98 Replies to “A CTV Wheat Board Poll”

  4. You would think that a court would know that it is the purpose of government to make law. As long as it doesn’t violate the constitution the government can make any law they want. That’s what they do. No law can be written that can hold a future government to do something it doesn’t want to do. Even the charter has an amending formula. One of the fundamental rights in the charter is freedom of association. I am not a legal scholar, but I would consider doing business with whom ever you choose to falls under freedom association. If that is the case the CWB is unconstitutional

  5. The ruling judge is a Jean Chretien appointtee, the case is legally absurd while simultaneously being moot…unless the judiciary is the ulimate arbiter…

  8. How the &*%# do these guys argue that it is a democratic process to vote on whether other farmers get to sell their own property freely?
    If they want democracy, why don’t they let farmers sell their wheat to womoever they wish.
    A lynch mob votes on which poor SOB to hang next, but is that really democracy?

  9. minuteman
    As long as it doesn’t violate the constitution the government can make any law they want.
    That’s what I thought. A judge can only over-rule parliament on constitutional grounds and parliament had the right to pass the law in the first place so it can certainly amend it. The judge has just partaken in a coup d’etat.

  10. Minuteman: “As long as it doesn’t violate the constitution the government can make any law they want. That’s what they do. No law can be written that can hold a future government to do something it doesn’t want to do. …. I am not a legal scholar”
    No, you’re certainly not a legal scholar, and it shows. I don’t know where you get your information about what the govt. can and can’t legally do. In this case the govt. is right to press ahead with their plans, and you can be sure that that’s the legal advice they’ve been given. But they also have no choice but to respect the court decision by appealing it. If they lose the appeal, then things get really interesting.
    Don’t get me wrong. I want to see the end of the CWB for a lot of good reasons — practical, political and philosophical.

  11. “Let me be clear, we will never reconsider western wheat and barley farmers’ fundamental right to market their own wheat and barley. 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,” said Ritz.
    “The Parliament of Canada alone has the supremacy to enact, amend or repeal any piece of legislation.”
    Read it on Global News: Judge rules Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz breached Wheat Board Act
    (emphasis mine)
    Love watching Ralph Goodale’s head explode, now that he’s on the outside looking in.

  12. Out of the article: “The board was set up following the Great Depression to help Prairie farmers band together and seek higher prices.”
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times does this misinformation need to be out there? That was the Saskatchewan and Alberta Wheat Pools NOT the CWB. The CWB was put into place during the war in order to provide cheap grain to the allies in Europe while they were having the crap bombed out of them. When they continually screw up on these things I don’t think I’ll ever read an article in a paper where I’ll ever think that there aren’t mistakes in it.

  13. great comments.
    Is this judge actually saying that the legislative body of Canada, the parliament, cannot make laws – any laws – until and unless it first asks some or even all of the people involved for the permission to make that law?
    This is not how a representative and constitutional democracy operates. The elected representatives, by law and by constitutional right, have the power to make laws. Period.
    It the people do not like this law, then, they express their concerns to the govt and also, by voting for a govt to repeal that law. And we know that it is impossible to ever obtain a universal consensus on any issue.
    That is what happened with the gun registry.
    After all, did Chretien, who set up the gun registry, actually do so only after obtaining the approval of all gun owners in Canada? Heh. We know the answer to that. And it has taken years to get that law repealed.
    Same with the CWB. Was it set up with the prior approval of all farmers? No?
    What about all our other laws? Are they passed only after all affected citizens have given their approval?

  15. 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.
    wow.

  16. The judge’s ruling, if not overturned, will create a dangerous precedent, namely that a current Parliament can effectively tie the hands of any and all future Parliaments by cleverly inserting some requirement for “consultation” or a “plebiscite” into every single piece of legislation. There’s no end to the mischief that governments could engage in if they had this tool in the drawer.

  17. So…are we screwed? Barring success on the appeal, is it game over?
    The judge thinks he has higher standing than Parliament. He is wrong and it isn’t even close. The decision is anti-democratic and perverse.

  18. Sorry, ET, this is Canada and not Switzerland.
    Canadians do not have the right to property; the CWB Act says so. Canada does not hold a referendum to approve Parliamentary Legislation; we have an unelected Senate and GG to do that.

  19. The judgement is an interesting read, especially on the rule of law.
    “A most recent reminder of the rule of law as a fundamental constitutional imperative is
    expressed by Chief Justice Fraser in Reece v Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238 at paragraphs 159
    and 160:
    The starting point is this. The greatest achievement through the centuries in the evolution of democratic governance has been
    constitutionalism and the rule of law. The rule of law is not the rule by laws where citizens are bound to comply with the laws but government is not. Or where one level of government chooses not to enforce laws binding another. Under the rule of law, citizens have the right to come to the courts to enforce the law as against the
    executive branch. And courts have the right to review actions by the executive branch to determine whether they are in compliance with
    the law and, where warranted, to declare government action unlawful. This right in the hands of the people is not a threat to
    democratic governance but its very assertion. Accordingly, the executive branch of government is not its own exclusive arbiter on whether it or its delegatee is acting within the limits of the law. The detrimental consequences of the executive branch of government defining for itself – and by itself – the scope of its lawful power have been revealed, often bloodily, in the tumult of history.
    When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of
    law itself.”
    It will be interesting to see how the Supreme court interprets this. In other words, since the new law isn’t passed yet, the Gov’t is violating the current one.
    This is the decision:
    http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Wheat%20Board%20T-1735-11%20and%20T-1057-11%20reasons.pdf

  20. I can’t see a higher court abiding by this decision. If they do, then we truly are screwed, but not just over the Wheat Board.
    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. Does this judge see his role as being to scold the government? If so, what’s the point of that?

  22. You have all missed the point …and that is this …the wheat board will still exsist it will still continue to rip off farmers if they so choose to let them , as well they will also (the farmers) be able to assume all the risk/reward/failure and sell to whom ever they choose ….THE WHEAT BOARD WILL STILL EXIST!! and i think that is fine as well so farmers are lazy or not as motivated as others so the wheat board will be there for them!!!!

  23. “In other words, since the new law isn’t passed yet, the Gov’t is violating the current one.”
    I can’t imagine the chaos that will result if this idiotic notion becomes the guiding principle for the Canadian legislative and legal system from here on.

  24. The second the new law is passed and proclaimed, the old law doesn’t exist. The minister may have broken the old law but as it no longer exists he can lo longer be accused of breaking it. Was this judgement simply a meaningless exercise?

  25. I think part of the problem is that the Governments argument was weak.
    They couldn’t prove that the current legislation ( or secion 47.1 ) wasn’t constitionally valid.
    ——-
    “The Applicants make it clear that their Applications are no threat to the Sovereignty of
    Parliament to pass legislation. The controversy in the present case arises from the Act, legislation that Parliament has already passed. Section 47.1 contains conditions which are known in law as “manner and form” procedural requirements. This form of limitation on the exercise of legislative power is well recognized in law.”
    “The Minister has attempted to argue that s. 47.1 does not meet the requirements of a
    “manner and form” provision. I dismiss this argument and find any debate on “manner and form” is not properly before the Court for determination. Section 47.1 is presumed to be constitutionally valid, and no argument challenging this presumption has been properly presented in the present Applications; to do so would require notice of a Constitutional Question which has not been given.
    Thus, as the judicial review Applications are framed, the sole question for determination is: did the Minister breach the process requirements of s. 47.1”
    etc, etc.
    Perhaps the Gov’t needs to prove that the present law requiring a producer vote isn’t constitional.

  29. The first link works and goes to a Global Winnipeg story (but no poll as far as I could see); and the second link goes to a Montreal Gazette report.

  30. Is Justice Douglas Campbell the same judge that presided over some of the “farmers for justice” cases where some farmers actually did jail time for selling their own grain? Wasn’t it Justice Campbell who tore a strip off these farmers in court for defying the CWB?

  31. Time for Alberta to flex its monetary muscles, we need to withhold transfer payments. This stupidity of this liberal appointed judge to take top pay, 290000 and 1 third tax free having the nerve to say we can’t sell our grain to whoever, this is Twilight Zone. Angry Pat and shrill Ralph are clucking like fat hens laying the biggest eggs, these scums make me puke. Take it to a vote angry Pat, you will be wrong, grow up, we want to sell wherever we want,,,just like an Ontario/Quebec farmer does Ralph, while they take our transfer payments,unreal.

  32. The WEST is watching. An independent West is getting closer every day by these Eastern Ghouls playing backyard politics. There will be a vote alright. One that says adiós to the Eastern establishment with their so called form of democracy. Enforced with a Charter that stinks of communism. This is supposed to be a Democracy, not a Judicuary oligarchy.

  33. Maybe the Judge is right and the Govt cant “Amend” the governance methods of the CWB. Start over and Abolish it outright, that’s not messing with the governance!.

  34. “This form of limitation on the exercise of legislative power is well recognized in law.”
    So I gather then that this judge is saying that any time a government mandates a plebiscite, that mandate is written in stone and becomes irrevocable.
    The Manitoba NDP government passed legislation requiring a plebiscite for the sale of any crown corporation. Presumably, no future government can ever rescind or erase such a requirement. Ludicrous.

  35. Two things wouls solve this:
    Farmers should not grow any grain that is under the Canadian Wheat Board’s monoply, for a year or two; and the government should pass a law stating that EVERY grain farmer in Canada fall under the Canadian Wheat Board …… that should shut it down pretty quick. There shpould be no differance between the Eastern and Western farmers.

  36. If the government cannot amend governance methods of a governmental organization, then we’re in for a heap of trouble in this country. As far as the CWB goes, maybe the nuclear option is the sensible course of action: repeal the act and sell whatever assets are left.
    But what do you do with all the other governmental organizations that populate the nation? Are they potentially off limits to the government of the day? How crazy is that? Taxpayers become literal hostages in this scenario.

  37. Nold,
    You’re probably thinking of Doug Campbell that works for Farmers for Justice but that’s not the judge.

  38. The inherent problem these days is that one can no longer ever be sure whether the judiciary makes their decisions based on the Rule of Law rather than Political Motivations. I know of many more questionable decisions in the U.S. but I’m sure it goes on in Canada all the time too. 🙁

  40. I read about the notwithstanding clause but there are limits to that too.
    “A legislature may make a law immune from judicial review in regard to the Charter’s fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights. The clause, however, cannot be used in the context of the other rights and freedoms provided for by the Charter. If, for example, a legislature wishes to enact a law that would violate democratic rights under the Charter, it could not use the Notwithstanding clause to protect itself from judicial review.”
    It’s never been used at the Federal level. It might be easier than arguing that a vote is unconstitional though. They could use the fundamental freedoms argument.

  41. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-24/page-19.html
    47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
    (a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
    (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.
    Is “consulted with the board” telling the board, or the board telling the minister what to do?
    “Producers of the grain”
    this year, last 10 years?
    1 acre, 5000 acres?
    “voting process having been determined by the Minister”
    That’s wide open, including the number or % of votes needed.

  42. “voting process having been determined by the Minister”
    That’s wide open, including the number or % of votes needed.
    —————-
    What are you suggesting?

  44. The court challenge route wastes a lot of time and money. Indecision or a delayed decision is soon the worst option.
    The CWB antics have pushed me from mainly indifferent to rabidly opposed to the CWB.

  45. I would suggest a national vote of all wheat producers. Yes = every wheat farmer in Canada is in the CWB. No = nobody is in.

  46. (cont)
    Alternatively, go local. Have the vote based on district. I.e. Regina mighy choose CWB, but not Delisle.

  47. “I would suggest a national vote of all wheat producers. Yes = every wheat farmer in Canada is in the CWB. No = nobody is in.”
    That sounds fair. So how many wheat farmers are there in the rest of Canada that aren’t currently covered by the Wheat Board? Enough to make a difference?

  48. WalterF at 12:35 AM
    “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.
    I think there is room for those who want to stay with the CWB, yet there is finally room for real freedom for Western Canadian wheat farmers.

  49. My limited understanding of the new legislation (Bill C-18), is this:
    1. It amends immediately the makeup of the CWB Board of Directors.
    2. It creates a new Wheat Board Act that gives the CWB power to buy grain, but, with no monopoly power once it becomes law.
    3. It repeals the current Act when the new Act becomes law.
    There’s no reference to Sections 47 or 47.1 or to whether wheat or barley or any other grain is added or excluded from the CWB’s mandate that I can see.
    It’s difficult not to conclude that the judge is simply making mischief. Is he seriously suggesting that a requirement to consult regarding adding or removing grain from the CWB’s mandate means that the entire statute may not be changed or repealed without such consultation and approval?
    Regardless, this judgement by a judge in Winnipeg cannot stop the Federal Government from completing the mandate the Canadian electorate gave them wrt the CWB, it may slow it down a little and waste a lot of valuable time.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation