WINNIPEG – The ruling by a federal court judge that selling prairie grain under a dual market system would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board should soothe criticism of single-desk selling, say board supporters.
In his April 11 ruling dismissing a farmer-led legal challenge against the board, Justice Francis Muldoon accepted the evidence of defence witness Murray Fulton, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan.
Pointing to Fulton’s evidence, Muldoon ruled the wheat board could not function in a dual market.
“Those who are skilled and/or lucky enough sometimes to ‘win’ avoid the problems of the open market and probably would then greatly profit from it,” Muldoon said.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“Those who ‘lose’, inevitably suffer the harms which the CWB was created to prevent.”
What tips the balance in the wheat board’s favor is that the government has established the need to protect farmers from the dramatic effects of the open market.
The ultimate failure of the wheat board in a dual market would result in an open market, he said.
“Should this be the case, everything would return to square one: an open market which Parliament has recognized as causing (sometimes massive) problems.”
Anders Bruun, corporate secretary of Manitoba Pool Elevators, said having a federal court judge rule against the dual market option should put the questions of some producers to rest.
“He didn’t duck that issue in any way,” Bruun said. “This is common sense to many people.”
Still against board
But wheat board opponents seem unwilling to budge in their belief the wheat board is hurting prairie farmers’ incomes.
“Basically what he’s saying is there’s some farmers in Canada who are better marketers than others, but they shouldn’t be allowed to use that right,” said Larry Maguire, head of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.
“It’s very discouraging to see that we have a system in Canada that through the charter, farmers are being told they have to market through a monopoly board that a few weeks ago, three out of eight farmers said they didn’t want to do.”
The judge’s statement on a dual market is the most significant part of the ruling, said Brian Hay, lawyer for the Canadian Wheat Board.
“The plaintiffs were saying you could have a dual market and the board would still exist and people would have freedom of choice.”
However, the court found the only way to get the benefits of orderly marketing is to give the wheat board a monopoly.
“The reason why a completely voluntary pool cannot operate alongside a cash market is a direct function of pooling,” Fulton said in his submission.
At press time, confusion still surrounded Muldoon’s order awarding costs to the defendant in the case.
The plaintiffs say when the court case began three and a half years ago, both sides agreed to cover their own court costs.
Unexpected move
Tim Harvie, past chair of the Alberta Barley Commission, said the judge’s decision awarding the wheat board costs “came out of the blue.”
“Maybe this was not brought up before the trial judge,” Harvie said. “We have no intention of writing out a cheque at this point. I just hope both sides agree to the original decision.”
Hay said Monday that discussions are ongoing over the issue of costs.
He declined comment on the plaintiff’s claim that both sides would cover their own costs regardless of the outcome of the trial.
“I’ve spoken to their lawyer and we’re going to exchange some information on what would be a reasonable cost and we will go from there,” he said.
A document prepared by the justice department and distributed to federal government officials involved in the cases said costs could range up to $500,000.
