job of dispelling the bs and pointing out that they had the rights as laid out with in the act to do the changes to barley. They learnt from the SWP case back in 93 and Justice Rosstein ruling which pointed out the flaws. With these flaws pointed out, Gooddale still didn't go far enough with the changes in 98 to totally lock up and force anychanges to go through sect 47.1.
In rebuttal to the feds and AB, the CWB once again tried to distance its self from the Government,and got chastised by the Justice as it wasn't needed or revelent. Yet he went ahead with his dribble anyway. A Bruun once again reitterated the bs of false (have your cake and eat it to questions) - once again suggesting farmers don't know how to read or run their business.
As to who was in the gallery, the friends had a good turn out thursday, yet as the average age was 70 most found the proceedings too dry and napped the day away.
So thinking on what Charlie asked, what is the next move for the CWB? if the changes go a head they still - by law - have to market all barley offered to it. And if they win - what are their marketing plans? Will a CWB win reverse and end the Malting companies issue?
Why hasn't the CWB been in the barley market up till now? why couldn't they? if they claim they add value to barley farmers then why haven't they been out there aggressively selling and perhaps offering farmers viable and bankable contracts to sorce the barley?
Now the clock is running, as we wait for one person to rule what is best for barley farmers.
God help her.
Erik

[Fransisco]

If the board actually wins I think they are in even more of a pickle with the maltsters. If they want the barley they will have to pay for it. Now that everyone knows they undersold the market, how many farmers are going to be interested in putting their barley in the pool and taking the usual wait and see attitude? My guess is very few.

[btjadenlepp]

the thing is... the board has been in the new-crop barley market, just at last winter's low prices, not at the recent high prices. nice job. it reminds me of a rumour i heard way back last fall, as the new government was getting established in ottawa, that the cwb was selling new-crop barley as a pre-emptive move against the market opening up. since the continental barley market fell partly due to 'chaos in the marketplace' which stems from a major regulatory change taking place during the period of contracts being open, and which i think it's safe to say we've been witnessing this time around between the maltsters and the cwb, the idea was that selling 07/08 would strengthen their case. who knows if that rumour was true but if there's anything to it, it sure doesn't mesh with the idea of 'maximizing pooled returns'.