Dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[cybercoma]

It's also utterly pointless to "pay-off" a GG when you have a majority in the House and Senate.

[g_bambino]

Michelle Jean had no reason to pro rogue parliament twice...

Yea, she did: the law.

Regardless, this is getting quite OT.

[olp1fan]

Yea, she did: the law.

Regardless, this is getting quite OT.

the law? pro rouging parliament to avoid the afghan detainee documents from getting out is somehow law?

f'n bullshit

and from a coalition from taking place?

that is not against the law .. that is part of our system

Edited December 12, 2011 by olp1fan

[g_bambino]

f'n bullshit

Start another thread or revive one of the old ones on this very subject. You're wrong, but more importantly in this context, far off the topic of this thread.

[blueblood]

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

And the plebiscite deals with what those products are, not with doing away with "The corporation's monopoly". That's what I'm assuming the legal advice was given when the bill was drafted.

Edited December 12, 2011 by blueblood

[cybercoma]

And the plebiscite deals with what those products are, not with doing away with "The corporation's monopoly". That's what I'm assuming the legal advice was given when the bill was drafted.

What section of the Act are you referring to?

[g_bambino]

And the plebiscite deals with what those products are, not with doing away with "The corporation's monopoly".

No, the required vote deals with who can buy, sell, transport, and export wheat.

[cybercoma]

Here's the exact wording for reference:

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

(

the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

1998, c. 17, s. 25.

[cybercoma]

To my understanding they haven't eliminated the Wheat Board. In other words, they've excluded wheat and barley from what the Wheat Board covers. That would seem to contravene the s47.1 that says they cannot exclude wheat and barley without a plebiscite. They would have to eliminate the Wheat Board entirely or eliminate s47.1.

I think that's what bambino is saying, no?

Edited December 12, 2011 by cybercoma

[blueblood]

No, the required vote deals with who can buy, sell, transport, and export wheat.

It's not all wheat because feed wheat (for animals and ethanol) doesn't fall under the board as does feed barley (which trades on the ICE in Winnipeg). It's not just wheat they're talking about. Had they been talking about "hey we're taking wheat out of the monopoly" then it would have to go to a vote as per the previous legislation. I didn't find anything about removing the monopoly in general.

Not only that, the Tories are allowing the board to market other grains in it's pooling system for those who want to, like I said the lawyer figured he found a loophole.

Edited December 12, 2011 by blueblood

[blueblood]

To my understanding they haven't eliminated the Wheat Board. In other words, they've excluded wheat and barley from what the Wheat Board covers. That would seem to contravene the s47.1 that says they cannot exclude wheat and barley without a plebiscite. They would have to eliminate the Wheat Board entirely or eliminate s47.1.

I think that's what bambino is saying, no?

To my understanding, the bill is limiting the powers and privileges of the board, not removing grains from it's present monopoly.

[cybercoma]

To my understanding, the bill is limiting the powers and privileges of the board, not removing grains from it's present monopoly.

What powers and privileges is it limiting?

[cybercoma]

Just so we're clear here, s47.1 states that the government cannot introduce a bill *without a plebiscite) which excludes wheat and barley from Part III and Part IV of the Act, which state that the CWB must buy all wheat in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (Part III), and only the CWB may buy and sell, export, and transport wheat and barley in those provinces (Part IV).

Those are the rights and privileges that C-18 eliminates, right?

It seems pretty cut and dry that introducing C-18 without a plebiscite is against the law.

[Scotty]

What powers and privileges is it limiting?

The power to force people to market their wheat through them. They're eliminating the monopoly powers of the board.

[Scotty]

Just so we're clear here, s47.1 states that the government cannot introduce a bill *without a plebiscite) which excludes wheat and barley from Part III and Part IV of the Act, which state that the CWB must buy all wheat in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (Part III), and only the CWB may buy and sell, export, and transport wheat and barley in those provinces (Part IV).

Those are the rights and privileges that C-18 eliminates, right?

It seems pretty cut and dry that introducing C-18 without a plebiscite is against the law.

I read it exactly the opposite. It seems glaringly obvious to me that the law was about excluding or bringing in new grains for the board to market, not eliminating the board, or eliminating its monopoly powers.

[blueblood]

What powers and privileges is it limiting?

The monopoly itself. What you guys are thinking is that the Feds are removing wheat and barley and that the monopoly will exist but nothing will fall under it (the king of air analogy). What's happening is the monopoly itself is going, not what falls under it.

[cybercoma]

The monopoly itself. What you guys are thinking is that the Feds are removing wheat and barley and that the monopoly will exist but nothing will fall under it (the king of air analogy). What's happening is the monopoly itself is going, not what falls under it.

The monopoly is not going. The title of C-18 is An Act to reorganize

the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts

(Marketing freedom for grain farmers Act).

They're making amendments to allow marketing freedom. In other words, they're allowing others to buy and sell, export and transport wheat and barley in those provinces. This is a change to Part IV. They're also changing Part III which states that the CWB must buy all of the wheat and barley in those provinces. In this way they're excluding wheat and barley from the provisions of Part III and Part IV (the monopoly as you say). They're not eliminating the wheat board, thus they're not eliminating its mandate.

[blueblood]

The monopoly is not going. The title of C-18 is An Act to reorganize

the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts

(Marketing freedom for grain farmers Act).

They're making amendments to allow marketing freedom. In other words, they're allowing others to buy and sell, export and transport wheat and barley in those provinces. This is a change to Part IV. They're also changing Part III which states that the CWB must buy all of the wheat and barley in those provinces. In this way they're excluding wheat and barley from the provisions of Part III and Part IV (the monopoly as you say). They're not eliminating the wheat board, thus they're not eliminating its mandate.

I didn't say they were eliminating the board, I'm saying they're eliminating the monopoly the board has. They're not saying which grain is or isn't going to be excluded in the monopoly, they are saying the board can exist, but their power of monopoly is toast, and that apparently does not require a plebiscite.

[cybercoma]

fhe problem is that the CPC hasn't challenged the constitutionality of s47.1. It may very well be unconstitutional. The judge writes:

Section 47.1 is presumed to be constitutionally

valid, and no argument challenging this presumption has been properly presented in the present Applications

So the judge is simply looking at whether or not s47.1 has been broken. He's approaching it from the viewpoint that,

the words of

an Act are to be read in their entire context and in the grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament

This is what the complaint says about the object of the Act and the intent of Parliament:

Properly interpreted in the context in which s. 47.1 and the 1998 amendments were adopted and the object underlying their enactment, as well as the intention of Parliament, the ordinary sense of the broad wording employed in s. 47.1 demonstrates that the Minister is obligated to consult with the CWB and to hold a producer vote prior to causing to be introduced in Parliament a bill that alters the CWB’s exclusive marketing mandate; by causing the Bill to be introduced, the Minister breached his statutory duty

The Minister is changing the CWB's marketing mandate, but not requiring it to buy all wheat and barley produced in the province and by not requiring it to be the sole transporter of these products. It's marketing mandate is being changed.

The complaint continue the argument:

The purpose of section 47.1 was to ensure that “producers should be in control of any future changes to the [CWB’s] mandate”.

This is supported by the Minister responsible for creating s47.1:

In a nutshell, that is what Bill C-4 is all about, empowering producers, enshrining democratic authority which has never existed before, providing new accountability, new flexibility and responsiveness,

and positioning farmers to shape the kind of wheat board they want for the future

Also

Farmers will take control. They will have it within their authority to

shape their marketing agency as they see fit.

And from the Senate Committee at that time

The amendment would require that if any future minister responsible for the [CWB] decides that it is appropriate public policy to change the mandate of the [CWB], to make it either bigger or smaller, it would be up to him to make that policy determination. But he would be required to conduct a vote in advance to obtain the consent of farmers

In other words, any changes to the CWB needs to be negotiated with the farmers and brought to a vote before being implemented. The CPC does not get to tell the farmers what kind of marketing agency they will have, in this case by eliminating its mandate. Again, the section may be unconstitutional, but that's not what has been challenged.

In other words, the spin that you're trying to put on this that the plebiscite is only necessary for switching around the types of grains it covers is contradicted by the original intent of the act, as expressed by the former Minister and the Senate Committee.

If that's not clear enough, the former Minister also said:

If the CWB directors consider any proposed change to be significant or fundamental, a producer vote would be a prerequisite before implementation

The government in the case argues that point that you're (blueblood, Scotty) making: s47.1 covers only the addition and subtraction of particular grains.

The judge accepts this argument, but writes:

However, the Applicants’ statutory interpretation [that the farmers must be consulted on fundamental and significant changes, as well as the spirit of s47.1 being more democratic control of the CWB by the farmers themselves], which I accept, should not be considered to the exclusion of the Minister’s interpretation [that the plebiscite pertains only to particular grains] which focuses on the words used in s. 47.1 itself. In my opinion, the correct interpretation of the provision includes both perspectives. In my opinion, to accept the Minister’s interpretation to the exclusion of the Applicants’ would results in an absurdity, a condition which is to be avoided.

The judge continues:

I find that the Act was intended to require the Minister to consult and gain consent where an addition or subtraction of particular grains or types of grain from the marketing regime is contemplated, and also in respect of a change to the democratic structure of the CWB. As the Applicants argue, it is unreasonable to interpret the Act to conclude that while the Minister must consult and gain consent when extracting or extending a grain, she or he is not required to consult or gain consent when dismantling the CWB

And therein lies the problem with your (blueblood, Scotty) argument that s47.1 pertains only to particular grains. Why would the Minister be required to hold a vote for swapping about grains, but not something as significant as wiping out the entire CWB?

One of the defining elements of conservatism is adherence to the rule of law. In the ultimate sign of hypocrisy to his political ideology the Minister concludes the case saying to the judge:

the declarations should not be granted because their effect would

be meaningless

In stark contradiction to respect for the rule of law, the Minister tells to the judge to shove it because they're not going to listen to him anyway.

The judge fires back by saying the case will have the following effects:

in the present Applications the voices have been heard, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally importantly because it is the message that s. 47.1 conveys.

and

the Minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law.

The entire decision can be found here: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Wheat%20Board%20T-1735-11%20and%20T-1057-11%20reasons.pdf

[Rupert S. Lander]

I got a joke for you:

It's about a bunch of sore loser liberals who moaned about the exploits of a putative "King Harper" so they went to bang on the doors of the royal palace housing the representative of the real monarch, asking him to use royal powers to thwart the will of the imagined "king".

Don't get it? Neither do I.

[olp1fan]

I got a joke for you:

It's about a bunch of sore loser liberals who moaned about the exploits of a putative "King Harper" so they went to bang on the doors of the royal palace housing the representative of the real monarch, asking him to use royal powers to thwart the will of the imagined "king".

Don't get it? Neither do I.

That's almost funnier than when Harper was considering going right to the Queen to ask her to pro rouge parliament if the GG didn't do it

[Bob]

Well, it's over - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/12/16/sk-canadian-wheat-board-1112.html.

Big thanks to blueblood for his contributions to this thread, he's definitely somewhat of an insider.

[cybercoma]

Kyle Korneychuk, told CBC News Friday that the former directors would continue the legal action.

Harper may have just shot himself in the foot. It's early in his term, but this won't go away.

I've been seeing a lot of right-wing commenters on CBC over the last few months, but the highest rated response by a reader named DenPar is telling:

Bravo.

Harper just took over the Wheat Board... a farmer-owned, farmer-run organisation, with a farmer-elected board of directors, with a bill deemed illegal by a federal court.

And he will replace the farmer-elected directors with government appointees, as his new --- illegal --- act now enables him to do.

This is a coup, pure and simple.

And this is our new Canada, under Harper

[PIK]

I see the wheat board is on the hook for a few million in fines from a case in 1983, how much did that cost in lawyer fees.

[Bryan]

Harper may have just shot himself in the foot. It's early in his term, but this won't go away.

I've been seeing a lot of right-wing commenters on CBC over the last few months, but the highest rated response by a reader named DenPar is telling:

Bravo.

Harper just took over the Wheat Board... a farmer-owned, farmer-run organisation, with a farmer-elected board of directors, with a bill deemed illegal by a federal court.

And he will replace the farmer-elected directors with government appointees, as his new --- illegal --- act now enables him to do.

This is a coup, pure and simple.

And this is our new Canada, under Harper

That is not an honest assessment of what's happening though. If "DenPar" had bothered to read the bill he'd see that it specifically spells out the transition period where the government will over see the board temporarily to ensure that the changes are actually carried out, then it will be returned to the farmers.