Right TOM4CWB. I believe that was the Nolan case. But it was right after the War and what was in question was the Government's authority to expropriate under the "Transition from War Act". During the war, the War Measures Act clearly allowed expropriation, but the Transition Act didn't. The Canadian Supreme Court said the Government couldn't expropriate because the Act didn't clearly authorize it. So the Government went to the Privy Council in England who ruled that expropriation was implied in the Act.
Do you suppose the fact that England needed cheap grain during and after the war had any influence on the good Lords' decision?
However, that is all in the past and we are now dealing with Trade and Commerce legislation and the 1947 amendments which remain essentially unchanged.
The CWB's claim of “power over producers” does not square with past Supreme Court rulings:
In Murphy (1958): “Part III deals with voluntary marketing.”
In Sommerville (1972) before the domestic off-board feed market:
“The Act does not purport to give to the Board complete control of all grain grown in the [designated area]”
“To interpret s.32(b) as applying to the circumstances of this case [AGRICULTURE] would be to apply it for an object outside the intention of the Act and would involve the conclusion that the Act applied to purposes other than the regulation of trade and commerce”.
In The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. [1925] S.C.R. 434, Supreme Court Justice Mignault J. states:
“Nor can the legislation [Canada Grain Act] be supported as relating to agriculture(B.N.A. Act 1867 sec. 85). The subject matter is only a product of agriculture and an article of trade. It is trade legislation and not for the support or encouragement of agriculture.”
“It [Canada Grain Act] provides, as only the Dominion Parliament can, for the control and handling of grain from the moment it leaves the hands of the grower.”
I would also like to see the Supreme Court address this appeal based on facts and their rules of interpretation.
Do you suppose the fact that England needed cheap grain during and after the war had any influence on the good Lords' decision?
However, that is all in the past and we are now dealing with Trade and Commerce legislation and the 1947 amendments which remain essentially unchanged.
The CWB's claim of “power over producers” does not square with past Supreme Court rulings:
In Murphy (1958): “Part III deals with voluntary marketing.”
In Sommerville (1972) before the domestic off-board feed market:
“The Act does not purport to give to the Board complete control of all grain grown in the [designated area]”
“To interpret s.32(b) as applying to the circumstances of this case [AGRICULTURE] would be to apply it for an object outside the intention of the Act and would involve the conclusion that the Act applied to purposes other than the regulation of trade and commerce”.
In The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. [1925] S.C.R. 434, Supreme Court Justice Mignault J. states:
“Nor can the legislation [Canada Grain Act] be supported as relating to agriculture(B.N.A. Act 1867 sec. 85). The subject matter is only a product of agriculture and an article of trade. It is trade legislation and not for the support or encouragement of agriculture.”
“It [Canada Grain Act] provides, as only the Dominion Parliament can, for the control and handling of grain from the moment it leaves the hands of the grower.”
I would also like to see the Supreme Court address this appeal based on facts and their rules of interpretation.
Comment