Fool Me Once Shame onshame on You Fool Me  You Cant Get Fooled Again
| November 24, 2006 | 20:17 1 Incognito; I keep running across this: "All countries that are signatories to GATT, including Australia, have agreed to stop consign subsidies by 2013, and that includes a statutory monopoly for marketing wheat. So as things stand up the single desk is now due to end in seven years." It hadn't really sunk in... but this means the CWB also. When did this happen? |
| November 24, 2006 | 20:32 2 Tom even if we do get rid of the monopoly, what is the likelyhood that export subsidies will be eliminated by others. Nosotros have heard this earlier.  |
| November 24, 2006 | 21:xl three I've run across it this week besides. The Aussies are making information technology audio like it was signed into the WTO, it was in the 2004 certificate just it was a watered downwardly version was signed last Dec to make it wing. The doc was like 300 pages and i've never seen it. The former Aussie Ambassador to GATT said it was but a foregone decision that STE's were dead meat and a slow methodical approach would be easier on smaller farms as they make the progression to a fully open up market place. And so the left side and right side can dig in all they want - if the industry keeps going the style information technology is ane December y'all are going to wake upward and have 7 months to get fix for a new earth. Goodale announced the WGTA in December effective Baronial 01 in Ottawa lest u forget and and so the little nazi had the luck to take 1996 grain prices and anybody said - this aint so bad. Any preceived value of the CWB is diminishing everyday on the world stage as a bargaining tool and within these boundaries as a payment to farmers. The Gov guarantee is worth something. AT whatever rate, history dictates the left and correct volition fight until there is no value...and when a free trade panel somewhere says its over - wonder why you didn't take the first deal because information technology was the all-time deal. How many wish they would have listened to Otto Lang and his bail theory to pay the crow out? But the left said - why have CROW coin its in that location for life - says so in the Human activity. Their interpretation of the Act was wrong - and who paid? That same crew and organization is demanding status quo again for all you lot bush-league haters you are acting like his quote... Fool me once, shame on�shame on you. Fool me�you tin can�t get fooled once more.... Even the erstwhile Liberal Tdade Government minister said at the WTO meeting in Geneva - it was 139-i - nosotros were all alone and the CWB went wild - brought Easter in and gave him enough conference notes to asphyxiate a Washington lawyer and said go forth and multiply. Some other tactic the left is using is that if you dismantle - you tin can't go it dorsum... It aint gonna thing - the correct on this issue and the left on this issue are polarized and in the stop some suit in the Eu is going to determine what grain marketing is like in western Canada. Chuck may evangelize a barley vote, exam the waters and appease the right and sit back and see what the WTO brings simply like Goodale did with WGTA. Damn WTO people made us get rid of it right at present - but he really traded off supply management for x years for a quick resolution to the trans subsidy. And what did you get - a 755 million a year subsidy - gone for 1.three billion - 2 years worth of subsidy. What fine negotiators the left and right side of the industry are for farmers in the heart ground. The CWB right now is like an overweight, unemployed son or daughter that is 45 years old - not married and living at dwelling house. It is costing you lot coin - simply withal has sentimental value. you have four choices: one) cut the umbical cord later all these years and hope the family survives ii) hope someone marries into the family and shares your fiscal burden three) practise aught and hope the trouble goes away iv) take out an add together in the western producer and transfer you trouble to someone else If i was Chuck et al right now i would opt for #4 except the paper i would use would exist in Geneva. HE wont cause he has bigger gonads than me - but thats what Goodale was waiting for. weird industry - xv % of the right and for 50 years y'all never got what was entitled and thats what i cannot figure out holy - what a ramble - u taking lessons E VADER...lol |
| Nov 24, 2006 | 22:49 iv I was brushing off my Canadian Grain Commission files... and it dawned on me nosotros have missed an important element in this CWB plebicite issue. The CWB Act is incorporated nether "Regulation of Merchandise and Commerce"(91(iii)) not "Agronomics" This means all Canadians are responsible for the sales the CWB make... which of course is correct because all Canadians stand backside the Pool Accounts of the CWB with the authorities guarantee. Profits other than from Role III are to become to the Consolodated Revenue Fund, not to the Pool accounts (CWB Act Department 7(two)) and all loses come up from the people of Canada... "shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament" (7(3)). Since we see this: "Ottawa (23 Nov. 2006) - The 340,000-member National Union of Public and Full general Employees is joining the entrada to save the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and asking the Harper Conservative authorities not to dismantle the marketing agency as big-time agribusiness is demanding." Legally the Union who works for Canada, the CWB, the CGC, and all the Commerce between are a office of the CWB "Merchandise and Commerce" selling the CWB does. If information technology was argued that a "Producer" of grain did non "produce" the grain until information technology was dumped down the elevator pit, Clearly the grower can only market this grain through the CWB "unmarried desk", and the CWB is the seller into interprovincial and consign markets... not the individual grower. This is why Goodale did not provide a "Maximisation of Returns" provision in the CWB Act in 1998. It is not the individual growers grain... it is the nation of Canada'due south grain. NAFTA has ruled The CWB Act distributes the "profits" of all sales above the initial price... Once again the grower does non ain the grain in the menstruation of "Merchandise and Commerce"... the people of Canada do. Farther, A potent argument should be made that the people of Canada are the vendor who is the real "producer"... as the legislation uses elevators that are "Works for the General advantage of Canada" under the CWB Human activity; and the quality is determined by a manditory system that are the "Grades for the Full general advantage of Canada". The Barley or Wheat is "produced" and then sold, when it is loaded into a bounding main going ship... at a Canadian Port, or loaded into a rail motorcar headed for the USA. Simple solution; Tell the Marriage and all Canadians they are entitled to vote on a nation wide CWB "single desk"... that is going to end in 2013 equally per GATT rules anyway. WE tin can have the exclusion and inclusion vote all at the aforementioned time... both wheat and barley... get it all over. Question: (something like this) The Canadian Wheat Board "single desk-bound" Monopoly must apply to Canada and imprision those grain growers who break this monopoly. (YES or NO) |
| Nov 25, 2006 | 08:16 5 Archibald five. Canada 12]The appellants also take result with the Trial Gauge's apparent conclusion that, nevertheless the Charter, the Canadian Wheat Board Human action is valid law because it is authorized under the federal government'southward constitutional jurisdiction to regulate trade and commerce under section 91, class 2 of the Constitution Human activity, 1867.13 Past way of example, the appellants point to his determination [at paragraphs 191-192, pages 439-440] that: . . . without any consideration of section 1, [of the Charter] the CWB Deed and the Board'southward monopoly are valid in law, and despite the Lease, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Courtroom of Canada in the Ontario Carve up Schools Reference, [1987] ane Due south.C.R. 1148, in regard to Parliament'southward legislative jurisdiction under section 91, course 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In Canada's gratuitous and democratic order, Parliament, with its undoubted power to make laws inside the form of discipline [sic] of trade and commerce, must remain free to fix what is quintessentially a political problem, by freeing or regulating the market, virtually as it and the government come across fit . . . . Such decisions are for Parliament and not for the Courtroom, so long every bit Parliament infringes no Charter rights, or if information technology does, so long as the infringement be demonstrably justified, or if a ramble imperative exacts the unimpaired integrity of a head of legislative power. [Emphasis added.] 101]The Trial Estimate was disquisitional of Supreme Court jurisprudence which he interpreted to require that merely the original purpose of legislation was relevant for purposes of a section one analysis. Irrespective of the view he expressed, he relied on the purpose of the legislation when information technology was concluding re-enacted by Parliament in 1967. No outcome arises from the learned Judge'south view expressed on this issue. Nor did the learned Judge's comments with respect to section 91, class 2 of the Constitution Human action, 1867, the federal trade and commerce power, impact the validity of his Oakes analysis. |
| Nov 25, 2006 | 09:42 half dozen White potato vs. CPR "Per Taschereau, Locke, Fauteux, and Abbitt JJ.: The Canadian Wheat Lath Human action, which controls and regulates not 1 trade or business but several, including the activities of the producer, the railroads, and the elevators, in and so far every bit the provisions relate to the consign of grain from the province for the purpose of sale, is an deed in relation to the regulation of merchandise and commerce within due south. 91 of the B.N.A. Deed. The fact that information technology interferes with property and civil rights in the province is immaterial." [SCC 1958] |
| Nov 25, 2006 | 10:02 7 gotta dearest the Cyberspace eh Tom. Skilful find. |
| November 25, 2006 | 11:48 eight re:Fool me once, shame on�shame on you. Fool me�you tin can�t get fooled again.... Incog, TOM4CWB, I misunderestimate both of you |
| Nov 25, 2006 | 13:05 nine http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic/sounds/prez&who.mp3 dunno if this is the Right one every bit speakers take LEFT the building. |
| November 25, 2006 | 13:55 10 re: The fact that information technology interferes with property and civil rights in the province is immaterial." [SCC 1958] Rights and freedoms within Canada have never been that strong for the commoners. Wonder what the SCC would say today? |
| Nov 25, 2006 | xv:39 xi Incognito & WD9, In fact the "agriculture" part of the grain growing business organization is outside the jurisdiction of the CWB Act. R. vs Sommerville Sommerville transported 4326bu of feed wheat (grown in SK.) across the AB/SK border and fed information technology to cattle he endemic in AB. Sommerville broke the CWB Act Section 32(b), [now section 45(b)]. "Except as permitted nether the regulations, no person other than the Board shall transport or cause to be transported from ane province to some other, wheat or wheat products owned past a person other than the Board." Somerville's Charges for breaking the CWB Human action for not having a valid CWB license were dismissed. It was acknowledged that Sommerville couldn't get a license. HELD The Canadian Wheat Lath was incorporated with the object of marketing, in an orderly fashion, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada. The purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board Act was to prevent the Respondent marketing his grain outside Saskatchewan, and s. 32(b) [45(b)] was designed to prevent the transport of grain out of Saskatchewan for that purpose. The Human action was held by this Court to be valid as an practice of Parliament'south legislative power in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce. To interpret s. 32(b)[45(b)] every bit applying to circumstances of this case would exist to utilise it for an object outside the intention of the Human activity and would involve the conclusion that the Act applied to purposes other than the regulation of merchandise and commerce. The facts of this case involve no trade in grain by the respondent and no commercial transaction. |
Source: https://www.agriville.com/threads/7178-the-cwb-single-desk
0 Response to "Fool Me Once Shame onshame on You Fool Me  You Cant Get Fooled Again"
Post a Comment