Liberals? Can they become any more desperate?

[AdamSmith]

By Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — Governor General David Johnston is being urged to withhold his royal assent on controversial changes to the Canadian Wheat Board until the issue can work its way through the courts.

Liberal leader Bob Rae said the government’s refusal to hold off on the bill until the courts decide on the matter represents “an affront to the rule of law.”
The request is significant as it seeks to have the Governor General set aside the traditional symbolism of his post and inject himself into what has become a highly politicized issue.

Rae made the request in a letter to Johnston on Monday, specifically noting a Federal Court ruling last week which found the government had broken the law.

Manitoba Justice Douglas Campbell said the existing rules required the government to consult with farmers before moving to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.

The federal government has said it will appeal the ruling even as it continues moving ahead on Bill C-18, which is currently before the Senate and is expected to be presented to Johnston for royal assent in the coming days.

Rae said it would be within the Governor General’s rights to withhold royal assent on the bill because of the law-and-order questions that were raised with the Federal Court ruling.

.“Despite this ongoing dispute about the legality of its actions, the Government is proceeding with consideration of Bill C-18 in the Senate,” Rae wrote to Johnston.

“As leader of the Liberal party, I would ask most respectfully that full consideration be given to awaiting final disposition of this matter by the courts before the legislation receives royal assent.”

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz re-emphasized the government’s goal of ending the wheat board’s monopoly in a statement on Monday.

“It’s clear the declaration has no effect on our Government’s legislation,” Rtiz said. “We will ensure that western Canadian wheat and barley farmers, like farmers in Ontario, have the marketing freedom they want and deserve.”

[AdamSmith]

Rae’s appeal to Rideau Hall dials Canada back to colonial times
JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 12:50PM EST
Last updated Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 1:01PM EST

Bob Rae would reverse 162 years of constitutional precedent by having the Governor-General refuse royal assent to a bill. He should be careful. An opposition leader proposed this sort of thing once before – and it ended with a mob burning Parliament to the ground.

The Liberals vehemently oppose the Harper government’s plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly on marketing grain. They are particularly incensed that the Tories are pushing the legislation through the Senate, even though a Federal Court judge has ruled that the bill is outside the law, because the government didn’t first seek the approval of farmers through a plebiscite as previous legislation requires.

The Tories are appealing the ruling, arguing that no law can bind Parliament from passing a new law. But until the appellate courts have the final say, the Interim Liberal Leader wants David Johnson to stay the government’s hand by refusing to give royal assent to the legislation.

“I haven't heard of a government saying it would ignore a court ruling before,” Mr. Rae told The Globe’s Jane Taber. “... We didn't see any other option given their determination to ram it through the Senate.”

This is a remarkable thing for Mr. Rae, who is a careful student of history, to say. And the Liberal chief’s letter is no less remarkable.

In 1849, the colonial government of Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin introduced legislation that would compensate French Canadians for losses suffered during the 1837 rebellion. Lord Elgin, the Governor-General of the day, hated the bill. But he was the first governor-general who believed that the fledgling administration of the Province of Canada should be allowed to legislate on its own, without being dictated to or vetoed by the Queen’s representative. Despite calls from opposition leaders for him to refuse royal assent, Lord Elgin signed the bill.

Some people took this badly. There were days of riots in Montreal; the Governor-General was roughed up by an angry Tory mob, who then went on to raze the Parliament building. During one particularly heated debate in the legislature, John A. Macdonald challenged Hume Blake to a duel, and the Speaker had to send the Sergeant-at-Arms outside to break it up. Those were the days.

Passage of the Rebellion Losses Bill signalled that responsible government had come to Canada East and Canada West, as Quebec and Ontario were then called. From then till now, the people, through their Parliament, have decided the direction of the country. The Liberals would erase all that by having Mr. Johnston leap in where Lord Elgin chose not to tread.

We suspect the Governor-General will give royal assent, and let the mob do as it will.

[AdamSmith]

Rideau Hall Watch: Just in time for Christmas, it's ... a constitutional crisis?
December 12, 2011 11:14 AM | Read 8 comments8
By Kady O'Malley

Spoiler Alert: No, no, it isn't, although in theory, it could be if there was any precedent whatsoever that would give the Governor General reason to even entertain, for a moment, the notion that he accede to a Liberal request that he withhold Royal Assent from the bill to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly pending a final ruling from the court.


Which, for the record, there is not.

[Fransisco]

Sure they can. Next they'll be chartering a jet to fly the crazy 8 over to England so they can take their "Harper is a big meanie" complaint straight to the Queen.

[wilagro]

On this one, I would say that Bob Rae is "pissing into the wind".

Somehow I don't believe that Bob Rae has much credibility nowadays.

[wauchope]

no worries Bill C18 is not illegal
Judge Campbell did not rule on that,he only ruled that Ritz broke the law when he introduced bill c18.-------------------
this is from the senate
Implying that a legislative device limits the power of a minister to introduce a bill is also not an admissible argument. The decision rendered yesterday clearly pertains only to the minister's actions and not to the right of Parliament to study Bill C-18. Justice Campbell clearly indicated that such was the case on page 5 of his decision, not a claim for an injunction. Why was a claim for an injunction not made? It was not made because the judiciary does not have the authority to intervene in legislative jurisdiction.
quote Judge Campbell:
[English]
The present Applications are simple in nature; they are directed at an examination of the Minister's conduct with respect to the requirement of s. 47.1. 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.