The claim is that s. 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act bars the abolition of the Board without approval from farmers.
I think such approval ought to be obtained -- but legally I don't see it is necessary. By my reading of the section approval is needed to change the commodities sold by the board under its monopoly, not to abolish the existence of the board itself.
Anyway, here's the section and you can decide for yourself:
Canadian Wheat Board Act
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.
5 comments:
more tax money will be wasted in this court case! Don't understand why the gov't just doesn't use section 33 of the constitution! It would stop all court case and save the tax payers money.
James- I'd have to look at a lot of precedents before agreeing with your analysis. I can see your point, but don't think it's nearly that cut & dried.
Proud Canadian - This Harper Gov't has wasted your tax money countless times taking various court decisions to court, with no mandate to do so - simply because the legal decision doesn't fit their particular right wing ideology. The least they can do is meet a legal challenge laid by Canadian Citizens AGAINST their undemocratic meddling.
Eliminating the Wheat Board would by necessity exclude all grains and barley, therefore I can see the rationale for a lawsuit. Good luck to the Wheat Board, the grain farmers and f--k the farming conglomerates and the Harpie government.
The provision pretty clearly violates parliamentary supremacy and is therefore unenforceable by the court. A parliament cannot bind a future parliament. That is what this provision does.
@ProudCdn: Umm, What about the millions, likely billions, of $$ spent bombing and killing innocent people in the raping of Libya? Involving us in a war he/we had no bloody business in? What about all the wasted $$ on F-35's that won't 'do the job' in our country?? What about the Omnibus crime bill that 'everyone' with experience, including DOJ, Cdn Bar Assoc. etc. etc. has said won't work, advises against it, and that it will only end up costing 'us', the taxpayer, $$$? What about this govt. actually paying 'trolls' to surf these sites and post 'disinformation' when someone disagrees with what herr harpo says?? You may be a proud canadian buddy, but I'll tell you, I sure as hell am not!! Not since this bunch of fundamentalist idiots took office!!
Post a Comment