98 Replies to “A CTV Wheat Board Poll”

  1. Bah.
    The judge is in error. The minutae of the law regarding the Canadian Wheat Board is irrelevant, as the monopoly violates the Charter. Google Andy McMechan.

  2. “I would suggest a national vote of ALL wheat producers:
    Yes = EVERY wheat farmer in Canada is in the CWB.
    No = nobody is in.”
    I strongly agree, that was part of my suggestion.
    —————-
    My research shows that Prairie producers under the Wheat Board produce 10 times the Wheat than all the wheat in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
    Most of them were under the Ontario Wheat Producers Board. The logistics of having all the Wheat under one board wouldn’t work. The distance was a factor.
    The Farmers in Ontario started the board in 1958. In 2003 they voted to open it up. In 2010 they merged with another board. They now operate as a marketing pool.

  5. Surprise, the Contempt Party violates the law. Again. Good, keep it up. This will be the last term in power, ever.

  6. “….can you do helicopter sounds on your chest..?”
    ———–
    LOL. I’ll make a prediction.
    That 200 million that Gov’t is putting away in the reserve will be used to dismantle the CWB. That’s why they called in Auditors to see how much it would cost to dismantle it.
    Then the farmers will do what they’ve always done. They’ll join together again, either under a co-op, some type of board or a pool. They’re always stronger with numbers. Especially when it comes to large crops like wheat. It will be voluntary but most will join. Or grow something else.

  7. I agree with bjg. The judge is simply making mischief.
    If the new bill has a provision to repeal the old bill, then the moment it is passed this judges decision become obsolete.
    It is just an expensive PR game the CWB board is playing with farmer’s money. They are too thick to know they have already lost.

  8. Cripes I thought this was over and done with.
    I really have to wonder with all the money being thrown at TV ads and astroturf protesters if a judge or two hasn’t been purchased…
    Not that money and liberal appointments are for sale……………………

  9. If the minister can set the terms of the vote, then he simply has to say that only one dissenting vote is required to end the CWB monopoly. Problem solved legally and cheaply.

  11. It was apparently illegal for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce legislation to change the Wheat Board Act. OK So does this affect the law passed by the House of Commons, soon to be ratified by the Senate and proclaimed. Is it possible the judge sees only the act of the minister illegal but does not pretend to direct the Commons, Senate, and Governor General in any course of action?

  12. “In other words, since the new law isn’t passed yet, the Gov’t is violating the current one.”
    Kafka would be very proud.

  13. “If the minister can set the terms of the vote, then he simply has to say that only one dissenting vote is required to end the CWB monopoly. Problem solved legally and cheaply.”
    ——-
    That would do it.

  14. I’ve read the judgment; it seems like the situation could have been interpreted in more than one way, and the judge simply picked the one that most closely fit his preconceptions.
    paragraph 20 (from the Applicants’ Memorandum): “The creation of the Board … and the adoption of section 47.1 were … aimed at empowering farmers”
    This is a lie. A farmer is not “empowered” by giving up control of his own grain to an organization he does not support. This of course is a standard socialist inversion-of-reality anti-concept.
    para. 21 (Oberg Affidavit, quoting the House of Commons on 7 Oct. 97): “Virtually every marketing innovation which farmers have debated over the past several years will be possible under this new law. In a nutshell, that is what Bill C-4 is all about, empowering producers, enshrining democratic authority which has never existed before, providing new accountability, new flexibility and responsiveness, and positioning farmers to shape the kind of wheat board they want for the future …”
    Apparently the “innovation” of selling one’s own grain to a buyer of one’s choice was somehow omitted from all of this.
    More (Oberg Affidavit, quoting the House of Commons, 17 Feb. 98): “Such a change would have eliminated the problematic clauses while respecting and enshrining the fundamental principle of democratic producer control”
    There is no such thing as the “principle of democratic producer control” (this is another anti-concept). There is only the principle of ownership, which is the right of use and disposal. The current CWB violates that principle of ownership. The intention of the current government is to restore it.
    para. 24: “The [Canada] Council effectively argues that, when in doubt, statutory interpretation must have regard to democratic and constitutional values. In the present case this is especially important because s. 47.1 speaks to the unique situation in which these democratic values are already implemented in the structure of the CWB. This fact requires that, in proposing that a fundamental change be made to the structure, the Minister must act democratically. This is what s. 47.1 says. Not adhering to these values is not only disrespectful, it is contrary to law.”
    “Democratic” values refer to the election of representatives into government. The marketing of wheat is an entirely different issue, one which should be left up to the individual producer and not subject to any kind of “democratic” control.
    The government does not have to consult with bank robbers if it decides to change the legislation regarding bank robbery.
    para. 25: “The Minster [sic] advances the following statutory interpretation argument:”
    “The clear wording of the section 47.1, however, refers only to the addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grain from the marketing regime as it is established in Parts III and IV of the Act. It does not refer to limiting the future repeal of the Act itself or to any other changes.”
    “Bill C-18 does not remove a particular type of prairie wheat or barley from the application of Part IV of the Act. Rather, Bill C-18 repeals the Act, thereby terminating the CWB’s marketing monopoly …”
    The Minister’s interpretation sounds entirely reasonable to me.
    para. 30: “As the Applicants argue, it is unreasonable to interpret the Act to conclude that while the Minister must consult and gain consent when extracting or extending a grain, she or he is not required to consult or gain consent when dismantling the CWB …”
    Hogwash. Analogous situations regarding legislation and/or regulations arise all the time.
    Even if the judge’s decision were right, the worst case scenario for the government is that it would have to repeal s.47.1 of the old Act before implementing the new one. To argue that that action should have to be put before the farmers would be irrational and undemocratic in the extreme.

  15. Posted by: dwright at December 8, 2011 1:27 AM
    I meant “if future liberal appointments are not for sale”
    They think that the current government is a temporary glitch in their new world order.
    It’s up to us to make history.

  16. I watched question period today; I heard Martin (MP of the Dipper/potty mouth ilk) suggest that Mr. Ritz should take a ‘shower’. I am the daughter of WWII vets and I think that Martin is about my age. Telling someone to ‘take a shower’ was met with fists in my younger days because the memory of the ‘showers’ in the Nazi prison camps was still a horrific/unspeakable evil; in living memory.
    I was horrified!!
    I also note Martin’s ‘Stalin’ comments – he is a member of the Pinko Bolshevik Party of Canada; what is he doing with the ‘Jack’!! Boots of Canada Party’ people, if he has no use for the ‘hero’ of the CCF/Dippers? Does that idiot think that all Canadians are ignorant of historical facts?
    As for the so called ‘judge’ in the CWB friviolous lawsuit, I think that he should be asked about the income tax act. It is still an ‘amendment’ not a law on gument books; it was instigated to help to help pay for WWI. Why are Canadians still paying taxes on our income since the war debt from WWI was paid off years ago? Martin could have a new mission if he were truly worried about Canadian Farmers. I think that the judge and Martin might have bureaucratic pals in the bowels of the CWB and that gravy train is about to implode; those good ol’ boys/gals are the ‘concern’ of the potty mouth and the judge.
    I am cheering for Mr. Ritz and Western Canadians to get that CWB albatross off the back of Western producers. I am sure that some easterners are squawking because they like buying cheap CWB #1 wheat for malt plants etc. (Just buy the good stuff to sell, keep the 2nd class wheat from the east to feed the cows and turn a profit – at the expense of the Western grain grower). Thank-you a thousand times Mr. Ritz, Mr. Anderson, Kate and SDAers and Sun News; Well done.

  17. With this ruling, some posters have implied judicial corruption, but I’m afraid we could never get that lucky. No, it is the same meme that drives the Liberal left their every waking hour; the Noble Cause, the small helpless farmer against large faceless business interests. What, no small farmers left? It doesn’t matter, the judge knows in his heart of hearts what modern progressive wheat marketing should look like and the current legislation already passed by parliament is not that.

  18. Where do wheat and barley growers who don’t have CWB permits or membership (whatever it is called) sell their product?

  20. Les writes: “Then the farmers will do what they’ve always done. They’ll join together again, either under a co-op, some type of board or a pool.”
    And the current legislation frees them to do just that. It has always struck me as a great pity that the co-operative idea, rooted in private property and individual freedom, was hijacked by the Left.

  21. Does this really mean that you can write legislation that has clauses to make it unwritable? That the CWB cannot be undone without the permission of the CWB?
    Holy hell, the collectivists have all their bases covered. And this from the Federal Court of Canada?
    Any lawyers in the house to comment?
    (No Siberia, the hours you invested in watching Matlock doesnt qualify you as a lawyer.)

  22. Jema 54, well said, you are made of better stuff than I, as you can stomach watching and listening to would be Commissar Pat Martin. I suspect that he would prefer all those who oppose the collective take a shower.
    a@c @ 8:36, exactly.

  24. Rob C
    “Where do wheat and barley growers who don’t have CWB permits or membership (whatever it is called) sell their product?”
    I grew 40 acres of grain one year when I replanted hay. The first thing I did was to apply for a CWB permit book. I wanted to be able to sell it. I think I could have sold it privately in the province where I grew it.

  26. It seems that the judge literally invented the need for a plebiscite by equating adding or subtracting grains from the CWB act with eliminating the single desk. He seems to have pulled this point out of thin air.
    That aside, if the judge’s point is that the government needed to first pass legislation repealing the requirement for a plebiscite before amending the legislation, then this still creates a dangerous precedent whereby current Parliaments can add plebiscite provisions to a whole host of legislation for no other purpose than to put roadblocks in the way of future Parliaments. Soon enough, we’ll be spending every waking hour voting in plebiscites every time a government wants to change a speed limit.

  27. It was muted about about how the SC has a duty to control the “executive”….
    However Parliament is the legistlative element. The Privy Council(basically a committee of the cabinet) is the executive.
    This proposed legistlation is an ACT OF PARLIAMENT not an ORDER IN COUNCIL….the equivalent of an executive order.
    s.47.1 was authored by Goodale, obviously not a venerable statute, but was it an ACT OF PARLIAMENT or an ORDER IN COUNCIL.
    The basic principle is PARLIAMENT makes law and the SC interprets it. Failing that principle, PARLIAMENT can pass no legistlation without the consent of the unelected SC.
    Basically Goodale and the CWB is claiming Goodale’s s.47.1 is unrepealable making it the law as long as the rivers flow and the wind blows…..
    Dennis
    “What is notable about the decision, however, is that while the judge claimed that Ritz broke the law he made no attempt to sanction Ritz (throw him in jail or fine him) or to order the government to halt the legislative process or to order them to hold a producer vote.”
    Probably because to do so would unenforcible and would find HIM in the crowbar mansion. The judge in question should have refused to hear the case….

  28. Just heard on sun news that Mr. Ritz does not have to abide by the judges decision, and he can go ahead with plans to dismantle the cwb monopoly.
    Good news…………
    Go for it Mr. Ritz…you have my blessings.

  29. histrybuff writes, “what I take from this is Cdn governments that have deeply held beliefs, all they need do is insert some key words into the legislation and then every goverment thereafter is bound by that law.”
    Last night on Byline, John Robson (when will he get his own show?!), a really knowledgeable guy—he has a doctorate in history—pointed out, to the farmer he was interviewing, that sitting governments are NOT held to previous governments’ laws.
    Ritz is quoted as saying (Montreal Gazette article): “The Parliament of Canada alone has the supremacy to enact, amend or repeal any piece of legislation. This is a fundamental aspect of democracy.”. . .
    “We will never reconsider western wheat and barley farmers’ right to market their own wheat and barley,” Ritz added. “Not only is our government convinced that we have the right to change legislation, we have the responsibility to deliver on our promises and give farmers in Western Canada the right to market their own grain.”
    And our courts had better begin to get it that it’s our elected Parliament that runs this country, NOT elevated, UNELECTED, left-wing (“living tree” constitutionalists), elitist, activist lawyers.
    Go, Conservatives!

  30. First, if you google the name of the Judge, you will see he’s very fond of overturning the decisions of others’ who don’t fit with his Liberal ideology; case in point, he likes to overturn the Immigration and refugee board when they decide that someone isn’t fit to be in Canada.
    2nd point:
    What do you suppose would happen if the conservatives tabled a Private Members bill that would re-instate the Canadian Wheat board as a Pan-Canadian Initiative?
    Think about it. Conservatives table a bill that would demand ALL farmers sell their wheat through a common marketing board, not just prairie farmers. Then let it be known, that the Conservatives would be voting against the bill, but the Opposition parties who are so in favour of imposing the Wheat Board on the prairie folks, can vote in favour of it.
    What do you think idiots like Wayne Easter of PEI would do? Would he vote in favour and thereby force his own consituents to submit to the will of the beaurocrats? What about the Quebec MP’s, or Bob Rae? Would they impose those draconian measures on their own voters, or would they meekly admit that they only wanted to punish Western farmers who decided to sell their product, to whomever they wish, without giving a cut to the Wheat Board?
    It would be interesting to say the least…..
    Lastly, if we take the Wheat Board weenies at their word and believe that 62% of Western Farmer want the Wheat board, and all the restrictions that apply….then it stands to reason, that 38% of Western Farmers do NOT want it. What gives any beaurocrat or Government the right to tell people what to do with the products of their own labour? It’s so wrong – that ONLY a Liberal or socialist wouldn’t see it.
    to hell with the Biased socialist judge, AND his judgement. Ignore him. Kill the wheat board, and if anyone wants to whine about it…..let them.

  31. a@c That is what I thought . People who don’t (in the eyes of the WCB) deserve a permit don’t grow the product because they are not allowed to sell it.
    Are only permit holders with WCB allowed to vote in a “plebiscite” If so I think a technical term for that is bull$#it. If they want a plebiscite shouldn’t EVERY farmer in the provinces affected have a vote?

  32. Dang….
    I should have read the comments prior to posting my comment above. Not only is my idea not that original…..it’s not that original a few times over….
    good to see someone finally agrees with me though.

  33. a@c
    Scar: What province? West of Man,Ont. you must sell to the CWB.
    You can sell directly to feeders within your province.

  35. Trudeau had a chance to destroy parliament’s supremacy and didn’t do it for a very good reason. It is a fatal flaw in the US system of government that unelected judges on their supreme court can essentially make law.
    All of a sudden the lib-dippers are going all AMERICAN STYLE? What gives.

  36. It is a fatal flaw in the US system of government that unelected judges on their supreme court can essentially make law.
    No that’s a vital safeguard for individual rights as enumerated by the US constitution against majoritarianism. What this judge has done in Canada is completely different; making a previous law self-fortifying. Ridiculous.

  37. Scar: There is a big price difference in price. #1 western that I grow Selling as feed means at least 3,4 $ a bus.less. that is all we get. That is called being screwed by t he CWB. This is what has happened to so meany small farmers. They needed money and could only sell off board as feed.

  39. The CTV poll appears to be rigged much as a plebiscite would be.
    Voted from 2 different IP addresses and saw the yes go up while the no remained the same. Anyone surprised?

  41. I can’t argue the legality of the Judge’s decision as I was unfortunately raised to have morals and therefore could not be a lawyer.
    But,I was very disappointed to see the poll at the link, where only 52% support Ritz,the rest, 48%, support the monopoly/Libs/CWB!
    Have people become so sheeple-ized they want more government in their lives?

  42. OMG I cannot stand the fact that we still have to listen to Ralph Goodale. It is almost 12 years into the 21st century and we still have to suffer foolish Liberal fossils named “Ralph”?????
    That man is what I like to refer to as an ass-twat. He is an ass that with years and years of interbreeding, devolution and one infinitesimally small probability and miraculous dose of genetic mutation, is now a twat. What should have died out a long time ago now finds itself clinging stubbornly to life, protected for now in the virtually extinct Liberal caucus. Hanging on to his political existence using his newly formed biological advantages associated with being a twat, he still retains and can draw upon his now almost vestigial, asshole characteristics.

  43. Are even our judges going insane? Why would Ritz have to “consult the Wheat Board”? These are government employees in a government agency — they don’t make the rules, the employer does.
    I think it’s just plain hate for Harper — the Left simply doesn’t want him to govern, majority or otherwise. The Left has abandoned democracy. Even if Harper passed legislation stating that “Canada recognizes the law of gravity”, then I’m certain the Left would oppose it.
    The fascist Left in Canada would oppose the principle of the law of gravity if they knew that Harper, conservatives or libertarians supported it. Much the same way the Soviet Academy of Sciences often publically opposed the “evil capitalist science” of the West just because it originated in the West. Totally ad hominym, and now we even have Canadian judges who are devolving into the same sort of ignorant backward cretins that we once thought were a thing of the Stalinist past.

  44. Two points come to mind –
    1) The government is not out to destroy the CWB. They are attempting to allow the farmers to sell their product for the most money. This is fundamental. (Maybe the CWB should start to sell tractors to the farmers too. They could focus on one make and have an endless supply of spare parts. This worked so well in the USSR.)
    2) Judges overturning government decisions. I want my government to make the decisions and stand by them so I can get at their throats in the next election if need be. Judges answer to no one.

  46. Thank you, Logan. I thought I should read it before I held forth.
    I’d say the Liberal machine is not what it used to be, and it sure ain’t what the Wheat Board boys thought they were paying for. They clearly thought they’d bought a court order forbidding the government from acting, and they’ve been swindled.
    The decision is wrong on its face. This bill clearly doesn’t exclude any grain from the operation of Part IV. What it does is change Part IVm which applies to all the grains it ever did. It’s just that now, it does nothing objectionable.
    But, who cares? The decision is also quite clear: the bill goes ahead and will be judged by parliament and the voters. Who will, respectively, pass it and celebrate it.
    In my time, if a judge was going to disgrace himself like this, he’d be expected to accomplish something substantial for his trouble, force the government to speak a foreign language or waste a billion dollars or something. Going to these lengths to generate a press release is just plain idiotic.

  47. a@c
    Scar: What province? West of Man,Ont. you must sell to the CWB.
    You can sell directly to feeders within your province.
    Under the Canada Grain Act you cannot sell wheat that is above a feed grade as feed wheat. It is illegal. At times farmers have been know to microwave a sample of wheat so that it is accepted as feed wheat so that they can deliver immediatley to the feed mills and recieve immediate payment.

  48. The Ottawa Citizen carried an interesting editorial on the Wheat Board issue, “Parliament Can Change Law.” http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Parliament+change/5832021/story.html
    Of course their reading of the situation is diametrically opposed to Lawrence Martin’s: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/12/09/lawrence-martin-banana-republic-tactics-topple-wheat-board/
    Like so many issues, it has become a symbol — for the left it is a symbol of the high-handedness of the Harper government. I am pretty sure most of the critics (Martin included) do not know much about wheat farming or have any personal stake in how this plays out. What I find most puzzling is that those calling for the “democracy” if a plebecite think it is perfectly democratic for farmers to vote on how others must sell their wheat — whether it suits them or not. Something amiss here.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation