Weekly Commentary
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
September 16, 2002
TITLE: An “Act of Parliament”?
According to reliable sources, grain farmers in the Province of Quebec who
export grain have been permitted by the Government of Canada to export their
grain in contravention of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Customs Act, and
the Regulation Respecting the Reporting of Exported Goods without any
sanctions
like those being imposed in western Canada.
The decision by Ontario to begin issuing their own export licenses for wheat
and barley grown in that province was no doubt prompted by the nonenforcement
of the Customs Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act in Quebec.
A recent request for information under the Access to Information Act revealed
that there were no sanctions for any infractions of any act with respect to
the
export of wheat or barley at any of the border crossings in Quebec or Ontario.
Not so in the rest of Canada. In a report to Howard Migie (AAFC) from Jon
Dyck
dated June 26, 1997 which included a report by Clyde Bond, DOJ (Crown
Prosecutor), "Clyde noted that in Manitoba 63 people have been charged with
offences related to the illegal export of grain, while in Saskatchewan, 123
individuals have been charged in eight separate incidents. In Alberta, a total
of 30 individuals had been charged in two separate incidents". It sure makes
one wonder that in one part of Canada one can be jailed, while in another part
individuals go "scott free" for the same activity.
A summary of the civil actions being taken by Customs and Revenue Canada at
this point has also been reported by Mike Hadley of Revenue Canada. According
to Hadley, "of the 211 cases currently under appeal, approximately 170 involve
criminal charges under the Customs Act of exporting without a license (s5) and
failure to make a report in writing (s3). The s5 charge of exporting without a
license is, as a result of the Sawatsky decision, no longer valid. This is
problematic because the s3 (failure to report in writing) actions were
added as
an afterthought and have in many cases not been pursued ie. the defendants
have
not been given an opportunity to respond to these charges. Additionally,
warning letters by Customs had not specifically referred to a requirement to
report in writing. Consequently, there is now some question as to whether the
s3 charge will stand up to a court challenge. The difficulty with the s3
charge
is that exactly what constitutes a report in writing has never been
Gazetted or
specified."
Even though the Crown describes their position as "problematic" they continue
to pursue the charges. At the same meeting, Cathy Pitfield, speaking on
behalf
of the CWB, "indicated that it's position (CWB) was that the integrity of the
grain marketing system must be maintained and that the laws in question
must be
upheld". Minister Goodale was to mouth those same sentiments a few days later
that set in motion the continuance of persecution against farmers in the west.
Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board like the Grain Handlers Union, Railway
Unions, the National Farmers Union, the Western Producer and the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool were ecstatic. Western grain farmers were now bound to the road to
serfdom.
One of the defendants charged in Manitoba received the following
interpretation
from Revenue Canada representative N.L. Woram. In his letter Woram declares,
"The Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations requires that exporters of wheat
and barley obtain an export license from the Canadian Wheat Board before such
grain may be exported from Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board regulations
requires that the export permit be provided to Customs prior to the export of
grain. For Customs purposes the requirement to obtain an export license and
provide it to Customs means that wheat and barley is controlled by an Act of
Parliament".
No one in the west would wish our draconian system on our brothers and sisters
in eastern Canada. However, if an "Act of Parliament" means that laws are
applied equally across the country, then the west should accept no less than
the equality bestowed on Ontario and Quebec.
- Ken Dillen
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
September 16, 2002
TITLE: An “Act of Parliament”?
According to reliable sources, grain farmers in the Province of Quebec who
export grain have been permitted by the Government of Canada to export their
grain in contravention of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Customs Act, and
the Regulation Respecting the Reporting of Exported Goods without any
sanctions
like those being imposed in western Canada.
The decision by Ontario to begin issuing their own export licenses for wheat
and barley grown in that province was no doubt prompted by the nonenforcement
of the Customs Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act in Quebec.
A recent request for information under the Access to Information Act revealed
that there were no sanctions for any infractions of any act with respect to
the
export of wheat or barley at any of the border crossings in Quebec or Ontario.
Not so in the rest of Canada. In a report to Howard Migie (AAFC) from Jon
Dyck
dated June 26, 1997 which included a report by Clyde Bond, DOJ (Crown
Prosecutor), "Clyde noted that in Manitoba 63 people have been charged with
offences related to the illegal export of grain, while in Saskatchewan, 123
individuals have been charged in eight separate incidents. In Alberta, a total
of 30 individuals had been charged in two separate incidents". It sure makes
one wonder that in one part of Canada one can be jailed, while in another part
individuals go "scott free" for the same activity.
A summary of the civil actions being taken by Customs and Revenue Canada at
this point has also been reported by Mike Hadley of Revenue Canada. According
to Hadley, "of the 211 cases currently under appeal, approximately 170 involve
criminal charges under the Customs Act of exporting without a license (s5) and
failure to make a report in writing (s3). The s5 charge of exporting without a
license is, as a result of the Sawatsky decision, no longer valid. This is
problematic because the s3 (failure to report in writing) actions were
added as
an afterthought and have in many cases not been pursued ie. the defendants
have
not been given an opportunity to respond to these charges. Additionally,
warning letters by Customs had not specifically referred to a requirement to
report in writing. Consequently, there is now some question as to whether the
s3 charge will stand up to a court challenge. The difficulty with the s3
charge
is that exactly what constitutes a report in writing has never been
Gazetted or
specified."
Even though the Crown describes their position as "problematic" they continue
to pursue the charges. At the same meeting, Cathy Pitfield, speaking on
behalf
of the CWB, "indicated that it's position (CWB) was that the integrity of the
grain marketing system must be maintained and that the laws in question
must be
upheld". Minister Goodale was to mouth those same sentiments a few days later
that set in motion the continuance of persecution against farmers in the west.
Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board like the Grain Handlers Union, Railway
Unions, the National Farmers Union, the Western Producer and the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool were ecstatic. Western grain farmers were now bound to the road to
serfdom.
One of the defendants charged in Manitoba received the following
interpretation
from Revenue Canada representative N.L. Woram. In his letter Woram declares,
"The Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations requires that exporters of wheat
and barley obtain an export license from the Canadian Wheat Board before such
grain may be exported from Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board regulations
requires that the export permit be provided to Customs prior to the export of
grain. For Customs purposes the requirement to obtain an export license and
provide it to Customs means that wheat and barley is controlled by an Act of
Parliament".
No one in the west would wish our draconian system on our brothers and sisters
in eastern Canada. However, if an "Act of Parliament" means that laws are
applied equally across the country, then the west should accept no less than
the equality bestowed on Ontario and Quebec.
- Ken Dillen