The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
June 25th
CWB threat shows disdain for democracy
Sounding a bit like disgraced Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, who claims God put him in power and it will take an act of God to get him out, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's warning about the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is enough to send chills up the spines of democrats.
After being told a federal judge ruled Mr. Harper's government trampled on the Constitution when it denied the wheat board the right to inform its constituents about the impact of proposed changes to the marketing of barley, the PM told a partisan crowd anyone who stood in his way would be stomped on.
Demonstrating his ability to put faith before evidence, Mr. Harper insisted western farmers want the end of the wheat board's monopoly and he assured the gathering in Saskatoon, assembled as a backdrop to an announcement on funding for a new bridge, the farmers will get what they want.
It may be that farmers do want an end to the single-desk powers of the CWB but, as Federal Court Justice Roger T. Hughes made clear in his ruling, the ability to decipher the true desires of the farmers was subverted by a government determined to get its way.
"It is entirely clear . . . that the (government) directive (was) motivated principally to silencing the wheat board in respect of any promotion of a 'single desk' policy that it might do," he wrote.
The ruling came after the board complained a directive issued by former agriculture minister Chuck Stahl during last year's barley plebiscite prohibited its officials and elected members from setting the record straight when special interest groups made false claims about the way the CWB operates.
Not only did Mr. Strahl insist the board withdraw any information from its website dealing with the importance of its monopoly position to protect the interests of farmers, he also mandated even those members elected to protect that single-desk status keep their mouths shut when travelling on board business.
Even though interest groups opposed to the single-desk powers of the board have campaigned vigorously since the former government changed the law and allowed farmers to vote for the majority of the 15-person board, eight of the 10 still oppose dual marketing -- this even though they regularly face their constituents.
But because of Mr. Strahl's directive, that majority was unable to counter the allegations made by the minority when they went before town hall meetings in the months leading up to the vote.
The government then appointed a loaded task force to study the impact of removing the single-desk authority. When its report was published by the wheat board, Mr. Strahl insisted an academic study of its veracity couldn't be posted as a counterpoint.
That any reasonably minded person would find these tactics not only in breach of the Constitution but utterly odious should not have come as a surprise to the prime minister.
But silencing its officials and elected members was only one tactic the government used to get its way in destroying the board.
Mr. Strahl consistently refused to meet with the board members to hear their side of the issue, the government drafted a plebiscite question that industry observers and board members argued was unclear and would bring in ambiguous results and it changed the voters' list mid-vote in order to manipulate the results.
The ambiguity was clear when 38 per cent of voters supported the monopoly and 48 per cent voted to save the wheat board while offering farmers choice. But because the board has no facilities, its ability to offer farmers the premium they demand depends on its monopoly. Only 14 per cent wanted to do away with the board.
Ironically, given current marketing conditions and the relative weakness of barley compared to wheat and other commodities, the government might now get the results it wants, should it hold a fair and open vote.
But fair and open doesn't seem to be a risk the Harper government is willing to take.
Although the courts have ruled the Canadian Wheat Board should be run by producers, the federal government, which promises to give freedom of choice to farmers, seems to have determined the best way to do that is to override the wishes of the majority.
Mr. Harper pointed out Friday board members will undergo a regularly scheduled vote this fall to determine whether farmers still want them as representatives.
Unaccustomed as this prime minister is to letting democracy have its say, perhaps this is where his focus should be.
Rather than bullying by language and threats, he should let a free and fair vote decide the workings of an agency that has gained global recognition as an industry leader.
If, as he says, western Canadian farmers want the freedom to get out of the board, let them say so on a ballot that is free from government tampering.
And let the votes go to producers who depend on the board, not excluding those who suffered a couple of years of crop failures as the current system tends to do.
And let's keep this battle on the Prairies and out of the House of Commons, as Mr. Harper threatens to do should his party form a majority.
"Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law." - The Supreme Court of Canada, 1938
June 25th
CWB threat shows disdain for democracy
Sounding a bit like disgraced Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, who claims God put him in power and it will take an act of God to get him out, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's warning about the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is enough to send chills up the spines of democrats.
After being told a federal judge ruled Mr. Harper's government trampled on the Constitution when it denied the wheat board the right to inform its constituents about the impact of proposed changes to the marketing of barley, the PM told a partisan crowd anyone who stood in his way would be stomped on.
Demonstrating his ability to put faith before evidence, Mr. Harper insisted western farmers want the end of the wheat board's monopoly and he assured the gathering in Saskatoon, assembled as a backdrop to an announcement on funding for a new bridge, the farmers will get what they want.
It may be that farmers do want an end to the single-desk powers of the CWB but, as Federal Court Justice Roger T. Hughes made clear in his ruling, the ability to decipher the true desires of the farmers was subverted by a government determined to get its way.
"It is entirely clear . . . that the (government) directive (was) motivated principally to silencing the wheat board in respect of any promotion of a 'single desk' policy that it might do," he wrote.
The ruling came after the board complained a directive issued by former agriculture minister Chuck Stahl during last year's barley plebiscite prohibited its officials and elected members from setting the record straight when special interest groups made false claims about the way the CWB operates.
Not only did Mr. Strahl insist the board withdraw any information from its website dealing with the importance of its monopoly position to protect the interests of farmers, he also mandated even those members elected to protect that single-desk status keep their mouths shut when travelling on board business.
Even though interest groups opposed to the single-desk powers of the board have campaigned vigorously since the former government changed the law and allowed farmers to vote for the majority of the 15-person board, eight of the 10 still oppose dual marketing -- this even though they regularly face their constituents.
But because of Mr. Strahl's directive, that majority was unable to counter the allegations made by the minority when they went before town hall meetings in the months leading up to the vote.
The government then appointed a loaded task force to study the impact of removing the single-desk authority. When its report was published by the wheat board, Mr. Strahl insisted an academic study of its veracity couldn't be posted as a counterpoint.
That any reasonably minded person would find these tactics not only in breach of the Constitution but utterly odious should not have come as a surprise to the prime minister.
But silencing its officials and elected members was only one tactic the government used to get its way in destroying the board.
Mr. Strahl consistently refused to meet with the board members to hear their side of the issue, the government drafted a plebiscite question that industry observers and board members argued was unclear and would bring in ambiguous results and it changed the voters' list mid-vote in order to manipulate the results.
The ambiguity was clear when 38 per cent of voters supported the monopoly and 48 per cent voted to save the wheat board while offering farmers choice. But because the board has no facilities, its ability to offer farmers the premium they demand depends on its monopoly. Only 14 per cent wanted to do away with the board.
Ironically, given current marketing conditions and the relative weakness of barley compared to wheat and other commodities, the government might now get the results it wants, should it hold a fair and open vote.
But fair and open doesn't seem to be a risk the Harper government is willing to take.
Although the courts have ruled the Canadian Wheat Board should be run by producers, the federal government, which promises to give freedom of choice to farmers, seems to have determined the best way to do that is to override the wishes of the majority.
Mr. Harper pointed out Friday board members will undergo a regularly scheduled vote this fall to determine whether farmers still want them as representatives.
Unaccustomed as this prime minister is to letting democracy have its say, perhaps this is where his focus should be.
Rather than bullying by language and threats, he should let a free and fair vote decide the workings of an agency that has gained global recognition as an industry leader.
If, as he says, western Canadian farmers want the freedom to get out of the board, let them say so on a ballot that is free from government tampering.
And let the votes go to producers who depend on the board, not excluding those who suffered a couple of years of crop failures as the current system tends to do.
And let's keep this battle on the Prairies and out of the House of Commons, as Mr. Harper threatens to do should his party form a majority.
"Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law." - The Supreme Court of Canada, 1938
Comment