Barley Court Decision

[charliep]

kamichel. Short answer yes. The federal government does not have the right (from this decision which may be subject to appeal) to remove barley from the CWB act through regulation. They need approval of parliment. This is from a layman so need to take this opinion with that in mind.

If you have some trouble sleeping tonight, the judges full ruling is located at:

http:/cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1123-07.pdf

[charliep]

here is the governments response, bit lame and sure hope they have plan B !
Erik


OTTAWA, Ontario, July 31, 2007 – The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture

and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today issued the following

statement in response to a Federal Court decision on the Canadian Wheat Board

Regulations that would have allowed Western Canadian farmers to choose how they market

their barley beginning August 1, 2007.

“I am most disappointed with the decision of the Federal Court. We will carefully review the

Court decision and decide on our next steps accordingly.

“A significant majority of barley producers is looking for greater marketing choice. I know they

will be very disappointed with this decision but I am confident that they will follow the law as it

is.”

[charliep]

Todays ruling is sickening!! It just shows what kind of cage we are in as farmers.

The CWB say they are farmer run operation. We put a vote foward, we won. They did not like our decision so they take it to court, and the decision is overturned.

My question is what do we control??? Absoulutley nothing, it's a F--ing joke!! How is it that hard to understand that I want to market my own grain.

I have put this question foward many times this past year. How is it any different than having the choice of 6-7 elevators competing for your buisiness in your area?? What if ADM tommorrow is offering $12.00 canola, because they have a sale to meet, and the Gov't tells us we can't haul to ADM?? It's absolutley ridiculous!!!

[charliep]

Here is the correct link to the ruling (forgot one of the backslashes after http

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/T-1124-07.pdf

Hopefully will work this time.

[cottonpicken]

What kind of scotch erik?

[cottonpicken]

Oban is my favorite, but not worth wasting getting drunk on over this, way too good of a scotch for that!
Erik

[peaqueen]

Show me the money! Show me the money, Ken Ritter & friends.

Every now and then the stars and the moon line up and farmers have their day, in a short market in the world. 2007, the Chinese year of the pig, this was the year, when wheat and barley would hit records highs in a competitive market. So, all I say to the as the pigs get slaughtered, and the sheep are in the pen to the friends of the CWB who have penned the sheep, and slaughtered the opportunity is something my mother used to say "with friends like this you do not need enemies.

Wheat is poised to hit world high prices, barley the same, this should indeed provide a unique opportunity to provide high prices to farmers.

So, Ken Ritter and friends, show me the money.

And as you rob us of the best rate of return in 30 years, oneday (yes too late) you may realize what you and the CWB have cost yet another generation of
farmers of the west.

If you are moving from this country, it would appear even Russia would be better they no longer are communist.

There is not enough Scotch produced to drown the reality of this lost opportunity, AGAIN.

Are we that stupid to allow this to escape?

[Fransisco]

Here is the judge's final point and reason for her decision.

<blockquote>[52] In my opinion, in 1998, Parliament did not intend to create two alternative regimes for the
exclusion of barley from the Act. Instead, I conclude that the 1998 amendments were intended to
create separate self-contained processes, one to extend the Act to barley and one to exclude barley
from the Act. The inclusion of section 47.1 reflects a contrary intention by Parliament that displaces
the statutory presumption in subsection 31(4) of the Interpretation Act.</blockquote>

[Fransisco]

Here's another interesting tid bit

<blockquote>[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. <b>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.</b></blockquote>

[Fransisco]

So apparently it's easier to put barley in than it is to take it out and a completely different process.

Now ask yourselves what this has to do with letting farmers decide, or putting the power in farmers hands.