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question that governments can craft legislation so that certain procedural hoops have to be cleared before it can be repealed and changed by successive governments.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?

[liberty]

The judge made it quite clear that he was primarily distressed by the lack of a plebiscite for what he considered to be a substantive change to the Act.

Removing any and all mention of a plebiscite from the Act for any purpose whatsoever would not have changed his mind. He would have made the same argument again.

He offered little more than a political opinion in his ruling, knowing full well that it would be turfed out by a higher court.

[Tom4Wildrose]

Fransisco,

I tend to agree with you in principal.

TO say removal of 47.1 'First' would have solved the problem... does not change the fact the legislation removing 47.1 to avoid the vote is just as problematic as C18 itself.




Repeal







Abrogation











Clause 39 of C18 says, and I quote"

"39. The Canadian Wheat Board Act is repealed."

How can anyone say that 47.1 of the CWB Act will exist... when the CWB Act is being repealed upon the proclamation of C18? If 47.1 is repealed: 5 milliseconds, 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 months, or 5 years before C18 is proclaimed... how does it change anything in fact or in law???

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5285088&F ile=138

[Raven]

Here's how the judge handled the precedent from
stated above: '[49]      The courts will give effect
to limits imposed on the legislature’s ability to
amend its own statutes only where they
constitute “manner and form” requirements.'

and a stated requirement: "It [Parliament] would
not remit the decision to an entity [farmers]not
forming part of the legislative structure. 

In this case the judge dodged the issue:

"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."

Those wanting marketing freedom should support
the government instead of playing into the hands
of Wells and Pallet et al by criticizing the
governments methods.

[cpallett]

Now Raven, I have been a Red Tory since you were in nappies. Parliament is run on form as well as function. Ignore the form and, as you can see, you risk screwing up the function. I certainly did not invent the idea.

"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..."

So, the Feds chose to argue that 'manner and form' was not required instead of choosing to meet the requirements of 'manner and form'. All I am saying is that was clearly a bad decision. Justice Campbell also said:

"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."

If Justice Campbell's ruling on this issue is upheld on appeal then there will be more Applications and more legal wrangling. All of which could have been avoided.

Personally I don't like to see farm folk screwed in any fashion, much less through Legislative incompetence. Maybe the FCA and SCC will make it all go away and the sun will shine on a brighter future. Maybe not. Stupid, in my view, to take a clearly unnecessary risk.

[Braveheart]

Justice Campbell made no ruling. He issued a declaration.

The legal profession thinks he's a joke after this fiasco. He was likely bribed/strongarmed by someone.

Cpallett it is interesting how you showed up on this site after the court case and like to decipher the legalese. What's your deal?