Dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[olp1fan]

With a rigged vote by the cwb. Do you know what the results of the barley plebiscite was brought forth by the Tories? Marketing choice.

No farmer in his right mind exclusively grows wheat.

hold a fair vote then for wheat farmers only

[wyly]

I agree! Although the cost of doing so would likely be the separation of Quebec. You still can't sell margarine that's too close in colour to butter in that province!

13,000(?) farmers involved in the dairy hardly enough to cause separation of quebec, and it's not the loss of quebec votes that stops the cpc they haven't got many...it the potential loss of ontario rural votes that stops harper from applying the same change to the dairy industry...

[blueblood]

hold a fair vote then for wheat farmers only

Then nobody would be able to vote.

[Bryan]

Majority of wheat farmers which is the only thing that matters

That isn't true either. A majority of the western farmers who grow wheat who happened to respond to a push poll that did not even give the actual answer as one of the choices. There are no "wheat only" farmers, no wheat farmer east of Ontario is bound by the CWB, and the vote only included the choice of keep it or kill it, the REAL proposal of making it optional was not even asked. It was a bull-crap rigged vote in every possible way. The government is absolutely correct to ignore it. They had a chance to take it seriously, and they CWB decided to play cute instead, now they have to pay for their own stupidity.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Bryan

[Evening Star]

no wheat farmer east of Ontario is bound by the CWB,

East of MB, right?

[Bryan]

East of MB, right?

Yes, that is what I meant, good catch.

[Topaz]

So what's the solution? The CWB don't like what he Tories are doing and the younger generation of farmers don't like what the CWB is doing! If the grain buyers are on the Tories side then they will give open market farmer's a better deal only to drive the CWB out of business. All this so the US and Canada can "harmonize"? Mulroney is the "free trader" and Harper is the "harmonizer" with the US.

[Wild Bill]

So what's the solution? The CWB don't like what he Tories are doing and the younger generation of farmers don't like what the CWB is doing! If the grain buyers are on the Tories side then they will give open market farmer's a better deal only to drive the CWB out of business. All this so the US and Canada can "harmonize"? Mulroney is the "free trader" and Harper is the "harmonizer" with the US.

No Topaz, all this so farmers have a choice! All this so that western farmers have the same rights as eastern ones!

Perhaps freedom is a strange concept for you. You tend to sound like you support parties that always feel they know better than us and have the right to force us...

[Topaz]

Here's a letter from an Alberta wheat and barley farmer and what he thinks of the Tories move on the CWB. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28118

[g_bambino]

Apparently, Bob Rae, in order to stop the passage of Bill C-18, is now asking the Governor General to do what no sovereign or viceroy has done for some three centuries: withold Royal Assent:

In a letter delivered today to Rideau Hall, Liberal Leader Bob Rae asked the Governor General to consider withholding royal assent from Bill C-18, in light of last week's Federal Court decision that found the government to be in breach of the law.

"This Conservative government is using their majority to force through their legislation to kill the Canadian Wheat Board, despite the Federal Court's ruling that the Agriculture Minister's conduct is an affront to the rule of law," said Mr. Rae. "Given this condemnation of the government's attempt to unilaterally dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, and given their decision to appeal, it would be inappropriate to proceed with the legislation until these matters have been exhausted before the courts."

On December 7, 2011, the Federal Court issued a ruling finding the Government of Canada's refusal to respect the statutory mandate to convene a plebiscite for farmers prior to dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board contravened s. 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Judge Campbell characterized "the most important effect" of granting the Breach Declaration as holding the responsible Minister "accountable for is disregard of the rule of law".

Liberals Ask Governor General to Withhold Royal Assent from Illegal Conservative Wheat Board Bill

Putting aside the fact that, despite what Rae is telling the Governor General, Bill C-18 doesn't "dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board", he does have a point about leaving passage of the bill until its legality has been determined. It does indeed seem as though the proposed law - or, at least, the way in which the Conservatives are attempting to create it - is in contravention of S.41.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states 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" - which itself outlines that "no person other than the Corporation shall [a] export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; [c] sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or [d] buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada" - "unless [a] the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister." No such vote has yet taken place.

[blueblood]

Apparently, Bob Rae, in order to stop the passage of Bill C-18, is now asking the Governor General to do what no sovereign or viceroy has done for some three centuries: withold Royal Assent:

Putting aside the fact that, despite what Rae is telling the Governor General, Bill C-18 doesn't "dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board", he does have a point about leaving passage of the bill until its legality has been determined. It does indeed seem as though the proposed law - or, at least, the way in which the Conservatives are attempting to create it - is in contravention of S.41.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states 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" - which itself outlines that "no person other than the Corporation shall [a] export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; [c] sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or [d] buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada" - "unless [a] the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister." No such vote has yet taken place.

However, the Tories are stating at the judge issued a declaration which is not binding as the wheat board act doesn't fall under the constitution. Essentially all the judge can do is make a judgement and that's about it. The Tories are also not removing wheat and barley from the monopoly - which requires a vote. They are removing the monopoly itself which doesn't need that vote. If the judges declaration had any weight, the bill would be stopped dead in it's tracks. This isn't a crime bill where the constitution comes into play.

[g_bambino]

[T]he Tories are stating at the judge issued a declaration which is not binding as the wheat board act doesn't fall under the constitution. The Tories are also not removing wheat and barley from the monopoly - which requires a vote. They are removing the monopoly itself which doesn't need that vote. If the judges declaration had any weight, the bill would be stopped dead in it's tracks. This isn't a crime bill where the constitution comes into play.

Bill C-18 seeks to make changes to S.45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so as to allow anyone to "export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada." Such a change requires, by the same act, a majority of grain producers voting in favour of the proposed alterations before the bill making the amendments is introduced to parliament. If the Conservatives want to make changes to the Wheat Board without a vote, they should first remove clause 47.1( and/or (a) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The constitution doesn't empower parliament to ignore its own laws.

[cybercoma]

Apparently, Bob Rae, in order to stop the passage of Bill C-18, is now asking the Governor General to do what no sovereign or viceroy has done for some three centuries: withold Royal Assent:

Putting aside the fact that, despite what Rae is telling the Governor General, Bill C-18 doesn't "dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board", he does have a point about leaving passage of the bill until its legality has been determined. It does indeed seem as though the proposed law - or, at least, the way in which the Conservatives are attempting to create it - is in contravention of S.41.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states 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" - which itself outlines that "no person other than the Corporation shall [a] export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; [c] sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or [d] buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada" - "unless [a] the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister." No such vote has yet taken place.

I would like to further hear your own opinion on this, since you appear to be the expert on the monarchy.

There's a couple issues that concern me about this whole situation:

Parliament cannot abrogate its authority. The Conservatives have a point when they say that they cannot legislate away their authority. In this case, their hands are tied by having to go to a plebiscite. Moreover, the judiciary would appear to take precedent here if they can overturn a Constitutionally sound law. Legislation, in other words, I don't believe can bind future legislation. Only the Constitution can do this. You seem to be familiar with legal philosophy, so I'm thinking of HLA Hart here: primary and secondary rules.

However, on the other side, Parliament is still the ultimate authority, but it's a past Parliament. The people of Canada elected their representatives and this law that requires a plebiscites is what they created and was given Royal Assent. It also seems to me that it would be somewhat irresponsible for the Governor General to give Assent to a bill that already has a challenege before the courts, although the Governor General is beyond the courts.

My solution, if it's even possible, would be for the Governor General to hold the bill until the courts are finished with it, giving it Royal Assent should the courts approve and rejecting it if they don't. I'm not sure, however, if this is even an option.

[blueblood]

Bill C-18 seeks to make changes to S.45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so as to allow anyone to "export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation; sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada." Such a change requires, by the same act, a majority of grain producers voting in favour of the proposed alterations before the bill making the amendments is introduced to parliament. If the Conservatives want to make changes to the Wheat Board without a vote, they should first remove clause 47.1( and/or (a) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The constitution doesn't empower parliament to ignore its own laws.

But they aren't talking about removing wheat and barley. For the govt to have to take it to farmers, they would have to say that we are removing wheat from the monopoly, vote yay or nay and we are removing barley from the monopoly vote yay or nay. What the govt is doing is taking the monopoly itself out of the act and I or the lawyer that drafted the bill didn't see any part of the act concerning the monopoly itself, only the grains it applies to. I'm thinking that's the loophole that they used, and it looks like all the judge could do was issue a declaration.

[g_bambino]

Legislation, in other words, I don't believe can bind future legislation. Only the Constitution can do this... However, on the other side, Parliament is still the ultimate authority, but it's a past Parliament.

It's true that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty holds that no parliament is bound by the actions of a former parliament. But, in this case, we're talking about an act that binds a minister of the Crown, not parliament itself. The current parliament is free to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act; if the Conservatives, with their majority, wished to change the Wheat Board's scope without requiring the Minister of Agriculture to first seek approval from a majority of grain producers, they could have first removed S/47.1. But, they didn't.

It also seems to me that it would be somewhat irresponsible for the Governor General to give Assent to a bill that already has a challenege before the courts, although the Governor General is beyond the courts. My solution, if it's even possible, would be for the Governor General to hold the bill until the courts are finished with it, giving it Royal Assent should the courts approve and rejecting it if they don't.

The Governor General, according to S/55 of the Constitution Act 1867, can "reserve" a bill "for the Signification of the Queen's Pleasure". If he does so, the Queen then has, according to S/57, two years to either grant or deny Royal Assent before it automatically becomes law. That would buy time for the courts to make their final decision on the legality of the minister's presentation of the bill to parliament. I can't help but imagine, though, that the Conservatives would then publicly pillory the Governor General as an anti-democratic activist thwarting the will of the "popularly elected government", as they did to the opposition and were on the verge of doing to Michaelle Jean three years ago.

I'd say that, alternately, Johnston could just give Royal Assent to the bill and let the courts later strike it down or not. But, that would create a messy situation wherein the legality of any sales made by grain farmers to parties other than the Wheat Board would be questionable; and what if farmers did sell to others and then the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court found the bill had been presented to the House illegally?

It's odd that the ministers recognise the authority of the court's decision by appealing it, yet, at the same time, openly state they'll ignore it during the passage through parliament of the very bill it relates to.

[cybercoma]

The paradoxes of this government just keep piling up. Not only the point you mentioned, but also their revival of the monarchy, while simultaneously attacking it. Also, shooting down amendments to C-10, but then trying to add them in later when it's too late. It's like watching a monkey hump a football.

[g_bambino]

But they aren't talking about removing wheat and barley.

It's got nothing to do with removing wheat and barley and everything to do with the sale and transport/import of the product.

[g_bambino]

The paradoxes of this government just keep piling up. Not only the point you mentioned, but also their revival of the monarchy, while simultaneously attacking it. Also, shooting down amendments to C-10, but then trying to add them in later when it's too late. It's like watching a monkey hump a football.

It seems that parliamentary democracy and its institutions are fine until they get in the way of the party's plans. Wasn't it not that long ago the Conservatives acted as though parliament was not supreme? Now, that the notion favours their wishes, it's suddenly valid again (even if misapplied).

[cybercoma]

I think this fits nicely with the other thread that discusses the political discourse and how conservatives seem to be creating their own "reality". This frightening new politics of creating one's own "facts," as though they're as fluid as opinion.

[olp1fan]

I'd say that, alternately, Johnston could just give Royal Assent to the bill and let the courts later strike it down or not. But, that would create a messy situation wherein the legality of any sales made by grain farmers to parties other than the Wheat Board would be questionable; and what if farmers did sell to others and then the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court found the bill had been presented to the House illegally?

Johnston is in Harpers payroll, don't expect anything

[g_bambino]

Johnston is in Harpers payroll.

No, he isn't.

[olp1fan]

No, he isn't.

private payroll

[g_bambino]

private payroll

Completely unfounded and ludicrous. It would be ultimately against Johnston's personal best interests to undermine our entire system of governance for a prime ministerial bribe.

[olp1fan]

I remember Harper was prepared to go all of the way to the Queen if the GG didn't give permission to pro rogue Parliament..now the Tory's are criticizing the Libs for this? lol

Edited December 12, 2011 by olp1fan

[olp1fan]

Completely unfounded and ludicrous. It would be ultimately against Johnston's personal best interests to undermine our entire system of governance for a prime ministerial bribe.

Michelle Jean had no reason to pro rogue parliament twice ... I suspect she was bought off