Court challenge

[parsley]

(j) to act as agent for or on behalf of any minister
or agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in
respect of any operations that it may be directed
to carry out by the Governor in Council; and

[parsley]

Directions to the Corporation
18. (1) The Governor in Council may, by order,
direct the Corporation with respect to the manner
in which any of its operations, powers and duties
under this Act shall be conducted, exercised or
performed.
Directors
(1.1) The directors shall cause the directions to
be implemented and, in so far as they act in
accordance with section 3.12, they are not
accountable for any consequences arising from
the implementation of the directions.
Best interests
(1.2) Compliance by the Corporation with
directions is deemed to be in the best interests of
the Corporation.

[boarderbloke]

Could court delays alter Aug 2012 freedom day?

[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.