Bill C-619

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket,

Consitutionally the Feds are not allowed to 'impose' the CWB on any province... the province must agree to be included in the 'designated area'.

Growing and selling the produce we raise in our province; is 'Agriculture' under the BNA Act. As in supply management the province has the right to opt out if they so choose.

Just as Quebec had the right to start its own wheat board 3 years ago.

[freewheat]

Bucket, I agree. The tories have had ample time to ake a farmers marketing agency a confidence vote in the house. As if the lefties would walk down that road of inequality issues. As if layton and iggy would dare to make such a petty issue to most Canadians an election issue.

Again, the cons are scared. I am sure this is because of mafia and death threats or warnings to the families of any mp who dares to give farmers choice. Why is the boards most yappy proponent an mp from fricking PEI? What else could it be? Why are they so scared?

Can you imagine the cash cow the cwb would be for organized crime? If they skimmed off even 5 bucks a tonne, they'd have operating money for a good while. it may sound crazy, but I am becoming convinced. They have doen many of the things they have stated they would, but touch the cwb? nu uh...

[Raven]

TOM4CWB, I agree (and so do court rulings) that growing and selling by producers is AGRICULTURE under the Constitution. But the important difference is that the CWB Act is REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE and NOT!! AGRICULTURE. Trade and Commerce is solely under Federal jurisdiction, applied where they please.

Putting the CWB and supply management together is a concept the CWB loves. But it's wrong.

[TOM4CWB]

Raven,

Trade and Commerce legislation was not envisioned to extinguish trade and commerce. That is why any province can opt out of the national supply management system. It is also why Ontario and Quebec market their own wheat... when the CWB Act covers all of Canada (Part 4) & originally had authority over them during the second world war.

An example of constitutional precedence:

"The majority affirmed the existence of two categories of privilege: (1) constitutionally inherent privilege; (2) privilege that is not constitutionally inherent. Both the Charter and the first category of privilege are part of the Constitution. The first category of privilege is therefore not subject to judicial review under the Charter, because one part of the Constitution may not abrogate another part of the Constitution. Therefore, once it is established that the privilege is constitutionally inherent, as in this case, the exercise of that privilege is not subject to judicial scrutiny."

[TOM4CWB]

Raven,

Another good example is the regulation of securities by provinces in National and International transactions.

Each province is making its own decision of whether or not it wants in to the new national securities regulations the federal government has purposed... Provinces have the right to say NO... if they would rather continue to regulate the trade and commerce themselves.

[bucket]

Good political answers, TOM, but you haven't answered the question.

Are the conservatives prepared to make the cwb an election issue and actually do something about it, if they get a majority? Yes or no.

Forget about the long drawn out answers that say nothing.

Have the conservatives got the balls to give western canadian farmers marketing freedom?

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket,

As the Canadian constitution (BNA Act) requires provincial approval to 'Agricultural' policy. How this will take place I have not seen developed publicly.

Setting this provincial problem aside... and assuming a Conservative majority... my opinion in the 'crystal ball' gaze would be that some type of functional exemption from the CWB monopoly for individual commercial growers will be achieved. (IE no-cost export license)

From there a complete rework of the CWB will be the rational next step to a commercial marketing co-op.