From this weeks, AGRIWEEK
Truce is over: the Wheat Board will fight Ottawa to the bitter end.
It costs a million dollars to mount a proper case before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is likely approximately what the Canadian Wheat Board is set to spend in western farmers’ money to prevent a lower court decision from standing, establishing that the Board is not above the elected government or the law. The Wheat Board’s directors clearly think they are at least equals of the elected government and should not answer to it, never mind that the taxpayers of Canada are on the hook for every cent of its liabilities.
Only July 23, a month to the day that the Federal Court of Appeal determined that the federal government has the authority under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to order the Board to do or not do just about anything, the directors decided to appeal. It was also almost exactly two years since the original Federal Court of Canada ruling in its favor. The announcement said the issue was “control of the CWB”, and that “Western Canadian farmers believe strongly that they, through their elected directors, are in charge of their grain-marketing organization.” It was again the familiar, pompous bombast. The Board is not a farmers’ marketing agency but the property of the government of Canada.
The directors run it, not farmers, in the same sense that elected politicians run affairs of state, not the citizens or voters. The Supreme Court hears 50 to 75 cases a year out of several hundred submitted; last year it issued 72 decisions. Leave to appeal must be sought within 60 days of the decision being appealed, however the month of July is not counted. The Supreme Court usually decides whether or not to hear an appeal within three months.
Its basis for hearing or not hearing appeals is sometimes puzzling, especially to lawyers. But in general it takes cases that settle constitutional disputes; resolve inter-government jurisdiction; review important criminal cases such as wrongful convictions; or clarify or establish points of civil law with wide importance to the public and which create precedents for the future guidance of lower courts.
The Wheat Board being the only entity of its kind in existence and the issue being its authority relative to that of the government, chances seem low that the Court will take the case. A panel of three Court judges decides which cases are heard. None of the numerous legal actions that the Board has launched in recent times have benefited farmers directly, with the possible exception of an action currently pending against the CNR over rail service, which may or may not be decided in its favor. Otherwise farmers’ returns for their grain have been reduced by unreported millions because of the Board’s attack-dog attitude towards anyone it considers an enemy.
The directors must have felt that they have nothing to lose. If the top court takes the case and decides for the appellant, the situation will be as it was before last June 23. If the decision stands it establishes the authority of the government and reduces the power of the directors, possibly leading to who knows what changes in the way the Board is allowed to operate its monopoly.
If an olive branch was offered by agriminister Ritz was spurned, and Ritz does not behave like the kind of guy who likes to be told off. However the latest story in Ottawa is that the Harper cabinet does not want the Wheat Board issue to take on a higher profile because a federal election is likely in the fall. Conservative election tacticians have apparently decided that there is no potentialfor political gain (because farmers who oppose the monopoly will not vote for any other party) and some potential for harm from all the noise that the opposition could make. The hardest part politically is explaining to the majority of urban and eastern voters what the monopoly issue is about, and that more farmers oppose it than support it. Better to break an election promise consistently made through the last four federal elections.
One thing is sure: the Supreme Court ruling will not come in time to allow the Board to lobby for the Liberal party in the coming election. Until and unless it is overturned, the June 23 ruling prohibiting the Board from spending money on antigovernment advocacy is the law.
Truce is over: the Wheat Board will fight Ottawa to the bitter end.
It costs a million dollars to mount a proper case before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is likely approximately what the Canadian Wheat Board is set to spend in western farmers’ money to prevent a lower court decision from standing, establishing that the Board is not above the elected government or the law. The Wheat Board’s directors clearly think they are at least equals of the elected government and should not answer to it, never mind that the taxpayers of Canada are on the hook for every cent of its liabilities.
Only July 23, a month to the day that the Federal Court of Appeal determined that the federal government has the authority under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to order the Board to do or not do just about anything, the directors decided to appeal. It was also almost exactly two years since the original Federal Court of Canada ruling in its favor. The announcement said the issue was “control of the CWB”, and that “Western Canadian farmers believe strongly that they, through their elected directors, are in charge of their grain-marketing organization.” It was again the familiar, pompous bombast. The Board is not a farmers’ marketing agency but the property of the government of Canada.
The directors run it, not farmers, in the same sense that elected politicians run affairs of state, not the citizens or voters. The Supreme Court hears 50 to 75 cases a year out of several hundred submitted; last year it issued 72 decisions. Leave to appeal must be sought within 60 days of the decision being appealed, however the month of July is not counted. The Supreme Court usually decides whether or not to hear an appeal within three months.
Its basis for hearing or not hearing appeals is sometimes puzzling, especially to lawyers. But in general it takes cases that settle constitutional disputes; resolve inter-government jurisdiction; review important criminal cases such as wrongful convictions; or clarify or establish points of civil law with wide importance to the public and which create precedents for the future guidance of lower courts.
The Wheat Board being the only entity of its kind in existence and the issue being its authority relative to that of the government, chances seem low that the Court will take the case. A panel of three Court judges decides which cases are heard. None of the numerous legal actions that the Board has launched in recent times have benefited farmers directly, with the possible exception of an action currently pending against the CNR over rail service, which may or may not be decided in its favor. Otherwise farmers’ returns for their grain have been reduced by unreported millions because of the Board’s attack-dog attitude towards anyone it considers an enemy.
The directors must have felt that they have nothing to lose. If the top court takes the case and decides for the appellant, the situation will be as it was before last June 23. If the decision stands it establishes the authority of the government and reduces the power of the directors, possibly leading to who knows what changes in the way the Board is allowed to operate its monopoly.
If an olive branch was offered by agriminister Ritz was spurned, and Ritz does not behave like the kind of guy who likes to be told off. However the latest story in Ottawa is that the Harper cabinet does not want the Wheat Board issue to take on a higher profile because a federal election is likely in the fall. Conservative election tacticians have apparently decided that there is no potentialfor political gain (because farmers who oppose the monopoly will not vote for any other party) and some potential for harm from all the noise that the opposition could make. The hardest part politically is explaining to the majority of urban and eastern voters what the monopoly issue is about, and that more farmers oppose it than support it. Better to break an election promise consistently made through the last four federal elections.
One thing is sure: the Supreme Court ruling will not come in time to allow the Board to lobby for the Liberal party in the coming election. Until and unless it is overturned, the June 23 ruling prohibiting the Board from spending money on antigovernment advocacy is the law.
Comment