Canadian Grain Commission

Last updated
Canadian Grain Commission
Commission canadienne des grains
The Canadian Grain Commission building at 303 Main Street, Winnipeg Manitoba.JPG
CGC building at 303 Main Street in Winnipeg
Agency overview
Formed1912;111 years ago (1912)
Preceding agency
  • Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada
Headquarters303 Main St., Winnipeg, Manitoba
Minister responsible
Agency executives
  • Doug Chorney, Chief Commissioner
  • Jocelyn Beaudette, COO
Key document
Website https://grainscanada.gc.ca

The Canadian Grain Commission (CGC; French : Commission canadienne des grains) is an agency of the Canadian government responsible for regulation of the grain-handling industry in Canada, as well as to protect producers' rights and ensure the integrity of grain transactions. [1]

Contents

Overview

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is responsible for the Canadian Grain Commission. The Commission is governed by the Canada Grain Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10), which provides for the appointment of three commissioners by the federal cabinet, one of whom is named chief commissioner. The CGC is headed by a Chief Operating Officer (COO), who reports to the chief commissioner. [2]

Its headquarters are located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. As of 2013, the commission has two regional offices which provide a full range of inspection, weighing, analytical, and entomology services, namely, Montreal and Vancouver.

The function of the CGC is, among other things, to [3]

History

In 1971, the Canadian Grain Commission replaced the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, which was created in 1912 [4] by the Conservative government of Robert Borden. [5] Even then it was colloquially known as the "Canadian grain commission". [6]

The 1912 legislation provided "that all owners and operators of elevators, warehouses and mills and certain traders in grain, shall be licensed; for supervision of the handling and storage of grain in and out of elevators, etc.; and prohibits persons operating or interested in a terminal elevator from buying or selling grain. It contains, also, provisions for inspection and grading." [4]

In 1922, the Davies court ruled that the criminal provisions of the CGA fell without the ambit of the "in any case whatever" section 36 provisions of the Supreme Court Act of 1906, and that therefore the legislators could and did draw up a statute which limited the power of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The defendant, a Manitoba elevator, was convicted for selling grain on commission without a licence, in contravention of section 215 of the Canada Grain Act of 1912. His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, which held section 215 of the Grain Act to be ultra vires of the Dominion Parliament, and the prosecution was handcuffed by the concurrence of highest court. [7]

In 1925, the power of the Federal government to enact a tax policy whereby 'if at the end of any crop year in any terminal elevator "the total surplus of grain is found in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in the elevator during the crop year" such surplus shall be sold for the benefit of the Board' was denied by the Anglin court of the SCC. They ruled that the federal government had encroached into provincial jurisdiction. [4]

In 1971 and in the era of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), the power of the federal government to declare a private grain elevator works constructed after the passage of the legislation as "works for the general advantage of Canada", thus gathering them under its control under section 92.10.c of the BNA Act , was contested in the Supreme Court. The Fauteux court ruled it be intra vires. [8]

In 1975, a private rapeseed elevator was declared by the Laskin court to be a "grain elevator" and thus under the control of the CGC and CWB. [9]

In 1980, the defendant corporation in a case of illicentious sale of grain contended in front of the Laskin court that its employee, the manager of a grain elevator, could not be compelled to testify against it by virtue of an extension of the right to silence. It failed and a trial de novo was ordered. The court held, grosso modo, that the employee was not bound to the body corporate to such an extent, and the doctrines about self-incrimination did not apply. [10]

Building

Canadian Grain Commission Building
Canadian Grain Commission Bild ^ Federal Bld, Main St, Winnipeg - panoramio.jpg
Grain Commission building, No. 1 Northern visible in the forecourt
General information
Architectural style Modernist
Location Winnipeg, Manitoba
Opened1972
Owner Government of Canada
Design and construction
Architect(s) Ernest J. Smith

Architecture

Ernest J. Smith of Smith Carter was the principal architect of the Grain Commission's current headquarters, nicknamed the "mushroom building", the structure itself is a notable example of a Canadian skyscraper displaying Brutalist elements. [11] [12] The building's "extended cap" was designed because of a space needed between the upper and lower floors for specialized mechanical equipment used to transport grain to an upper-level flour mill and test brewery. Smith remarked on the challenges involved:

Mixing two different functions in a vertical building is difficult. Normally construction would be separated horizontally. In this case, we worked out two separate modules for offices and lab space, [and] found we needed greater depth in the lab and rationalised the present form. [11]

Sculpture in the forecourt

In 1976, John Cullen Nugent's No. 1 Northern , a large steel abstract sculpture was unveiled, a work intended to be a metaphor for fields of wheat, represented in multi-layer rectangular shapes and painted the "brilliant" yellow of harvest wheat, [13] and designed to represent Canada's hardy top grade, red spring wheat hybrid of the same name. [14] The work was so disliked by some officials, employees of the Commission, the press, and the public, that it was removed in 1978 [14] over the artist's objections and attempts at litigation. [15] In 1997, after a second installation and removal from another federal building in Winnipeg, Nugent's sculpture was reinstalled in front of the Grain Commission building. [11]

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian Wheat Board</span> Defunct Canadian marketing board

The Canadian Wheat Board was a marketing board for wheat and barley in Western Canada. Established by the Parliament of Canada on 5 July 1935, its operation was governed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act as a mandatory producer marketing system for wheat and barley in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and a small part of British Columbia. It was illegal for any farmer in areas under the CWB's jurisdiction to sell their wheat and barley through any other channel than the CWB. Although often called a monopoly, it was actually a monopsony since it was the only buyer of wheat and barley. It was a marketing agency acting on behalf of Western Canadian farmers, passing all profits from its operation back to farmers. Its market power over wheat and barley marketing was referred to as the "Single Desk".

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.

<i>Reference Re Persons of Japanese Race</i> Court case about deportation of Japanese-Canadians

Reference Re Persons of Japanese Race is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which upheld a Supreme Court of Canada ruling declaring a government order to deport Canadian citizens of Japanese descent to be valid.

<i>Westendorp v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Westendorp v R, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the scope of the federal Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore ultra vires of the provincial constitutional authority. The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power. This was also the first case where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was cited in argument to the Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing.

<i>Reference re Firearms Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Firearms Act is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers regarding firearms legislation and the Canadian Firearms Registry. A unanimous Court held that the federal Firearms Act was constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power.

<i>R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co is an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution's Trade and Commerce power.

<i>Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

<i>Mackeigan v Hickman</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Mackeigan v Hickman, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on judicial independence. The Court unanimously held that to require a federal judge to explain his or her decisions would violate the principle of judicial independence.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

<i>Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198 is a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on cooperative federalism where the Court unanimously upheld the validity of various Acts passed by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for establishing a national agricultural marketing scheme agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments.

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wheat pools in Canada</span>

A wheat pool is a co-operative that markets grain on behalf of its farmer-members.

The Territorial Grain Growers' Association (TGGA) was a farmer's association that was active in Western Canada at the start of the 20th century, in what was then the Northwest Territories and later became Saskatchewan and Alberta. It provided a voice for farmers in their struggle with grain dealers and the railways, and was influential in obtaining favorable legislation. After Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces the TGGA was succeeded by the Alberta Farmers' Association and the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Alexander Partridge</span>

Edward Alexander Partridge was a Canadian teacher, farmer, agrarian radical, businessman and author. He was born in Ontario but moved to Saskatchewan where he taught and then became a farmer. He was active in the Territorial Grain Growers' Association (TGGA), founded in 1902, which addressed various problems with the Western Canada grain market. He founded the cooperative Grain Growers' Grain Company, the predecessor of the United Grain Growers, and the Grain Growers' Guide, a widely distributed weekly paper. His "Partridge Plan" was a broad and visionary proposal for addressing a wide range of farmers' issues, eliminating many abuses caused by the near-monopoly of grain elevator companies, and resulted in important reforms by the provincial governments. Patridge was named a National Historic Person in 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manitoba Grain Act</span>

The Manitoba Grain Act was an act passed by the Federal government of Canada in 1900 to protect the interests of grain farmers against abuses by the grain storage and trading companies and the railways. Although well-intentioned the act was flawed, and a series of amendments were required before the more effective Canada Grain Act of 1912 was passed.

<i>Spraytech v Hudson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Spraytech v Hudson, indexed as 114957 Canada Ltée v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 2001 SCC 40 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the general welfare powers of a municipality to regulate the conduct of businesses that impact the health and safety of residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">G3 Canada</span> Canadian grain handling company

G3 is a Canadian grain company headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It consists of two operating companies:

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, along with the Supreme Court of Canada, have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

References

  1. ↑ newswire.ca: "Chief Operating Officer appointment to Canadian Grain Commission", 12 April 2017
  2. ↑ Government of Canada, Canadian Grain Commission (2019-02-28). "Organization". www.grainscanada.gc.ca. Retrieved 2021-08-24.
  3. ↑ justice.gc.ca: "Canada Grain Act R.S.C., 1985, c. G-10", 2018-05-04
  4. 1 2 3 canlii.ca: "The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] SCR 434, 1925 CanLII 82 (SCC)"
  5. ↑ "Canadian Grain Commission". The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. University of Regina. Archived from the original on 2013-05-25. Retrieved 2012-07-26.
  6. ↑ Edward Porritt (Nov 2, 1914). "The Canadian government and wartime shipment of grain". The Independent. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
  7. ↑ canlii.org: "The King v. The Manitoba Grain Co, [1923] SCR 37, 1922 CanLII 48 (SCC)"
  8. ↑ canlii.ca: "Jorgenson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1971] SCR 725, 1971 CanLII 136 (SCC)"
  9. ↑ canlii.ca: "Chamney v. R., [1975] 2 SCR 151, 1973 CanLII 197 (SCC)"
  10. ↑ "R. v. N.M. Paterson and Sons Ltd., [1980] 2 SCR 679, 1980 CanLII 227 (SCC)"
  11. 1 2 3 "[303 Main Street]". Winnipeg Architecture Foundation. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  12. ↑ Perry, Gail (2014). "Speaking of Winnipeg Brutalism = Le brutalisme à Winnipeg" (PDF). Heritage = Héritage (in English and French). XVII (2): 18–21. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
  13. ↑ White, Ed (May 15, 1997). "Homage to wheat dragged out, dusted off, pieced together". The Western Producer . Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  14. 1 2 Anderson-Dolcini, Catherine (November 29, 2000). One-percent for Whom? Canada's Public Works Fine Art Programme, 1964-1978: Its Rise and Demise (PDF). Ottawa: Carleton University . Retrieved 27 November 2019.
  15. ↑ "No. 1 Northern". Winnipeg Downtown Places. September 7, 2009. Retrieved 19 December 2019.

49°53′38.5″N97°08′13″W / 49.894028°N 97.13694°W / 49.894028; -97.13694

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.