Ritz broke the law...

[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

[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

[liberty]

"So, if Minister Ritz insists on pushing through the legislation to abolish the Wheat Board without a referendum of affected producers....
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."

The last time I looked, the legislation the government is passing in no way abolishes the CWB. Eliminating the single desk is not equivalent to abolition.

At this point, though, I would favour a simple repeal of the entire Act, followed by the sale of the assets of what I have come to believe is a largely worthless entity. There's nothing there worth saving anymore.

[cpallett]

Braveheart and liberty,

My bad. The full text of s. 47.1 reads:

"47.1 The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister."

No vote, no fundamental change in the way the CWB does business. So repeal 47.1 and carry on. Why the heck didn't Ritz's minions figure that one out?

By the way, I sure hope Justice Campbell is human, and every other judge in Canada also. To err is indeed human, but at least it means there is a beating heart in there somewhere that can be appealed to. Would you prefer a machine's version of justice?