Wheat Board: one legal adventure too many

[bucket]

I find it odd that the cwb has to ask the government for interim payments (our money) BUT never has to ask the government about these frivilous lawsuits and spending our money on them.

[Raven]

Bucket, It appears the Appeal Court judges in this latest case support your observation when they state at paragraph [53]:

"The authority to deduct corporate expenses from the pools is set out in subsection 33(1) of the Act. None of the expenses listed pertain to advocacy by the Wheat Board on matters of public policy."

Not only does 33(1) list the expenses to be taken from the pool accounts, but section 7(3) refers to costs that are to be paid by the federal government. Its absolutely amazing in the RENOVA case that the CWB fought tooth and nail for farmers to pay for everything. The farmers lost that case but now with this Appeal, it appears that Renova should have been appealled. The judge ignored the Supreme Court rules of interpretation not to make legislation redundant [33(1)] and meaningless [7(3)].

However for now, we should stay focused on the need for export licences for producers. Once you get yours, you are also free of the deductions.

[Fransisco]

This is another one of the big deals from the ruling, the board is constantly sticking it's nose into all sorts of public policy issues. That has to stop. If it continues it looks like it will be doing so illegally.

[cropduster]

With the `big` crop looming on the pairies some of the `government relations` people at least should be axed!!Access to information provides reading of ALL their follies!!