http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/12/07/cwb-ruling-will-be-overturned-brodbeck
CWB ruling will be overturned: Brodbeck
Federal Court Judge Douglas Campbell’s decision to declare Bill C-18 unlawful is a perfect example of a judge overstepping his judicial bounds and entering into the world of politics. That’s why his decision will be overturned on appeal.
Campbell said the bill — which will eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly — is unlawful because government failed to consult the CWB or hold a vote among grain farmers.
Trouble is, nowhere in the act does it say those are legal requirements government must follow before eliminating the single-desk system.
To be honest, Campbell’s written decision reads more like political commentary than a judicial ruling. It has more to do with the judge’s personal beliefs than the rule of law.
He has essentially read a rule into the Canadian Wheat Board Act — under Sec. 47.1 — that simply doesn’t exist.
He may want it to exist. He may think the government has a moral obligation to hold a vote among farmers before eliminating the board’s monopoly. But that’s not what the law says.
What Sec. 47.1 of the act does say very clearly is that Parliament shall not introduce a bill under the existing monopoly “that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada” without consulting with the CWB and without getting the approval of grain farmers through a vote.
That law came into effect in 1998 and was clearly designed to ensure farmers had binding control over which products would be included or excluded from the monopoly scheme.
If, for example, Parliament tried to remove barley from the monopoly without holding a vote, government would be in violation of its own act.
But that’s not what C-18 is about. The bill doesn’t contemplate adding or removing products from the monopoly scheme. The bill eliminates the monopoly altogether.
Campbell says while it may not state specifically that a vote is required before ending the single-desk system, the rule is implied.
Unfortunately for him, he makes a very weak case on how such a requirement could possibly be implied in this case. He may want it to be implied, but the act doesn’t suggest in any way that a vote must be held under these circumstances.
If it was the intent of Parliament to bind future parliamentarians with the self-imposed law that a plebiscite is required before winding down the single-desk system, they would have put it in the act. They did not.
Campbell seems to gloss over that very important fact. Instead, he gives parliamentarians a lecture on the degree to which they should consult Canadians before making significant statutory changes.
“Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme, the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard,” wrote Campbell. “In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present applications being launched.”
Since when is it a judge’s job to instruct Parliament on when and how to consult Canadians before passing laws? Those are political issues that fall outside of the court’s jurisdiction. Unless the court is making specific reference to a statutory requirement, it has no business meddling in the political affairs of Parliament. Those decisions and the consequences that flow from them should be dealt with through the political process, not the courtroom.
This will be overturned.
CWB ruling will be overturned: Brodbeck
Federal Court Judge Douglas Campbell’s decision to declare Bill C-18 unlawful is a perfect example of a judge overstepping his judicial bounds and entering into the world of politics. That’s why his decision will be overturned on appeal.
Campbell said the bill — which will eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly — is unlawful because government failed to consult the CWB or hold a vote among grain farmers.
Trouble is, nowhere in the act does it say those are legal requirements government must follow before eliminating the single-desk system.
To be honest, Campbell’s written decision reads more like political commentary than a judicial ruling. It has more to do with the judge’s personal beliefs than the rule of law.
He has essentially read a rule into the Canadian Wheat Board Act — under Sec. 47.1 — that simply doesn’t exist.
He may want it to exist. He may think the government has a moral obligation to hold a vote among farmers before eliminating the board’s monopoly. But that’s not what the law says.
What Sec. 47.1 of the act does say very clearly is that Parliament shall not introduce a bill under the existing monopoly “that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada” without consulting with the CWB and without getting the approval of grain farmers through a vote.
That law came into effect in 1998 and was clearly designed to ensure farmers had binding control over which products would be included or excluded from the monopoly scheme.
If, for example, Parliament tried to remove barley from the monopoly without holding a vote, government would be in violation of its own act.
But that’s not what C-18 is about. The bill doesn’t contemplate adding or removing products from the monopoly scheme. The bill eliminates the monopoly altogether.
Campbell says while it may not state specifically that a vote is required before ending the single-desk system, the rule is implied.
Unfortunately for him, he makes a very weak case on how such a requirement could possibly be implied in this case. He may want it to be implied, but the act doesn’t suggest in any way that a vote must be held under these circumstances.
If it was the intent of Parliament to bind future parliamentarians with the self-imposed law that a plebiscite is required before winding down the single-desk system, they would have put it in the act. They did not.
Campbell seems to gloss over that very important fact. Instead, he gives parliamentarians a lecture on the degree to which they should consult Canadians before making significant statutory changes.
“Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme, the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard,” wrote Campbell. “In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present applications being launched.”
Since when is it a judge’s job to instruct Parliament on when and how to consult Canadians before passing laws? Those are political issues that fall outside of the court’s jurisdiction. Unless the court is making specific reference to a statutory requirement, it has no business meddling in the political affairs of Parliament. Those decisions and the consequences that flow from them should be dealt with through the political process, not the courtroom.
This will be overturned.
Comment