Why 14 (a) in the CWB Act is not their Big Stick

[Vader]

I would caution you as characterizing statments made by individual CWB employees or even CWB Directors as being binding on the CWB in a strict legal sense. They may in fact be expressing their own personal opinions as I am here.

[Vader]

The last thing that I would make note of is a more general note that when courts are interpreting the law which is what you are doing here Carol, they weigh heavily the "intent" of the legislators.

Obviously the intent of the legislation is an "orderly" marketing plan where the CWB has exclusive rights over marketing wheat and barley in the "designated" area.

If you view the CWB Act with this as your starting point any portion of the Act can be given the correct attribution. If you start your argument with the premise that the CWB has no authority over your grain marketing you will come up with many bogey men.

The CWB Act has been challenged many times and has always found favor with the courts even when the plaintiffs had what on the surface would seem to be some very legitimate arguments. You are fighting "city hall". It will be an uphill battle.

[parsley]

gerald.d,

Astute observation.

I believe that any producer who does not "offer" their grain to the CWB, is legally entitled to bypass Part III Board marketing and BOard pooling.

Parsley

[sumdumguy]

Seems like the wording is clear,"this applies to ALL of Canada, OR NONE!" What about precedent?

[sumdumguy]

Seems like the wording is clear,"this applies to ALL of Canada, OR NONE!" What about precedent?

[parsley]

Vader,
Thanks for coming online and replying.I think all farmers appreciate that you have committed to "being available".

First of all, note that the words

1)marketing
2)selling
3)pricing

are NOT defined in the lists you provided. None of them are actually defined in the CWB Act. Agreed?

Parsley

[parsley]

Examining how the law has already been interpreted is not within the exclusive domain of CWB employees, either.

In other words, CWB employess cannot sit in the backroom and look at a phrase from the Act, and say, , "Hey, I think it means this...Let's go for it", get a motion passed!", because inevitably what the big guys in the wigs have decided comes home to roost:

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, intent cannot change according to some perceived new utility, but must be interpreted according to the intent of the original drafters.

Thus the phrases which did not mean the buy-back process in 1947, for example, can not now be interpreted to mean the buy-back.

From the Supreme Court in R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731: [tab B2, page 180]

"The court must look to the intention of Parliament when the section was enacted or amended. It cannot assign objectives, nor invent new ones according to the perceived current utility ....."

and R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295: [tab B3, page 182]

"Furthermore, the theory of a shifting purpose stands in stark contrast to fundamental notions developed in our law concerning the nature of 'Parliamentary intention'.

Purpose is a function of the intent of those who drafted and enacted the legislation at the time, and not any shifting variable." (underlining added)

Can we agree on what the Supreme Cout says here?

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marketing

Marketing is one of the terms in academia that does not have one commonly agreed upon definition. Even after a better part of a century the debate continues. In a nutshell it consists of the social and managerial processes by which products, services and value are exchanged in order to fulfill individual's or group's needs and wants. These processes include, but are not limited to, advertising.

I can find no definition anywhere that defines marketing as "buying and selling".

I was talking recently to Margaret Redmond (who last year left her CWB position as Executive VP Corporate Affairs) to take her MBA in marketing. She said to me "it's not at all marketing as we referred to it at the CWB".

[parsley]

sumdumguy,

Parliament could have put licensing requirements into just the Designated Area, but they chose to apply licensing to all of Canada. Ontario still has to suck up to the CWB to get export licenses.

Parsley

[parsley]

Britannica Edition of Funk and
The CWB say they are a marketer of grain.

Wagnalls Standard Dictionary
Vol.1 PartI A-P

marketer:

"One who buys or sells in a market"

Parsley

[parsley]

Also from the CWB Act, there are a number of reasons why CWB marketing does not include selling by the Board:

1. "Selling" is not in Parts II and III. It is referred to in Section 7.(1) as "selling" under the title "Pricing"

Please note that the word "selling" is simply not in the DA part of the act!

Parsley

[parsley]

chaff,

Don't believe everything a Wheat Board employee tells you.

Parsley

[parsley]

Vader,

I agree with you that the General Objective of Section 5. of the CWB Act is marketing in an orderly fashion)).

Parsley

[parsley]

But also note that the selling objective of section 7.(1) is to promote the sale of grain grown in Canada.

"Grain" is not just wheat aand barley....look up the definitions Vader posted. It's a whack of grains!

Parsley

[parsley]

To emphasize.. there is a difference between the specific "selling" in 7. and the general objective in 5.