# Selling out the Canadian Wheat Board...



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Merry x-mas Mr Measner after 32 years you are no longer needed....


> Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has fired the president of the Canadian Wheat Board amid a controversy over the Conservatives' plan to end the agency's monopoly.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/12/19/measner-fired.html


> If western farmers did not support the board, they would not vote for directors that support the single trade desk, Mr. Dion told reporters after meeting with the wheat board officials in Winnipeg on Wednesday morning.
> 
> “We have a democratic process, and the government is jeopardizing this democratic process. It's an additional reason why we must condemn what the government is doing,” Mr. Dion said.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061220.wdion1220/BNStory/Front/home

Here are quick predictions: Quality of product will go down, American multinationals will take over many operations, farmers will be hurt...

Americans have been trying to get CWB shut down for years, Harper is giving GB an early x-mas gift...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

This is more like a last-minute Christmas gift. I think an early Christmas gift would be something perhaps in September. I guess anything before December 25th is technically "early" though. What's this thread about again? Wheat? I think it's more likely a demographic issue: another wheat guy gets fired.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I'm really surprised that AS has an informed opinion on the Wheat Board, since Quebec producers aren't obliged to use the Wheat Board, and I wasn't aware that there was a whole lot of wheat and barley production in Montreal.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Once again AS jumps to default Anti-Harperite mode. Why is it that producers in Eastern Canada can do fine without a Wheat Board but not so for those in the West? Frankly, it's not needed and many farmers out west would like the FREEDOM to do what they want with THEIR crops.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's okay. We can comment on Québec, and he can reference wheat. Welcome to Canada.




PenguinBoy said:


> I'm really surprised that AS has an informed opinion on the Wheat Board, since Quebec producers aren't obliged to use the Wheat Board, and I wasn't aware that there was a whole lot of wheat and barley production in Montreal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This really is good news, and, as HowEver states, a beautiful Christmas gift!

I hope this will be the end of every such agency that attempts to skew price and production through massive intervention. Of course free markets are offensive to some people's sense of "Liberalitarianism."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If some farmers don't want to sell through the Wheat Board, what's the problem (aside from "with us or agin' us" presumptions)? Not letting them is clearly an unreasonable restriction. But we start with where we are...

Procedurally, it seemed like the Cons were trying to get around the rules (they do control their appointment, I was thinking of voting procedures). So either change the relevant Act or follow the rules.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Now if only there was a body that could fire the Canadian Anti-Labour-Women-Environment Board, after their hundreds of days of service. Oh yeah, there is: the electorate.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Worth reading:
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/about/history/


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> That's okay. We can comment on Québec, and he can reference wheat. Welcome to Canada.


I don't have a problem with anyone from anywhere commenting about anything in Canada - I just find it interesting that AS has taken the time to research the situation with the Wheat Board, and formulate an informed opinion on a subject that likely doesn't directly impact him or her.

The other possibility is this is just a partisan "Harpo did this, so it must be bad and we are being sold down the river to Bushco" knee jerk reaction...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A reasonable look at dairy controls would enrage many. Aside from the basic theoretical argument, there is the problem of regressive taxation through controlling the industry. Canada could speak with a much stronger voice for international agriculture subsidy reform if it didn't have to be so hypocritical.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A reasonable look at the rather secure existence of dairy farmers versus the fate of other farmers may indeed be illuminating but I doubt rage would be the result.

Why should farmers lack some of the protections that workers enjoy by way of collective structures.

It's always annoyed me how farmers end up at the mercy of "big food".

Marketing boards even the field a bit.

Given the hypocrisy of the US, Europe and Japan....it's least we can provide.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If a farmer doesn't want to join the club, what's the problem? After all, it's for "them" so they should gladly volunteer.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Age old question with unions as well.

I know how about we have the farmers vote themselves an organization or not.

Do you think I can NOT join the taxed club ?  - may I opt out please?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Three cheers for the Conservatives allowing western producers of grain to determine their own fate, even if just on barley. Some "suits" in eastern Canada controlling their destiny for years is just plain wrong and designed to benefit those in power at the CWB. That power belongs in the hands of producers and I hope they vote for free enterprise. I can only wonder how wholesalers of say, Apple computers would feel if a board existed to control who they sold to and how much they received for their product.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe all businesses should be forced by government to sell as one until they argue their case to do otherwise. Presumption of control instead of freedom. 

After all, we're all in one country so why not be forced into a collective in more aspects? 

The end result for this is obvious (see AB farmers being arrested for selling their own produce), but the procedure is not, at least to me. I don't know the relevant laws well enough.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

let's recall how the Alberta beef ranchers suffered under BSE while the beef packers didn't reduce the price a the grocery store

so the ranchers took the loss and the packers took the profits
that's why we need a wheat board 
to protect farmers from unscrupulous middlemen who don't care about anyone but their own profits


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Price reductions did occur, but not for all cuts. I recall significant reductions for ground beef and some steaks. The distinction had to do with which cuts generally went to which markets. Governments very poorly designed programs that essentially shoved more cattle in slaughter houses resulting in obvious reductions in cattle value. Poorly designed bailout.

Besides which, that's not what the wheat board does. 

And, if a farmer chooses not to be "protected", even given a misread of the situation as you have, why should their choice be taken away? Ones that want protection can easily sell together. It's the presumption that all Must that is the problem. Most small business people/entrepreneurs should be lobbying for this type of control over their industry, despite the basic weakness of "most" not making a case for removal or freedom.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> The other possibility is this is just a partisan "Harpo did this, so it must be bad and we are being sold down the river to Bushco" knee jerk reaction...


Does AS do this? :lmao:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Merry x-mas Mr Measner after 32 years you are no longer needed....


After 32 years you think somebody would be smart enough to not hold a press conference with the leader of the opposition. Pretty much seals your fate.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Does AS do this? :lmao:


Surely not!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Three cheers for the Conservatives allowing western producers of grain to determine their own fate, even if just on barley. Some "suits" in eastern Canada controlling their destiny for years is just plain wrong and designed to benefit those in power at the CWB. That power belongs in the hands of producers and I hope they vote for free enterprise. I can only wonder how wholesalers of say, Apple computers would feel if a board existed to control who they sold to and how much they received for their product.


So SINC, care to expand on the make-up of the CWB? How many Westerners versus the suits you are talking about? 

VD, you are crying that other political parties are not being nice with Harper yet applaud this clearly partisan move on the Harper government without seeming to understand the role of the CWB…. 

Yes the CWB is a monopsony and has served Canadian farmers very well. It’s a democratically elected board of directors with a few appointed officers. Wheat is Canada’s largest crop and is about 20% of the world market – something that is in part due to the CWB.

In the 20s and 30s farmers rallied for this kind of board as they rarely benefited from their production. 

The CWB obtains the best price it can for the farmers. Some object to “single desk selling”, “price pooling” and a healthy government guarantee but overall it’s been benefial to farmers (from the contracts signed with suppliers to lower interest loans).

Now over 95% of wheat is produced out West, some still object that Ontario (the East) are not subject to the CWB. 

Critics of the CWB seem to center around “Buy-back” licenses, the monopoly perception and the price pooling. The farmers are giving conflicting messages about the board.

Externally, some have argued that unfair board. The Americans in particular have challenged under NAFTA the board. As with the softwood lumber dispute, Canada has won the majority of disputes….

The CWB does work in the free market getting the best price for over 80 000 farmers. Harper is taking the first steps to get rid of that and please the big agrocon firms…


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Price reductions did occur, but not for all cuts. I recall significant reductions for ground beef and some steaks. The distinction had to do with which cuts generally went to which markets. Governments very poorly designed programs that essentially shoved more cattle in slaughter houses resulting in obvious reductions in cattle value. Poorly designed bailout.


I'm looking for the Quebec gov report that basically said that there were very little in terms of price reduction but the meat packers made greater profits.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Beej - aren't you a union member?? Can you "opt out"??

Dairy farmers seem rather a stable bunch and a successful industry over time.

••••

and THIS from those that call Canada Canuckistan

quite the read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2006/07/10/LI2006071000403.html

Here the stories covered in this extensive series



> Stories
> 
> Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm (July 2, 2006)
> Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Year (July 3, 2006)
> ...


cue sounds of pigs at trough.









Japan and Europe are worse.


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 13, 2005)

Well Seeing as I'm the only Farmer I know that posts here, I'll just say DEATH TO THE WHEAT BOARD!!!!! My father, brother and myself all farm and live in south west Manitoba. I can count one one hand the farms I know that like the CWB. Guess who pay everyones wage at the CWB... thats right the farmer. I have said it before and I'll say it again "If the CWB is such a great deal for farmers would still use it even if we didn't have to." Remember they don't want to shut the CWB down they just want to give us a choice.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah there's a voice that really counts :clap:

I'm interested in what you think of some of the nonsense listed in the Washington Post articles??

if you get a chance to have a quick look.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So SINC, care to expand on the make-up of the CWB? How many Westerners versus the suits you are talking about?


So tell me, do you think it is western Canadian farmers who are the ones having themselves arrested for trying to sell their wheat outside the board? Not likely, slim and none are the answers to that question. See Mad Mac's post from someone who really knows.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Dairy farmers seem rather a stable bunch and a successful industry over time.


Dairy is a heavily regulated industry that extracts extra money from consumers in what acts as a relatively regressive tax (on food staples). 

They are also protected by quotas, followed by extremely high tariffs. Canada's negotiations for lower agri-subsidies ring hypocritical because we won't touch the dairy fortress.

Any industry can be successful and stable if government bans international competition and lets them set their prices. It isn't good for consumers or the economy, but it does make for powerful political opponents.

The CWB functioning like a union for businesses is what's wrong. How many small business owners are out there lobbying to be forced to sell together by government?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm looking for the Quebec gov report that basically said that there were very little in terms of price reduction but the meat packers made greater profits.


Price reductions in Alberta were quite noticeable. Maybe they didn't reach out east. Canada's cattle industry was sized for large numbers of exports so, when the border closed on it, cattle prices naturally dropped a lot. The packing industry could benefit from this (those that didn't shut down) due to having cheaper inputs. That's why bailout packages, if poorly designed to push more cattle to market, would make things worse. 

Regardless, that's not the primary function of the wheat board. If our wheat couldn't be sold into its key export markets, the price would still plummet and there would be a clamour for help. 

And, simply pointing out that there can be benefits from forcing people to fall in line is not a good argument. Why stop at the CWB? If we all got one type of car, it would be much cheaper and easier to set emissions standards. Same for many consumer goods, and things Canada sells. At least, that's the "case".

Getting rid of these sorts of things is extremely difficult because the majority is tapping into the power they get over the minority. Why would they give that up? There needs to be widespread discontent or, better yet, an honest look at why any farmer should have such rights over any other farmer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Crossing the border from Onatrio into New York state I was actually shocked by the low milk prices there. About half the price last time I checked. Ontario's dairy farmers achieve "stability" by getting Ontario consumers to pay twice as much for milk as they need to. Neat trick.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Crossing the border from Onatrio into New York state I was actually shocked by the low milk prices there. About half the price last time I checked. Ontario's dairy farmers achieve "stability" by getting Ontario consumers to pay twice as much for milk as they need to. Neat trick.


The Dairy guys did a great study some years back showing how competitive they were. The methodology was suspect (e.g. convenience stores versus supermarkets) but, even if their claims were actually true, then what's the protective shell for? :lmao: 

Another sign is that the quota licenses are worth a lot of money. They're actually major family/business assets. A clear sign of overcharging. Massive tariffs on imports (cheese, particularly) are another sign...they need the protective shell.

If Canada came to the negotiating table with a much more open system on offer, we could help push other nations to act to reduce massive subsidies and trade manipulation in what has been repeatedly identified as a major component of "the system" holding back Africa.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose it needs to be mentioned here again, just because the marketing boards have done such good PR for themselves. Under the quota system, you have no incentive to produce more than your farm's quota of milk, to expand your dairy farm or to modernize equipment in hope of becoming more productive. You just produce the same puddle of milk every year, as efficiently or inefficiently as you choose to, knowing that supply has to be kept down in order to artificially prop up the price of milk. Much of the "stability" of the industry is the result of allowing the least efficient dairy farmers to remain in business, when in any other circumstance they would have been driven out years ago. The consumer pays twice the price the milk is worth to achieve this miracle.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, the role of the CWB is not that of Dairy Boards. 
Milk prices are one difference between the US and Canada but you fail to look at the Quality of the product, the amount of garbage in US milk (I'm sure that all the hormones in there is a great way for teen boys to grow breasts - or was that American chicken?) and by how much $$$ they receive in funding. 
While you are at it, look at meat production in the US and Canada - they are marked differences and on the whole, I much prefer the Canadian way. 

While your miracle "scenario" is amusing, you fail to take into account the massive hand the US gov has with regards to the subsidies it gives. So in your neocon wet dream of a totally open market, I’d have a real hard look at the facts before spouting out nonsense. 

A simple Google search will reveal how much the US government is helping US farmers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah just read the Washington Post series to see the "free world market leader" at its hypocritical best.

I don;t find dairy outrageously priced and if it means farmers having a decent living then so be it.
"Efficiency" is not a end itself. A decent society IS.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I wonder Mad Mac if you could explain how if so many farmers want to dismantle the CWB, they only managed to elect two out of the ten producers on the CWB's board? And one out of five in the most recent election earlier this month? (And this was after the Tories changed the rules to allow farmers, who hadn't sold to the board in the past 15 months, to vote.)

I have heard and read that the overwhelming majority of Western Canada's 85,000 grain farmers are pro-board. The only anti-board organization (that I know of), the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association only has 1,000 members.

I think we'll see another real indication of where Manitoba grain farmers stand after they vote in January. The vote will be used by the provincial gov't to decide its stand on the single-desk system.

The rationale behind the all-in policy is so that the board doesn't become a buyer of last resort with farmers dumping their grain sales on the board in bad years and elsewhere in good years. When the CWB was founded membership was optional, and this is what many farmers did. The result was the CWB couldn't offer buyers any supply security during good times, and during bad times suffered massive losses, required by law to buy grain it couldn't sell. The taxpayer ended up paying the bill.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Efficiency does not preclude decency. If you want to support dairy farmers beyond the value of their goods, send them a cheque. Or better yet, let's just increase the price of all goods by 50% over their value--then everyone will live "decently." Oh wait, that doesn't work does it??!!

And no AS I don't support farm subsidies anywhere, Canada or the U.S. I have no problem with the wheat board except for its power to coerce people to take part in their scheme. As an organization where producers were free to enter or leave the co-op I would have no problem with it, even if every wheat farmer was convinced to join without coercion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Time to use another line of argument then MF, no?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Brainstrained said:


> The rationale behind the all-in policy is so that the board doesn't become a buyer of last resort with farmers dumping their grain sales on the board in bad years and elsewhere in good years. When the CWB was founded membership was optional, and this is what many farmers did. The result was the CWB couldn't offer buyers any supply security during good times, and during bad times suffered massive losses, required by law to buy grain it couldn't sell. The taxpayer ended up paying the bill.


That's somewhat of a red herring. A "free" CWB would require multi-year contracts to join the pool. Anyone trying to sell to them at the last minute would get a last-minute price. There's no reason to force CWB to be a mandatory buyer anymore than there is to force farmers to be sellers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Time to use another line of argument then MF, no?


No.


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 13, 2005)

I never said we want to dismantel the board, I said we want a chioce. Many farmer don't use the wheat board. They do this by selling to other farmers and or Canadian feed mills. I don't get a vote in the CWB because I won't use them. Same with the Manitoba vote. You have to look at all farmer not just the ones that use the board. Even if we went dual market and 30% of sales left the CWB don't you think they could still carry on?


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

Hoping that the timing of the next election takes the whole question well away from Messrs. Harper and Strahl myself. I grew up in the prairies, and my family still keeps an eye on things out there.

Here's some fodder for thought: I read a piece in the *Toronto Star* today on the Wheat Board situation and its history. Arthur Meighan actually did what Harper and Strahl are trying in 1920. It -- and other errors -- blew up in the face of his re-election hopes the next year, and fifteen years later his successor as PM, R.B. Bennett undid Meighan's "reparation" of an "affront to free enterprise". Both Meighan and Bennett were about as pro-business then as Harper is today, and even "Iron Heel" Bennett knew better than to mess with something that made sense.

Sidenote: an Op-ed cartoon from 1930 was included with that opinion piece that sums up the whole CWB argument today in as equally succinct fashion as it did over 75 years ago: ride in the CWB boat or swim with the "free enterprise" sharks.

And hope you don't get eaten.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Here's a great critique of the CON policy from a farmer in Alberta. There is dissenting opinion in the CON homeland. 

The Destruction of Canada`s Family Farm. 

Read the article at

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28118


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The author does not represent the view of an average western farmer. As for his disappearance of the family farm fairy tale, that has already happened. Quarter section farms like those who supported my grandfather and my father-in-law and their families have long since disappeared. Farm sizes are now commonly three to six sections in size and are considered mega-business, not family farms. The few pockets of farms like his, hacked out of bush country with short growing seasons, homesteaded in the 60s cannot be compared to those that were homesteaded in the real wheat belt on the open prairie in 1900 to 1920 when the vast majority of family farms began. All those former family farms have been swallowed up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wasn't there a vote where dropping the CWB was rejected?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed, SINC. This is just like bemoaning people who can't compete at spinning wool. A few may survive, but policy shouldn't be built around preserving the final survivors of the family wool-spinning business. There's nothing innately superior, either economically or morally, about the family nature of the failed business.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no one really cares about what your beliefs about free market is. Once again.

I think it's up to the farmers themselves. Simple. Let them vote on what they feel is best. Why should the government decide what's best for them?

That is, after all, what you decry daily isn't it?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm not following this too closely, but it's my understanding that the CWB is not being eliminated, just their monopoly is. Someone set me straight on this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I'm not following this too closely, but it's my understanding that the CWB is not being eliminated, just their monopoly is. Someone set me straight on this.


that was my understanding as well.

But my challenge still stands.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> I'm not following this too closely, but it's my understanding that the CWB is not being eliminated, just their monopoly is. Someone set me straight on this.


Exactly. Boo-hooo! Bawwwwwww! The CWB will have to compete with independent farmers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Okay then, because Jimbo's linked article reads like a doomsday scenario. So those farmers that prefer to sell through the CWB will remain free to sell through them, but also have the option to sell independently. Sounds like a win/win to me, provided the CWB is globally competitive. I'm all for preserving the independent (family) farmer and I think those who manage well will survive this.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> The author does not represent the view of an average western farmer.


so why not let them vote on it??




kps said:


> I'm not following this too closely, but it's my understanding that the CWB is not being eliminated, just their monopoly is. Someone set me straight on this.


if you take away the monopoly you kill the *entire point* of the CWB. if farmers can come and leave as they please then when prices are high they won't use it, but when prices are low they will rush back to the CWB to raise their bottom line. The way the CWB works is they pool everyone together to level off the highs and lows.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> Okay then, because Jimbo's linked article reads like a doomsday scenario. *So those farmers that prefer to sell through the CWB will remain free to sell through them, but also have the option to sell independently. Sounds like a win/win* to me, provided the CWB is globally competitive. I'm all for preserving the independent (family) farmer and I think those who manage well will survive this.


Exactly, except for those who wish to maintain an outdated paradigm (monopoly) which in any other business context would be considered to be anti-competitive and found to be an illegal practice. 

It is actually ironic that those who cry that the government's breaking of the Wheat Board's monopoly is anti-democratic when the very body they support is based on an anti-democratic principle.

Here is a great article that makes significant points:

Parliament can change law



> The Federal Court has decided the government's legislation making changes to the Canadian Wheat Board is an "affront to the rule of law." This is a serious finding, but it was not an inevitable conclusion. It required the court to give weight to a particular interpretation of another law, and to decide that what Parliament meant to say isn't precisely what it did say.
> 
> What Parliament did say, in Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, added in 1998, is that no government can add or subtract any particular kind of grain to the wheat board's mandate without consulting the board, and getting a favourable vote from farmers in a "voting process ... determined by the Minister."
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> so why not let them vote on it??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've asked several times, but they always refuse to answer this very simple question.

It isn't up to me to decide whether the CWB's monopoly should stay or go. In fact I don't have an opinion either way, how could I?

I'm simply suggesting that farmers be allowed to choose on their own without the government doing the nanny state thing and telling them what;s good for them.

There's some irony for you right there if you ask me.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> . The way the CWB works is they pool everyone together to level off the highs and lows.


As in world prices? So the CWB subsidizes the price when the world price goes down by paying a fixed price for the grain even when prices rise?. Then what's the difference if the farmers manage this on their own? I would think a bigger advantage in "pooling" would be to gain some advantage in transportation costs and other logistics...especially when selling overseas.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems to me a vote by the stakeholders as the present law contemplates would be an excellent method to determine the position of the farmers. Not a bunch of people expressing opinions on the Internet or the politicians in Ottawa.

Secondly it seems the present government is big on law and order except when it comes to obeying the law themselves. 

Thirdly the present minister has been found to have violated the present law, not to say the law couldn't be changed, but the Conservative Government have screwed up once again, in their zealous and clumsy attempts, to have their ideological agenda implemented as quickly as possible.

Governing solely for the base and not the general population IMO is not a good long term strategy, but we shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Still no word on letting the farmers decide, vs nanny state.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Eastern Farmers Join CWB!



> Herb Sniffor, from Grasslands Ontario stated "We are in total unity with our western brothers who are being forced by the government to have choice in wheat marketing. The only people who should have choice are women, not farmers." He also stated that "Even though Ontario and Quebec farmers are used to being able to sell their wheat to anyone they want, without the threat of jail, they welcome the restrictions of the CWB because they are tired of having to look after themselves, and they welcome with open arms the chance to be ruled by the CWB."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The people buying the bloody grain are also stakeholders--represented by the federal government.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Eastern Farmers Join CWB!


old joke.

still no comment on simply letting farmers decide instead of the government.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I just got one question.

How did central & eastern Canadian farmers manage to make it all these years against the ruthless free market and the monopoly of the western Canadian-only CWB?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

dont skirt around the question.

As I said, I don't have an opinion on this. I say, let the farmers decide. Not the government. Funny how this never seems to be addressed.

Nanny states when it's convenient.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> dont skirt around the question.
> 
> As I said, I don't have an opinion on this. I say, let the farmers decide. Not the government. Funny how this never seems to be addressed.
> 
> Nanny states when it's convenient.


I'm not skirting any question. I asked one of my own, an open one, directed at anybody who cares to answer. Am I not allowed or is that some sort of new Progressive ehMac policy?

If a response is required to participate in this thread, so be it. The federal gov't (of any stripe) rarely questions anybody pertinent to the argument before making a decision. For instance, they certainly didn't send out a questionnaire prior to introducing the long gun registry. Why should they suddenly start now? 

That being said, do I believe the farmers' opinions should ultimately influence the decision? Absolutely. However, 56% of farmers responding to MNP's question is no more a ringing endorsement (one way or the other) than the same numbers applied to an election, especially when you see that of the 56%, only 61% & 51% voted for the question.

Interestingly, I see that the ON/PQ only (ironic in itself) CWB ads are having their intended effect. 

Of the few local farmers (say a dozen or so) I've talked to about this, about 2/3 want to eliminate the CWB.

Does that satisfy your demand?

If you don't have an opinion, then why are you here? Merely to stir the pot? To further your endeavours to castigate the Conservatives?

Jeezuz, groove, hit the local, have a pint, maybe jam a little, enjoy life some instead of being bitter all your life...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> The federal gov't (of any stripe) rarely questions anybody pertinent to the argument before making a decision. For instance, they certainly didn't send out a questionnaire prior to introducing the long gun registry. *Why should they suddenly start now?* .


because it's the law?

it just seems pretty basic. The wheat board act requires a vote by the farmers to dismantle it's monopoly. The courts agree. If the majority of farmers are against it as you want to paint it, why not have the vote?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> As in world prices? So the CWB subsidizes the price when the world price goes down by paying a fixed price for the grain even when prices rise?.


no, i don't think the CWB "subsidizes" anything. They simply use the power of a monopoly to leverage their price to the benefit of all the farmers. When prices are high they might not be able to get the very best price because they represent so many farmers and have to move a lot of wheat, but when prices are low they are a single entity and canadian farmers don't end up undercutting each others prices.




kps said:


> I would think a bigger advantage in "pooling" would be to gain some advantage in transportation costs and other logistics...especially when selling overseas.


I agree that this is also an advantage, especially for smaller farms, and probably the difference between continuing to stay in business or not for some.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> why not have the vote?


Never said they shouldn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> I'm not skirting any question. I asked one of my own, an open one, directed at anybody who cares to answer. Am I not allowed or is that some sort of new Progressive ehMac policy?
> 
> If a response is required to participate in this thread, so be it. The federal gov't (of any stripe) rarely questions anybody pertinent to the argument before making a decision. For instance, they certainly didn't send out a questionnaire prior to introducing the long gun registry. Why should they suddenly start now?
> 
> ...


Hold on before going half bent here, who needs the pint eh? I asked a basic question. Personally, I think the farmers should decide, not the federal government. Whatever they decide, well, it's up to them, not the nanny state right? It certainly makes no difference here what my opinion is, because I don't have one. I'm not a farmer. Perhaps they need to have another vote, this time, it should be made clear how important this is. Or did the bunch that never showed up just assume that the conservatives would just steamroller it anyways? I guess they assumed correctly eh? Nice to have the nanny state on your side perhaps.

And by those numbers, well, that's better than the numbers we have in the federal election that seems to give one party absolute rule over deciding everything it seems.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Never said they shouldn't.


yes and to quote


FeXL said:


> If a response is required to participate in this thread, so be it. The federal gov't (of any stripe) rarely questions anybody pertinent to the argument before making a decision. For instance, they certainly didn't send out a questionnaire prior to introducing the long gun registry. *Why should they suddenly start now? *


So is the question of "Why should they suddenly start now?" asking why should a vote of farmers be conducted or is that not the meaning of the quoted question? I am confused by the position put forward.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why should I suddenly care whether wheat farmer get the best price for their wheat? Because they're farmers? Does anybody care if car makers get the highest price for their cars, or whether a gas station gets the highest price for the gas it sells? Consumers have a say in this as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ooooh suddenly atom smasher thinks consumers should have a say in whether the business gets a good price or not! And here we thought you believed that consumers should just vote with their spending. hmmm.

Wonders will never cease!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Gotta love all this stuff about the Alberta farmer not representing a majority of farmers, it's more like the CONS don't represent a majority of Canadians.

But such is life.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> *Gotta love all this stuff about the Alberta farmer not representing a majority of farmers, *it's more like the CONS don't represent a majority of Canadians.
> 
> But such is life.


Having just a wee problem with accuracy today jimbo? I posted no such thing:



SINC said:


> The author does not represent the view of an average western farmer.


I know hundreds of farmers and I don't hear one of them repeating that guy's views, nor do any of them want the Wheat Board disbanded. What they want is to CHOOSE whether to use the CWB or not. That's it, pure and simple. 

No dissolution of the board, no vote to keep it or turf it, just the choice to use it or not. Is that so difficult to understand? The wording of any vote put to farmers would be critical and the board would fight the word 'choice' in any referendum, guaranteed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Considering how we Mac users felt about Microsoft at one time, it's amazing how we can stand divided over a another monopoly. lol

I think at this stage of the game, it's time to just let it play out. If the CWB is the better marketer of product for the farmer, it'll be soon evident and they'll retain their clients...and their monopoly.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Then way are the governing Conservatives hell bent, even to the point of breaking the law, on merely appeasing their base. Why can't these as of now "cons" act prudently, either comply with the law or first repeal the sections they're now violating, then change the law in the next session of Parliament? 

Why is Our Glorious Leader being so dogmatic with the way he governs?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Then way are the governing Conservatives hell bent, even to the point of breaking the law, on merely appeasing their base. Why can't these as of now "cons" act prudently, either comply with the law or first repeal the sections they're now violating, then change the law in the next session of Parliament?
> 
> Why is Our Glorious Leader being so dogmatic with the way he governs?


Because time is short...and there's so much to do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Because time is short...and there's so much to do.


Exactly. No reason to let pissy unionistas slow things down.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> Because time is short...and there's so much to do.


I hear you, now less than four years of absolute power to be drunk on.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. No reason to let pissy unionistas slow things down.


what about the law?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> what about the law?


You read screature's post. There is no law against this.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's pretty basic and there is no vote needed to change the act to allow farmers the freedom to use the board or not. There is a vote required to change the way the board functions, but not to allow farmers to opt for another method if they so choose. The board will live on or not, based on whether farmers CHOOSE to use it or not. That's real democracy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

lol

so screature's post trumps a federal court?

lol x 2

by all means they have the right to *APPEAL* the court decision, let the process play out in the courts and see if they in fact can do what they say. But as it stands right now* they are breaking the law*. 

To rush ahead and and try to pass this before they win an appeal goes against every check and balance that our system has in place to curb the abuse of power.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> so screature's post trumps a federal court?
> 
> ...


you have to understand that this just doesn't factor into the con mind.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> so screature's post trumps a federal court?
> 
> ...


Don't be too hard on Our glorious leader and his party they have the right of appeal, and can be vindicated by process but then again so did Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> ...by all means they have the right to *APPEAL* the court decision, let the process play out in the courts and see if they in fact can do what they say. But as it stands right now* they are breaking the law*.





groovetube said:


> you have to understand that this just doesn't factor into the con mind.


Given that King Harpo will willingly follow Bush II and Bush III wherever they leadeth. And given that between them the Bush Bums have shredded every part of the constitution except the second amendment. I fail to see how breaking a minor law would be of the least concern to our Glorious Leader.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it is rather astounding how the right wing just signed up en masse for the the complete shredding of personal rights freedoms. And, are totally mystified by anyone suggesting this to boot.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> so screature's post trumps a federal court?
> 
> ...


What is interesting about the Court's declaration is that there are no stated consequences for the Minister's supposed breach of his statutory duty other than that court costs are awarded to the Applicant (Friends of the Wheat Board et.al.) Order: T-1735-11, Order: T-1057-11

In reading the Canadian Wheat Board Act I cannot find where there are any provisions for consequences (and what they might be) for the Minister failing to comply with section 47.1 and perhaps this is why there were none indicated by Justice Campbell.

Having read the Reasons for the Decision it is pretty apparent that the Governments next move in the appeal will be to bring forward a notice of Constitutional Question regarding Section 47.1 of the Act and whether or not it in fact contravenes the Sovereignty of Parliament to pass legislation. 

The Minister made this claim in his arguments that s. 47.1 does not meet the requirements of a “manner and form” provision.

The judge dismissed the claim not because it was not the case but because "any debate on “manner and form” is not properly before the Court for determination." and would require a notice of a Constitutional Question.

From The Reasons for Decision:



> III. Issues [8] The present Applications are simple in nature; they are directed at an examination of the Minister’s conduct with respect the requirements of s. 47.1. The Applicants confirm that the Page: 6 validity of Bill C-18, and the validity and effects of any legislation which might become law as a result of Bill C-18 are not in issue in the present Applications.
> 
> [9] The Applicants make it clear that their Applications are no threat to the Sovereignty of Parliament to pass legislation. The controversy in the present case arises from the Act, legislation that Parliament has already passed. Section 47.1 contains conditions which are known in law as “manner and form” procedural requirements. This form of limitation on the exercise of legislative power is well recognized in law. At paragraph 34 of the Producer Car Shippers argument, attention is directed to the following passages from Professor Hogg’s text, Constitutional Law of Canada, (Carswell, Toronto, 5th ed, 2007): Would the Parliament or a Legislature be bound by self-imposed rules as to the “manner and form” in which statutes were to be enacted? The answer, in my view, is yes.
> 
> ...


However, all this being said I do question the appropriateness of the government moving ahead with the legislation before their appeal has been heard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> However, all this being said I do question the appropriateness of the government moving ahead with the legislation before their appeal has been heard.


Agreed. Although I believe it won't make any difference to the outcome.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

End justifies the means?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. They should appeal before changing it. However, it won't make any difference.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no, when you have a government who simply does what IT wants, I suppose not.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No. They should appeal before changing it. *However, it won't make any difference*.


if the government loses it's appeal, and the CWB has lost it's monopoly in that time, any Farmer that has seen a loss of revenue could make the case that the government has liability for his losses (since the government acted illegally).

From what i understand, If the CWB loses it's monopoly, it can never be reinstated because of our free trade agreements (which only honour it because it predates the agreements). 

We could see a scenario where the government subsidizes wheat & barley farmers who don't sell above market rates for eternity. I know you'd love that!

(speculation on my part - obviously i have no idea how this will play out, but my point is by acting illegally the government leaves itself wide open to legal ramifications that can drain tax dollars. to say "it won't make any difference" is naive.)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> End justifies the means?


I think that perhaps what the government should have done is first call into question the constitutionality of Section 47.1 of the Wheat Board Act before bring in legislation... they chose to did it in reverse.

However, it could be that the only reasonable legal means of supporting a Constitutional Question against Section 47.1 was by having a Federal Court rule in the manner that it just did... thereby proving that the manner in which the section was written binds a Minister and a government to a previous Minister and governments legislation whereby the authority of a 3rd party (the Wheat Board) supersedes The Supremacy of Parliament to make legislation.

This is how I expect things to unfold, I think Section 47.1 will be found to be unconstitutional "because" of this ruling not in spite of it and perhaps this is the bet the government is making and why they are moving full steam ahead.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> if the government loses it's appeal, and the CWB has lost it's monopoly in that time, any Farmer that has seen a loss of revenue could make the case that the government has liability for his losses (since the government acted illegally).
> 
> From what i understand, If the CWB loses it's monopoly, it can never be reinstated because of our free trade agreements (which only honour it because it predates the agreements).
> 
> ...


It is a bet the government is making for sure... and there is definitely potential for fallout in terms of further court cases... time will tell.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> I think that perhaps what the government should have done is first call into question the constitutionality of Section 47.1 of the Wheat Board Act before bring in legislation... they chose to did it in reverse.
> 
> However, it could be that the only reasonable legal means of supporting a Constitutional Question against Section 47.1 was by having a Federal Court rule in the manner that it just did... thereby proving that the manner in which the section was written binds a Minister and a government to a previous Minister and governments legislation whereby the authority of a 3rd party (the Wheat Board) supersedes The Supremacy of Parliament to make legislation.
> 
> This is how I expect things to unfold, I think Section 47.1 will be found to be unconstitutional "because" of this ruling not in spite of it and perhaps this is the bet the government is making and why they are moving full steam ahead.


I don't know and I'm only repeating what I've heard but the remedy could have been simply for another Minister from Cabinet to introduce the present Bill to Parliament.

I still ask why is Our Glorious Leader in such a rush? The Conservatives are falling all over themselves with absolute control. This Bill, the repeal of the Gun Registry and especially the Law and Order Omnibus bill. 

They manoeuvred amendments they wanted, which they were will to basically plagiarize a Liberals amendments for. The Government couldn't do this because the tactic they choose to refuse the Liberal's amendment precluded the Government from bringing them back as Government sponsored. Why be in such a rush and shoot yourself in the foot?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I don't know and I'm only repeating what I've heard but the remedy could have been simply for another Minister from Cabinet to introduce the present Bill to Parliament.
> 
> I still ask why is Our Glorious Leader in such a rush? The Conservatives are falling all over themselves with absolute control. This Bill, the repeal of the Gun Registry and especially the Law and Order Omnibus bill.
> 
> They manoeuvred amendments they wanted, which they were will to basically plagiarize a Liberals amendments for. The Government couldn't do this because the tactic they choose to refuse the Liberal's amendment precluded the Government from bringing them back as Government sponsored. *Why be in such a rush and shoot yourself in the foot?*


Indeed your question is valid and I wonder myself what is the rush, even though I doubt they are shooting themselves in the foot. 

Having been involved with the drafting of lowly PMBs and the constant consultation with Parliamentary/Constitutional legal experts I suspect this course of action has been taken shrewdly and with due consideration... perhaps not but I would be be very, very, surprised.

These are high stake games and one doesn't "go all in" unless one feels that they are almost certain they have the better hand... it could be the government's bet is wrong as it will be left for the courts to decide but I am of virtually completely certainty that they did not enter into this gambit tritely or without a lot of high paid research and legal consultation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Indeed your question is valid and I wonder myself what is the rush, even though I doubt they are shooting themselves in the foot.
> 
> Having been involved with the drafting of lowly PMBs and the constant consultation with Parliamentary/Constitutional legal experts I suspect this course of action has been taken shrewdly and with due consideration... perhaps not but I would be be very, very, surprised.
> 
> These are high stake games and one doesn't "go all in" unless one feels that they are almost certain they have the better hand... it could be the government's bet is wrong as it will be left for the courts to decide but I am of virtually completely certainty that they did not enter into this gambit tritely or without a lot of high paid research and legal consultation.


...or hubris is at play, after winning for awhile sometimes organizations forget about giving due regard for defeat.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> ...or hubris is at play, after winning for awhile sometimes organizations forget about giving due regard for defeat.


I suspect that's a little closer to the truth.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It'll be an interesting future without the wheat board.

Enjoy the dust bowl.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> It'll be an interesting future without the wheat board.
> 
> Enjoy the dust bowl.


The Wheat Board prevents farmers from destroying topsoil?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Some times ideas never occur to people. How can greed cause a dust bowl? Hmmm?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yeah simply not possible


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Lawrence said:


> Enjoy the dust bowl.


<just shakes head...>


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Some times ideas never occur to people. How can greed cause a dust bowl? Hmmm?


Astounding. We plow far more land for wheat than ever before, using modern non-erosive techniques. Your "little-man" fears needn't colour every one of your posts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

looks like someone again, misinterpreted another post.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> looks like someone again, misinterpreted another post.


...good thing you and I aren't paranoid, it might seem as if some are looking to take offence at any comment.

It's just sad when posters attack individuals rather than ideas. 

I recently got sucked into a conversation that was identified as a train wreck. I shall not willingly derail another thread in such a manner.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's the con way. Now that they're governing they're getting a taste of what a rough road it is to be in the hot seat, and it must truly suck to have to defend all the crap that you just spent years howling about, only to be had once again.

Can you just imagine, if you really voted for less spending, smaller government, and more openness and transparency?

hoo boy. Talk about getting totally reamed.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I would have like to see the farmers get the chance to vote on it. I am hearing some saying they don't want it, and others saying they need it. Harper is an Albertan and if his rich Alberta buddies want something, he is going to deliver.

I don't know enough about the wheat board situation to argue for or against but the farmers should decide, not the PM.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I would have like to see the farmers get the chance to vote on it. I am hearing some saying they don't want it, and others saying they need it. Harper is an Albertan and if his rich Alberta buddies want something, he is going to deliver.
> 
> I don't know enough about the wheat board situation to argue for or against but the farmers should decide, not the PM.


A big plus one. That's exactly what I've said from the start.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No one is going to abolish the Wheat Board. (To do so _would_ require a vote by farmers.) To give farmers the choice to use it or not does not require a vote. All the government is doing is trying to supply that choice.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

we already understand that. But we also know, doing this takes away any real advantage the CWB would have, or has allegedly(since I don't know) given the farmers.

Big difference.

As far as I'm concerned, truthfully, if it results in getting my cereal cheaper and farmer's getting less and less, hey win win for me!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> ...good thing you and I aren't paranoid, it might seem as if some are looking to take offence at any comment.
> 
> It's just sad when posters attack individuals rather than ideas.
> 
> I recently got sucked into a conversation that was identified as a train wreck. I shall not willingly derail another thread in such a manner.


Sucked in...? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Sucked in...? :lmao:


Yep, sucked in. He's fortune's poor fool.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> No one is going to abolish the Wheat Board. (To do so _would_ require a vote by farmers.) To give farmers the choice to use it or not does not require a vote. All the government is doing is trying to supply that choice.


nope. as much as you try to dress up what happened, a judge already ruled that they *DO* in fact need to allow the farmers to vote on the proposed change, calling it "an affront to the rule of law." and "that the minister will be held accountable for his disregard of the rule of law."



groovetube said:


> As far as I'm concerned, truthfully, if it results in getting my cereal cheaper and farmer's getting less and less, hey win win for me!


if only we could be so lucky. I doubt the US food corporations that are pushing for this will pass any savings on to us.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> nope. as much as you try to dress up what happened, a judge already ruled that they *DO* in fact need to allow the farmers to vote on the proposed change, calling it "an affront to the rule of law." and "that the minister will be held accountable for his disregard of the rule of law."


The amendment to allow farmers the choice to use the board removes the criminal charges aspect for those who sell their crops to other sources. That alone should make it a no brainer. No farmer should have to live under the threat of jail time and a criminal record for selling his product. No other Canadians selling legal merchandise or grown products face such harassment.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> nope. as much as you try to dress up what happened, a judge already ruled that they *DO* in fact need to allow the farmers to vote on the proposed change, calling it "an affront to the rule of law." and "that the minister will be held accountable for his disregard of the rule of law."
> 
> 
> 
> if only we could be so lucky.* I doubt the US food corporations that are pushing for this will pass any savings on to us.*


yet more valiant defences to line the pockets of the ultra wealthy.

Lemmings. If anyone thinks Harper and co has the lowly farmer in mind, they're truly, truly gullible. We saw who he had in mind in the last round of tax cuts now didn't we...

Hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> The amendment to allow farmers the choice to use the board removes the criminal charges aspect for those who sell their crops to other sources. That alone should make it a no brainer. No farmer should have to live under the threat of jail time and a criminal record for selling his product. No other Canadians selling legal merchandise or grown products face such harassment.


if it's such an affront to their rights let them vote on it (as the law states, backed by a federal court). 

seems simple enough


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> if it's such an affront to their rights let them vote on it (as the law states, backed by a federal court).
> 
> seems simple enough



Why should some farmers be allowed to prevent other farmers from enjoying the freedom to sell their own goods? Seems simple enough.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

like how that was worded. "some" farmers.

why should over 60% of Canadians have to put up with absolute power and secrecy by the Harper government?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Why should some farmers be allowed to prevent other farmers from enjoying the freedom to sell their own goods? Seems simple enough.


Agreed.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why should some farmers be allowed to prevent other farmers from enjoying the freedom to sell their own goods? Seems simple enough.


because it's the law?

why should marijuana growers be charged and jailed? aren't they trying to do exactly what dissenting wheat farmers are trying to do? sell their product to customers at the price they want?

because it's the law.

why should some citizens be bound to the rules set out by the Harper government? Even when the majority of them didn't vote for them?

because it's the law.

don't get me wrong. there are methods to protest these laws, either in the court, or with the right to assembly, but what conservatives can't get through their head is you can't just pick and choose where and when you want to follow the rule of law.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> because it's the law?
> 
> why should marijuana growers be charged and jailed? aren't they trying to do exactly what dissenting wheat farmers are trying to do? sell their product to customers at the price they want?
> 
> ...


The law's constitutionality (or specifically s.47.1) will be brought into question before the Federal Court and if it fails there most likely will move to the Supreme Court soon enough...

You like to promote the flouting of laws when it suits you so don't try and get up all high and mighty on that front, your hypocrisy is showing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect the real fear here is that the farmers who choose to sell elsewhere will prosper as the the power of the CWB diminishes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh yes macfury, that's the real fear. When you're done flinging fabricated crap you can join the real world.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> You like to promote the flouting of laws when it suits you so don't try and get up all high and mighty on that front, your hypocrisy is showing.


actually it's your hypocrisy that's showing. both you and Macfury have already said that you feel that the government should wait until they win an appeal before proceeding with this.

and yet both of you are here defending them. defending their disregard for the rule of law.

I am definitely for civil disobedience, but not for breaking the law. one is protected by our charter of rights, the second is not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't defend the government going ahead with it immediately. But I believe the government is in the right here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> actually it's your hypocrisy that's showing. both you and Macfury have already said that you feel that the government should wait until they win an appeal before proceeding with this.
> 
> and yet both of you are here defending them. defending their disregard for the rule of law.
> 
> I am definitely for civil disobedience, but not for breaking the law. one is protected by our charter of rights, the second is not.


Where have I posted a defence? There is no hypocrisy in trying to understand the governments actions and posting about it. I also said that it could very well be that in fact such a court case as this was necessary for a Constitutional Question over s47.1 to be won.

You have previously posted in other threads your sympathy towards those who break the law in the course of the their civil disobedience.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Well done!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> No one is going to abolish the Wheat Board. (To do so _would_ require a vote by farmers.) To give farmers the choice to use it or not does not require a vote. All the government is doing is trying to supply that choice.


It requires a vote to take Barley and Wheat out of the single desk selling proposition. That is how the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board was sited for violating the law.

The Government was responsible to hold a referendum vote amongst western farmers to remove or add gains to be sold via the single desk (monopoly). 

Why the Government of Our Glorious Leader stubbornly refuses to hold a vote as the law requires even when a Federal Judge has sited the Minister for being in contravention of the law is beyond me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. The government is not required to maintain the monopoly. It is only prevented from adding or subtracting grains sold by the CWB.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Yes! The government must obey laws, even this Government who regularly flaunt laws that are still applicable and on the books.

Tough on Crime, I think not.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

tough on crime? Nonsense. They were recently found guilty in breaking the law in election funding. 

So what is the average conservative reply. It's ok because they were conservatives. Same sort of thing applies here DL, so what. They're conservatives and they're right. Does it matter if they break any rules or laws?

Apparently not. Tough on crime, just not ones cons commit.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Yes! The government *must obey laws*, even this Government who regularly flaunt laws that are still applicable and on the books.
> 
> Tough on Crime, I think not.


Well you got it half right.. the government (or an individual) must obey the law *or suffer the consequences for breaking the law.* Thus the reason for my making post #85 where I said:



> What is interesting about the Court's declaration is that *there are no stated consequences for the Minister's supposed breach of his statutory duty other than that court costs are awarded to the Applicant (Friends of the Wheat Board et.al.)* Order: T-1735-11, Order: T-1057-11
> 
> In reading the Canadian Wheat Board Act *I cannot find where there are any provisions for consequences (and what they might be) for the Minister failing to comply with section 47.1 and perhaps this is why there were none indicated by Justice Campbell.*


So the lower Federal Court Judge in Winnipeg (the home of the Wheat Board's offices BTW and I am sure there were no political motivations there at all) decided the Agriculture Minister broke section 47.1 of The Wheat Board Act but he did not indicate any consequences for the Minister's actions beyond the government having to pay the court costs, probably because as I mentioned in post #85 there are none indicated in the Wheat Board Act, a further indication that the legislation that provided for the amendment to the Wheat Board Act to enact s. 47.1 was bad legislation... hubris anyone on the part of the Chretien government ... me thinks so.

So according to Justice Campbell the Minister "failed to comply with his statutory duty... but in law there appears to be no legal/judicial/putative *consequences* for doing so as the Act /law was written... like I said... in post #85 "interesting"..... to say the least.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> tough on crime? Nonsense. They were recently found guilty in breaking the law in election funding.
> 
> So what is the average conservative reply. It's ok because they were conservatives. Same sort of thing applies here DL, so what. They're conservatives and they're right. Does it matter if they break any rules or laws?
> 
> Apparently not. Tough on crime, just not ones cons commit.


Correction they were not found guilty. They *admitted they were guilty* in an agreed statement of facts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Correction they were not found guilty. They *admitted they were guilty* in an agreed statement of facts.


Correction. The government was found guilty of nothing... the Conservative *Party* of Canada agreed to the lesser of the charges... it seems some here don't understand the legal separation and differentiation between the actions of a political party and the actions of a government.

NDP supporters would not appreciate this difference as they have never formed a Federal Government.... 

In Opposition one's job is easy as all you have to do is criticize everything the government of the day does... at some very distant point in future I would like to see the NDP form a minority government just so they could learn the hard lessons that being in charge brings...

I suspect the NDPs tenure would be very short indeed.. or god help us it would be protracted and drive the country into a substantial, protracted and structural debt.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Pleading guilty to lesser charges in a plea bargain, is still pleading guilty. 

In the case of the Conservative Party of Canada suffered sanctions as the Election Financing Laws do have punitive provisions. Cash on the barrel head.

When did things change?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Pleading guilty to lesser charges in a plea bargain, is still pleading guilty.
> 
> In the case of the Conservative Party of Canada suffered sanctions as the Election Financing Laws do have punitive provisions. Cash on the barrel head.
> *
> When did things change?*


They didn't. What exactly is your point or do you have one? You still fail to recognize the legal separation I just mentioned.. it's ok... I understand from previous experience the inherent difficulty involved when one grasps at straws...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

great article here about the ruling, and the larger issue of Harper & co. disregarding the rule of law :

The elephant in the court ruling on wheat board - Winnipeg Free Press



> Fraser wrote the rule of law is fundamental to democracy and that citizens have the right to expect their governments abide by the law.
> "The greatest achievement through the centuries of evolution in democratic governance has been constitutionalism and the rule of law. The rule of law is not the rule of bylaws, where citizens are bound to comply with the laws and the government is not," she wrote.
> "When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of law itself."





> Despite the posturing, it's unlikely the new legislation can become law until the courts are finished with this issue.
> As we've seen, court cases beget more court cases -- which inevitably leads to more acrimony.
> But a civil society doesn't function very well if individuals or governments are only bound by the laws with which they agree. Welcome to the zoo.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Good article i-rui this article clearly lays out facts

The article separates the wheat from chaff, so to speak.

Now, wait for it! Presenting the supporters of Our Glorious Leader with denials likely starting with "is there even a Wheat Board in Canada?"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> great article here about the ruling, and the larger issue of Harper & co. disregarding the rule of law :
> 
> The elephant in the court ruling on wheat board - Winnipeg Free Press


The elephant in the room is that s.47.1 binds a government to a previous government's legislation (creating the supremacy of a 3rd party, i.e. the Wheat Board when it comes to tabling legislation) which contravenes the Supremacy of Parliament when it comes to government proposing legislation... But it is not surprising that the usual suspects, supporters of the NDP and former supporters of the Chretien government would be supportive of such a measure... time will tell and so will the Appellant Courts.

Once again, the press of Winnipeg as a source is highly questionable as being neutral or objective when they are the home of the Wheat Board's offices...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> The elephant in the room is that s.47.1 binds a government to a previous government's legislation (creating the supremacy of a 3rd party, i.e. the Wheat Board when it comes to tabling legislation) which contravenes the Supremacy of Parliament when it comes to government proposing legislation... But it is not surprising that usual suspects, supporters of the NDP and former supporters of the Chretien government would be supportive of such a measure... time will tell and so will the Appellant Courts.
> 
> Once again, the press of Winnipeg as a source is highly questionable as being neutral or objective when they are the home of the Wheat Board's offices...


Good effort, but the nuances of law aret too subtle for them screature.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

oh wait.... i thought you guys *weren't* defending Harper and co.'s decision to move ahead before winning a court appeal??!?!

could've fooled me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh... the conservative paaaaarty.

Well we'll remember this whenever one you cons starts screechering about the liberals or someone.

i-rui they spend more time tap dancing and smugly acting as lawyers and scientists to actually notice.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> The elephant in the room is that s.47.1 binds a government to a previous government's legislation (creating the supremacy of a 3rd party, i.e. the Wheat Board when it comes to tabling legislation) which contravenes the Supremacy of Parliament when it comes to government proposing legislation... But it is not surprising that the usual suspects, supporters of the NDP and former supporters of the Chretien government would be supportive of such a measure... time will tell and so will the Appellant Courts.
> 
> Once again, the press of Winnipeg as a source is highly questionable as being neutral or objective when they are the home of the Wheat Board's offices...


Breath...breath...deeply and slowly...wouldn't want to hyperventilate now.

Are we referring to the piece written by Laura Rance. Specifically where did she say Parliament was not allowed to change legislation? 

A basic rule of a free and democratic society is that *no one repeat NONE* are above the law. 

While a law is applicable it shall be applied evenly and equally. 

I read that you can't be incompetent as a government when you organize the legislative process. 

For those that claim neutrality on the subject of the Wheat Board I was mightily amused with the flagellation into a lather in the defence of Our Glorious Leader's Government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> oh... the conservative paaaaarty.
> 
> Well we'll remember this whenever one you cons starts screechering about the liberals or someone.
> 
> i-rui they spend more time tap dancing and smugly acting as lawyers and scientists to actually notice.


Another snipe that has no content relating to the thread subject. :yawn: 

Meanwhile an appeal will tell the tale, or new legislation will amend the act to allow choice for farmers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Another snipe that has no content relating to the thread subject. :yawn:
> 
> Meanwhile an appeal will tell the tale, or new legislation will amend the act to allow choice for farmers.


I was referring to the comment that no, it's just the conservative party that broke the law, and that somehow, none of the key players like I donno, the prime minister, or any of the main henchmen below have anything to do with the conservative party whatsoever. I realize that perhaps symbolically there could be a separation but only a fool would fall for this.

Certainly the screaming during adscam comes to mind. Just pointing out the sheer, hypocrisy, which, after having weathered the deafening cries during the liberal rule and all their misdeeds, and listening to the seemingly endless taunts of how the conservatives will rise above the level of liberal misdeeds and secrecy to usher in a new order of truth, honesty, and utter godliness, I will thoroughly enjoy this to no end despite what anyone, says or thinks.



You will have your turn, when the conservatives get tossed and whomever the new salvation party takes over and this daily never ending nonsense continues.

Change? pffft. I think not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Another snipe that has no content relating to the thread subject. :yawn:
> 
> Meanwhile an appeal will tell the tale, or new legislation will amend the act to allow choice for farmers.


Fire and brimstone aside, it will be interesting to see how the appeal goes. I find these sorts of deliberations quite fascinating.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh... the conservative paaaaarty.
> 
> Well we'll remember this whenever one you cons starts screechering about the liberals or someone.
> 
> i-rui they spend more time tap dancing and smugly acting as lawyers and scientists to actually notice.


I forgot about change the channel tactic,  the nothing to see here ploy.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What I would really like to know is how one can screech loud enough to deafen people here on an online forum where a keyboard is your only weapon? It must be true, after all the line has been used to the point that it's threadbare.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> oh wait.... i thought you guys *weren't* defending Harper and co.'s decision to move ahead before winning a court appeal??!?!
> 
> could've fooled me.


It seems you are easily fooled then... my post did not defend the government it called into question the Constitutional validity of section 47.1...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Breath...breath...deeply and slowly...wouldn't want to hyperventilate now.
> 
> Are we referring to the piece written by Laura Rance. Specifically where did she say Parliament was not allowed to change legislation?
> 
> ...


I have no idea where your disconnected meanderings are going... did I make reference to the piece by Laura Rance other than to quote a reference to the rather amusing title of her piece and the fact that she works for the highly biased Winnipeg Free Press. 

The rule of law is often called into question based on whether or not said laws were in fact legal in the first place i.e. whether or not they were Constitutional in the first place.

You and others at this point in time are acting as if the lower Federal Courts decision is the final word on the matter, it is not. All along I have been addressing why the government is appealing the lower courts ruling and that the final story is yet to be told.

If you view this as "flagellation into a lather in the defence of Our Glorious Leader's Government" that is you prerogative, thus far with statements like "Breath...breath...deeply and slowly...wouldn't want to hyperventilate now." you are the only one who seems to be inclined towards flagellation or lather.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Fire and brimstone aside, it will be interesting to see how the appeal goes. I find these sorts of deliberations quite fascinating.


Indeed, they are interesting times except for those filled with bile and brimstone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I forgot about change the channel tactic,  the nothing to see here ploy.
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


To the contrary, there is much to see here it is you and your cohorts who choose to believe this is a done deal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> What I would really like to know is how one can screech loud enough to deafen people here on an online forum where a keyboard is your only weapon? It must be true, after all the line has been used to the point that it's threadbare.


oh there's plenty here that has more than reached the point of threadbare!

As it always is, with these threads.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> It seems you are easily fooled then... my post did not defend the government it called into question the Constitutional validity of section 47.1...


No, you did quite a bit more than that. You inferred that there was political bias from the ruling judge (in a sad attempt to discredit his decision)



screature said:


> So the lower Federal Court Judge in Winnipeg (the home of the Wheat Board's offices BTW and I am sure there were no political motivations there at all)


And then you attacked the credibility of a journalist with whom you disagree :



screature said:


> Once again, the press of Winnipeg as a source is highly questionable as being neutral or objective when they are the home of the Wheat Board's offices...


So you are not just pointing out that there is a constitutional question, you are attacking those who are defending the rule of law and the proper legal process in this country.



screature said:


> The rule of law is often called into question based on whether or not said laws were in fact legal in the first place i.e. whether or not they were Constitutional in the first place.


which is fine. that is an argument worth hearing... but not *after* they try to bypass the entire system in place.



screature said:


> You and others at this point in time are acting as if the lower Federal Courts decision is the final word on the matter, it is not.


well it may or it may not. the ruling may be upheld. in any case *AT THIS POINT IN TIME IT IS THE LAW*, and in fact was the law *before* the judges ruling.




screature said:


> All along I have been addressing why the government is appealing the lower courts ruling and the final story is yet to be told.


i don't think anyone has a problem with them appealing a single decision. the problem comes in the manner in which they *have* acted, and *continue* to act with a total disregard for the rule of law.

any competent government would have brought up the constitutional question *before* they made the bill. Since we all know this government is anything but competent we shouldn't be surprised by this lack of wisdom, but they then compound their mistake by rushing on with the bill. even after the judge says it's illegal. even after they said in parliament they would "respect the court's decision". they still say they will drag the senate down in to their muck with orders to pass the bill even though it's currently been ruled illegal, before any appeal can be heard. 

this is the issue. at this point the CWB is almost a side topic. Harper simply does not care for the rule of law in this country. the irony of which given his "tough on crime" agenda would be hilarious if it were not so sad and dangerous for Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Harper is very careful about the Rule of Law in this country--and he knows how to use it to his advantage. 

Nobody is asking anyone to change the channel or look away. No need to inspect each others' shiny balls. Keep watching Harper, and learn how a smart operator governs.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think Harper is very careful about the Rule of Law in this country--and he knows how to use it to his advantage.
> 
> Nobody is asking anyone to change the channel or look away. No need to inspect each others' shiny balls. Keep watching Harper, and learn how a smart operator governs.


this is basically saying "watch how this guy cheats on his taxes, yet stays out of jail".

it isn't an admirable quality in a leader.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> this is basically saying "watch how this guy cheats on his taxes, yet stays out of jail".
> 
> it isn't an admirable quality in a leader.


It isn't cheating. He is using the law to his advantage.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think Harper is very careful about the Rule of Law in this country--and he knows how to use it to his advantage.
> 
> Nobody is asking anyone to change the channel or look away. No need to inspect each others' shiny balls. Keep watching Harper, and learn how a smart operator governs.


I agree he's a smart operator. Hanging on through 5 years of a minority government is no easy task. (I largely credit Iggy for his being able to turn that into a majority.) 

I'm not a fan of his policies, but he's very good at this, and he's now had a lot of practice. People who hate him should not underestimate him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> People who hate him should not underestimate him.


Indeed, nor should they expect him not to hold power with another majority for a total run of at least eight years, if not more.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I wouldn't be surprised.

But that will depend largely, on what the opposition parties present as leaders. But I'm not holding my breath on that one. If the ndp pick a dud, and the liberals miraculously picked a good one, we may see Harper reduced to a minority.

Brian Topp, imo, is that dud.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> No, you did quite a bit more than that. You inferred that there was political bias from the ruling judge (in a sad attempt to discredit his decision)


And why not, not all judges are perfect or created equal and many make bad rulings only to be overturned...



i-rui said:


> And then you attacked the credibility of a journalist with whom you disagree


No attack just an obvious statement... do you read the Winnipeg Free Press, I do every day and their anti government bias is obvious.



i-rui said:


> So you are not just pointing out that there is a constitutional question, you are attacking those who are defending the rule of law and the proper legal process in this country.


Nope no attacks... calling into question...




i-rui said:


> i don't think anyone has a problem with them appealing a single decision. the problem comes in the manner in which they *have* acted, and *continue* to act with a total disregard for the rule of law.


I have already said that I have trouble with their moving ahead with the Bill while an appeal is pending. However I also have to say that the Bill is now in the Senate and they are masters of their own domain, they are the ones who could put a stay on the Bill at this point in time... obviously this is not going to happen with a Conservative majority in the House, but as a matter of legislative process that is where the Bill is now.



i-rui said:


> any competent government *would have brought up the constitutional question before they made the bill. *


Perhaps or perhaps not... as the way the Bill is written and has been mentioned several times section 47.1 says "The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada"...

This is not what Bill C-18 is doing, it was only with the Friends of the Wheat Board challenge and Justice' Campbell's decision that provided a greater interpretation of section 47.1. So why would a government think a Constitutional Question should be necessary.

With Justice Campbell's decision he has made it necessary, and it is my belief as it is many others, that section 47.1, based on the wording of Justice Campbell's decision will be a found to contravene the Supremacy of Parliament based on the principle of “manner and form”, as section 47.1 requires a successful 3rd party (the Wheat Board) vote to *allow* for the Legislation to be changed or repealed, thereby denying Parliament's fundamental and Constitutional Supremacy to make and pass legislation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> ...section 47.1 requires a successful 3rd party (the Wheat Board) vote to *allow* for the Legislation to be changed or repealed, thereby denying Parliament's fundamental and Constitutional Supremacy to make and pass legislation.


This is the crux of the matter. All the talk about breaking the law seems to be coming from people who don't understand how either Parliament or the courts work.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> This is the crux of the matter. All the talk about breaking the law seems to be coming from people who don't understand how either Parliament or the courts work.


i have a pretty good idea of how both law & parliament work.



screature said:


> Perhaps or perhaps not... as the way the Bill is written and has been mentioned several times section 47.1 says "The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada"...


spare us the conservative echo chamber spin. it's all well and good to cherry pick quotes from the act, but here is 47.1 in complete :



> 47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of *Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV* to any other grain, unless
> *(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
> (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.*


i've bolded the important bits. notice "Part III and IV"? Part III of the CWB act is "INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT MARKETING OF WHEAT BY THE CORPORATION", Part IV is "REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT", both of which covers the CWB monopoly. 47.1 links the grains to the CWB's single desk, and the democratic vote by the farmers to approve changes.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Priceless edit wasn't it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> Priceless edit wasn't it.


it's the con way.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i have a pretty good idea of how both law & parliament work.
> 
> spare us the conservative echo chamber spin. it's all well and good to cherry pick quotes from the act, but here is 47.1 in complete :
> 
> i've bolded the important bits. notice "Part III and IV"? Part III of the CWB act is "INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT MARKETING OF WHEAT BY THE CORPORATION", Part IV is "REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT", both of which covers the CWB monopoly. 47.1 links the grains to the CWB's single desk, and the democratic vote by * the farmers to approve changes*.



As if you had to provide it to me.  I felt no need to provide the entire section as I had previously provided the link to the entire Act... I just thought those who had an interest in this debate would be following along and actually reading the links provided... the portion you added makes no difference to the point I was making either. Bill C-18 does not address 47.1 in it's strict verbatim meaning, it was only Judges Campbell's ruling, being in agreement with the interpretation in the application by the Friends of the CWB, that determined C-18 went beyond what was allowable according to section 47.1

In your opinion it is the important bits and you ignore the truly important part of the section of my post regarding the Supremacy of Parliament to make and pass legislation.

BTW you can shove the conservative echo chamber spin comment...

I have bolded the important bit of your post where you basically admit the wheat board (farmers) vote usurps the Supremacy of Parliament to make and pass legislation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Priceless edit wasn't it.


It wasn't a frigging edit. Did you see the "..." which for those who know how to read beyond a grade 10 level it means there is more to follow but not cited in the quotation.  Both you and i-rui need to brush up on the meaning of such things.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> It wasn't a frigging edit. Did you see the "..." which those for who know how to read beyond a greade 10 level it means there is more to follow but not cited in the quotation.  Both you and i-rui need to brush up on the meaning of such things.


oh there he goes insulting. Wait for the cries when someone else does it. Didn't he say he had to ignore me for the very same thing?

yeah.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I love the word "frigging".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I love the word "friggin".


Well at least you love or like something...


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

She talked that cat off the fish truck!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> As if you had to provide it to me.  I felt no need to provide the entire section as I had previously provided the link to the entire Act... I just thought those who had an interest in this debate would be following along and actually reading the links provided... *the portion you added makes no difference to the point I was making either.*


actually your point was in response to my point (which was) :



i-rui said:


> any competent government would have brought up the constitutional question *before* they made the bill.


to which you said :



screature said:


> Perhaps or perhaps not... as the way the Bill is written and has been mentioned several times section 47.1 says "The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada"...
> *
> This is not what Bill C-18 is doing, it was only with the Friends of the Wheat Board challenge and Justice' Campbell's decision that provided a greater interpretation of section 47.1. So why would a government think a Constitutional Question should be necessary.*


so your point was in fact that the judge provided a "greater interpretation" of 47.1, when *clearly* looking at the *full* excerpt of 47.1 (which is why i provided it) it *specifically* links Parts III & IV to the democratic vote of the farmers who produce the grain.



screature said:


> In your opinion it is the important bits and you ignore the truly important part of the section of my post regarding the Supremacy of Parliament to make and pass legislation.


i'm not ignoring anything. I've already said that the Harper government can make that legal argument. What you (and Harper) are ignoring is the proper rule of law and process. There is a way to go about these things, and the government doesn't care about these procedures (while it's supports make excuses for them).

the CWB act clearly says farmers get to vote on those changes. This is no secret. Everyone knew this would go before a judge. So why didn't the government wait to get this legal process straightened out before the bill passed? They didn't *need* this ruling to challenge 47.1 (as you are implying). They could have got all there ducks in a row and handled it properly.

The reason of course is because they *don't care* about the rule of law or proper procedure when it comes to *their* dealings. They are doing this because they are trying to kill the CWB single desk before the legal process can play out, because once they evoke the changes to kill the monopoly nothing can bring back it back.



screature said:


> I have bolded the important bit of your post where you basically admit the wheat board (farmers) vote usurps the Supremacy of Parliament to make and pass legislation.


as the law stands *now* it does. the judge has already ruled on it. the government is acting illegally *now* by ignoring the judgment. that is inexcusable.

as a side note, your argument also must be balanced with the repercussions of changing the CWB act. While the idea that past legislation can not tie the hands of future parliaments is somewhat valid, it has to be noted that the act of changing the CWB act by *THIS* parliament would tie the hands of *ALL* future parliaments by not allowing them to reinstate that monopoly because of trade agreements.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> as a side note, your argument also must be balanced with the repercussions of changing the CWB act. While the idea that past legislation can not tie the hands of future parliaments is somewhat valid, it has to be noted that the act of changing the CWB act by *THIS* parliament would tie the hands of *ALL* future parliaments by not allowing them to reinstate that monopoly because of trade agreements.


Not at all. Trade agreements can be renegotiated.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

fair enough. but not without serious repercussions, concessions or penalty.

it's certainly wouldn't be a matter of creating a single bill to reverse the changes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> ...Perhaps or perhaps not... as the way the Bill is written and has been mentioned several times section 47.1 says "The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada"...
> 
> This is not what Bill C-18 is doing, it was only with the Friends of the Wheat Board challenge and Justice' Campbell's decision that provided a greater interpretation of section 47.1. So why would a government think a Constitutional Question should be necessary.
> 
> With Justice Campbell's decision he has made it necessary, and it is my belief as it is many others, that section 47.1, based on the wording of Justice Campbell's decision will be a found to contravene the Supremacy of Parliament based on the principle of “manner and form”, as section 47.1 requires a successful 3rd party (the Wheat Board) vote to *allow* for the Legislation to be changed or repealed, thereby denying Parliament's fundamental and Constitutional Supremacy to make and pass legislation.


I am sure that upon careful reading of the entire law we should find a provision that say this law may be amended from time to time or similar language. This allows for the Supremacy of Parliament. 

The Conservative Government could of, had they chosen to do so, have amended Section 47.1 to say that (a) no consultation is required... and (b) no votes are required to introduce or delete grains...

The parroting of Conservative Government talking points does not serve this discussion well.



screature said:


> As if you had to provide it to me.  I felt no need to provide the entire section as I had previously provided the link to the entire Act... I just thought those who had an interest in this debate would be following along and actually reading the links provided... the portion you added makes no difference to the point I was making either. Bill C-18 does not address 47.1 in it's strict verbatim meaning, it was only Judges Campbell's ruling, being in agreement with the interpretation in the application by the Friends of the CWB, that determined C-18 went beyond what was allowable according to section 47.1
> 
> In your opinion it is the important bits and you ignore the truly important part of the section of my post regarding the Supremacy of Parliament to make and pass legislation.
> 
> ...


I for one, feel this position, is disingenuous and repeating Conservative talking points whether sincerely held or as merely a means to further an argument or only to provoke a discussion is not helpful for the presentation of the facts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I am sure that upon careful reading of the entire law we should find a provision that say this law may be amended from time to time or similar language. This allows for the Supremacy of Parliament.


Thanks for the great research...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> actually your point was in response to my point (which was) :
> to which you said :
> so your point was in fact that the judge provided a "greater interpretation" of 47.1, when *clearly* looking at the *full* excerpt of 47.1 (which is why i provided it) it *specifically* links Parts III & IV to the democratic vote of the farmers who produce the grain.
> i'm not ignoring anything. I've already said that the Harper government can make that legal argument. What you (and Harper) are ignoring is the proper rule of law and process. There is a way to go about these things, and the government doesn't care about these procedures (while it's supports make excuses for them).
> ...


Look. We obviously disagree as to what is the greater imperative... the Supremacy of Parliament to write and pass legislation or the supremacy of the Wheat Board Act and a vote of farmer *members* of the Wheat Board (ever stop to think that on a fundamental basis as a matter of "civil disobedience" many producers refuse to be a member of the CWB and therefore would be voiceless in any referendum on the matter?).

So lets quit this pointless debate until we hear more as it seems to ultimately degrade into less than diplomatic posts of which we have been both guilty.

Time will tell and an appeal is pending and the Cons are going to ram it through the Senate because they are "sure" they are right... I just happen to agree with them... you disagree, it isn't entirely surprising.

I have agreed with with your and others concerns about fast tracking the legislation while in dispute... something for which even though I am agreeing with you I receive nothing but condescension and derision as it somehow represents hypocrisy on my part IYO... so be it... I can live with that.

I seem to go through periods where I wish to contribute to Canadian political debate here, but when I post several non hyperbolic posts in a row and simply provide my own research on the matter replete with links to the relevant documents and then others "cherry pick" quotes of what I said relative to the entire context of what I posted and say "spare us the conservative echo chamber spin" I grow fatigued because I don't get the same effort in return in terms of a fulsome debate... 

Let's simply agree to disagree (as the the likelihood that we would ever agree is slim to none)....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I am sure that upon careful reading of the entire law we should find a provision that say this law may be amended from time to time or similar language. This allows for the Supremacy of Parliament.


Yeah your right I didn't look at the Bill closely... sorry my bad...  Have you read it as yet? I made it really easy by providing a direct link...



BigDL said:


> The Conservative Government could of, had they chosen to do so, have amended Section 47.1 to say that (a) no consultation is required... and (b) no votes are required to introduce or delete grains...


Perhaps... you could be right. If it were possible it would have made for a "cleaner" transition... on this point I would have to contact legal council to verify that in fact it would be legally possible. Regrettably I can't for obvious reasons... it is indeed an interesting observation BigDL and if allowable could have avoided a lot of needless expense.



BigDL said:


> The parroting of Conservative Government talking points does not serve this discussion well.


Well this statement just blew your previous statement out of the water in terms of being reasonable. Why if you are capable of such aforementioned reasoned thought do you feel it necessary to make such a low brow and condescending statement?



BigDL said:


> I for one, feel this position, is disingenuous and repeating Conservative talking points whether sincerely held or as merely a means to further an argument or only to provoke a discussion is not helpful for the presentation of the facts.


More BS... I state my opinion... who's TPs do you speak? Hmmm? I could guess but to state so would be condescending to* your* opinion.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> ...Well this statement just blew your previous statement out of the water in terms of being reasonable. Why if you are capable of such aforementioned reasoned thought do you feel it necessary to make such a low brow and condescending statement?
> 
> 
> 
> More BS... I state my opinion... who's TPs do you speak? Hmmm? I could guess but to state so would be condescending to* your* opinion.


When I said parroting it was for two reason;
(a) the government's talking points are disingenuous and
(b) repeating them, even if the talking points are strongly held beliefs, does not make then correct and repeating them does not advance the discussion with factual information.

In Post #138 you stated


screature said:


> The elephant in the room is that s.47.1 binds a government to a previous government's legislation (creating the supremacy of a 3rd party, i.e. the Wheat Board when it comes to tabling legislation) which contravenes the Supremacy of Parliament when it comes to government proposing legislation... But it is not surprising that the usual suspects, supporters of the NDP and former supporters of the Chretien government would be supportive of such a measure... time will tell and so will the Appellant Courts.
> 
> Once again, the press of Winnipeg as a source is highly questionable as being neutral or objective when they are the home of the Wheat Board's offices...


Section 47.1 does not in any way prevent the Government from amending the Act.

Section 47.1 specifies a road map, if you will, of who to consult, why to consult and the prescribed method of consultation including a referendum vote. 

While lawful, any Act of Parliament must obeyed by everyone including and especially the Government. 

I had no intention to disrespect your opinion. If you feel I did, I sincerely apologise that was not my intention.

I did wish to discredit the talking points of the present Government as a Federal Appeals Court justice has clearly stated the Law has not been adhered to, it's incumbent upon the Minister to do so and the Justice also made it clear the Government is free to amend laws and it is proper for them to do so.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> When I said parroting it was for two reason;
> (a) the government's talking points are disingenuous and
> *(b) repeating them, even if the talking points are strongly held beliefs, does not make then correct and repeating them does not advance the discussion with factual information.*
> 
> ...


I did not repeat them in any way... do you have access to them to know? It is insulting to me to suggest I was "parroting" anything. I expressed nothing other than *my* opinion. Period.

The rest of your post I will address when I have time... I am busy tonight... Sorry this is all I have time to post now. My wife is calling me...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Thanks for the great research...


I don't see much from you either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I don't see much from you either.


Yeah, ditto.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I wasn't the one crapping about it.

stuff that in your scotch glass.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I wasn't the one crapping about it.
> 
> stuff that in your scotch glass.


If that was in insinuation I am drunk, retract it now.

Crapping? Could you mean carping? You just keep digging yourself in deeper.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh my god someone insulted me wahhhhhhhh


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no sinc, i know you have said you have enjoyed scotch, so I said stuff it in your scotch glass. How you thought I insinuated you were drunk, is anyone's guess.

You're simply looking for a fight, and I'm sorry but all I'll do is laugh at you the harder you try.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You are simply out of control. I am quite sober thank you and if someone accused you of such a thing, you too would react. But go ahead and keep playing your big type games like a child and prove to the entire board what you really are. I am out of this one.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there you go. First you fabricate some insult about being called a drunk, demanding some apology, then call ME a child.

A cold day in hell.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

It's not scotch it's cod swallop.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> When I said parroting it was for two reason;
> (a) the government's talking points are disingenuous and
> (b) repeating them, even if the talking points are strongly held beliefs, does not make then correct and repeating them does not advance the discussion with factual information.
> 
> ...


To address the rest of your post... IMO s. 47.1 definitely does usurp the Supremacy of Parliament as a *binding* vote by a 3rd party determines *if *the Act can be amended.

Once again:

47.1 *The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill* that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, *unless*
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) *the producers of the grain have voted in favour *of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

Time will tell if the Appellant Court or if need be the Supreme Court agrees.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> It's not scotch it's cod swallop.


Do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread other than drive by pot shots?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

says the person who has done so himself.

The indignation of the guilty continues.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Aye. Tis disgusting.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Thanks for the great research...


First I want acknowledge those who thanked me in advance for my research and your mostly welcome. 

Secondly I acknowledge this will be a very long post and ask for your indulgence and patients and shall keep this post as short as possible.

Next I would like to address this post.



screature said:


> To address the rest of your post... IMO s. 47.1 definitely does usurp the Supremacy of Parliament. as a *binding* vote by a 3rd party determines *if *the Act may be amended.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> ...


I take the position that Section 47.1 does not usurp the Supremacy of Parliament. A binding vote by a 3rd party in Section 47.1 has no effect on *whether or not* the Act may be amended or not.

I shall bring forth facts rather than merely rely on one’s opinion. I shall use exhibits from the Web.

Lets look at where this begins February 2006, let’s look at the results of this election.

Exhibit (1)


Table 4.3 comes from Exhibit (1) 

View attachment 22277
Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada 


The results of the General Election show the Conservatives finished with the greatest number of seats and only have 21 seats more than the Liberals. The Conservatives need 155 seats to form a Majority Government. The Conservatives fall short of a Majority but did form a Minority Government. The 39th session of Parliament is the first time when Our Glorious Leader is Prime Minister and the Conservatives form Government.

Next we shall look at the Bills introduced during the first session of the 39th Parliament.

Information on 39th Parliament (The first session of minority governance With Our Glorious Leader as Prime Minister 2006
Exhibit (2)

There are hyper-links through out this document. The Alpha Numeric portion ie C-1 is a hyper link and will provide more information on the Bill.
I draw your attention to C-300 Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (direct sale of grain) a Private Members Bill. This Bill was defeated at second reading.
Next I shall draw your attention to Exhibit (3) Bills for the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. 
Exhibit 3


In this document I’ll draw your attention to C-46 Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 (a Government Sponsored Bill) This bill was introduced by the Minster Gerry Ritz received introduction and first reading.
If that name sounds familiar Minister Ritz is the same Minister Ritz that was found guilt of violating Section 47.1 this year.
For more information on this 
Exhibit(4)

View attachment 22278
Title Page of Canadian Wheat Board Act


This Act was amended on March 1st 2007, and the Private Members’ Bill C-300 was defeated in the First Session of the 39th Parliament and the Government’s Bill C-46 died on the Order Paper of the Second Session of the 39 Parliament.
If no Bills passed how was the Canadian Wheat Board Act amended? Remember the Government’s (Amendment) Bill was *Introduced and had First Reading* March 03, 2007. This apparently allowed the Governor In Council (GIC) that is Our Glorious Leader and his Cabinet.
How can we say that without any evidence? I will show this in Exhibit (5)
Exhibit(5)


Excerpt from Exhibit (5)


Federal Court Report said:


> [45]The first task in statutory interpretation is to discern the ordinary sense or meaning of the relevant provision. In the present case, section 47 expressly provides the Governor in Council with the authority to extend the application of Parts III and IV or either of them to barley. Section 47 does not expressly refer to the exclusion of barley or any grain. Section 47.1, however, expressly provides that barley may be excluded from the application of the Act. As well, in section 47.1, Parliament reserved to itself the power to exclude barley provided that certain conditions were met. Within the Act itself, there is no express delegated authority to the Governor in Council to exclude barley. Read together in their ordinary sense, the power to include barley is delegated to the Governor in Council, *but the power to exclude is reserved to Parliament.*


(*emphasis added by myself)

Federal Court Report Dated Dec. 07, 2011 Exhibit (6)

Exhibit (6)


So while Section 47.1 is in force it must be respected, if the language of Canadian Wheat Board Act returned to the language of yesteryear the Minister or the Governor in Council could make regulations and changes. How can changes be made through Parliament.
So if Section 47.1 did not exist or didn’t have provisions for consultation or votes before making inclusions or exclusions of grains then the would be fine. How could they have accomplished this feat? By way of amendment. 
I was afraid there was a procedural arrangement that someone who works in the environs of the House of Commons would know about that we regular poster would not have access to.
The notion that [


screature said:


> To address the rest of your post... IMO s. 47.1 definitely does usurp the Supremacy of Parliament. as a *binding* vote by a 3rd party determines *if *the Act may be amended.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> ...


(The bolded are in the original quote.) 

The Minister is allowed to change grains if he consults and if producers vote in favour of the proposition. Failure to do so is illegal act.

If the Minister did not want to follow the law he could have changed the Law He could have introduced a Bill to legislate 47.1 out of existence. We have reviewed evidence that he knows how to successfully introduce legislation. 

If the Minister wasn’t so lazy maybe he could see it through the process of being passed through Parliament signed by the Governor General and proclaimed in the Canada Gazette.

In conclusion we see Section 47.1 is amendable and the Section and the Canadian Wheat Board Act are indeed under the control of Parliament.

The Conservatives have played to their supporters and claim Section 47.1 "usurp the Supremacy of Parliament."

What any reasonable person should conclude is Section 47.1 is under the control of Parliament. She/he should also conclude that Section 47.1 is not under the sole control and power of the Minister or Our Glorious Leader and this most likely frustrates them and their supporters to great lengths.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wheat board bill passes in Senate - Manitoba - CBC News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> First...


Sigh... where do I begin... I quite simply don't have the time to address all your links and missing attachments in detail other than to say, sorry the majority (I dare say in totality) of your so called "evidence" is irrelevant to section 47.1 and whether or not it "meets the requirements of a “manner and form” provision." 

This is the point and will undoubtedly be the crux of the governments appeal you completely failed to address this in any significant way.

As for the Ministers so called laziness you obviously have no idea how much time and consultation is spent with Parliamentary legal counsel in order to draft a Bill... if the Minister were being so "lazy" it would be pointed out in short order by said legal counsel.

The majority of your post was a rather a trite exercise on your part to try and indicate that the Minister knows how to introduce Legislation. Sorry but that was just a silly demonstration and waste of time.

I will comment on one specific reference:



> [45]The first task in statutory interpretation is to discern the ordinary sense or meaning of the relevant provision. In the present case, section 47 expressly provides the Governor in Council with the authority to extend the application of Parts III and IV or either of them to barley. Section 47 does not expressly refer to the exclusion of barley or any grain. Section 47.1, however, expressly provides that barley may be excluded from the application of the Act. As well, in section 47.1, Parliament reserved to itself the power to exclude barley provided that certain conditions were met. Within the Act itself, there is no express delegated authority to the Governor in Council to exclude barley. Read together in their ordinary sense, the power to include barley is delegated to the Governor in Council, *but the power to exclude is reserved to Parliament*.


*As opposed to Governor in Council*, but the Minister *must* consult with and receive the consent of a 3rd party before *amending* the Bill. 

Are you suggesting that if the Minister had consulted with the Wheat Board Members and they voted against his proposed Bill that he could legally have gone ahead with C-18? If not then s47.1 usurps the Supremacy of Parliament and relinquishes it to a 3rd party. If yes then s47.1 is irrelevant to the introduction Bill C-18.

The point is not whether or not the Bill can be amended in general but with respect to the manner and form that s47.1 precludes, prescribes and provides.

Could the Minister have gone a different rout before introducing Bill C-18? Sure but at this point it is a moot point and the only thing that matters is the pending appeal which all hinges on the constitutionality of s47.1. Your argument does not address this in any significant way and would and could only be seen as an opinion of no greater or lesser significance than mine as we have no say in the matter. The only say that matters will be that of the Appellant Court Judge and perhaps beyond that Supreme Court Justices.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

No problems with that, my comments were addressed to "Viewers" (if any still drop into this thread). The usually impartial group, circled in red, that mostly cause the number in the views column to increase.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, well, it looks like the fat lady has sung. Hello marketing freedom for farmers:

Manitoba court denies initial challenge to wheat board law


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*And now, the logical conclusion of the Wheat Board fiasco... handing over something publicly-owned to the corporate sector...*

*Canadian Wheat Board prepares for corporate takeover*










_They called it "Marketing Freedom Day": Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in a Saskatchewan field and vowed that Prairie grain farmers would "never, never again" suffer at the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board.

What the politicians weren't saying in 2012, when that monopoly permitting farmers to only sell their product to the CWB sank into the horizon, was that liberation wouldn't stop there.

Farmers and Canadian taxpayers will soon be completely free of the CWB assets — but not with a conventional sale.

*Under a sort of reverse-nationalization plan now taking shape behind closed doors, a private-sector investor will assume control without reimbursing the federal treasury for assets Canadians paid for*, or at least indirectly financed.

* * *​
Little is known about the CWB's current financial health, because Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz exercises power given to him in 2011 to withhold information "detrimental to commercial interests." 

A report Ritz submitted to Parliament last July contained no financial statements. Many big players in the international grain business aren't publicly traded. _​

(CBC)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Next, the CBC!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Give the damned CBC away for nothing. That move will pay for itself inside a year.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Give the damned CBC away for nothing. That move will pay for itself inside a year.


C'mon, at 20 bucks a ton...


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Shutting down both the CWB and the CBC are the right thing(s) to do, for sure. It would be nice though, to at least get something for those assets, wouldn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Shutting down both the CWB and the CBC are the right thing(s) to do, for sure. It would be nice though, to at least get something for those assets, wouldn't it?


What are the assets of the CWB--storage facilities? Train yard?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_A long, but very interesting article on the current state of wheat farming and the aftermath of the dismantling of the CWB:
_
*Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the CWB simply hadn't acted like such a-holes and let farmers have the same freedom as other businesspeople, none of this would have been necessary. Nice going, CWB! 



CubaMark said:


> _A long, but very interesting article on the current state of wheat farming and the aftermath of the dismantling of the CWB:
> _
> *Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> _A long, but very interesting article on the current state of wheat farming and the aftermath of the dismantling of the CWB:
> _
> *Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board*


When the existence of the CWB and the laws of the land that protected it sent Canadian farmers to jail for simply trying to sell their crops for a better price, there was something terribly wrong with this country. 

That wrong was fixed and righty so. The CWB was a flawed dictatorship and thousands of farmers celebrated its demise. Farmers owe the government a debt of gratitude for opening up the market.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> When the existence of the CWB and the laws of the land that protected it sent Canadian farmers to jail for simply trying to sell their crops for a better price, there was something terribly wrong with this country.


One would almost surmise that you fellas read the first two paragraphs (that support your position) and called it a night... XX)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A a matter of fact I did read the entire piece. It is a typical leftist view by a city based journalist who only wrote for the pro CWB types.

Nothing in the article leads me to even consider allowing the CWB to jail farmers who want choice. Nothing.

Not a chance would I advocate a return to the dictatorial stranglehold the board had on the market.

The railways ned to be leaned on hard and long to restore flow to the system, not re-establish a single system compulsory brand of bureaucratic nonsense.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> The railways ned to be leaned on hard and long to restore flow to the system, not re-establish a single system compulsory brand of bureaucratic nonsense.


This is precisely one of the points raised in the article... that after privatization, the railways have the freedom to prioritize other clients rather than fulfill an obligation to farmers; and with the CWB's sell-off, it no longer represents any sort of weight to, as you say, "lean on" the railways to comply.

I would think that you would be opposed to any sort of "lean on", given your expressed opinion that private businesses (rail, in this case) should not be subjected to any government interference. With all due respect, your position appears to be rather contradictory.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> One would almost surmise that you fellas read the first two paragraphs (that support your position) and called it a night... XX)


 
Yeah, it's pretty obvious they didn't.

The article was a really good one. I thought he represented all sides of the argument for the CWB, and showed that the dismantling of the CWB was definitely bungled by the Conservatives who didn't put any thought into what they were dismantling. CWB had a big infrastructure created and had a lot of pull with the train companies.

It's going to take a lot of years to fix this up and the poor farmers are going to pay for it. Most of which never wanted it. All so the government probably could save some money. Poor sap that thought Harper was in it to help them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> This is precisely one of the points raised in the article... that after privatization, the railways have the freedom to prioritize other clients rather than fulfill an obligation to farmers; and with the CWB's sell-off, it no longer represents any sort of weight to, as you say, "lean on" the railways to comply.
> 
> I would think that you would be opposed to any sort of "lean on", given your expressed opinion that private businesses (rail, in this case) should not be subjected to any government interference. With all due respect, your position appears to be rather contradictory.


I have no issue leaning on mostly American owned and run railways when it comes to keeping the wheat moving to market. And it wasn't government who leaned on farmers, it was a private business called the CWB.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

And now we have quality control issues:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/c...ed-quality-complaints-061254782--finance.html

Although I can see some of the blame for this on our weather and the actual crops this past year, there is definitely evidence that there are inspection problems and quality control problems. Things are falling through the gaps.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

maybe not re-elect Harper. Time for a change for the better.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rabble really is for idiots, I guess. Photoshop memes are a poor substitute for reality.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Rabble really is for idiots, I guess. Photoshop memes are a poor substitute for reality.


And what's your version of the truth today, MacFury?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody is getting the CWB for free.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Enlighten us. What are the proposed terms of "purchase" of the CWB assets, then?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

For the record, the Rabble article on the CWB "giveaway" states:

_Playing by Conservative rules, a 3,000-member farmers' consortium called Farmers of North America put together a bid to buy the Board and all its assets (grain elevators, rail lines, ships, offices, and other such stuff).

The 3,000 farmers offered somewhere between $250 and $350 million for the Board. On the face of it and based on estimated evaluations of the Board's value, that offer seems like a good price for Canadian taxpayers, who own at least some of the Board's assets. 

And the consortium would keep ownership of the Board's assets in Canada, which prairie farmers and the Harper government would consider to be something of a virtue, one might think.

The current Wheat Board's Conservative government-appointed board of directors rejected the offer, however, without giving any reason -- at least not publicly.

Now, there are persistent rumours that the Conservatives plan to simply transfer ownership of the Board, and all its grain handling equipment, to U.S. mega-corporation Archer Daniel Midlands, for a price of -- wait for it -- $0.00.

The entire process is totally non-transparent. It seems that neither the public nor Parliament has the right to know anything in detail about how the government plans to privatize a venerable Canadian institution._​
*Here's Rabble's take on the Question Period Q&A on precisely the issue of "sale" vs. "giveway":*

_On Tuesday, December 2, in the House, a few days after Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz shared very sparse information on the Wheat Board's future with the House Agriculture Committee, the NDP's Agriculture Critic Malcolm Allen tried to get clear and forthright answers.

Here's how the exchange between Allen and the Minister went:

*Allen:* "Farmers of North America recently offered to buy the Canadian Wheat Board ... The Conservatives rejected the offer. They did not give a reason. They just said 'no'. Now, we hear the minister will hand over the Wheat Board's assets to the private sector for a grand total -- get this -- of zero... I ask a simple question. Why would the Conservative government give away these assets free to multinational corporations instead of simply selling to Canadian farmers and actually gaining a real value for Canadian farmers...?"

*Ritz:* "...The Farmers of North America's bid was adjudicated by a third-party auditor and legal team that the Canadian Wheat Board put into place. This was not a political process. As to the assets of the Wheat Board, they will become part of a privatization plan as it looks to recapitalize with another partner. That is exactly what is happening, under the auspices -- as I said, all these tenders are looked at through the eyes of a third-party audit team, as well as a legal team."

So there you have it: The Minister of Agriculture's fulsome explanation. Ritz never denied that the Wheat Board was preparing to, in effect, give away its assets. He merely obfuscated. He said those assets "will become part of a privatization plan" -- as though we did not know that already._​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, that's how i heard it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Nobody is getting the CWB for free.


.....  ......


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Rabble really is for idiots, I guess.


There is no guessing about it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

CWB should be given, never mind sold, to the Farmers. But Stephen Harper seems to love giving things away to foreign companies.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Enlighten us. What are the proposed terms of "purchase" of the CWB assets, then?





CubaMark said:


> .....  ......


There is no deal, there are negotiations.

"Persistent rumours" is all you've got to hang your coat on. Not saying you in particular, but rather typical of the media and the Opposition. 

Please enlighten us as to the deal as none exists, just FUD, rumour and speculation at this point. It was the Wheat Board itself that rejected the farmers deal.

I can't help it if you, the Opposition and the media are confused by a negotiation process.

That is your collective problem, not mine or the government's.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*...and there she goes....*

Canadian Wheat Board Privatized With Sale To G3 Global Grain Group

The company that was once Canada's monopoly wheat marketing board has been sold off to *a joint venture controlled by U.S. and Saudi companies.*

G3 Global Grain Group, as the wheat board's new owner is known, is owned by food company Bunge Canada, a subsidiary of New York-based Bunge Ltd., and SALIC Canada, a subsidiary of Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co.

The Canadian Press reports:

_WINNIPEG - The federal government is privatizing the Canadian Wheat Board by selling majority ownership to G3 Global Grain Group.

The new company, based in Winnipeg, will get 50.1 per cent of the organization in exchange for an investment of $250 million.

The remaining 49.9 per cent will be kept in trust for farmers who deliver grain to the board.
Ottawa says the agreement will see a new coast-to-coast grain processing and shipping network.

It also says the deal will increase Canada's ability to export grain, create jobs and spawn economic growth in the Prairies.

Terms are expected to be finalized June 1._​
(CP / HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good news! Thanks for posting!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And don't forget this:

*Supreme Court won’t hear appeal of group seeking to sue Ottawa over wheat board*

http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/na...group-seeking-to-sue-ottawa-over-wheat-board/


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> ...


+1


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> *...and there she goes....*


Woohoo!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The farmers even get a big gift. Win-win!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canadian Wheat Board Sold To G3 Global Grain Group, Becomes G3 Canada*

The federal government has closed the book on the agency that once marketed almost all the grain produced by western Canadian farmers.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz says Ottawa has finalized the sale of the Canadian Wheat Board to G3 Global Grain Group.

"The commercialization of the CWB has been part of the government's broader modernization of Canada's grain sector to stimulate investment and create jobs and economic growth for farmers and Canadians,'' Ritz said in a release Friday.

The federal government announced in April that G3, which is partly owned by Saudi Arabia, would buy 50.1 per cent of the board for $250 million.

It said the rest would be kept in trust for grain farmers, but in seven years G3 has the option to buy back the units at market value.

* * *​
Prairie farmers going as far back as 1935 used to sell their wheat and barley to the board, which in turn exported it to foreign markets.

Despite several lawsuits and vocal opposition from some farmers, the federal government went ahead three years ago with a long-standing promise to abolish the monopoly.

A group called Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board hasn't given up the fight.

Lawyer Anders Bruun said Friday the group is to be in Federal Court in Ottawa this fall in a bid to have a class-action lawsuit against the federal government certified.

The group contends that Ottawa mismanaged about $720 million that should have been paid to grain farmers from the 2011-2012 crop year.

* * *​
Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board believes the sale is short-sighted and will benefit the Saudis at the expense of producers, Bruun said.

"The objective of the Saudis will be to get grain as cheaply as they can from Prairie farmers."​

(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody is forcing them to deal with G3 Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Finally complete freedom of choice for western grain producers. Amen!


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> Finally complete freedom of choice for western grain producers. Amen!


Agreed! Next stop, dairy marketing!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Agreed! Next stop, dairy marketing!


Still shocking to cross the border from Ontario to NY and see a litre of milk going from $3.25 to 99 cents, simply because of price controls.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

That's both ends of the problem. Our prices are artificially high due to marketing boards and price controls, their are artificially low due to subsidies. Get rid of both, and let the real price be the price.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> That's both ends of the problem. Our prices are artificially high due to marketing boards and price controls, their are artificially low due to subsidies. Get rid of both, and let the real price be the price.


I want the US taxpayer to subsidize what I pay for milk!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Sale of Wheat Board to be scrutinized by Liberal government*

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) won’t be restored under the new Liberal government, but farmers could finally see its books, kept secret since the government removed its marketing monopoly in 2012.

“A number of farmers has raised the question and said the numbers just don’t add up,” Saskatchewan MP and former agriculture minister Ralph Goodale said in an interview last week.

“Once we have a chance to examine the information that’s available internally maybe we will be able to shed some light for farmers on just exactly what transpired. What values were involved, what money changed hands, how the assets were valued and how it came about that Bunge and Saudi Arabia are now effectively the owners of what used to be the wheat board.

“*It appears to have been a gift* _(empasis added)_. But until we have a chance to view the internal information it’s just impossible to fully assess what has gone on here. You can imagine why some farmers are curious.

* * *

While the transaction raised eyebrows among some Canadian grain company executives and was criticized by several farm groups, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz defended it saying it made for a stronger new company.

Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is suing the government, alleges CWB assets belonged to farmers. It wants to see the wheat board’s financial statements.

Canada’s agriculture minister is obliged to present the wheat board’s annual report to Parliament — something Ritz said he did. However, what was made public revealed almost nothing. Ritz said he was permitted to keep sensitive information private.​
(Manitoba Cooperator)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The farmers got a gift of almost half the company anyway. Wish the Libs had been as open with those sponsorship scandal documents when they were in power as they are planning to be with the Wheat Board file.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Sask. farmers call for return of Canadian Wheat Board*

A meeting of Prairie farmers has called for the return of a single-desk system for grain marketing.

The Canadian Wheat Board Alliance says more than 50 farmers from the Swan River and Pelly areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan met last week and unanimously passed a resolution calling for the re-establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The group says the loss of the single-desk system has resulted in an increasingly dysfunctional rail system, reduced grain quality guarantees to other nations and an overall loss of $6.5 billion in income to farmers over the last two years.

Former agriculture Minister Ritz passed legislation ending the Canadian Wheat Board, and last year half of its assets were sold to Saudi-owned G-3 Global Grain Group. 

(CBC)

Related: Buyers of Canadian wheat say quality lower than during board's monopoly - Politics - CBC News

XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

they should band together and form their own board.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> they should band together and form their own board.


All 50 of em? Geez what a world force they will be! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'd like to see their calculations re: $6.5 billion in losses but there's no way in hell I'm gonna click on a CBC link.

I found a PDF that was more political than research, with no bibliography enclosed. Had a quick look online for the paper, no luck.

If anybody has a link, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like Canadian growers are shipping a crap product according to CM's link--he wants the government to fix it.



FeXL said:


> I'd like to see their calculations re: $6.5 billion in losses but there's no way in hell I'm gonna click on a CBC link.
> 
> I found a PDF that was more political than research, with no bibliography enclosed. Had a quick look online for the paper, no luck.
> 
> If anybody has a link, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Looks like Canadian growers are shipping a crap product according to CM's link--he wants the government to fix it.


Looks like you guys have a friend in Justin Trudeau... XX)

Liberal 180 on Canadian Wheat Board ‘shocking’: Mulcair


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

He's no friend and frankly I for one am not surprised by the decision. To do anything to revive the Wheat Board would incur the wrath of a huge majority of western farmers who are glad to see it gone after fighting against its monopoly for many long years. I guess the Libs know better than to potentially lose the agriculture vote. As for the lame duck Dipper leader, he ought to have quit after the last election, but then again with all those mortgages to pay off . . .


----------

