[Robair]

Proculation Proculation:

Freedom is a bitch, eh ?

WTF are you talking about?

[OnTheIce]

Robair Robair:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why should the average Canadian care about the Wheat Board?

Without it, it looks like your taxes will be used to prop up the port of Churchhill and variouse programs for farmers that farmer money currently pays for via the board.

And, it's grain is almost all for export. So the price premium means more money overall coming into Canada for that grain.

So in the end, there's no reason the average Canadian should care.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Robair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So in the end, there's no reason the average Canadian should care.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The average Canadian doesn't pay taxes?

[Tricks]

Robair, what's the government's reason for doing this? I don't really know anything about the Wheat Board, and probably wouldn't know it exists without this.

[Robair]

My guess is Harper has a cushie job lined up at Viterra or Cargill after office.

Other than that it's just following Conservative ideology. Without doing any research/homework to verify costs or benefits.

[fifeboy]

Robair Robair:

My guess is Harper has a cushie job lined up at Viterra or Cargill after office.

Other than that it's just following Conservative ideology. Without doing any research/homework to verify costs or benefits.

[RUEZ]

$1:

But Judge Douglas Campbell, who released the decision on Wednesday, said that Ritz needed the consent of farmers to change the decades-old system, because of the "unique democratic nature of the CWB."

Ya that's some kick ass democracy you've got there. If you sell your wheat to anyone but the CWB you go to jail. Yipeeee

[Robair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

$1:

But Judge Douglas Campbell, who released the decision on Wednesday, said that Ritz needed the consent of farmers to change the decades-old system, because of the "unique democratic nature of the CWB."

Ya that's some kick ass democracy you've got there. If you sell your wheat to anyone but the CWB you go to jail. Yipeeee

Democracy. Not sure you understand the term.

[Lemmy]

Robair Robair:

Without it, it looks like your taxes will be used to prop up the port of Churchhill and variouse programs for farmers that farmer money currently pays for via the board.

What those screaming for the free-market don't realize is that the free-market isn't free. It's the same thing as Peeves' crazy notion of removing the Dairy Board in Ontario. You get rid of the infrastructure that is paid by the farmers and it falls to the tax payer to fund it. So the price of your wheat (or milk) may go down some, but your taxes go up moreso. The free-market solution ends up being more costly to the consumer. The knuckleheads that continue to mouth-breathe the Tarzan-speak "Free-market good, marketing board bad" just don't seem to understand that the trade-off is a tax hike. Which is odd, because those folks seem to hate taxes more than anything.

Ruez Ruez:

If you sell your wheat to anyone but the CWB you go to jail

Who's going to sell elsewhere than the wheat board? If you're a farmer and your choice is to sell to the board at $1 or to some other buyer at $0.50, what choice are you going to make? It's the same stupid argument as the one against mandatory union membership. As an employee, you're NEVER going to choose the market wage rate over the union rate. As a farmer, you're never going to choose the market selling price over the marketing board price. It's a moot argument.

[OnTheIce]

Robair Robair:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So in the end, there's no reason the average Canadian should care.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The average Canadian doesn't pay taxes?

Anything going towards this would be a blip on the radar in terms of taxes paid per person.

There's tons of crap taxpayers fund...just add this to the list.

[eureka]

bootlegga bootlegga:

peck420 peck420:

I'm not questioning whether the ruling is correct for this instance.

I am questioning what the fallout will be across the board.

A precident is a precident.

How will this precident affect other areas of the government?

Or was the judge at least smart enough to implicity state, in writing, that this is for this occurence only?

There will be ZERO fallout - all this ruling says is that Parliament cannot ignore an existing law and draft a new one, without amending the existing law.

Basically, it's something like this - the governing party can't simply ban abortions or institute the death penalty for murderers without amending laws already on the books. That doesn't mean that the Conservatives couldn't do so if they wished to - they just need to put in a little more effort than cramming a new law through Parliament and the Senate.

The Conservatives error was that they didn't follow the existing law - had they held a proper plebiscite (and assuming they won), they would have been able to disband the Wheat Board.

All this ruling means is that the Conservatives will have to amend the Wheat Board Act first (to eliminate the plebiscite) and then they can disband it. However, odds are this means the Wheat Board will be around for at least another year, simply due to the amount of work necessary to do that.

Besides, this is the whole point of having judges - they are a check/balance on lawmakers, just like the legislative branch is supposed to be a check/balance on the Executive branch.

Good explanation. I would add that this is not a precedent as such. It is simply an affirmation of the Rule of Law. That government must not act arbitrarily.

What is at issue here is well expressed in this case:

Reece v Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238 at paragraphs 159 and 160:

The starting point is this. The greatest achievement through the centuries in the evolution of democratic governance has been constitutionalism and the rule of law. The rule of law is not the rule by laws where citizens are bound to comply with the laws but government is not. Or where one level of government chooses not to enforce laws binding another. Under the rule of law, citizens have the right to come to the courts to enforce the law as against the executive branch. And courts have the right to review actions by the executive branch to determine whether they are in compliance with the law and, where warranted, to declare government action unlawful. This right in the hands of the people is not a threat to democratic governance but its very assertion. Accordingly, the executive branch of government is not its own exclusive arbiter on whether it or its delegatee is acting within the limits of the law. The detrimental consequences of the executive branch of government defining for itself – and by itself – the scope of its lawful power have been revealed, often bloodily, in the tumult of history. When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of law itself […].

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Robair Robair:

Without it, it looks like your taxes will be used to prop up the port of Churchhill and variouse programs for farmers that farmer money currently pays for via the board.

What those screaming for the free-market don't realize is that the free-market isn't free. It's the same thing as Peeves' crazy notion of removing the Dairy Board in Ontario. You get rid of the infrastructure that is paid by the farmers and it falls to the tax payer to fund it. So the price of your wheat (or milk) may go down some, but your taxes go up moreso. The free-market solution ends up being more costly to the consumer. The knuckleheads that continue to mouth-breathe the Tarzan-speak "Free-market good, marketing board bad" just don't seem to understand that the trade-off is a tax hike. Which is odd, because those folks seem to hate taxes more than anything.

What infrastructure is paid by farmers that would have to paid by taxpayers? What other things do you think should be managed by marketing boards? Sounds like you are in favor of a more managed economy? What keeps the producers efficient in a system like that, with no competition, only between themselves?

The biggest argument I see against marketing boards is that Canada loves to scream free trade on stuff we want to export to other countries. Harper is busy telling us we can keep the marketing boards, yet still join that new Pacific trade group he begged Obama to invite him too. I very much doubt that. New Zealand, which has "free" trade on their agricultural products is screaming no way.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Ruez Ruez:

If you sell your wheat to anyone but the CWB you go to jail

Who's going to sell elsewhere than the wheat board? If you're a farmer and your choice is to sell to the board at $1 or to some other buyer at $0.50, what choice are you going to make? It's the same stupid argument as the one against mandatory union membership. As an employee, you're NEVER going to choose the market wage rate over the union rate. As a farmer, you're never going to choose the market selling price over the marketing board price. It's a moot argument.

There is a significant group of western farmers who don't want to sell to the CWB because they think they can do better. This isn't Harper just being ideological, but also playing to a significant block of voters - maybe the pro CWB people were never CPC voters anyway, bunch of commies maybe.

[Robair]

1st, The CPC told farmers there would be a vote before any mayjor changes to the board. Ritz stood up and said that very thing pre-election. After they have a majority, all of a sudden no further discussion or vote is required.

2nd, 8 of 10 farmer elected board members are pro single desk. This should give you a pretty good idea on where farmers stand.

3rd, even if you count every single grain farmer in western Canada, you do not come up with a "significant block of voters".

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

What infrastructure is paid by farmers that would have to paid by taxpayers?

Everything. In the case of wheat, as Robair mentioned, the port. There's not much point in growing wheat if there's no harbour to ship it from. I don't know enough about the wheat business to know what other services and infrastructure are funded by the wheat board. In dairy, all aspects of transportation, processing, distribution, quality control and marketing are paid for by the board. Get rid of the board and all of that either falls to the individual farmer to fund, which he never could, or the tax payer. The only 3rd option is to import all our dairy or subsidize the hell out of it, like the Americans do.

andyt andyt:

What other things do you think should be managed by marketing boards? Sounds like you are in favor of a more managed economy? What keeps the producers efficient in a system like that, with no competition, only between themselves?

I'm in favour of the most efficient system, the system that provides the greatest net benefits. In the case of dairy farming in Ontario, that is achieved by marketing board.

andyt andyt:

The biggest argument I see against marketing boards is that Canada loves to scream free trade on stuff we want to export to other countries. Harper is busy telling us we can keep the marketing boards, yet still join that new Pacific trade group he begged Obama to invite him too. I very much doubt that. New Zealand, which has "free" trade on their agricultural products is screaming no way.

If a nation is going to take the "free trade" high road against marketing boards, they better be sure they're not involved in some other form of agricultural support system that also violates free trade. For most nations, that means subsidization.

andyt andyt:

There is a significant group of western farmers who don't want to sell to the CWB because they think they can do better. This isn't Harper just being ideological, but also playing to a significant block of voters - maybe the pro CWB people were never CPC voters anyway, bunch of commies maybe.

A marketing board requires all producers on-board to be effective. How significant is that significant group? Does majority rule? I don't know. It seems to me that that "significant group", whatever its size, has been getting some bad advice or drinking some serious koolaid. It's absolutely in their best interest to be part of the marketing board.

edits for quotation issues.

[andyt]

3rd - sure you do, because you have to only set that off against the pro Wheatboard farmers, not the population in general. But those anti farmers would still be a minority. This isn't about democracy but political calculation by Harper - as we've seen he does nothing that isn't calculated. Closing the Wheatboard may be ideological, but only because Harper figures it's at worst neutral or even positive for him politically.

Who did you vote for in the last election?