Not a lawyer BUT!

[riders2010]

I don't agree with it, think it is all just a political grandstand by libs and ndp backed board, but why is the judge being blamed and labeled. This is a country where the judges are required to make decisions based on the current laws not political influence. The wheat board has not been dismantled through all of the political and legal processes yet so the rules of the wheat board are to be followed aren't they? If the judge had ruled in the gov favor wouldn't all legislated law for any orgainization etc become useless?

No need to panic, this may mean a little longer time which p's me off as much as any. But legally mr. Ritz broke the law. The thing to consider now is what is the punishment for breaking that law, bet there won't be anything, but is that right, even though he is right he is wrong?

If those farmers that want to keep the wheat board can prove by their methods (that I think are not correct) that they have lost money due to the illegal action of the minister will that mean another law suit against the minister and the gov for funds lost to the cwb farmers, including all of the legal costs they are incurring? this thing can get even more stupid than it is.

[liberty]

Can anyone succinctly define what law it was that Ritz broke? If he broke the law requiring a plebiscite, is this not trumped by the fact that he is a Minister of the Government in the process of passing legislation to amend said law? Or are we in a "new era" where present governments are not allowed to amend or repeal legislation passed by previous governments?

I have a hard time believing that he is the equivalent of a hoodlum robbing a grocery store.

[oneoff]

In the long run it is much worse for an elected representative to break the law; than it is for any person (including especially an elected official who has the power to make laws) to " rob a grocery store". To have our leaders even consider such action is leading to a breakdown in our society.

Whom else has recognized the similar affronts to our supposed democratic foundations?

[liberty]

I'll ask again: what law did Ritz break?

If the judge's point is that the government needed to first pass legislation repealing the requirement for a plebiscite before amending the legislation, then this still creates a dangerous precedent whereby current Parliaments can add plebiscite provisions to a whole host of legislation for no other purpose than to put roadblocks in the way of future Parliaments. Soon enough, we'll spend all our time voting in plebiscites every time a government wants to change a speed limit.

[malta]

I do blame the judge. I theory Judges are to rule on the laws that exist. There are numerous cases where judges have overruled Parliment. Using farmer logic I believe that this judge has written a lot into the law. Section 47.1 talks about adding or subtracting crops from the CWB. No crops were added none were subtracted. The judge "wrote" monopoly into the act for the purpose of his ruling. This judge also made the ruling and then said he couldn't enforce it because he couldn't interfere with the legislative process. That is just stupid. This like many rulings will likely be overturned at the supreme court. If this one stands, the supremacy of Parliment is gone, and our democracy with it.

[oneoff]

Someone mentioned the word "injunction". Do we hear any smug laughing.
I'll mention what looks like "poor legal advice" the federal government must certainly have received. Surely losses in legitimate courts aren't a part of the federal government plan to "ammend" or provide new options for Western Canadian farmers.
If ammendments can not be made within existing Acts then Governments should repeal the existing Acts; and create new laws to enable what they wish to do. Then they should live with the repercussions and fallout......just like the rest of our society; and all within the rulings of the court system which must be respected.

[BreadWinner]

If governments were to follow this ruling there would be no need for goverment. Judges would just continue to enforce the the laws the way they have been written in the past, right or wrong. A great example would be the right for women to vote. If it were up to the judges women would still not have the right to cast a ballot. Goverment is there for a reason, they see through all the muddy waters and come up with rulings that serve all the people.

[oneoff]

The legal system is an integral part of democracy. If the previous post is valid; then I'll be the first to agree that democracy has already been lost.
Absolutely everyone must work within the system; or be held acountable;............... else chaos will ensue.

[oneoff]

The legal system is an integral part of democracy. If the previous post is valid; then I'll be the first to agree that democracy has already been lost.
Absolutely everyone must work within the system; or be held acountable;............... else chaos will ensue.

[liberty]

Oneoff, is your idea of democracy a system where we have plebiscites every twenty minutes simply because our legal system has deemed that past Parliaments are entitled to effectively hold present ones hostage? What's democratic about that?

[Braveheart]

Malta, I agree. Blame the judge. He made a mistake. All the reasons you gave are right.

I just don't know why a lot of people on here are conceding to a vote of some kind. It's only a delaying tactic. The commies know the end for the board is a real possibilty under a Harper majority and delaying is the best hope.

Email your MP again. Tell them they have support, and full speed ahead. Email senators urging passage. Write op eds decrying the prejudice of LIBERAL APPOINTED JUDGES.

Never surrender.

[Braveheart]

Malta, I agree. Blame the judge. He made a mistake. All the reasons you gave are right.

I just don't know why a lot of people on here are conceding to a vote of some kind. It's only a delaying tactic. The commies know the end for the board is a real possibilty under a Harper majority and delaying is the best hope.

Email your MP again. Tell them they have support, and full speed ahead. Email senators urging passage. Write op eds decrying the prejudice of LIBERAL APPOINTED JUDGES.

Never surrender.

[oneoff]

Simple solution. Repeal the CWB Act. Legitimately create any desired new laws. Live with fallout and consequences. Do it all legally; and you'll find that on application to any court the judge will agree (else the matter will be overturned on appeal).
Have patience (and "faith")

Reprtedly; in earlier days there were severe consequences for "treasonous acts"; and pointedly questioning the authority of ones rulers. Perhaps there still are penalties of some sort.

[cpallett]

You are right, oneoff. Had Minister Ritz followed proper protocol the issue would have never been before Justice Campbell in the first place.

Justice Campbell was asked a simple question:

"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."

He was only asked to rule on the legal legitimacy of the government actions at issue, not to provide a remedy. He found that Minister Ritz's attempt to dissolve the CWB without a vote in favour by producers to be a violation of s. 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which 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."

All Minister Ritz had to do was repeal s. 47.1 first and the whole issue would have never come up. One wonders whether this was a case of gross incompetence or deliberate.

Interesting to note what the Chief Justice of the Federal Court had to say about the rule of law in a free and democratic society:

“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.”

we are extremely fortunate in Canada to have a very competent and independent judiciary. Whether Justice Campbell was right in his interpretation of the law will doubtless be determined by the Federal Court of Ap[peal and/or the Supreme Court of Canada.

Should Minister Ritz proceed with the legislation to abolish the CWB as planned, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that it will be challenged in the Courts and, if Justice Campbell is right, be struck down as a violation of the fundamental principles of Canadian democracy. All of which could have been avoided by a simple procedural step.

I may not be qualified to pass judgment on Justice campbell, but as a voter I do not believe Minister Ritz has covered himself with glory on this one.

Full text of the judgment 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 meliora

[Burbert]

Duhhhh! Maybe it would be better if'n
we had judges that were accountable to
the gobermont. Like lets say in Nazi
Germany in the old days, or in some
third world nations, er even in Chine,
where when the death penalty is applied,
after organ removal, nok must pay fer
the bullet(s) used ta carry out the
execution before gettin the remains.
Now that is a Progressive Conservative
gobermont, like Comedian farmers deserve
and want. Ta heck wit Liberal, pinko
judges, ifn they wasn't guilty they
wouldn't be charged. Butt wait, what
about crooked authorities. Butt wait,
no repeat offenders. IN THIS CASE THE
RITZ CRACKER IS LUCKY, THOUGH SINCE HE
LIVES AND WORKS IN COMEDIA. Hence
nothing will happen cause he IS THE
CROWN, and protected from everthin!!!!