CWB losses appeal

[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.

[tipsy]

It seems to me this decision is quite the opposite to the barley growers case ,but yet there are similar parallels between the two cases.Which judge or judges were or are correct.Or is this yet to be determined?

[Fransisco]

I could be wrong but I think the cases are different. When the feds tried to get barley freed up they tried to change the act through regulation, the court said that even though barley was brought into the act through regulation taking it out would need parliamentary legislation.

In this case its about the governments final authority to direct the wheat boards activities.

Had the feds simply ordered the Board to hand out no buyback export licenses for barley instead of trying to change the act they might have been more successful. Having said that, at some point the act does need to be changed otherwise some other government could come in, crank up the buyback and we're back to square one.

[parsley]

fran,

Certainly the CWB cranked up the buyback for organics last year! So, tit for tit, the Feds could order the Board to require seed growers to do the buyback, couldn't they? And the money put into the pool accounts.

That would help pay the contingency fund overdrafts.

Mind you, some the the seed growers might get a little er, testy when they have to fork out their "fair share" to yet more CWB bureaucrats managing the newfound excesses. LOL Pars

[Raven]

Tipsy,
It is the CWB who have tried to fool farmers that both cases (barley/gag)were about who controls the CWB. Their press release when they won the gag case emphasized this: "FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS FARMER CONTROL OF CWB"
"THE RULING UPHOLDS FARMER CONTROL..."
"...FEDERAL COURT HAS ONCE AGAIN REAFFIRMED THAT FARMERS CONTROL THE CWB..."
But this Appeal ruling has really bit them good. And the press release is now "page not available"

Actually, both rulings are based on the courts interpretation of the Act. They ruled that the Act did not allow the removal of barley by regulation but the broad powers of the government certainly allow the gag order.

Certainly the good news for farmers, and bad news for Winnipeg bureaucrats is that the Licencing Part IV of the Act is NATIONAL and clearly gives all the powers to the Government.

Producers need export licences.

[Fransisco]

Exactly, no buyback export licenses.

Here is another question for legal minds.

If the government has the power and authority to direct the board over all activities, and the government decides that barley marketing should be voluntary, and then the CWB board of directors fight the government instead of following the direction, does this mean that the board has been acting illegally?

[Raven]

From reading rulings, it seems clear that everyone must follow the Act, including the government and when the Act authorizes the government to make regulations and give orders, the CWB must comply.

Prior to the Sommerville case in 1972, the CWB acted "illegally" by not allowing producers to cross provincial borders with their own grain. The Supreme Court ruled against the CWB. It has resulted in the open-market for feed grains but I don't know of any "punishment" for administrative bodies who have been interpreting and applying legislation improperly.

[tipsy]

To follow through on the present court ruling then Fran and Raven, if the present p.c. party were to order/grant some form of market freedom,I presume a different goverment(liberal)in the future would/could revert back to confiscating my grain again?

[Fransisco]

I believe that would be the case without legislative change. However I think once producers get a taste of freedom there will be no going back.

That was my experience with hogs. Shortly after we got our freedom in Manitoba an NDP government was elected who had talked about reversing the decision but farmers by then wanted no part of it.

[Raven]

Good question Tipsy, and I agree with Fransisco's answer.

Also, unless the sky falls, the worst that could happen is that we would have a taste of freedom.

If I was in jail, I would not turn down parole, just because it might be reversed.

Once farmers understand that the monopoly is imposed by bureaucrats or government orders and not the Act, I don't think there is any going back.

Also, the CWB has always said that once the monopoly is broken, there is no going back because of NAFTA. Surely no one would believe the CWB is not telling the truth!