G-2512-04: Affidavit of Tom Jackson
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT RESOURCES COMMITTEE ALONE
BETWEEN:
TOM JACKSON; (PLAINTIFF)
- and -
CHAIRMAN RITTER and PRESIDENT CEO MEASNER;
And MEYERS NORRIS PENNEY
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT OF TOM JACKSON
I TOM JACKSON, of Flagstaff County, in the Province of Alberta, MAKE OATH
AND SAY THAT:
- I am a farmer and candidate for the 2004
position of director of The Canadian Wheat Board Election in district
4.
- I am Tom Jackson the intervener in Federal
Court T-2191-04 injunction hearing and was part of the December 20th
2004 Court Hearing into T-2191-04, heard by Madame Justice MacTavish
in Ottawa Canada.
- I, Tom Jackson, did the following
investigation into certain actions committed under the Authority of:
Chairman Ritter, President/CEO Measner; and employee's responsible to
these two CWB Directors, included is the Election Coordinator Meyers
Norris Penny ("MNP").
- I phoned from my farm, the CWB Country
Services Department ("CSD") 1-800-ASK4CWB toll free number
at 3:26th December 21st 2004, for advice on how to receive
"consent" to deliver grain, to an elevator point other than
the one named in my valid permit book, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the
Supplementary Affidavit of Deborah Harri, marked as Exhibit
"A" to this my Affidavit; following is the CWB Act:
| Quote: |
"Conditions for delivery of grain to elevator
24. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act, except
with the permission of the Corporation, no person shall deliver
grain to an elevator, and no manager or operator thereof shall
receive delivery of grain unless
(d) the grain is delivered at the delivery point named in the
permit book; and..." |
- The "CSD" did not know how to help
me receive this "consent"(or permission), and put me on hold
until about 3:41pm, when CWB General Legal Council Jim McLandress was
put on the call to give me advice. When I asked him how to receive the
"consent" as required by Paragraph 2 of Exhibit
"A" to this Affidavit, Jim laughed and said "Tom, you
know better than this".
- Then at 3:44 PM Dec. 21st 2004 CWB Legal
Council Jim McLandress stated that "Tom you know the Act does not
require our consent".
- Then around 10 AM December 22, 2004, I called
CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress on his 204-984-2413 line, because of
his number of requests that I return his calls from the late afternoon
of December 21st 2004. "CWB" Legal Council Jim McLandress
told me he would be getting the information on how farmers were
exempted from "CWB" Act 24(1)(d) back to me through the
"CWB" "CSD".
- On December 22, 2004 midmorning call I then
asked CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress if he had been the Notary on
the Supplementary Affidavit of Deborah Harri... he said that he did
not have it right in front of him... but that he thought he was.
- Then on this morning of December 22, 2004 at
10:49 I again called the 1-800ASK4CWB farmer help information line
asking for the further information CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress
had promised regarding CWB "permission" to deliver grain. I
was served by "Janet" and she told me when asked about the
"consent" required from the "CWB" to deliver grain
to an elevator point other than the one listed in my permit book;
"Janet" (of the CWB Help Centre) said that all farmers are
free to deliver where ever they wanted without the CWB's consent.
- I, Tom Jackson have not ever been required to
have the consent or the permission of the CWB; to deliver to an
elevator point, which was different than the one designated in my
permit book.
- I, Tom Jackson make this Affidavit in support
and belief of the submission that the Defendants, Chairman Ritter and
Director President/CEO Measner, had authority over, and responsibility
for; the actions of Deborah Harri and CWB Legal Council Jim McLandress
and their representations to The Federal Court of Canada Trial
Division.
- I, Tom Jackson believe the Affidavits and
Submissions which were entered into the official T-2191-04 record by
the Defendants, substantially and negatively affected my ability to
submit all of the important 2004 election irregularities into T-2191
injunction hearing on December 20th 2004, including forcing this
hearing to proceed without enough time.
- I, Tom Jackson believe that, further, issues
were entered in the official T-2191-04 record by the Defendants that
negatively affected my ability to submit all of the important election
irregularities into T-2191 injunction hearing on December 20th 2004;
that any subsequent hearings into these matters that may have occured,
are now more unlikely because the Defendants represented the Combine
to Customer Alumni ("CCA") meeting January 3-5 2005 in
Calgary Alberta as, "a major consultation with farm
leaders"; as represented in Madame Justice MacTavish's own words
at point 71 of her ruling on the 23rd of December 2004.
- I, Tom Jackson believe that the Defendants
representing this CCA meeting as "a major consultation with farm
leaders regarding the future of the CWB" which all CWB Directors
needed and had to attend, created substantial real problems through
proceeding with this representation in an Affidavit by Deborah Harri;
which encouraged the disposal of the T2191-04 injunction request by
Madame Justice MacTavish.
- I, Tom Jackson, Called the producer help line
800ASK4CWB on the afternoon of December 23rd 2004 after I received the
T-2191-04 Judgement, and asked what "major consultation with farm
leaders regarding the future of the CWB" was occurring in early
January of 2005, I drew a blank response from the lady at the help
line... that they did not know what I was asking about at first.
- I, Tom Jackson was transferred within the
CWB, after some time passed, to what I believed was an information
officer fellow of the CWB who tried to down play the importance of the
January 3-5 2005 meeting, while indicating to me that "CWB
Accountability Meetings" were of major importance instead; then
he proceeded to indicate that Mr. Brian Trueblood would be looking
after my interests and the interests of other producers like me, at
the C to C Alumni meeting in Calgary January 3-5th 2005.
- I, Tom Jackson called Mr. Brian Trueblood of
Dapp, AB on the 24th of December 2004 at 5:10 pm, expecting to discuss
my CWB concerns so that he might take forward these issues to the
Meeting in Calgary, only to learn directly from Mr. Trueblood that he
had briefly considered going to the CCA, for about 40 seconds I
believe he said, then stated he rejected that Idea because the CCA
meeting would not provide a constructive forum for a major
consultation with farm leaders regarding the future of the CWB; as the
CWB controls the microphones and wouldn't listen anyway. Mr. Brian
Trueblood then indicated to me that he had not responded in any way to
confirm his attendance at the CCA Meeting in Calgary January 3-5th.
- I, Tom Jackson question why neither Richard
Strankman nor myself were told to hold our early Jan. 2005 schedules
open for this CCA meeting in Calgary, as either of us could be
required to attend if we are elected in District 4.
- I, Tom Jackson talked on December 27th 2004
to Mr. Jim Ness, a sitting member of the Alberta Grain Commission,
also a CCA; Mr. Ness was not invited to the Alumni meeting in Calgary,
and when he inquired about attending this meeting in mid December the
CWB employees responsible did not return Mr. Ness's phone call
requesting an opportunity to attend this CCA Meeting.
- I, Tom Jackson talked to Mr. Darrell
Holmstrom, also a CCA, and Mr. Holmstrom indicated to me on the 26th
of December 2004 that he had not been informed about, or invited to,
the CCA meeting in Calgary January 3-5th 2005.
- I Tom Jackson heard a local CWB Farm Business
Representative ("FBR") and District 5 Director Mr. Oberg
chattering about this same CWB Combine to Customer Alumni 2005 meeting
to take place in Calgary: on November 4th 2004, at the Alliance, AB
Independent District 4 Election Forum, and did overheard their voices
that were loud enough to hear that the selection process was
specifically limited to a majority of "friendly [single
desk]" local supporters, selected by FBR's and "single
desk" friendly directors, all the while smirking and grinning at
me.
- Exhibit "B" to this my Affidavit,
is an Affidavit by Richard Strankman further documenting the
Defendants irregularities in this election process; of which both
Richard and I attempted to bring to the attention of Madame Justice
MacTavish on the 20th of December 2004 hearing; where we both attended
together in Federal Court in Edmonton our issues were not entered into
the record, full discovery into the extent of election irregularities
were hindered by the lack of time and at the objection of the
Defendants and or their Legal Council.
- The Affidavit of Richard Strankman, is
Exhibit "B" to this my Affidavit.
- I, Tom Jackson testify that when Richard
Strankman and I discussed the issue of him receiving a 2004 CWB
ballot, yet not being on the December 1st published CWB voter's list,
Richard Strankman and I confirmed this numerous times; that the 2004
Election Coordinator Peter Eckersley admitted to Richard that he has a
different "master voters list;" that the CWB election
coordinator claims Richard's family farm name is on this other voters
list. Simply put, I testify that it appears that another list exists
that is not public nor has been available to District 4 candidates Tom
Jackson or Richard Strankman (nor to any other Candidate in this 2004
election as far as we know) to examine; another 2004 election voters
list the Defendants should know exists: and that it is planned that
the Defendants will use this secret list for the CWB election
tabulation on December 29th 2004. I further testify that Richard
Strankman and I were disallowed from bringing this issue specifically
to the T-2191-04 hearing, because of the Defendants position that they
were attempting to completely dispose of those seeking more complete
information; "Fishing" I believe they called it, for 2004
election irregularities; and complained about the inconvenience the
"Cloud" of embarrassment had caused the Defendants:
therefore they appeared hostile to new information about election
irregularities, the Defendants through their legal council encouraged
the Honourable Federal Court to maintain a similar negative position,
therefore indicating that the Defendants were not interested in
discovering further information that was available to be brought in to
the December 20th Injunction T-2191-04 Hearing.
- I, Tom Jackson do testify that the last MNP
ballot information I was sent was an e-mail at 3:43 PM December 10th
2004, stating that 15,273 ballots in total had been returned; 32.2%
ballot total return of all Districts:4551 ballots for district 4; 4041
ballots for district 6; 4293 ballots for district 8; and 2388 ballots
for district 10; and that this e-mail said:
| Quote: |
"Attached please find the Voter Response for
the last "official day" of the election.
This report does not include ballot envelopes received that were
postmarked after December 3rd, or invalid ballot envelopes that
were received during the election period." |
- I, Tom Jackson, because of a neglect to
report all information regarding the ballot envelopes or "scannable
ballots" by the election coordinator MNP, do not know how many
"total ballots" were returned in the 2004 election, or how
many "scannable ballots" should or will be counted at the
proposed tabulation on December 29th 2004 planned tabulation date.
- I Tom Jackson testify that I request that the
principals stated in the CODE OF CONDUCT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
GUIDELINES ("CCCIG") May 31 2001, and or CCCIG Election
Period Code of Conduct for Current Directors: Rule 9.1.1; Rule 9.1.2
PRINCIPALS (a) and (d); Rule 9.1.3 ETHICAL STANDARDS (a), (g), (i):
November 27, 2003 Revision; do request GRMC Directors use these CCCIG
standards of minimum performance; levels to bring Justice, Integrity,
Honesty, and further the requirement also for the public perception of
Justice, Integrity, Honesty in this 2004 CWB Election: that these
highest standards which are required by the CCCIG in totality be used
in this our CWB 2004 Election process; including the GMRC's judgment
of whether or not this election should be repeated in District 4.
- I, Tom Jackson testify to the fact that my
nominator number 17 Mr. Wes Spalding was not sent a ballot: after
notification that only three of what I understood was my first 25
listed nominators were not valid [ following e-mail listed IV page
Page 11 of 27], Darrell Holmstrom, Barb Holmstrom, and Terry Hamilton.
I further testify that when I was helping Wes Spalding November 22nd,
with harvesting his barley, he advised me that he did not get a ballot
package as of that day; I testify that I Believe an error had been
made by the Defendants, and that the Defendants after days of
consideration, refused to issue a ballot to Mr. Wes Spalding even
though the Plaintiff offered that if a valid permit could have been
obtained in time for a ballot to be sent and returned in this 2004
District 4 election, would the Defendant's issue the voter's package.
I, Tom Jackson was told there was no way a ballot would be issued by
the Election Coordinator (MNP's Gwen Ginter and Peter Eckersley), even
though it is admitted by the Defendants that they were busy correcting
other errors they themselves, as well, had created in the first place.
(Again see December 2, 2004 Western Producer T-2191-04 Exhibit
"A" to the Affidavit of Arthur Mainil).
- I, Tom Jackson do testify that Darrell and
Barb Holmstrom were not sent their $10,000.00 as promised by Chairman
Ritter himself, on or about November 2 4 2004, through a personal
assurance to District 2 Director Jim Chatenay on or about that day;
later the next week Holmstroms were being subjected to reported
badgering and insulting phone calls by the employees of Director
President and CEO Measner, at the time the Defendants knew, or should
have known that, the Holmstroms had unvoted ballots to complete and
return in the District 4 2004 Election the week of December 1st 2004.
- I, Tom Jackson testify this background
information on the Holmstroms: That Darrell and Barb Holmstrom were
valid District 4 nominators of mine in the 2000 CWB election, rented
me land so I could run as a candidate in District 4 during the 2000
CWB election, and were associated with me in our business jointly as
seed growers and represented as such in my biography in the 2000 CWB
election; and that the Defendants were responsible to know this
information; further that I understand the Holmstroms did not request
to be transferred to District 2; did not produce grain (normal
meanings of words used) in district 2 over the past 4 years. Finally,
for what reason the Defendants switched or allowed the Holmstroms to
be switched to district 2, I and the Holmstroms do not understand why
this should have happened.
- I, Tom Jackson personally had the Defendants
manually interfere in my election district choice:
| Quote: |
Canadian Wheat Board Act Regulations;
Voters
s.5.(2)
No producer may vote more than once in an election
Voters List
s.6.(2).
A producer who produces grain in more than one district may only
be included in one voters list, which is chosen by the producer. |
I testify that this Interference of the Defendants caused the
designation of my 2002 valid permit to be moved to a district (District
4) where I was prevented from voting in the 2002 District 1 election,
when I had produced grain on my farm in District 1 and believed I should
have been sent a District 1 ballot package. Further, at about the same
time in Oct/Nov. of 2002, I testify that my brother Colin Jackson was
prevented from voting in the 2002 District 1 election, because he
received his ballot package one day after the election period deadline,
the Defendants only mailed the valid ballot package only two days before
the mail deadline or close of the 2002 election period.
- I, Tom Jackson, personally, during three
forum events; was aggressively attacked verbally by Chairman Ritter,
acting apparently in his capacity as District 4 Director and Chairman,
during the 2004 District 4 forums:
- First in the Biggar Community Hall 319
1st Avenue East at about 9:00 PM at Biggar SK:
- flatly stating that he had personally
investigated all cases involving the forgiveness of 2001-02
PPO Liquidation Damages [$427,000.00 "Bad Debt" page
46 01-02 Financial Results]; including the Holmstroms personal
situation:
- on this occasion also mentioning his
standing as a lawyer and his legal training;
- further indicating to his
satisfaction all cases were dealt with in a fair and equitable
manner during this Official forum;
- further indicating I did not have a
clue about the Holmstrom issue I was speaking about.
In the presence all forum participants including the CBC
Saskatoon and Western Producer Reporters who scoffed at me
after the vicious personal attack;
- Secondly at the Wainwright Communiplex
700 2nd Ave West about 8:30 PM Nov. 15, 2004 in Wainwright AB:
- stating again that he had personally
investigated these cases involving the forgiveness of 2001-02
PPO Liquidation Damages [$427,000.00 "Bad Debt" page
46 01-02 Financial Results]; including the Holmstroms personal
situation:
- again indicating to his satisfaction
all cases were dealt with in a fair and equitable manner
during this Official forum in front of media attending this
forum;
and;
- Thirdly on Nov. 16, 2004 at about 8:30 PM
at the Kindersley SK Independently organized Forum in a similar
manner to the Wainwright Forum; that I, Tom Jackson, had no
business bringing up this issue, and that I did not know what I
was talking about;
- I, Tom Jackson testify that:
- while about two thirds of all PPO
liquidation damages were forgiven in the 2001-02 crop year;
Entries amounting to $427,000.00 (marked as bad debt) of
$649,000.00 [pg.46 01-02 Financial Results] are shown on the
2001-02 official CWB statements; neither I or the Holmstroms have
been given any written reasons since July of 2002 why $427,000.00
was forgiven to the benefit of some PPO Contracted Producers,
while the Holmstroms were excluded from this policy of forgiveness;
- that after numerous verbal promises to
resolve this PPO liquidation damages situation during at least two
yearly consecutive corporate accountability meetings, settlement
of the Holmstroms issue by Chairman Ritter was created, the
Defendant Ritter agreed to the refunding of $10,000.00 of the
approximate $18,000.00 PPO Liquidation Damage levied and told
District 2 Director Jim Chatenay [who was still their director as
they had not yet been officially transferred to the district 4
voters list until December 1st 2004] on or about the 24th of
November 2004, which was testified to me at about 9:00pm when I
called him, as good news, (and in turn relayed to the Holmstroms)
by the aforementioned District 2 Director that evening.
- I, Tom Jackson still had three nominators by
CWB error placed in District 2 who were not added to the District 4
voters list until December 1st 2004; Included are the following
e-mails records of how this occurred:
| Quote: |
I.
Sent: Mon 11/29/2004 11:01 AM
C.c._____________
Subject: Nominators
Good morning Tom...
I've now followed up on your query concerning your nominators, and
wish to advise as follows:
We have confirmed that Darrell Holmstrom, Terry Hamilton and Barb
Holmstrom are entitled to vote in district 4, and we have Express
Posted ballots out to them which they will hopefully receive by
Wednesday at the latest. I would also confirm that they were sent
a Voter Confirmation for District 2 in September, and so did have
the opportunity to change this themselves.
I would also advise that Wes Spalding does not have a valid
permit, and unfortunately we are past the Statutory Declaration
deadline, and so I am unable to issue him a ballot at this time.
Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283
II.
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 1:38 PM
C.c. ___________
Subject: The Holmstrom's
They appear on our listing still as district 2. I've sent an email
to the CWB asking them to map their land description and see what
district they should be in. If they on fact should be in district
4, I'll expresspost them district 4 ballots.
Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319 |
This even though a CWB/MNP promise was made to switch the Holmstoms and
Mr. Hamilton back to District 4 by e-mail October 22;
| Quote: |
III.
Sent: October 22, 2004 2:38 PM
C.c.__________
Subject: 3 nominators listed in district 2
Regarding the three nominators I listed previously, I've talked to
the CWB. Back in 2000 or 2001, the three permits books were
possibly filled in at a delivery point located in District 2. They
got switched at that time from 4 to 2. This has been corrected.
They now are listed in district 4. Unfortunately this was not
quick enough to change the labels before they went to print. So
what we will do is manually cancel the ballots for district 2 for
the 3 producers and manually issue them new ones for district 4.
They will receive both ballots, likely a few days apart. If they
send back the district 2 ballots they will appear as a cancelled
ballot on our system, will not be opened or counted. Only the
district 4 ballots will be used in the election.
If you could pass this information along to your friends that
would be greatly appreciated.
If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319
IV.
Sent: Fri 10/22/2004 8:03 AM
C.c.______________
Subject: Nominators
Good Morning Tom
Just to let you know, that there were 25 signatures, that checked
out. Also as a note of interest, there were three that appeared in
district 2. Darrell Holmstrom, Terry Hamilton, and Barb Holmstrom.
Upon receiving originals, you will be sent the voters list and
your information will be posted to the website.
Gwen Ginter
Meyers Norris Penny
(204)727-0661 Ext 319
|
- I Tom Jackson testify that the following
e-mails was sent to me by Mr. Peter Eckersley, and that the following
e-mails were evidence of correspondence created as the result of
important telephone conversations during Mid-November of 2004:
| Quote: |
V.
Sent: Fri 11/26/2004 12:37 PM
C.c.____________
Subject: E-Mail Addresses
Hi Tom...
First of all, please accept my apologies for not getting back to
you sooner. I referred the question on providing e-mail addresses
to our corporate lawyer as I felt that the request was reasonable,
and he did get back to me earlier this week, but the situation of
the new voters caused quite a disruption here, and I'm afraid that
I got distracted and thus didn't reply until now.
Our lawyer has advised that the Privacy Act restrictions that
apply to the voter phone numbers would apply to the e-mail
addresses as well, and we have therefore been advised that we
should not release them (even if we had them), as we would
definitely be violating the Privacy Act
I do believe however that providing the e-mail addresses has
merit, and so I will be making a recommendation at the end of this
election that the Regulations be amended to specify that e-mail
addresses be released where available.
I don't know how far this will go as it will require parliamentary
change, but times have changed since the Regs were enacted, and
e-mail is becoming an even more common media that the mail.
Sorry that I can't do more this go around
Peter
Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283
VI.
Sent: Wed 11/24/2004 5:08 PM
C.c. deborah_harri@cwb.ca
Subject: Voter Response Update
As previously indicated, I am pleased to provide you with the
attached Voter Response update as of 5:00 pm today ( Wednesday )
(See attached file: Voter Response Summary.xls)
I also wish to advise that there are approximately 175 - 200 or so
new voters being added to the voters list for each district, and
we are currently in the process of processing these new voters,
and issuing them ballots
The circumstances surrounding these new voters are as follows:
The new voters are producers who have valid permits, but have not
delivered grain against the permit in the past 2 years.
As a result, the CWB initially disqualified them from voting since
they had no transactions with the Board, but when the Regulations
were researched, it was determined that these producers were in
fact, entitled to vote since all that was required, was a valid
permit.
As a result, we are now focussing our efforts to get these new
ballots out via express post by tomorrow. ( Thursday ) and as soon
as this is completed, we will reconcile all of the changes, and I
will send you the updates for your reference.
Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283
VII.
Sent: Thu 11/25/2004 3:13 PM
C.c. deborah_harri@cwb.ca
Subject: Changes and additions to the voters list
Attached please find update files for each voting district
containing the changes to the Voters List that have been processed
since November 15th.
As I mentioned to you in my e-mail of yesterday, there have been a
number of changes, including the addition of around 200 voters to
the role for each district.
The circumstances surrounding these additions have been further
clarified as follows:
Since the last election, the CWB segregated producers that had CWB
permits but no deliveries, from those producers that were doing
business with the Board. This was done for internal operating
reasons including cost control I'm told.
When the 2004 final voters list was prepared, these "inactive
but valid permits" were inadvertantly not added to the voters
list. This was a human error and not a conscious intent to
disqualify anyone, as I had originally understood and reported to
you.
The omission came to light just a couple of days ago, and the
final additions were provided to us this morning.
Voters packages have now been prepared and issued to all affected
voters. Most will hopefully receive their ballots by Friday or
Monday, and will therefore still have ample time to drop them in
the mail by the Friday December 3rd deadline.
(See attached file: Changes for District 10 as of Nov
25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 06 as of Nov
25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 08 as of Nov
25th.xls)(See attached file: Changes for District 04 as of Nov
25th.xls)
You will note that these lists are cumulative, but I have
reflected the changes to Nov 24th in yellow shading, and the new
producers in blue shading for your convenience
The password on these files remains unchanged
Peter S Eckersley, FCA
1401 Princess Avenue, Brandon, MB, R7A 7L7
Ofc 204-571-7650, Cel 204-729-7283
|
- I, Tom Jackson testify that I spoke to Mr.
Peter Eckersley in mid November, a number of times; about voters list
problems, including district transfers, voters not getting ballots,
and the serious issues these problems created for the 2004 CWB
Election process; Peter then admitted to me that it was a terrible
mess, that something had to be done, and the way he would deal with it
was to recommend many changes for future CWB Elections.
- I, Tom Jackson do testify that the recent
policy of the Defendants to incorporate the single desk" into:
the vision, mission, and goals of the CWB; has been transferred into
the day to day operations of the CWB; and further that this
operational shift is at least partially responsible, if not almost
fully responsible, for the 2004 CWB election irregularities increasing
dramatically over the 2002 CWB election problems.
- I Tom Jackson testify that Exhibit
"H" to this my Affidavit is; the T-2191-04 Affidavit of Gwen
Ginter dated December 17th 2004; that this Exhibit "H" is in
combination with Exhibits "C", "D", "E",
"F" and, "G" to this my Affidavit, and together,
they produce a combination of evidence that leads me to believe that
some producers were required to sign false Statutory Declarations to
obtain valid ballots: (T-2191-04 Supplementary Intervener Tom
Jackson's testimony to the Dec. 20th 2004 Injunction Hearing) While
the December 20th T-2191-04 hearing did not allow verbal testimony at
the hearing that day; that other producers like Richard Strankman were
not required to fill out statutory declarations to be sent a ballot
package in a similar situations by the Defendants.
- I, Tom Jackson testify that Peter Eckersley
told the Western Producer on "the regulations don't say that the
initial voter's list can't be adjusted, and they also allow voters to
be registered less than 25 days before the deadline." This
evidence is contained as Exhibit "I" to this my Affidavit
(Western Producer article dated December 2nd, 2004) which is contained
in T-2191-04 Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of
Arthur Mainil.
- I, Tom Jackson testify that the Exhibit
"I" statement of the election coordinator shows serious
irregularities by the Defendants, as no other election form was
available to be used by those voters defined in Exhibits "C"
to "H", besides the Statutory Declarations (which were to
only be completed by voters who did not have a valid permit) and these
wrong statutory instruments were intentionally sent the Shaw family
(Exhibits "C" to "F" of the T-2191-04
Supplementary Intervener Request & Affidavit by Tom Jackson), who
were clearly required to proceed with an extra step to receive their
ballots packages from the Defendants; and that this extra requirement
was required by the Defendants and their agents alone.
- I, Tom Jackson testify that there were other
serious issues found by Madame Justice MacTavish in her judgement on
December 23rd 2004. I quote:
| Quote: |
"Is There a Serious Issue Here?
52.
I have carefully considered all of Mr. Mainil's and Mr. Jackson's
submissions with respect to what they say are the various errors
committed by the CWB and/or MNP with respect to the conduct of the
2004 Directors' election.
53.
It is clear that MNP is in technical breach of section 20 (2) of
the Regulations, which stipulates that:
The Election Co-ordinator, in the presence of independent
scrutineers appointed by the Minister, shall in the following
order:
b.
sort the ballots by electoral district ... (emphasis added)
54.
It is common ground that MNP has already sorted the ballots, by
district, outside the presence of the independent scrutineers.
55.
I need not decide whether, by itself, this would constitute a
serious issue, as I am satisfied that a serious issue exists with
respect to the failure of the CWB and MNP to include the Omitted
Producers on the voters list."
58.
In the case of the Omitted Producers, ballots were mailed to these
individuals approximately one week before the close of the
election period, seriously limiting the time available to both
voters and candidates to do any of these things. Further, the
affidavit of Peter Eckersley, filed on behalf of MNP, discloses
that at least some of the ballots likely did not reach voters
prior to the close of the election period.
59.
This is arguably more than a 'technical breach', and in my view,
constitutes a serious issue." |
- I, Tom Jackson testify that the Defendants
caused a very difficult problem for the reputation of the CWB
Corporation by submitting to the Federal Court of Canada T-2191-04:
| Quote: |
| "30... Neither the Canadian Wheat Board Act
or the Regulations provide for any process whereby the validity of
an election can be challenged. Furthermore, neither the Act nor
the regulations provide any specific guidance as to the standard
upon which the conduct of an election is to be judged." |
I testify that I heard Mr. Arthur Mainil read this statement twice, into
the record T-2191-04 of the Federal Court of Canada, on the 20th of
December, 2004.
- I, Tom Jackson heard testimony on December
20th 2004 about the ads placed on numerous radio stations in Alberta
on the week of December 1st 2004, (I personally heard it on three
Alberta radio stations) that had the MNP Actor said; "I am going
to vote for the Director with the most knowledge and
experience..." and that particularly in district 4 where the
Defendant Chairman Ritter used the "the Director with the most
knowledge and experience" line when ever he had the opportunity;
this particularly was a fraud perpetrated upon myself and Richard
Strankman. It was admitted to me personally, on the evening of 30th of
November 2004 by Meyers Norris Penny Regina partner Mr. Johnathan
Small, on his cell number, witnessed on a 3 way call started by Mr.
Art Mainil; that these Election Coordinator ads should not express any
opinion on who a producer was to vote for, if they were to be
perceived by producers and general public as neutral and impartial
election information ads.
- I request the CWB GMRC investigate these CWB
election and management irregularities and make a recommendation to
the full CWB Board asking for a new vote in District 4, or in 4, 6,
and District 8.
- I make this Affidavit Bonafide
Sworn before me at the Town of Killam, in the
Province of Alberta, this 28 day December, 2004
(Signed by a Notary Public in and for the province of Alberta)
TOM JACKSON
(Signed by Tom Jackson)
|