From the Winnipeg Sun...
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/02/24/time-for-cwb-to-apologize
Now that we know it’s perfectly legal for Parliament to give farmers the economic freedom to sell their grain and barley to whomever they please, when will the former board members from the Canadian Wheat Board issue a public apology?
Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter not only upheld Parliament’s democratic right to eliminate Western Canada’s single-desk monopoly for grain and barley, he ruled the former CWB directors who sought an injunction to block the move had no case.
The former CWB directors, and other political opponents of economic freedom, said the Harper government’s bill to eliminate single desk was “illegal and unethical.” Turns out they were wrong.
They claimed that under Sec. 47.1 of the CWB Act, government must hold a vote among farmers before eliminating the monopoly. The problem with their argument is that the law says nothing of the kind. There is no language whatsoever in the Canadian Wheat Board Act that requires Parliament, or anybody, to hold a vote before eliminating single desk.
I wrote that in my Dec. 8 column and predicted the courts would eventually come to that conclusion. And they did.
The former directors never had a legal leg to stand on in the first place.
“It is my view that s. 47.1 is not addressing the revamping of the single desk,” Perlemutter wrote in his ruling released Friday. “The wording of s. 47.1 refers to the addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grains from the marketing regime.” Exactly.
Perlmutter said an injunction of this kind must meet a three-pronged test in order to succeed. The plaintiffs in this case couldn’t even get past the first one. Not even close, actually.
In order to proceed, the plaintiffs must demonstrate they have a reasonable argument in law that merits consideration. These guys didn’t have that, Perlmutter ruled.
“On the face of it, it is my view that the merits of the plaintiffs’ case are so wanting that the application for injunctive relief ought to be rejected on this ground alone,” Perlmutter ruled. “In my view, it has not been established that there is a serious issue to be tried.”
That’s a polite and legal way of saying, “you gotta be friggin’ kidding me.” Even if the former CWB directors passed the first test, they failed on the second and third tests, according to Perlmutter.
In order for the court to quash or suspend the new act, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that failure to do so would cause irreparable harm to farmers and would not be in the public interest.
The plaintiffs couldn’t meet those tests either, Perlmutter ruled, because there’s no clear evidence that eliminating the single-desk system would harm anyone.
“Given the conflicting evidence, it is far from clear that producers’ income will be adversely affected,” he wrote. “There is no clear evidence that these plaintiffs are being, for example, put out of business because of the change from the single desk.”
In other words, these guys had no case whatsoever and their application was essentially laughed out of court.
The bill to give farmers greater economic freedom is not illegal, which has now been confirmed in court. So now it’s time for the former CWB directors to issue an unequivocal, public apology to those who supported the bill and to those who believe in the principles of economic freedom for all Canadians.
The directors and their political supporters were wrong. Now it’s time for them to take responsibility for their erroneous accusations.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/02/24/time-for-cwb-to-apologize
Now that we know it’s perfectly legal for Parliament to give farmers the economic freedom to sell their grain and barley to whomever they please, when will the former board members from the Canadian Wheat Board issue a public apology?
Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter not only upheld Parliament’s democratic right to eliminate Western Canada’s single-desk monopoly for grain and barley, he ruled the former CWB directors who sought an injunction to block the move had no case.
The former CWB directors, and other political opponents of economic freedom, said the Harper government’s bill to eliminate single desk was “illegal and unethical.” Turns out they were wrong.
They claimed that under Sec. 47.1 of the CWB Act, government must hold a vote among farmers before eliminating the monopoly. The problem with their argument is that the law says nothing of the kind. There is no language whatsoever in the Canadian Wheat Board Act that requires Parliament, or anybody, to hold a vote before eliminating single desk.
I wrote that in my Dec. 8 column and predicted the courts would eventually come to that conclusion. And they did.
The former directors never had a legal leg to stand on in the first place.
“It is my view that s. 47.1 is not addressing the revamping of the single desk,” Perlemutter wrote in his ruling released Friday. “The wording of s. 47.1 refers to the addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grains from the marketing regime.” Exactly.
Perlmutter said an injunction of this kind must meet a three-pronged test in order to succeed. The plaintiffs in this case couldn’t even get past the first one. Not even close, actually.
In order to proceed, the plaintiffs must demonstrate they have a reasonable argument in law that merits consideration. These guys didn’t have that, Perlmutter ruled.
“On the face of it, it is my view that the merits of the plaintiffs’ case are so wanting that the application for injunctive relief ought to be rejected on this ground alone,” Perlmutter ruled. “In my view, it has not been established that there is a serious issue to be tried.”
That’s a polite and legal way of saying, “you gotta be friggin’ kidding me.” Even if the former CWB directors passed the first test, they failed on the second and third tests, according to Perlmutter.
In order for the court to quash or suspend the new act, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that failure to do so would cause irreparable harm to farmers and would not be in the public interest.
The plaintiffs couldn’t meet those tests either, Perlmutter ruled, because there’s no clear evidence that eliminating the single-desk system would harm anyone.
“Given the conflicting evidence, it is far from clear that producers’ income will be adversely affected,” he wrote. “There is no clear evidence that these plaintiffs are being, for example, put out of business because of the change from the single desk.”
In other words, these guys had no case whatsoever and their application was essentially laughed out of court.
The bill to give farmers greater economic freedom is not illegal, which has now been confirmed in court. So now it’s time for the former CWB directors to issue an unequivocal, public apology to those who supported the bill and to those who believe in the principles of economic freedom for all Canadians.
The directors and their political supporters were wrong. Now it’s time for them to take responsibility for their erroneous accusations.
Comment