Tom,
"The Minister has attempted to argue that s. 47.1 does not meet the requirements of a "manner and form" provision. I dismiss this argument and find any debate on "manner and form" is not properly before the Court for determination. Section 47.1 is presumed to be constitutionally valid, and no argument challenging this presumption has been properly presented in the present Applications; to do so would require notice of a Constitutional Question which has not been given. Thus, as the judicial review Applications are framed, the sole question for determination is: did the Minister breach the process requirements of s. 47.1, and if so, what relief, if any, should be granted? The answer to this question requires a statutory interpretation analysis."
Agreement on the constitutionality issue? Where do you get that impression? Justice Campbell clearly forbade the argument because the Feds failed to comply with the notice requirement.
As for the breach of section 47.1 of the CWB Act, that is apparent on a reading of the actual words of the section and the application of their simple meaning.
As Elmer Driedger famously said:
"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."
The words of the Act are clear;
"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."
The words say that a bill that would remove wheat and barley from Part IV cannot be legally "introduced in Parliament" without consultation and a vote (manner and form to be determined by the Minister). Straightforward stuff, that.
As for your interpretation of the "scheme of the act", have you read the Hansard debates on the subject? They are generally considered to be helpful in that determination. Certainly moreso than anyone's (including mine) unsupported opinions.
At the end of the day the only opinion that counts is that of the Court.
Had the government chosen to repeal section 47.1 first before tabling Bill C-18 we would not be having this debate. Maybe this was a deliberate ploy to stimulate discussion? Seems to be working from that point of view. Probably the only upshot of this particular tempest in a teapot from a practical point of view.
"The Minister has attempted to argue that s. 47.1 does not meet the requirements of a "manner and form" provision. I dismiss this argument and find any debate on "manner and form" is not properly before the Court for determination. Section 47.1 is presumed to be constitutionally valid, and no argument challenging this presumption has been properly presented in the present Applications; to do so would require notice of a Constitutional Question which has not been given. Thus, as the judicial review Applications are framed, the sole question for determination is: did the Minister breach the process requirements of s. 47.1, and if so, what relief, if any, should be granted? The answer to this question requires a statutory interpretation analysis."
Agreement on the constitutionality issue? Where do you get that impression? Justice Campbell clearly forbade the argument because the Feds failed to comply with the notice requirement.
As for the breach of section 47.1 of the CWB Act, that is apparent on a reading of the actual words of the section and the application of their simple meaning.
As Elmer Driedger famously said:
"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament."
The words of the Act are clear;
"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."
The words say that a bill that would remove wheat and barley from Part IV cannot be legally "introduced in Parliament" without consultation and a vote (manner and form to be determined by the Minister). Straightforward stuff, that.
As for your interpretation of the "scheme of the act", have you read the Hansard debates on the subject? They are generally considered to be helpful in that determination. Certainly moreso than anyone's (including mine) unsupported opinions.
At the end of the day the only opinion that counts is that of the Court.
Had the government chosen to repeal section 47.1 first before tabling Bill C-18 we would not be having this debate. Maybe this was a deliberate ploy to stimulate discussion? Seems to be working from that point of view. Probably the only upshot of this particular tempest in a teapot from a practical point of view.
Comment