Court challenge

[parsley]

Hopper, maybe a few hundred signed letters to
the court, asking for the judges resignation from
the bench IF he hasn't read the Minister's rights,
which I posted above, should help prevent a
renegade judge from getting promoted to a
higher bench. At the least. Pars.

[Hopperbin]

Go hard Pars I got a farm audit in the morning.

[dmlfarmer]

However, the Interpretation Act, which deals with amending and repealing statutes says an ammendment to an Act cannot change the intent of the existing ACT: "...except in so far as the provision is inconsistent with the intent and object of such Act, or the interpretation which such provision would give to any word, expression or clause is inconsistent with the context..."
If the judge believes the amendments made are at odds with the Intent of the the original CWB Act he has no choice but to rule against the government tommorrow.

[Tom4Wildrose]

DML,

It would be a consitutional crisis if one Parliament can bind the next parliament from passing legislation.

A 100 percent approval or consensus vote against a particular Legislative Act could easily be enacted... stopping future changes to Statutes.

This would bring Parliament and the democratic system into disrepute if your view were enforced by the courts.

[haveapulse]

Seems appropriate for this to be in Winnipeg; same place where the Hudsons Bay Fur Monopoly was upheld and overturned in the same day. The judge ruled: guilty of illegally trading furs in the then monopoly trading district controled by the HBC. Guillaume Sayer, had broken the law; the rule of day meant the monopoly was broken. From day forward the law remained but the trade was open.

[parsley]

DML

The Minister can even change the boundaries of
the Designated area if he choses; it's very clear.
the minister of the Canadian Wheat Board is the
jead and final legaln uthority whether you like it
or not


What you are trying to tell us is that a group of
eight farmers takes precedence over a
parliamentary act, takes precedence over a
Parliamentry minister and precedence over an
elected government.

Only a single desk occupier would have the
audacity and pomposity to actually make such a
presumption. The occupiers also expect and
demand way beyond moral and legal limitations
in a civil society

At one time, most farmers and legislators were
amiably receptive to offering single deskers an
alternate Wheat Board.

That good will is waning. Fast. Pars

[dmlfarmer]

Tom: I was simply responding to wd9 question of what could happen in court.The Intrepretation Act also specifically states "Every Act shall be so construed as to reserve to Parliament the power of repealing or amending it, and of revoking, restricting or modifying..." Every parliment is guaranteed the right to change law so there is no crisis happening or could happen out of today's court case.

A constitiutional crisis however would be sure to ensure if a government was able to simply ammend a bill to change its intent instead of repealing it. For example, a crisis would defiantely occur if the government decided to change the recognition of Quebec by amending the current act by adding the the words "IS NOT A"
All I am saying is that if the judge finds the intent of the CWB act is to guarantee farmer direction of a single desk market system for specific grains then the amendments the government passed in C-18 are likely illegal. The government would have had to repeal the CWB act and create a whole new act rather than amending the current ACT.

Pars: Simply changing boundries is amendable as it is not changing the Intent of the ACT.

The Intrepretation Act guarantees parliment the right to make AND CHANGE any law but also protects society from a parliment changing the intent of laws without repealing the old law.

[wd9]

I guess this is why lawyers cost so much. I do get the feeling this thing isn't anywhere near over as the CWB seems resilient. I hope i am very wrong for the stability of this industry.

[charliep]

Don't know how will be dealt with today but the reason for the two stage
process (actually 3 stage when you include the 5 year window to develop
a business plan) is to allow for winding down of the CWB as a single
desk/fullfill its commitments to farmers/customers in the current crop
year and from there, take the necessary steps to transition it/prepare for
an open market starting August 1, 2012.

[malta]

I have read through all the responses. Good discussion. Most of you are trying to guess what will happen based on logic. Sorry, logic doesn't apply. This is a judge. A man in a black dress. Enough said.

[parsley]

If deleting an area from the designated area,
such as the CWB did with Creaton- Wyndell,
gerrymandering the boundaries, leaves the
definition of the DA's "single-desk" intact, it is
obvious Parliament did not weigh the single
desk's worth based upon territorial boundaries. If
territory was the gauge, legislators would have
included Ontario and Quebec within the confines of the DA.

In other words, removing six municipalities
surrounding Calgary would not effect the single
desk status. Or adding Nunavik.

You propose an argument that weakens the
strength of your single desk strength argument?

Compulsion always becomes Illogical and
indefensible, doesnt it. pars.

[parsley]

dml,
Shall i send a note to the PM and tell him XML
says, "Simply changing boundries is amendable
as it is not changing the Intent of the ACT" ?

So that the government can simply change the
DA boundaries, and redefine it as a five mile
perimeter surrounding old Old Wives Lake. It
sounds like the sort of territory that might pat pat,
pat, pat, pat, pat, pat, pat eight crying elected
boys doesn't it? pars

[LWeber]

1993 and 2007...

While there may be a Conservative government, courts are still steeped in Liberal appointments...

Third time lucky?

[parsley]

At the lower courts unlucky.
At the SCC lucky.
But in that interim period, farmer's pooling
accounts will be decimated. Pars

[dmlfarmer]

lol at Pars. I would argue that the intent of the CWB act gave FARMERS the right to change the marketing structure and boundries, but does not give the government the right to unilaterally impose such changes. That is my opinion, and that is all it is. A court may or may not agree. All I am saying is this is an arguement that may be used.
Whether you agree or disagree with me is immaterial. So no need to personally attack me because I am not arguing for or against the CWB. I am merely answering an earlier question with a point of law that a judge must consider.