"Politicians can add any slant on this after... what was argued in the Parliament upon debate of 1,2,and 3rd readings is irrelevant... as the courts have ruled many times in the past."
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
See, for example, the SCC decisions in R. v. Morgentaler, Reference re Securities Act (Canada) ("Intrinsic evidence, such as purpose clauses and the general structure of the statute, may reveal the purpose of a law. Extrinsic evidence, such as Hansard or other accounts of the legislative process, may also assist in determining a law's purpose."), BC (Workers' Comp) v. BC (Human Rights Tribunal), Knight v. Imperail Tobacco ("Imperial submits that it is improper to rely on excerpts from Hansard on an application to strike a pleading, since evidence is not admissible on such an application. However, a distinction lies between evidence that is introduced to prove a point of fact and evidence of legislative intent that is provided to assist the court in discerning the proper interpretation of a statute. The former is not relevant on an application to strike; the latter may be. Applications to strike are intended to economize judicial resources in cases where on the facts pled, the law does not support the plaintiff's claim. Courts may consider all evidence relevant to statutory interpretation, in order to achieve this purpose."), etc., etc. etc. There are over 150 cases from the SCC alone on his point.
You're in my house now Tom. Don't try and tell me how the law works and I won't try and tell you how to grow and market wheat. We have both spent decades honing our craft. I make the presumption that you may have some idea of what you are talking about when you speak of farming (and everything that goes with it). Go to law school, get some real world experience in Court, and we may be able to have a rational discussion on the law.
As for farming, if you want to talk strawberries, I'm your man.
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
See, for example, the SCC decisions in R. v. Morgentaler, Reference re Securities Act (Canada) ("Intrinsic evidence, such as purpose clauses and the general structure of the statute, may reveal the purpose of a law. Extrinsic evidence, such as Hansard or other accounts of the legislative process, may also assist in determining a law's purpose."), BC (Workers' Comp) v. BC (Human Rights Tribunal), Knight v. Imperail Tobacco ("Imperial submits that it is improper to rely on excerpts from Hansard on an application to strike a pleading, since evidence is not admissible on such an application. However, a distinction lies between evidence that is introduced to prove a point of fact and evidence of legislative intent that is provided to assist the court in discerning the proper interpretation of a statute. The former is not relevant on an application to strike; the latter may be. Applications to strike are intended to economize judicial resources in cases where on the facts pled, the law does not support the plaintiff's claim. Courts may consider all evidence relevant to statutory interpretation, in order to achieve this purpose."), etc., etc. etc. There are over 150 cases from the SCC alone on his point.
You're in my house now Tom. Don't try and tell me how the law works and I won't try and tell you how to grow and market wheat. We have both spent decades honing our craft. I make the presumption that you may have some idea of what you are talking about when you speak of farming (and everything that goes with it). Go to law school, get some real world experience in Court, and we may be able to have a rational discussion on the law.
As for farming, if you want to talk strawberries, I'm your man.
Comment