The latest court challenge against the Canadian Wheat Board’s grain marketing monopoly has highlighted a split in the ranks of Canadian Farmers for Justice.
In a disagreement over tactics and strategy, a longtime legal adviser has left the group and threatened to take the name with him.
But those in charge of the loosely knit organization say most of the members support the new approach and are staying with the group.
“If you want to call it factions when there are over 400 people on one side and three on the other, then yeah, I guess there are factions,” said CFFJ chair Russ Larson, of Outlook, Sask.
Read Also
Drones now used to assess wildlife crop damage in Saskatchewan
Wildlife damage in Saskatchewan crops is now assessed by drones and artificial intelligence.
The organization is supporting Central Butte, Sask. farmer David Bryan in his constitutional challenge of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
A high-profile Winnipeg law firm has been hired to argue that the provinces have sole jurisdiction over property rights and that grain is the property of the farmer who grows it and therefore the federal government has no legal authority to control the marketing of grain through the CWB Act.
The decision to support Bryan was the final straw for Dan Creighton, who has been a legal adviser to other CFFJ members in a number of court cases arising from illegal cross border grain shipments.
In early August, Creighton sent a letter to Bryan telling him he was no longer associated with CFFJ and would not be able to assist him in the case.
“I didn’t agree with what he did,” Creighton said in an interview. “I think they’ll have a hard time winning, but who am I to make that judgment.”
Creighton, who is not a lawyer, has defended border runners by arguing that the Customs Act has no force in law and can’t be used to control cross border grain shipments. That defence has generally been unsuccessful.
Bryan said he had no intention of seeking Creighton’s assistance in the case. He originally planned to defend himself but shortly before an Aug. 20 court appearance in Winnipeg he hired lawyer Art Stacey of the firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman.
He said Creighton has lots of good ideas in the fight to end the board’s monopoly, but there’s a basic disagreement over legal tactics.
“Some in the organization want to retain Dan and some don’t,” said Bryan. “The some that don’t, of which I am one, want to hire a good lawyer from a reputable law firm and go that route. We’ve done it the other way and it lacks a bit of credibility.”
There have also been disagreements in recent weeks over the Andy 500 (a planned July border run which was cancelled at the last minute), a rally held in Regina Aug. 7 at which the organization launched a campaign comparing wheat prices in Canada and the U.S., and a new tactic adopted by Creighton to try to use World Trade Organization rules to open up the Canada/U.S. border.
Members behind challenge
Larson said the vast majority of members support the constitutional challenge.
The goal of CFFJ has always been to challenge the validity of the CWB Act in court, he said, but that hasn’t been possible because border runners have been charged under the Customs Act. It now seems clear that the government can convict farmers under the Customs Act, so it’s time to force the issue by taking “dead aim” at the CWB Act through a constitutional challenge.
As for the name Canadian Farmers for Justice, Creighton said he has “registered” it in Ottawa, although Larson said he doubts if that’s possible.
Bryan said Creighton can have the name: “As far as I’m concerned, he can have it. There’s a lot of bad stuff associated with it.”
