Do you use field yield mapping software?

[buzz]

We are not using our John Deere yield data at
all but think we need to start mapping and think
about variable rate fertilizer application in the
future. What are you guys using for easy to use
software?

[Raven]

Excellent work John. A further point is that the
CWB Act is not even legislation under
AGRICULTURE. It has consistently been ruled
by the Supreme Court as federal legislation under
the constitutional head of TRADE AND
COMMERCE.

[oneoff]

Excellent info John. And just how many times did the government lawyers bring those very arguments and precedents to the judges attention. Did the Government lawyers prepare a "Brief of law" summarizing those thoughts? If John can come up with such logical defences; then why did the government lawyers not do the same? Does the governement still retain the same lawyers?
Are these questions not extremely important?

[silverback]

Agreed with you two and John.

Was this used in front of this so called judge?

Who are the people the government used to combat the forces of oppression in winnipeg?

Which was worse, the lawyers or the judgement?

[BreadWinner]

This Judge had already had his report before he had even heard the case. It didnt matter what was presented to him, its all politics. He knows his ruling had no legal strength so he could say whatever he wanted. He was just rewarding the pinkos that got him the job.

[cpallett]

There has never been any question that current governments can repeal and change existing legislation. Until this particular controversy, I am unaware of there being any question that governments can craft legislation so that certain procedural hoops have to be cleared before it can be repealed and changed by successive governments. If you want legislation to stick you are entitled to make it procedurally tougher to change it. Never impossible.

The question before Justice Campbell was simply whether the process used by the Harper Government violated the rule of law in Canada on this particular fact situation. He found that it did. If he was wrong the Federal Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court of Canada will make the appropriate corrections.

The irony is that the whole mess could have been avoided by repealing s. 47.1 of the CWB Act BEFORE bringing in Bill c-18. Not rocket science.

Oneoff, I think a better question is who dropped the ball on this particular procedural no-brainer?

[Fransisco]

I don't think repealling 47.1 first would have made a difference. We would have seen the same lawsuit for the same reason.

[cpallett]

Frank,

Have you read s. 47.1? Here it is:

"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."

Violation of s. 47.1 formed the basis of Justice Campbell's decision. If you repeal it first as a stand-alone there is no violation, real or imagined, of its provisions.

If s. 47.1 no longer exists, then Bill c-18 cannot violate its provisions.

Not rocket science, merely sequential procedural Parliamentary reality.

[cpallett]

Oh by the way, it was not a lawsuit. It was a motion for a Declaration that Bill c-18 violated section 47.1 of the CWB Act and thus offended the Rule of Law in Canada. Justice Campbell was not asked for a remedy, just an opinion on the legality of the way the Harper Government had decided to proceed.

Gotta know the question to make sense of the answer.

[Fransisco]

I fail to see how repealing 47.1 without first holding the so-called plebiscite that the lefties are so indignant about would have led to a different result.

Even if the government had done a plebiscite there'd still be lawsuits based on some kooky technicality. Doesn't anyone remember barley?