CWB losses appeal

[checking]

Why hasn't this been posted on the "News" part of the CWB site? The decision was awarded "with costs". Looks like farmers have lots of money for this crap. Will there be another round on this? - I'd count on it.

[TOM4CWB]

Checking,

Ya think?

The CWB wouldn't be 'promoting' the 'single desk'... they would be 'demoting' the Corp... and going against the pocket books of growers and sucking more money out of the pools... the very issue that started this!

What do you think the Supreme Court of Canada would do with this?!

I say take it out of Ians/Wards salary... if they appeal!

[Fransisco]

Not sure if they'll appeal. Isn't the next step the supreme court? I doubt if they'd even agree to hear the case.

Then again the monopoly fanatics are going to be pushing the Board to fight the ruling.

[Fransisco]

I remember when the monopoly lost the barley plebiscite and then took the government to court for trying to do what farmers wanted and the Board line was all about the rule of law, how the government was not above the rule of law and it was the law that mattered not farmers opinions. Looks like this time it's the board that's been acting illegally. I betcha the line switch's back to bbb,but,but,but farmers want it, sniff, sniff.

[redbaron]

Fransisco here is your answer to the appeal
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090627/wheat_appeal_090627/20090627?hub=Politics

[Fransisco]

Ahh, so they are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Well good luck with that. Like I said before I'd be surprised if the Supreme court would actually agree to it. I don't think it's a serious enough issue to merit their attention.

I had to chuckle at Hill's words here...

"He says the board has not spent farmers' money advocating for retention of the board's marketing monopoly."

That's a good one! I betcha he said it with a straight face and everything.

Here's another

"Hill says the issue at stake with this latest court ruling is ensuring that farmers remain in control of the marketing board."

What this court ruling shows us in spades is that the whole farmer control thing is a sham and has been from day one. Goodales changes made sure that the government is in control. From the ruling...

"subsection 18(1) is very broad. As noted, it authorizes the government, through the auspices of the Governor in Council, to direct the Wheat Board with respect to the full range of activity conducted by the Wheat Board."

and...

" [49] These changes do point to an increased role for the board of directors. However, when these amendments were brought, subsection 18(1) was not only preserved but strengthened. Beyond subsection 3.12(2) which sets out the directors’ duty to comply with any direction given pursuant to subsection 18(1), subsection 18(1.2) was added to provide that compliance with a direction is “deemed” to be in the best interest of the Wheat Board. At the same time, the directors were relieved from liability which could arise from such compliance (subsection 18(1.1))."

The government controls the wheat board and has always had the authority to do so. Hill may believe otherwise and the Board may have even convinced the timid Tories otherwise, but the ruling is crystal clear with regards to the wheat board act. The directors have a duty to comply with direction given from government. Saying 'no' is not an option.

Mr. Harper it's time to deliver on your promise. It's time to order the board to give <b>all</b> farmers no buyback export licenses just like the ones in Ontario and Quebec get.

[Fransisco]

I really don't know how the first judge could have come to the conclusion that the Charter applies to government legislated institutions. The purpose of the Charter is to protect the rights of actual people. How could he not realize that the CWB is not a person?

[liberty]

We're not hearing much on this topic from the pro-CWB folks. Possibly they're still digesting the information, but most likely they're worried that this decision creates a precedent that strengthens the hand of the federal government. I don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion based on what the judgment says.

[liberty]

Hmmm. Another day passes and still no response on this important ruling from the pro-monopoly camp. Mark my words: this is a ground-breaking decision. Why are they giving the federal government the silent treatment?

[Fransisco]

And why are we not hearing anything from the feds either?

When we do I think we're going to find out if they've got any lead left in their pencils.