"CWB court ruling
It was interesting to read Wednesday the Supreme[Federal] Court of Canada has found the federal government, i.e. Ag Minister Jerry Ritz, in breach of the law when he proceeded to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act without proper consultation with Prairie farmers.
There is a lot of legal phrasing in this decision, but what I read is that it is to some degree a matter of interpretation of the law, and Judge Douglas Campbell, interpreted it as a breach.
The federal government says it will appeal the ruling, and in the meantime proceed with plans to change the CWB Act to allow for an open market — remove the CWB monopoly.
I am no lawyer and not even a farmer, but in my 25 years of kicking around this industry, I believe there has been tons and tons of consultation. If there is anyone out there today farming who was surprised by the federal government’s decision to create an open market for Western Canadian wheat and barley and feels their views haven’t been heard, then I really don’t know where they have been.
There are two philosophical sides and arguments to this issue and I feel they both have been heard time and time again.
Judge Campbell in part of his decision said:
“Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme (changing the current CWB), the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard. In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present Applications (friends of the wheat board) being launched. Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution, which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary. Judicial review serves an important function; in the present Applications the voices have been heard, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally importantly…”
Maybe this is the first time Judge Campbell has come across the CWB issue, but my gut feeling is you could hold meeting after meeting across Western Canada to solicit farmer input into CWB changes and at the end of the day you would have one camp that wants change and one camp that is opposed to it and probably a third camp that says “enough already, time to move on.”
Even if they had held formal hearings, which cost millions of dollars, would these hearings have arrived at some compromise that would have made everyone happy…I doubt it. There comes a time in many business and personal relationships when all parties have to concede there are irreconcilable differences.
After hundreds of meetings, plebiscites, elections, studies, countless stories, letters to the editors, and hours of coffee room talk over many years, how can anyway argue there has been no consultation. What possible argument or view is to be made that hasn’t already been heard? I am not saying Judge Campbell was wrong, but I learned a long time ago the law — the courts — decide between what is legal and illegal. The law doesn’t decide between what is right and wrong."
Lee was a single desk supporter in the past, I found. It is refreshing to see Lee is thinking this through in a rational manner... as are the vast majority of commercial grain growers in western Canada.
It was interesting to read Wednesday the Supreme[Federal] Court of Canada has found the federal government, i.e. Ag Minister Jerry Ritz, in breach of the law when he proceeded to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act without proper consultation with Prairie farmers.
There is a lot of legal phrasing in this decision, but what I read is that it is to some degree a matter of interpretation of the law, and Judge Douglas Campbell, interpreted it as a breach.
The federal government says it will appeal the ruling, and in the meantime proceed with plans to change the CWB Act to allow for an open market — remove the CWB monopoly.
I am no lawyer and not even a farmer, but in my 25 years of kicking around this industry, I believe there has been tons and tons of consultation. If there is anyone out there today farming who was surprised by the federal government’s decision to create an open market for Western Canadian wheat and barley and feels their views haven’t been heard, then I really don’t know where they have been.
There are two philosophical sides and arguments to this issue and I feel they both have been heard time and time again.
Judge Campbell in part of his decision said:
“Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme (changing the current CWB), the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard. In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present Applications (friends of the wheat board) being launched. Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution, which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary. Judicial review serves an important function; in the present Applications the voices have been heard, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally importantly…”
Maybe this is the first time Judge Campbell has come across the CWB issue, but my gut feeling is you could hold meeting after meeting across Western Canada to solicit farmer input into CWB changes and at the end of the day you would have one camp that wants change and one camp that is opposed to it and probably a third camp that says “enough already, time to move on.”
Even if they had held formal hearings, which cost millions of dollars, would these hearings have arrived at some compromise that would have made everyone happy…I doubt it. There comes a time in many business and personal relationships when all parties have to concede there are irreconcilable differences.
After hundreds of meetings, plebiscites, elections, studies, countless stories, letters to the editors, and hours of coffee room talk over many years, how can anyway argue there has been no consultation. What possible argument or view is to be made that hasn’t already been heard? I am not saying Judge Campbell was wrong, but I learned a long time ago the law — the courts — decide between what is legal and illegal. The law doesn’t decide between what is right and wrong."
Lee was a single desk supporter in the past, I found. It is refreshing to see Lee is thinking this through in a rational manner... as are the vast majority of commercial grain growers in western Canada.
Comment