Ritz broke the law...

[Partners]

What a Pile of Horse Cookies...Its like a Bad Dream that will never END!!!!

[stubblejumper]

Canadian Wheat Board applications a success! Judge rules against the Conservative government

By Steven Shrybman
| December 7, 2011



Print


Write to editor


Support rabble


Corrections












On Dec. 7, 2011, Justice Campbell of the Federal Court issued a declaration that the Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, acted in breach of his statutory obligation to hold a plebiscite of farmers before abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board's "single desk" mandate for marketing wheat and barley.

Justice Campbell expressed no hesitation in granting a request by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board that "the Minister's conduct is an affront to the rule of law."

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Council of Canadians, Food Secure Canada, and the ETC Group (the "Interveners") were given public interest standing in the applications for the purpose of addressing important international trade and constitutional questions raised by the Minister's actions. The Court's decision repeats and adopts the Interveners' submissions on these two key points.

Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act forbids the Minister from introducing legislation that would exclude wheat or barley from the Board's exclusive marketing mandate without first consulting the directors of the Board, and allowing the producers of the grain to vote on any proposed exclusion. Nevertheless, without doing either, the Minister tabled Bill C-18 to abolish the Board's single-desk mandate. The bill also removes another fundamental democratic right farmers enjoyed on the Act, which was to elect directors to represent them on the Board.

In coming to his conclusion, Justice Campbell placed primary emphasis on the rule of law as the guiding constitutional principle in the case, and quoted extensively from the written argument made by the Interveners, including the following passage:

"Adhering to the rule of law ensures that the public can understand the rules they are bound by, and the rights they have in participating in the law-making process. As the Applicants note, western farmers relied on the fact that the government would have to conduct a plebiscite under s. 47.1 before introducing legislation to change the marketing mandate of the CWB. Disregarding the requirements of s. 47.1 deprives farmers of the most important vehicle they have for expressing their views on the fundamental question of the single desk. Furthermore the opportunity to vote in a federal election is no answer to the loss of this particular democratic franchise. Until the sudden introduction of BiIl C-I8, Canadian farmers would have expected the requirements of s. 47.1 to be respected."

Justice Campbell went on to state:


Advertising




"The [Interveners argue] 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."

The Court also gave credit to another key point made by the Interveners concerning the importance of maintaining the democratic franchise accorded farmers under the Canadian Wheat Board Act that the Harper government is now trying to repudiate. As the trade cases reveal, Canada's compliance with international rules for exporting and importing grain depends upon the Board being controlled by farmers, not the government. It is that control that Bill C-18 would abolish. On this crucial point Justice Campbell stated:

"I give weight to the Council's argument that s. 47.1 applies to changing the structure of the CWB because the democratic structure is important to Canada's international trade obligations under NAFTA. I find that this is an important consideration which supports the argument that Parliament's intention in s. 47.1 is not to alter this structure without consultation and consent."

In granting declaratory relief, the Court was clearly not impressed with this government's disregard for the most fundamental constitutional principles of our nation. The impact of Bill C-18, if it proceeds, may well be a disaster for Canadian food security and sovereignty since U.S. based transnationals are certain to take even greater control of Canada’s food system.

The Court was not asked, and arguably would not have the authority, to enjoin the government from proceeding any further with Bill C-18. However, in light of the Court's ruling and the serious rebuke it offers, the government ought to withdraw the bill and conduct the consultation and plebiscite required by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Farmers, not politicians, should decide whether the Canadian Wheat Board has a future.

[gustgd]

says Cherilyn Nagel, Past President of the Wheat Growers. “It was all for show. The court decision has no impact on the legislation or the timelines for the implementation of an open market.”

The Wheat Growers note the CWB or the Friends of the CWB (i.e. the applicants) did not even seek to overturn or delay the legislation in their court applications.

As Justice Campbell noted in his ruling:

“The Applicants confirm that the validity of Bill C-18, and the validity and effects of any legislation which might become law as a result of Bill C-18 are not in issue in the present Applications.”

Justice Campbell went on to say that “The Applicants make it clear that their Applications are no threat to the Sovereignty of Parliament to pass legislation.”

“It seems clear that this ruling doesn’t affect the ability of the federal government to follow through on its commitment to give us our marketing freedom,” says Gerrid Gust, Chair of the Wheat Growers. “The government should continue to move full speed ahead.”

Kevin Bender, President of the Wheat Growers will be testifying tomorrow at the Senate committee hearings examining Bill C-18, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. Bender will be urging the speedy passage of the legislation so that prairie farmers can start reaping the benefits of an open market.

“The Wheat Growers will be urging the Senators to pass the legislation as quickly as possible.” says Bender. “Prairie farmers should enjoy the same freedoms that other Canadian farmers now take for granted.”

For further comment, please contact:

Gerrid Gust Cherilyn Nagel
Chair Past President
(306) 567-7120 (306) 354-7368

[Tom4Wildrose]

"Bill C-18, if it proceeds, may well be a disaster for Canadian food security and sovereignty since U.S. based transnationals are certain to take even greater control of Canada’s food system."

WOW.

Did Judge Campbell ever swallow the bait hook line and sinker.

Goodale has done a great job of training the rank and file Liberal Judges. He needs to find a time portal and take Goodale back with him 30-40 years.

[silverback]

It is exactly the same talking points as being spouted by the ndp, the unions, the united church, and any other "partners" of the social justice gang.

This was written for him and decided even before the case went to court.

There was a lot of confidence by the social justice gang going into this week and now we know why.

[stubblejumper]

Deny Deny Deny

[Tom4Wildrose]

How many more years of consultations do you want Stubblejumper?

6 years already... votes taken poles done... surveys by the CWB itself that prove a voluntary CWB is needed by the vast majority of commercial grain growers in western Canada.

And you know this to be true Stub.

Yet you choose to crank up the retoric and ignore the facts... as did the Liberal Judge of the Federal Court.

These folks at the Federal Court are about as useful as the CBC and CWB.

[Braveheart]

So let me get this straight. This court case which cost untold thousands of dollars was for nothing more than to get some myopic Liberal appointed judge to "declare" that in his opinion the Minister should have had more consultations? I swear those socialists are allergic to money.

They wasted all that money and C18 is still valid. Wow.

[Tom4Wildrose]

Braveheart,

I may yet get to ride that harley bike out to see you this summer!

Remember Red Deer?

I am back wearing that leather jacket!

[Braveheart]

It would seem that Justice Campbell must have gotten his law degree from the Karl Marx School of Law. If he thinks he or anyone else can simply vote away my right to market my wheat or barley to whoever, whenever, it's time to turf out some judges.

[Braveheart]

Hey Tom. You're always welcome at our place. What have you got for a hog? The good thing about black is it's always "in". By the way, kevlar is more effective than leather against knives or bullets.

[cpallett]

Sophocles once wrote that "there is no higher duty to obey the law than upon those who make the law."

The Chief Justice of Canada's Federal Court put it a little differently,

"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."

The question before Justice Campbell and his answer were quite clear,