Friday, April 4, 2014

Black poses questions

Glenn Black of Providence Bay is posing a list of seven questions in response to the Chicken Farmers of Ontario motion to try to derail a full hearing by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal Tribunal filed by Black.

The tribunal has scheduled a hearing May 14 to deal with the chicken board’s motion.
The questions Black is posing are:

1. Currently, small flock (ie. non-quota) chicken farmers are subject to government authority and powers that have been delegated to, or vested in Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”). Since these delegated and vested powers imposed on Small Flockers originated from the governments of a free and democratic country, does the Appellant and other Small Flockers have the legal right to membership in CFO, to attend CFO meetings, to receive CFO information, to run for a CFO elected office, and vote in CFO elections so as to have democratic representation at the CFO Board?

2. If the answer to Q #1 is no, then should Small Flockers be exempt from the By-laws, rules, policies, procedures, powers, authority, rulings, invasion of privacy, and threat of enforcement currently planned and practiced by CFO?

3. Are there other responsibilities, duties, and constraints owed by the Defendants (ie. both CFO and OFPMC) for the benefit of the Appellant or others, that irrevocably flow with the government powers that are delegated and vested in the Defendants, above and beyond those expressly enumerated in the FPM Act and Regulations?

4. Under Section 1.01 (d) of the Federal-Provincial Agreement-Chicken 2001, all members of the chicken Supply Management system agreed “to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers”. Have the Defendants breached these duties under this agreement? If yes, does the Appellant, Small Flockers, the consumer, and/or the general public have vested third party rights, either under this agreement or otherwise, that they can use to seek legal redress from the Defendants?

5. Do the Defendants have a duty to be open, transparent, accountable, prudent, and reasonable; and to consider, accommodate, and be responsive to the rights, needs, expectations, complaints, and suggestions from: (a) the Defendant’s respective stakeholders? (b) The Appellant? (c) Small Flockers? (d) the consumer? and/or (e) the general public?

6. Is there sufficient objective, unbiased evidence to conclude that the Defendants have fully, faithfully, consistently, effectively, and efficiently: (a) developed plans; (b) avoided risks; (c) implemented their express and implied duties in a timely and good faith manner for the greater good of the consumer, the general public and the Defendant’s respective stakeholders; (d) periodically assessed their own performance, promptly took corrective action as needed, and continuously improved their performance?

7. If the answer to Q #6 is no, what duties do the Defendants have to assess their past performance, identify the cause of their inadequate past performance, determine the optimum solutions, take immediate corrective actions, verify and validate that their remedial actions are fully implemented and effective, and ensure their prior poor conduct (as well as all similar potentials) are avoided forevermore?