Ritz broke the law...

[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,

[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,

"The Applicants each request a Declaration that the Minister’s conduct is an affront to the rule of law. For the reasons that follow, I have no hesitation in granting this request."

So, if Minister Ritz insists on pushing through the legislation to abolish the Wheat Board without a referendum of affected producers, it would appear to be a six-inch putt to apply for and get an order from the Federal court striking it down. Pushing through the legislation now without first settling this issue would indeed be a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

Simply put, section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act requires a vote by "the producers of the grain" in favour before the Wheat Board can be abolished. That is the law. The government of the day is no more free to ignore the law, especially when the matter is put to a free and independent judiciary as we have in Canada, than you or I.

If you want to live in a dictatorship where the rule of law may be freely ignored by those in power, I'm afraid we are not there yet and hopefully never will be.

The comp[lete text of Justice Campbell's decision can be found at,

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Wheat%20Board%20T-1735-11%20and%20T-1057-11%20reasons.pdf

semper ad meliorum

[Braveheart]

Cpallett, the shortfall of your argument is that Justice Campbell is human, with prejudices, pride and other human failings. Thus the need for an appeal court, providing regress and protection for all petitioners.

You also haven't allowed for the fact that in the adversarial theater of open court some lawyers fail to present their case well enough.

In this case, if Justice Campbell thought there has not been enough consultation he must be living under a rock. It has been the most polled issue ever in ag.

errare humanum est