Lawrence Martin is the author of 10 books, including six national bestsellers. His most recent, Harperland, was nominated for the Shaughnessy Cohen award. His other works include two volumes on Jean Chrétien, two on Canada-U.S. relations and three books on hockey.

So here’s the deal. The Federal Court has ruled in no uncertain terms that the Conservative government broke the law in introducing a bill to strip the Canadian Wheat Board of its powers.

In response, the Conservatives are moving to pass the bill anyway.

Question. How do you pass legislation that the courts have ruled to be illegal?

I asked around legal circles and, though there could well be one, no one seemed to be able to find a precedent for this. In a banana republic maybe, but not in a modern democracy.

“How is this acceptable to have a minister of the Crown act in this way,” said National Farmers’ Union President Terry Boehm, “and then say to hell with the Courts. This is reflective of the attitude that they have towards the democratic process in this country.”

But the Conservatives have not only, to use the gentleman’s terminology, said to hell with the Courts. Last night the news arrived that they are also saying to hell with the normal legislative process. To get the unlawful legislation through parliament quickly, they are invoking closure, as in cutting off debate with a sledgehammer.

In the spring the Conservatives were found, following an adjudication by the Speaker, to be in contempt of parliament. With the latest gambit they appear to be adding contempt of the judiciary to their list, as well as contempt of parliament one more time.

The Conservatives are appealing the Federal Court decision that was issued Wednesday. They could well have held back on their legislation until the results of the appeal were in.

But Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said right away the court ruling would have “no effect on continuing to move forward for freedom for western Canadian farmers. Bill C-18 will pass.”

Opposition members argued the legislation should be dropped, saying passage could very well be in contempt of court.

In the court judgment at issue was an amendment in the late 1990s to the Wheat Board Act giving farmers greater control over the agency. The amendments required that if any major changes were to be made to the act or the Wheat Board’s operations, there would have to be a vote by farmers. The Conservative bill allowed for no such consultation. Ritz held that since the legislation would essentially eliminate the Board, the amended act no longer applies.

Judge Douglas Campbell ruled that the government was in fact proposing that fundamental change was being made to the Wheat Board and therefore “the Minister must act democratically. This is what [the amended Act] says. Not adhering to these values is not only disrespectful, it is contrary to the law.”

The move to ram through a bill that’s been ruled illegal raises a number of complex constitutional questions with experts giving varying interpretations. Nothing can stop the Tory majority from passing the bill, some said, but it won’t be able to implement the legislation without the approval of the courts. Injunctions will be flying all over the place.

Prime Minister Harper said in the House yesterday that “Nothing in the ruling contradicts the government’s right to change” the law in question. Liberal leader Bob Rae shot back, “The government has the right to change the law. The government doesn’t have the right to break the law.”

To the Tory argument that Parliament is supreme, Pat Martin, the New Democrat on the Wheat Board file, said “Parliament has primacy but its primacy is not absolute. It is subject to two important provisos, as the judge pointed out. It can’t be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it can’t offend the rule of law as outlined in this ruling.”

In recent weeks the Conservatives have used censure and time allocation to limit debate on bills at a rate many say is unprecedented. They recently pleaded guilty to breaking election spending regulations in the in and out affair. They have had operatives phoning constituents in Liberal Irwin Cotler’s Montreal riding to plant rumours that Cotler is resigning his seat. They plotted to block Green Party leader Elizabeth May from gaining accreditation to the Durban Conference on climate change.

The instances of abuse of power multiply. “They’ll stop at nothing”, Liberal John McKay said yesterday. “It’s an elected dictatorship.”