Angry in the Great White North

When I wrote a series of pieces on the Ontario Securities Commission, one of the themes I kept coming back to was the power the OSC had to alter the regulations under which trading was regulated, only requiring the signature of the minister to make it official.

Actually, it was worse than that -- the regulatory change essentially took effect immediately, and could only be stopped if the minister took a positive action to overrule the OSC. If the minister signed it off, then fine. But if he did not sign off the regulation at all within a set time frame, it was considered to be as if he signed it, which is very disturbing.

In those posts, I argued that the power to make these changes was best left in parliament, where interested parties could argue in front of legislative committees on whether or not the law was a good one, and the committee could recommend amendments based on that input.

Today, we have a ruling from Judge Dolores Hansen concerning the Canadian Wheat Board:

A court has issued a strong rebuke to the federal government, which is aiming to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on grain sales, on the eve of what was supposed to be the Conservative's first step in opening the market on barley.

Federal Court Judge Dolores Hansen, who Tuesday night rushed out her decision on the future of barley sales, ruled that Ottawa overstepped its power when it pledged to remove the crop sales from the single-desk marketing system as of Wednesday.

In her 20-page ruling, Judge Hansen concluded that Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl was wrong to simply introduce a regulation that would allow Western Canadian farmers to market barley to any customer they choose.

Instead, she found, the federal act that governs the wheat board requires a vote in Parliament.

I haven't read the ruling, but based on this report, Judge Hansen is not deciding on whether the CWB is a good thing for farmers, or making a judgment call on the free market versus monopolies, or challenging whether such a move would be popular.

She is making a ruling on the powers of a minister to act outside of the confines of parliamentary oversight. In this case, she has ruled, he does not have that much latitude, even if the minister is basing his action on the vote of farmers to dismantle to monopoly.

In my gut, I have to think that free markets are better. Farmers seem to agree. But in another part of my gut, I also think government action must be constrained. Actions must be considered and debate engaged.

The Liberals taught us what could happen with the Sponsorship Program, run without the oversight of all parties in parliament.

You know, there is a reason that I list all Canadian blog rolls, including the Liberals and the NDP rolls. I do believe that all points of view have merit, or at least ought to be heard so that their merit can be judged.

This judge has ruled that a minister cannot eliminate the CWB monopoly without representatives from across the country and across the political spectrum debating the benefits of such an action, and the possible consequences.

If in this minority government that means that there is little hope that the CWB will be dismantled, well, minority governments are challenged to enact big changes. If enough farmers want the CWB eliminated, they will vote for the party most committed to doing exactly that.

Of course, people in other parts of the country are not concerned about wheat boards, and will vote on other issues lead them to vote for a party whose platform runs counter to the wishes of farmers.

To me that begs the bigger question of why the federal government has authority over such a localized issue. The same argument could be made about federal jurisdiction over fisheries. Perhaps these are issues that are best handled at the provincial level. Indeed, an important part of this story is the fact that farmers voted to take apart the monopoly. If the power was pushed down to a lower level of government, we might not be having this discussion. It also seems like the popularity of the CWB differed dramatically across each province involved in the plebiscite, further suggesting that this is best handled locally.

Maybe each region needs to make its own informed decision.

My opinion on wheat issues is, at best, uninformed, not being involved in wheat farming and not living in a farming area. My MP's vote, therefore, might also be considered irrelevant to the farmers.

But for better or for worse, this is a federal matter. A federal minister, Chuch Strahl, is responsible.

And this judge is saying that part of that responsibility is submitting his plans for the CWB to parliament for a vote. And that's at the heart of responsible government -- government ministers being accountable to an elected parliament.

I gather a lot of conservative bloggers are decrying this decision. Some might have suspicions about Judge Hansen's motives. Maybe she is a Liberal at heart. I don't really know. But to say that an action by the government ought to be considered and possibly tempered by engaging the oversight of parliament doesn't offend me.

And I for one don't mind hearing from Liberals and NDP members on whether dismantling the CWB monopoly is a good idea. I probably won't agree with them, but then I'm not so sure of myself to assume that I'm always right. That's the great things about representative bodies. To work properly, they require a certain level of humility from the members that make up that body:

Democracy requires humility. When the debate is ended, the political contestants submit to the wisdom of the people. Democracy demands the peaceful acceptance of your opponent's victory.

That was George W Bush speaking to the National Endowment for Democracy.

Did this judge defeat the government's plans? Did this judge override the democratic will of the people? I would politely suggest that anyone who thinks a declaration from one minister issuing a regulation from his office represents democracy in action requires a dose of that humility.

Yes, Chuck Strahl seemed to be reflecting the wishes of the farmers who voted. At the same time, though, he is responsible to parliament for his decisions. He can argue in parliament that the farmers want this to happen, and that is a powerful argument to make. A committee studying this change in law will consider that vote and factor in the apparent popularity for ending the monopoly. But in the end, doing what is popular is not the same thing as acting responsibly.

Chuck Strahl will have to find a way to be responsible and popular at the same time.