Still out for justice
Cyril Doll - Monday,13 February 2006
Western Standard
During the last week of November, Regina was bursting at its seams as the city of 200,000 hosted the 35th annual Canadian Western Agribition. The promoters of the event claim that one quarter of all farmers in Canada made their way to the Queen City for the weeklong event, organized to promote Canada's agricultural industry. In total, they say more than 140,000 visitors turned the turnstiles at Regina Exhibition Park--in fact the city was so packed, visitors had to truck 40 miles west down the Trans-Canada to Moose Jaw to find lodging. But on the evening of Nov. 23, away from the grandstand, the cattle shows and the Canadian Cowboys' Association's Finals Rodeo, a loosely knit group of disgruntled Saskatchewan grain farmers met at the Regina Flying Club. Only, it wasn't to promote agriculture--but to map out a plan for taking their fight against the federal government to the next level.
For the past 10 years, 21 farmers from Saskatchewan and one from Manitoba have been in and out of courts and in and out of jail fighting the feds on charges of exporting wheat to the U.S. The Farmers for Justice, as they call themselves, had deliberately circumvented the monopolistic powers of the Canadian Wheat Board--the Crown corporation responsible for marketing western grain. That night in Regina, the farmers made plans to make Ottawa pay for all they had endured in their ordeal. And on Jan. 16, 15 farmers filed suit against the federal government at Regina's Federal Court of Canada demanding $2 million apiece, for what they claim has been malicious prosecution and abuse of power. "Bringing down the wheat board isn't the issue; the issue is compensation," explains Estevan, Sask.-area grain grower Art Mainil, of the feds. "They knew all along it was a bogus, cooked-up charge."
Mainil's confidence is bolstered by a decision last May by a Saskatchewan appeal judge who quashed the original 1999 convictions of the 22 farmers, tossing six of the cases out completely and ordering retrials for the other 16 men. Justice William Vancise ruled that while the farmers were charged under the Customs Act, the act does not contain any clauses requiring western farmers to get wheat board licences to sell their grain, as prosecutors had argued. In their statement of claim against Ottawa, the farmers state that they have possession of a document that not only supports Vancise's decision, it proves Ottawa knew that when it prosecuted the farmers.
The document, obtained via the Access to Information Act, is a copy of the minutes of a meeting that took place on June 23, 1997, between wheat board officials and bureaucrats from several federal departments, to discuss the Crown's legal strategy against the Farmers for Justice and draft a communications strategy. "The . . . charge of exporting without a license is . . . no longer valid," read the minutes (the charge had been invalidated by a Manitoba court in a case against grain farmer David Sawatzky, who was tried earlier for skirting the CWB in 1995, and acquitted). "This is problematic," the minutes report Mike Hadley, then adjudications officer with Revenue Canada, as saying. Another charge, he notes, including a "failure to report in writing" to customs officials of their export, "were added as an afterthought" and "defendants had not been given an opportunity to respond to these charges." Concludes Hadley: "Consequently, there is now some question as to whether the charge will stand up to a court challenge."
For their part, the farmers insist this was not simply an act of civil disobedience. It was also about money. In the early 1990s, farmers could get higher prices for their grain in the U.S. Selling to the U.S. directly, which had a much stronger dollar and would pay more for high-quality grain than the CWB's pooling system, the farmers calculated they could easily double their income. "We were going where the dollars were and that's something eastern Canadian farmers have been allowed to do since Confederation," says Norm Colhoun, one of the convicted farmers, from Lumsden, Sask. "My biggest bone of contention with the Canadian Wheat Board is that it's not a Canadian wheat board, it's a western Canadian monopoly."
Though the CWB was aware that western farmers were increasingly trucking their grain south, they couldn't physically stop them. "The Canadian Wheat Board is helpless to stop what industry sources say is an increasing number of illegal exports of wheat and barley into the U.S.," said Lorne Hehn, then chief commissioner of the wheat board in 1994. "The board can no longer enforce a provision of the Canadian Wheat Board Act requiring exporters of prairie grain to get a permit from the board . . . We don't have a vehicle to properly enforce that law." Hehn went to Canada Customs for help. The national revenue minister at the time, David Anderson, agreed to pitch in by issuing an order that would now require anyone trying to ship wheat or barley to the U.S. to first present to Canadian customs agents a Canadian Wheat Board export licence before crossing to the U.S., or risk having their goods and vehicles seized at the border.
Vancise would later rule that Anderson's forfeiture order was not legally binding. He also ruled that requirements to sell through the wheat board did not fall within the authority of Section 95 of the Customs Act. That, combined with documents indicating the feds knew they likely had no case in the first place, has convinced the farmers that Ottawa prosecuted them maliciously, and owes them for all the stress and losses brought on by the trials, the lost property, legal bills, fines and, for some, the time spent in prison. Wendy Raynard of Benson, Sask., whose husband Devin and father-in-law Don are both part of the group lawsuit, insists it's not right that farmers should have been dealt with so harshly for simply trying to sell the produce they grew. They "only wanted to do what most consumers want to do, and that is get the most money that they can for the product they're selling," says the mother of four. "We're in dire danger of losing everything right now."
The same can be said for the handful of Farmers for Justice outside of Saskatchewan, who suffered the same hardships. If these 15 Saskatchewan farmers win their suit, there's a good chance the other Westerners will bring a court action of their own. As an added bonus, many are hopeful that, with the election of a Conservative government, they'll get what they were after all along: Tory Leader Stephen Harper has pledged to make membership in the CWB voluntary, permitting western growers to sell grain on their own, should they choose to opt out. What made the Farmers for Justice into criminals seven years ago could be perfectly legal soon--and after all they've been through, they can't wait. "There's an awful lot of guys saying they want to go back down to the border," says Colhoun.
Cyril Doll - Monday,13 February 2006
Western Standard
During the last week of November, Regina was bursting at its seams as the city of 200,000 hosted the 35th annual Canadian Western Agribition. The promoters of the event claim that one quarter of all farmers in Canada made their way to the Queen City for the weeklong event, organized to promote Canada's agricultural industry. In total, they say more than 140,000 visitors turned the turnstiles at Regina Exhibition Park--in fact the city was so packed, visitors had to truck 40 miles west down the Trans-Canada to Moose Jaw to find lodging. But on the evening of Nov. 23, away from the grandstand, the cattle shows and the Canadian Cowboys' Association's Finals Rodeo, a loosely knit group of disgruntled Saskatchewan grain farmers met at the Regina Flying Club. Only, it wasn't to promote agriculture--but to map out a plan for taking their fight against the federal government to the next level.
For the past 10 years, 21 farmers from Saskatchewan and one from Manitoba have been in and out of courts and in and out of jail fighting the feds on charges of exporting wheat to the U.S. The Farmers for Justice, as they call themselves, had deliberately circumvented the monopolistic powers of the Canadian Wheat Board--the Crown corporation responsible for marketing western grain. That night in Regina, the farmers made plans to make Ottawa pay for all they had endured in their ordeal. And on Jan. 16, 15 farmers filed suit against the federal government at Regina's Federal Court of Canada demanding $2 million apiece, for what they claim has been malicious prosecution and abuse of power. "Bringing down the wheat board isn't the issue; the issue is compensation," explains Estevan, Sask.-area grain grower Art Mainil, of the feds. "They knew all along it was a bogus, cooked-up charge."
Mainil's confidence is bolstered by a decision last May by a Saskatchewan appeal judge who quashed the original 1999 convictions of the 22 farmers, tossing six of the cases out completely and ordering retrials for the other 16 men. Justice William Vancise ruled that while the farmers were charged under the Customs Act, the act does not contain any clauses requiring western farmers to get wheat board licences to sell their grain, as prosecutors had argued. In their statement of claim against Ottawa, the farmers state that they have possession of a document that not only supports Vancise's decision, it proves Ottawa knew that when it prosecuted the farmers.
The document, obtained via the Access to Information Act, is a copy of the minutes of a meeting that took place on June 23, 1997, between wheat board officials and bureaucrats from several federal departments, to discuss the Crown's legal strategy against the Farmers for Justice and draft a communications strategy. "The . . . charge of exporting without a license is . . . no longer valid," read the minutes (the charge had been invalidated by a Manitoba court in a case against grain farmer David Sawatzky, who was tried earlier for skirting the CWB in 1995, and acquitted). "This is problematic," the minutes report Mike Hadley, then adjudications officer with Revenue Canada, as saying. Another charge, he notes, including a "failure to report in writing" to customs officials of their export, "were added as an afterthought" and "defendants had not been given an opportunity to respond to these charges." Concludes Hadley: "Consequently, there is now some question as to whether the charge will stand up to a court challenge."
For their part, the farmers insist this was not simply an act of civil disobedience. It was also about money. In the early 1990s, farmers could get higher prices for their grain in the U.S. Selling to the U.S. directly, which had a much stronger dollar and would pay more for high-quality grain than the CWB's pooling system, the farmers calculated they could easily double their income. "We were going where the dollars were and that's something eastern Canadian farmers have been allowed to do since Confederation," says Norm Colhoun, one of the convicted farmers, from Lumsden, Sask. "My biggest bone of contention with the Canadian Wheat Board is that it's not a Canadian wheat board, it's a western Canadian monopoly."
Though the CWB was aware that western farmers were increasingly trucking their grain south, they couldn't physically stop them. "The Canadian Wheat Board is helpless to stop what industry sources say is an increasing number of illegal exports of wheat and barley into the U.S.," said Lorne Hehn, then chief commissioner of the wheat board in 1994. "The board can no longer enforce a provision of the Canadian Wheat Board Act requiring exporters of prairie grain to get a permit from the board . . . We don't have a vehicle to properly enforce that law." Hehn went to Canada Customs for help. The national revenue minister at the time, David Anderson, agreed to pitch in by issuing an order that would now require anyone trying to ship wheat or barley to the U.S. to first present to Canadian customs agents a Canadian Wheat Board export licence before crossing to the U.S., or risk having their goods and vehicles seized at the border.
Vancise would later rule that Anderson's forfeiture order was not legally binding. He also ruled that requirements to sell through the wheat board did not fall within the authority of Section 95 of the Customs Act. That, combined with documents indicating the feds knew they likely had no case in the first place, has convinced the farmers that Ottawa prosecuted them maliciously, and owes them for all the stress and losses brought on by the trials, the lost property, legal bills, fines and, for some, the time spent in prison. Wendy Raynard of Benson, Sask., whose husband Devin and father-in-law Don are both part of the group lawsuit, insists it's not right that farmers should have been dealt with so harshly for simply trying to sell the produce they grew. They "only wanted to do what most consumers want to do, and that is get the most money that they can for the product they're selling," says the mother of four. "We're in dire danger of losing everything right now."
The same can be said for the handful of Farmers for Justice outside of Saskatchewan, who suffered the same hardships. If these 15 Saskatchewan farmers win their suit, there's a good chance the other Westerners will bring a court action of their own. As an added bonus, many are hopeful that, with the election of a Conservative government, they'll get what they were after all along: Tory Leader Stephen Harper has pledged to make membership in the CWB voluntary, permitting western growers to sell grain on their own, should they choose to opt out. What made the Farmers for Justice into criminals seven years ago could be perfectly legal soon--and after all they've been through, they can't wait. "There's an awful lot of guys saying they want to go back down to the border," says Colhoun.
Comment