Ottawa will press to pass legislation ending the Canadian Wheat Board single desk this year despite a Federal Court of Canada ruling yesterday that Conservatives ignored the “rule of law.”
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz told reporters yesterday that the court ruling changes nothing.
The Conservative government will appeal the ruling and meanwhile, will continue its rush to get legislation through the Senate and proclaimed into law by mid-December.
He called the ruling by Federal Court judge Douglas Campbell a “declaration” that will not deter the government.
Bill C-18 to end the CWB single desk is before the Senate agriculture committee this week and is expected to be approved by the Senate next week.
“We will proclaim it into law before the end of this year to bring certainty and clarity to the industry overall,” said Ritz. “Nothing has changed.”
Opposition critics insisted everything has changed. A Federal Court judge has ruled that in refusing to follow existing rules in the Canadian Wheat Board Act that require a farmer vote before the powers of the board are changed, Ritz is showing a “disregard for the rule of law.”
“I think the minister has to put the brakes on the Wheat Board legislation until this works its way through the various stages of the courts,” New Democrat Pat Martin told reporters. “If they have any respect whatsoever left for due process, they have to put the brakes on the Wheat Board legislation for this year and allow the Canadian Wheat Board to market the grain from the 2012 harvest.”
Liberal MPs and the CWB Alliance that was part of the court challenge agreed.
Bill Gehl, chair of the Alliance, said in a Dec. 7 statement that the Conservative attack on the CWB single desk has been rife with “law breaking and political spin.”
With CWB directors and supporters scheduled to appear at Senate committee hearings this week, the pressure will grow for the Senate to halt its rush to pass the legislation.
Ritz says that will not happen. The court decision was not a game changer.
“This is a declaration,” he said. “We disagree with it.”
