Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Summer's Best Album? | Main | Alberta Tories refuse to name nuclear lobbyists: NDP »

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Flooding Bail-Outs

This past summer was a bad year for flooding in Manitoba, once of the worst since the big flood of 1997; Manitobans that were impacted by this years flood will receive $40 million in aid.

In past posts I have criticized this move, saying that it is up to private homeowners to have the proper insurance or face the risk of living and/or building in an area known to have a history of flooding, that taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out the poor decisions of other people.

But you know, I've been re-thinking this.

If your property is damaged, you deserve restitution from the party that caused the damage.

The river that caused the flooding is "public property", which really means its government property. So if government property destroys your home, whether it is their hydro pole falling on your car or their river flooding your land, then the government should pay restitution. If it was a private corporations' property that caused the damage, they of course would be held liable, as so should the government.

Too bad though that the government gets their cash from people not involved in the property damage, taxpayers.

The honest thing would be for the compensation to come straight out of politicians salaries, since it is their property that caused the damage.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on July 8, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink


Here's what the plaintiffs see as non-legal changes applied as law (unlike CWB case) and alleged breach of the criminal and conspiracy laws not investigated.

What the RCMP considers as not needing any investigation. Also, to the reported 50 RCMP officers that the government is sending to Afghanistan this summer, keep your heads down and watch where you step over there.

How the western farmers may have lost an estimated billion dollars in NISA benefits an trillions of dollars (over 102,000 NISA participants @ $100,000.00-$1,000,000.00 each) in punitive damages.(BSE case asking or Pilot Insurance case)

The Boyko v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture)[2000] F.C.J. 399 case was heard January 14, 2000 and the order delivered April 4, 2000 by Judge Rouleau J.. He stated in part that his reasons for the order was based on the defendant’s evidence, which I believe now, mostly misled the court after reviewing Rasa Rutkauskas cross-examination. The court decision reads in part as follows:

“15. In the present case, the Guidelines in question are clearly a studied policy formulated by the parties to the NISA Agreement after public consultation and years of deliberation by NISA officials and committee members. They are of general application to all of the voluntary participants in the NISA program. There is no evidence here of bad faith or reliance having been placed upon irrelevant or extraneous considerations in the development of the Guidelines. Although the present application is couched in terms as a direct attack on the recommendation of the Appeal Sub-Committee to apply the policy, the real essence of the applicants’ complaint is with the policy itself; in other words, they take exception to the fact that the term “eligible net sales” does not include grain transportation costs to port and argue that the Guidelines in some way constitute an unlawful amendment of the NISA Agreement. However, all of the evidence before this court clearly established that the meaning of “eligible net sales” has never, since the inception of the program to the present, included grain transportation costs to port nor has the NISA Agreement ever been formally amended to reflect any change of that nature. In short, the Guidelines continue the same policy as has always existed within the NISA Program.”

The listed Roger Eyvindson in Appendix B swore in his affidavit in the Boyko case which reads in part:

“26………”As a result, this matter was referred to the representatives of the parties to the Federal/Provincial Agreement who approved the Point of Sale Guidelines as outlined in paragraph 25. I attached a copy of the relevant record of decision as Exhibit “D” to this my affidavit.”


“35. The Point of Sale Guidelines approved by the parties to the Federal/Provincial Agreement on October 24, 1994, (Exhibit D”) are the current Point of sale Guidelines and were the Point of sale Guidelines in the stabilization years 1996 and 1997.”……

The Boyko case judicial review applicants, I believe would not have been aware of the letters sent to my office and the Income Tax Act Ruling received by the Respondent (who is the Defendant in this matter) prior to their case initial hearing in January 2000. The Respondent (who is the Defendant in this case) I believe was clearly aware that it was not the authorized representatives of the parties listed at page 10 and 11 of the NISA Agreement or the 24 NNC members of Schedule C adopting the point of sale guidelines at the October 24, 1994 teleconference call if they knew anything about the NISA or 23 NNC members excluding Quebec as an agreement non-signing province.

The following excerpts are from the Defendant’s letters and read in part:
Letter dated July 14, 1998 Bob Nawolsky sent to Farm Business Consultants.

“The Sub-Committee presented the following motion to the NNC which consists of ten producer representatives, four federal representatives, and one representative from each participating province:”……
“The NNC passed the motion in October 1994 and recommended that these guidelines be in place for the 1994 and 1995 stabilization year.”…….
“These sections of the Agreement provide the authority for the Administration to implement the point of sale guidelines adopted by the NNC.” (National NISA Committee 23 or 24 members)…….
“You also question the directions in the guide for reporting expenses such as freight as a commodity purchase rather than eligible expenses. While these expenses are reportable to Revenue Canada for income tax purposes, they are not eligible for NISA as they occur after the point of sale.” (NISA Amendment 3.1.1 states “ The statement must detail all income and expense information otherwise reportable for farm business income tax purposes and necessary for the calculation of deposit and withdrawal entitlements under this agreement.” and was signed by Canada’s Minister 14 May 93 and Saskatchewan’s Minister September 22, 1994).

Letter dated June 1, 1998 Bob Nawolsky sent to B. Jolly Accounting (Saskatoon) Ltd.

“ A working group was initiated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in cooperation with industry, to review the point of sale issue and make a recommendation to the National NISA Committee (NNC) at its meeting held in September 1994.”……
“The NNC passed the motion in October 1994” (not the stated representatives of the parties to the Federal/Provincial Agreement being authorized and listed at page 10 and 11 of the NISA as sworn by Roger Eyvindson) “ and recommended that these guidelines be in place for the 1994 and 1995 stabilization years. In November 1996, the NNC recommended” (new recommendation) “the extension of the guidelines for the 1996 and 1997 stabilization years.”……
“In response to concerns expressed by these grain producers, the NNC at its meeting held in February this year” (1998) “ recommended that the current point of sale guidelines only be extended to the 1998 stabilization year.” (cancelled) “The Point of Sale Sub-Committee is currently analyzing alternative point of sale guidelines which are to be implemented with the commencement of the 1999 stabilization year. The Sub-Committee is to present its recommendation at the NNC meeting scheduled for November 1998.” (new recommendation) “In your letter you asked for the specific section of the Agreement that pertains to the point of sale guidelines. As the Agreement embodies the fundamental guiding principles of the NISA Program, not all policies,” (stated as a policy being recommended and adopted by the 23 or 24 NNC members) “including the point of sale guidelines, are specifically referenced in the Agreement.”………
”These Sections of the Agreement provided the authority for the Administration to implement the point of sale guidelines adopted by the NNC in October 1994” (not approved by the parties to the Federal/Provincial Agreement as falsely represented later in the Boyko case affidavit evidence of Roger Eyvindson)…….
”Conversely, participants using producer cars are directly responsible for the costs and risks involved in shipping their grain to the export terminal and therefore are allowed to include the associated costs in the calculation of their eligible net sales.” (special treatment and more benefits) “This interpretation has been used consistently from the advent of the Program for the 1990 tax year to present.” (stated prior freight never allowed since inception)

Letter dated December 23, 1998 Bob Nawolsky sent to B. Jolly Accounting (Saskatoon) Ltd.

“The following point of sale guidelines were recommended by the National NISA Committee on October 24, 1994.”………
“The producer representatives on the NNC were all NISA participants, but a recorded vote of the NNC was not taken on the recommendation. The guidelines were adopted following a vote by program signatories in accordance with Section 2.5 of Schedule C of the NISA Federal/Provincial Agreement. Section 2.5 requires the chairperson of the NNC to refer matters of significant financial impact to program signatories for approval.” (remember this is a tele-conference call and now a vote by program signatories that suddenly appear plus the NISA Section 2.5 is required) “As a result, only Canada and the provinces voted on the motion to implement the point of sale guidelines. Canada, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland supported the motion. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick did not support the motion”. ……..
”The participating governments have determined that program benefits shall be calculated in accordance with the point of sale guidelines.” (more contradiction and false representations)……
”Under the point of sale guidelines,” (which are stated as not specifically referenced in the Agreement) “the revenue and expenses associated with moving grain from the local elevator to port are not relevant for NISA purposes as, under the guidelines, a sale has already taken place. This does not affect producers’ responsibility to report such revenue as farming income for income tax purposes and to be able to deduct the expenses.” (NISA Amendment 3.1.1 states “ The statement must detail all income and expense information otherwise reportable for farm business income tax purposes and necessary for the calculation of deposit and withdrawal entitlements under this agreement.”).
Letter dated June 11, 1999 Bob Nawolsky sent to B. Jolly Accounting (Saskatoon) Ltd.
“I have also enclosed a copy of subsequent Agreement amendments establishing ratification by the required majority of signatories.”…….
”The point of sale guidelines were not adopted by amendment of the Agreement as they do not amend the Agreement. In accordance with Section 2.5 of Schedule C of the Agreement, a recommendation containing proposed guidelines was referred to signatories at a meeting attended by representatives of all eleven program signatories on October 24, 1994.” (now states meeting attended by representatives of all eleven program signatories and the authorized list is at page 10 and 11 of the NISA). “A majority of signatories, namely, Canada, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland voted to support the recommendation. Please refer to Appendix B for a list of federal and provincial representatives on the NNC” (the Schedule C 14 NNC members listed do not include the 10 NNC producer members and are not the authorized representatives of the parties’ ministers listed at pages 10 and 11 of the Agreement) “at that time who voted on behalf of signatories.”
“Since the adoption of the point of sale guidelines, all grain producers, including those from Ontario, have been required to report revenues net of transportation and elevation costs in accordance with the guidelines.”(have not always existed as falsely represented)……

Letter dated January 14, 2000 sent to B. Jolly Accounting (Saskatoon) Ltd.

“Section 6.2 of the Agreement states that Canada is responsible for the administration of the Program with the advice of the NNC. Section 3.2” (not the required Section 2.5 now) “of Schedule C allows the NNC to advise the Administration on issues relating to the ongoing operation of NISA and section 6 allows the NNC to establish and appoint any sub-committee needed to assist in carrying out its responsibilities. These sections of the Agreement provide the authority for the Administration to implement the point of sale guidelines adopted by the NNC in October 1994.” (the 10 equal voting NNC producer members did not vote therefore not the NNC)…..
”Freight and elevation costs are not, nor have they ever been described as allowable eligible expenses for NISA purposes, except in cases where farmers load their grain directly into producer cars for shipment to export position.” (not all grain sales and shipping expenses or eligible expenses are treated the same).

These are the false representations and contradictions of the Defendant that I have noted in the cross-examination of Rasa Rutkauskas and read in part as follows: Cross-examination on Affidavit of Rasa Rutkauskas by Mr. Zakreski dated the 29th day of September, 2005
Question (Q) Answer (A)

66 Q And they were reminded that their NISA applications should mirror up with their income tax information, correct?
A Correct.

251 Q Okay. But the agreements speak for themselves as to what they define and don’t define, correct?
A Correct.

292 Q I’d like you to refer to your Affidavit sworn January 12, 2004, paragraph 3 of your Affidavit. Once again this is a case of somebody preparing an Affidavit for you and you agreeing with it, correct?
A Correct.

306 Q Thank you. In paragraph 6 of your Affidavit you state, After further review of the guidelines, the NNC, which is the National NISA Committee, adopted the following motion at their October 24th, 1994 meeting. Do you see where you say that?
A Yes.

307 Q You got that from documents; did you not?
A Yes.

308 Q Because I would suggest to you that that’s not correct what you state there?
A Well the motion was presented to the NNC, and it was the signatories that were—the program signatories that voted on the motion.

309 Q But not the National NISA Committee?
A Who voted on the motion?

310 Q Right.
A It was the program signatories.

316 Q There’s a recording of a vote on page 2.
A Yes, so the day it shows Monday, October 24th is when the date the vote would have been taken.

320 Q Ms. Rutkauskas? And you’ll agree with me that the National NISA Committee consists not only of the provincial and federal representatives, but also producer representatives?
A Correct.

321 Q And they didn’t vote on this motion?
A That’s correct.
MR. HAY: The producers did not.

328 Q On page 1 of the producer handbook the following statement is made, This producer handbook was developed to explain the NISA program to participants. It contains general information only and is not intended to be a substitute for the legislation, regulations and federal/provincial agreements which are the legal authorities for NISA. Do you see where it says that?
A Yes.

329 Q You agree with that of course?
A Yes.

330 Q In other words, it’s the legislation, regulations and the federal/provincial agreement that governs matters such as eligible net sales?
A I guess, yes, it defines eligible net sales, the agreement.

345 Q Did any of the subsequent amendments deal with the point of sale guidelines?
A No because that’s not contained in the agreement.

349 Q MR. ZAKRESKI: And getting back to the motion that we referred to earlier that was attached to your earlier Affidavit, being the matter that was referred to the signatories of the agreement, you’ll agree with me that those particular individuals who voted were not actually the ministers, but were simply the provincial and federal representatives on the National NISA Committee?
A That’s correct.

I have also pointed out numerous false representations made to mislead a willing Federal Court by the Attorney General’s lawyers, but they are too numerous to list here as well.

Posted by: Bin There Done That | 2009-07-08 11:30:19 PM

@ Bin There Done That, what does any of that have to do with the flooding bail-outs?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-08 11:39:06 PM

Going after the gov, good luck. Plus based on the govs history, they want less farmers. You need to wake up.

Posted by: Bin There Done That | 2009-07-09 12:43:01 AM

Everybody V Everybody

South Park already did this episode

Posted by: GeronL | 2009-07-09 3:23:38 AM

Plus based on the govs history, they want less farmers. You need to wake up.

Posted by: Bin There Done That | 2009-07-09 12:43:01 AM

That's true. They want us dependent and unable to feed ourselves.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-09 5:21:03 AM

This is "an act of God". There is a long legal precedence here. Governments are not liable for damages.

The water that did the flooding fell in the US and flowed into Canada. So are we now supposed to sue the governments of North Dakota and the US because it was their water that casued the damage?

Same applies to fire, war, terrorism, earthquake, hurricanes, asteroid impacts and global warming.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-07-09 9:51:37 AM

Governments are not liable for damages.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-07-09 9:51:37 AM

(The laws of Canada do not apply to them, they thinks, only retired NHL hockey players, heh Guy)

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121

"By wrongful and without legal justification causing the cancellation of the permit, the defendant became liable for damages"

"Per Kerwin C.J. and Locke and Martland JJ.:"

"The defendant was not acting in the exercise of any of his official powers."
"What he did was not "done by him in the exercise of his functions"."

"Per Rand J.:"

"There was no immunity in the defendant from an action for damages."
"There can be no question of good faith when an act is done with an improper intent and for a purpose alien to the very statute under which the act is purported to be done. There was no need for giving a notice of action as required by art. 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the act done by the defendant was quite beyond the scope of any function or duty committed to him so far so that it was one done exclusively in a private capacity how ever much, in fact, the influence of public office and power may have carried over into it."

Per Abbott J.:

"the defendant was acting, as he was bound to know, without any legal authority whatsoever. A public officer is responsible for acts done by him without legal justification."
"In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled "discretion", that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose, however capricious or irrelevant, regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute. Fraud and corruption in the'Commission may not be mentioned in such statutes but they are always implied as exceptions. "Discretion" necessarily implies good faith in discharging public duty; there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate; and any clear departure from its lines or objects is just as objectionable as fraud
or corruption. Could an applicant be refused a permit because he had been born in another province, or because of the colour of his hair? The ordinary language of the legislature cannot be so distorted."

In Ryan v. Victoria (City), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201

It states : "Conduct is negligent if it creates an ordinary unreasonable risk of harm. To avoid liability, a person must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances. Legislative standards are relevant to the common law standard of care, but the two are not necessarily co-extensive. The fact that a statute prescribes or prohibits certain activities may constitute evidence of reasonable
conduct in a given situation, but it does not extinguish the underlying obligation of reasonableness. By the same token, mere compliance with a statute does not, in and of itself, preclude a finding of civil liability. Statutory standards can, however, be highly relevant to the assessment of reasonable conduct in a particular case, and in fact may render reasonable an act or omission which would otherwise appear to be negligent."

In Sarvanis v. Canada,[2002] 1 S.C.R. 921, 2002 SCC 28

It states: "Section 9 of the Crown Liability an Proceedings Act, properly construed, does not immunize the Crown from tort liability where an individual has received benefits"

"[36] The interpretation adopted here is further bolstered by considering the context of the broader legislative purpose of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act as a whole. This Act was passed in order to establish Crown
liability, which had hitherto been blocked by the common law."

In Harris v. Canada (T.D.), [1999] 2 F.C. 392

"36. (b)(ii) where the Crown refuses to ensure the due enforcement of laws enacted by Parliament, the plaintiff has standing as a matter of constitutional right to prevent
the executive from dispensing with the law enacted by Parliament."

TWU v. British Columbia Telephone Co., 1988 14 (S.C.C.)

It states at "85 The deferential approach is not a license to refuse review. It is merely a caution to courts to recognize the proper role and function of administrative bodies. When such bodies fail to act within jurisdiction, the court
does not have the discretion to intervene, it has a duty to intervene at the behest of one or another of the parties."

R. v. Hebert, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 233 - (1989), 49 C.C.C. (3rd) 59

""I conclude that "Whatever reasons prompted the respondent to make a deceptive statement, he could not do so in the case at bar without intending to mislead the court", the Court of Appeal did not take into account this defence by the appellant, and the trial judge also made no ruling on it. For there to be perjury there has to be more than a deliberate false statement. The statement must also have been made with intent to mislead. While it is true that someone who lies generally does so with the intent of being believed, it is not impossible, though it may be exceptional, for a person to deliberately lie without intending to mislead. It is always open to an accused to seek to establish such an intent by his testimony or otherwise, leaving to the trial judge the task of assessing its weight. The trial judge did not allow the accused to complete his evidence in this regard probably because he knew he was going to acquit him on other grounds; that acquittal however was properly set aside on appeal."

I can give more cases but they are at the web-site nisaclaim.net (under reorganization) "Info given to lawyers"

Susan Nelles case etc.

Posted by: Bin Dar Dun Dat | 2009-07-09 11:12:05 AM

Governments get there money from the people through force and threat of jail time. So the people that had nothing to do with the disaster are be pillaged to pay out an insurance claim. What is that saying rob Peter to pay Paul? I like all the legal posts that was good reading.

Posted by: Calgary Libertarian | 2009-07-09 9:57:59 PM

//Governments are not liable for damages.//

But of course, they make the rules!

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 11:37:58 PM

The ****ing moderators are editing my posts.

What a bunch of overbearing censoring b*st*rds.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-07-09 11:56:37 PM

Fuck Fuck Fuck

Cunt Cunt Cunt

Shit Shit Shit

Do you fucking moderator assholes have fucking nothing fucking better to do in your fucking day than to fucking read and fucking censor every fucking post for fucking content that might fucking hurt someone's fucking feelings?

You fucking guys are nothing but a bunch of fucking uptight penises. When was the last time you had a loose bowel movement?

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-07-10 12:02:03 AM

//Governments are not liable for damages.//

But of course, they make the rules!

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-09 11:37:58 PM

The problem we came up against was the lawyers helping the other side and the case management judge completely ignoring the rules made by the government. (Federal Court Rules) You can see web information found on the case management judge and more is coming in a book by Bruce Campbell, The SA Generals and the Rise of Nazism.

Posted by: Bin Dar Dun Dat | 2009-07-10 5:31:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.