Former CWB Directors Apply For Leave To Appear Before Supreme Court of Canada.

[AgrivilleAdmin]

FORMER CWB DIRECTORS APPLY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Media Release
(Forestburg, Alberta) The eight former farmer-elected Directors of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Following the introduction in Parliament by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food of Bill C-18, which removes the CWB's exclusive "Single Desk" marketing authority over wheat and barley grown in western Canada, the Federal Court of Canada declared that the Minister failed to comply with his statutory duty under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to hold a farmer vote prior to introducing the Bill in Parliament. The Minister ignored the declaration and proceeded with the passage of the legislation while at the same time appealing the declaration to the Federal Court of Appeal, which overturned the Federal Court's decision. The former farmer-elected directors filed the application today seeking leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"We believe that this case raises issues that are important to all Canadians and is worthy of careful consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada", said Allen Oberg, farmer and former Chair of the CWB.

In 1998 Parliament passed a law (Section 47.1 of the CWB Act) which crystallized the previous practice, used several times over the years, of letting farmers vote on changes to the marketing mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board. But in 2011 the Minister of Agriculture deliberately ignored Section 47.1, effectively stripping farmers of their democratic right to vote regarding a substantial degradation of the CWB’s marketing abilities.

The changes made by the government in December of 2011 mean that farmers will be taking home a smaller share of the rising world prices.

“A plebiscite of the affected farmers in the summer of 2011 proved that the farmers were not in agreement with the destructive actions of the government, and it is on the behalf of those farmers and other Canadians that believe in honesty, fair play and the rule of law that we are making this application to the Supreme Court of Canada,” concluded Oberg.

[TOM4CWB]

WOW:

"The changes made by the government in December of 2011 mean that farmers will be taking home a smaller share of the rising world prices."

They are talking about 'livestock' farmers with income issues; are they?

Our Families grain farm is certainly been able to access the highest prices ever.

What 'proof' does the application to the Supreme Court... have to back up this statement?

I would sure like to see this proof!

Looks to me that ex dec 2011 cwb grains have HIGHER prices than in the Northern US at the farm. We have lower cost to port... so it is understandable why this should be happening ... more proof the CWB single desk distorted our market lower than it should have been otherwise.

Cheers!

The Sun came up again this morning!

[sddickson]

Maybe the Harper gov. should include special interest group plebiscites on ALL their new bills/laws they put threw ...This would gaurantee NO future government would make any changes to existing laws ...Tie their hands or restrict their ability to run the country so to speek ...
Why not ??? ... Ralphy tried it !

[wilagro]

So what would be the harm IF they were allowed to appear before the SCC?

At least it would clear things up once and for all time. I doubt that things will change but we'll never know if there is no settlement of this issue.

[Fransisco]

My guess is that the supreme court will not bother to hear these clowns arguments. Their case is far to trivial for the supreme court. IMHO

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

It would be just fine with me if Oberg was heard.

The Courts clearly have ruled over and over that the federal parliament is supreme when it comes to 'trade and commerce' legislation... which the CWB squarley was authorised by.

By the way... Trade and Commerce legislation is supposed to encourage trade.... not limit trade like the CWB did under Goodales monopoly.

Before 1992... then the 1995 Goodale CWB regulation (undemocratically enforced to stop grain growers) Order in Council... we were allowed to export ungraded grain... or seed graded with a Seeds Act grade... without the CWB stopping the trade from taking place with their export tax (CWB Buy Back).

Will going through all this again prove anything?

Will it help us heal and build a better Canada?

Cheers!

[Choice2U]

I sure wonder who is paying the legal bill for these 8 losers. Heard Stewie on the radio say that they have 4 different lawyers working on this. I bet they are getting it from the Occupy movement...oh, wait...none of them have a job so that couldn't be it. Assumption...none of them took their paid holidays to attend the movements.

[sddickson]

Wilagro

This is not a constitional case or human rights issue.
It's simply a case of 8 fired directors full of animosity wanting to impose their fairy tale beliefs on their neighbours.
The Supreme Court of Canada won't here a case based on fairy tales.
It would be like pissing on parliaments athority to govern Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada ? ...I don't think so.

[Burbert]

The last time I CHECKED, our Comedia was a
free country, with DUE PROCESS, not a
dicktatorship! Losing freedom, because of
a nationalization process, does not sit
well with many Comedian framers,
obviously.

[TOM4CWB]

sd*****on,

NEVER say never. High priced lawyers have the nack of finding a way to stay busy!

I believe the way the CWB Act change was done... was correct. Goodale put the 97.1 clause in to stop Govenor in Council orders to end the 'single desk' that didn't require approval of the commons and the senate.

It is sad the first judgement was so far off track... but then Liberal judges do like to plow ground... no matter how crooked the furrow is!

Interesting debate in the US on this issue!


"Scalia wages war of words with federal appeals judge in Chicago"

Public spat between 2 legal 'titans' not surprising to some experts
September 19, 2012|By Annie Sweeney, Chicago Tribune reporter

In a book review, Appellate Court Judge Richard Posner accused a U.S. Supreme Court justice of deviating from his own strict, text-based approach to interpreting law when he struck down a District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. (Abel Uribe, Chicago Tribune)

They are considered two of the foremost legal thinkers in the country. They've both worked at a university devoted to rigorous discourse and have taken strong, if contrasting, theoretical positions on the law.

So it wasn't a complete surprise to some Tuesday that Richard Posner, a longtime federal appeals court judge in Chicago, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia find themselves in the middle of an intense, public debate, a day after Scalia publicly accused Posner of lying in a book review.

"I don't believe the way to regard this is a fight," said Northwestern University law professor John McGinniss. "The way to regard this is as a struggle between these very strong proponents of two theories."

McGinniss, who teaches constitutional law, called both men legal "titans" who, unlike many other judges, have developed comprehensive theories of jurisprudence and are dedicated to writing about it just as university scholars are.

"They are both academics," he said. "They both have comprehensive theories that are incompatible that are struggling for supremacy."

Posner, experts said, is often described as espousing a pragmatic theory grounded in economics. His opinions discuss the business or financial implications of the case or explain how his decision makes sense in the marketplace.

Scalia's approach to the law is described as "textual originalism," which holds that judges should adhere strictly to the text of laws and give them the meaning understood by the people who adopted them. Laws do not change in meaning over time, adherents contend.

But they share one trait, Chicago appellate attorney Michael Rathsack said in an email: "They both are very certain they are correct."

Scalia's book on textual originalism, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," co-written with Bryan A. Garner, touched off the legal tit for tat.

In the review of the book in The New Republic, Posner accused Scalia of deviating from his own strict, text-based approach to interpreting law when he struck down a District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008 by considering the legislative history behind the law.

Scalia, speaking Monday night to Reuters about the book, lobbed a sharp retort.

"To say that I used legislative history is simply, to put it bluntly, a lie," Scalia said in an interview with Reuters Editor-in-Chief Stephen Adler.

The book is published by West, a unit of Thomson Reuters.

Posner declined to comment through a spokesman at the University of Chicago Law School, where he serves on the faculty, as Scalia did from 1977 to 1982. Garner, when reached Tuesday, repeated the concerns over Posner's review — but also struck a conciliatory note.

"The allegations Judge Posner made in his review about our use of cases are matters of fact, not of opinion," he said. "And as matters of fact, it is very easy for people to ascertain the truth. … I have long considered Judge Posner a friend. And I can only hope that he feels the same way."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/news/ct-met-posner-scalia-scuffle-20120919_1_textual-originalism-scalia-interpretation-of-legal-texts

Sooo we need a little drama in the Canadian system from time to time...

Cheers!

[TOM4CWB]

"Goodale put the 97.1 " correction: should have been 47.1.