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
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
Comment