While I think the Conservative's position on the Wheat Board is bad for Canada, and especially Canadian farmers, I am very unsure the legislative changes are unlawful. That said, pending the appeal (which can be fast tracked), the Conservatives should hold off on the legislation. Yes it will delay matters a bit but what if the Court rules the changes are illegal; do we have another contempt case in the offing?
http://bit.ly/vmyK8s
OTTAWA — Ottawa is appealing a Federal Court ruling that said the government's plan to reform the Canadian Wheat Board has broken the law.
The government also promised Friday that it will push ahead with the changes.
"Western farmers should continue to plan on having the same freedom as other farmers in Canada so that they too can market their grains in the best interests of their individual farms," Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a written statement.
Ritz has introduced a bill in Parliament to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It would end the board's monopoly on western wheat and barley sales by next August.
On Wednesday, Justice Douglas Campbell ruled that the bill violates the act, which requires any changes to be subject to a plebiscite among producers.
But Campbell did not overturn the amendment. He made it clear he was simply issuing a statement on the government's actions and it would be up to the government to decide how to proceed.
7 comments:
The Conservatives hold a majority in the house so I doubt they will find themselves in contempt. As for waiting, that sounds eminently reasonable until you think that almost every piece of legislation the Conservatives propose has some group promising a court challenge. At what point do we demand that a duly elected majority government, a government elected like every other government ever elected in Canada, be allowed to legislate without interference from the unelected and unaccountable courts? Courts, I might add, that Harper predicted would stick their noses into the political realm.
I ask you, Mr. Morton, which brings the law into more disrespect? Does a government ignoring rulings of politically motivated and appointed judges do that or is it these judges' decisions after they are overturned as the political crap they are? The law in Canada is in disrepute already and these judicial shenanigans do not elevate it.
I don't think there would be any kind of contempt ruling, legally. The courts can't constitutionally prevent what legislation is discussed or passed. They can only tie the hand of government after the fact.
A) Court says a bill under consideration in parliament, not yet law, has a legal problem.
B) Government passes and gives bill assent.
C) Court says bill still not legal, provides a ruling on its applicability and enforcement.
D) Government ignores court
E) Court finds government in contempt.
We're only at step A ...
If Parliament is not Supreme as this Judge claims, then PMSH should insert a stake holder 'law' into all of their legislation so the next Government can't amend or repeal anything without a vote from stake holders,
like long gun owners, the oil industry re: enviro laws, or victims of any crime on the books.
The ruling is actually pretty narrow despite how the media has been reporting on it. For one thing all it was was a declaration. So no order was made. Secondly, the constitutionality of 47.1 wasn't even considered by the court.
Please tell me again how "socializing" anything leads to cheaper or better products?
I still think this judge was only interested in muddying the waters. Why would he not take a step further, in fact the day before the ruling he said his ruling would have little to no affect on the government. It would be up to the minister. The CWB has for so long now confiscated the grain the farmer producers, paying expenses and taking all the risk, that while two wrongs wouldn't make a right, maybe in this case, who knows.
Ralph Goodale says this:
"Saskatchewan Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said Harper is correct that one Parliament cannot bind a subsequent Parliament's hands. However, said Goodale, the CWB Act doesn't say the act can't ever be amended or changed, just that it can't be changed without a vote of farmers."
I have to ask if Goodale actually believes this or is he simply sowing mischief? If he does really believe this then what will be his response when the Conservatives do what I and many other have been urging, that they add a similar amendment to every bill they pass?
Will Goodale respect a law calling for consultation and a plebiscite among gun owners in order to change the firearms act? Or the criminal code? How about a balanced budget bill with a nation wide plebiscite? This idea of forcing consultation on future parliaments, or votes among stakeholders, before bills can be amended is dangerous.
Post a Comment