Decision reserved | Former CWB directors could wait several more months for judges’ final call
The issue for Alberta farmer Allen Oberg was simple as Conservative legislation to end the CWB monopoly moved to the Federal Court of Appeal last week.
As he sat in the downtown Ottawa courtroom during the May 23 hearing, the issue was not the validity of federal legislation that will end the CWB single desk, although the former CWB chair opposes that move.
The issue was whether agriculture minister Gerry Ritz violated “the rule of law” when he introduced the legislation last year without asking grain farmers if they wanted it to happen.
Read Also
Lower nitrogen rates in dry beans could pay off for farmers
Manitoba research is testing whether reduced nitrogen fertilizer in dry beans can maintain yields while cutting costs and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Clause 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act as amended in 1998 required that there be a farmer vote before any grains were added or subtracted from the CWB single desk.
Ritz did not hold a vote, insisting that the 2011 Conservative election win was the required vote, and he engineered legislation that will end the monopoly and the 47.1 obligation Aug. 1.
At the core of the case last week was the federal government’s appeal of a December judgment by Manitoba Federal Court judge Douglas Campbell that in refusing to hold a vote, Ritz had disregarded the “rule of law.”
Oberg said the evidence is clear.
“What is at stake here is the government following the rules, which it didn’t,” Oberg said in an interview after listening to more than four hours of lawyer arguments.
After last week’s court hearing, Ritz issued a statement noting that the legislation will take effect and that the process followed the law.
“We are confident that the court will see the merits of our case.”
At the end of the hearing, the three Federal Court of Appeal judges reserved their decision.
Their decision will not affect the validity of the monopoly’s elimination on Aug. 1, and by historical precedent may not be delivered for months.
Federal justice department lawyer Robert MacKinnon, in his argument about errors in the earlier Manitoba Federal Court ruling against Ritz, noted that despite normal court speed, Campbell had issued a 21 page decision a day after hearings ended in Winnipeg.
MacKinnon argued the clause only requires a farmer vote if specific grains were to be added to or subtracted from the single desk.
John Lorn MacDougall, the lawyer representing eight CWB directors, including Oberg, who lost their jobs when the government replaced them with appointed directors argued that any sensible reading of the clause would suggest that ending the monopoly entirely would be covered by the requirement that deleting specific grains from the single desk requires farmer approval.
He told the appeal court judges that the challenge, supported by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board lobby group and the Council of Canadians, was not about the law abolishing the CWB monopoly.
“It is about the minister and how he acted,” said MacDougall.
A class action suit also exists that claims $17 billion in compensation for farmers, although it is years from conclusion, if it ever gets to court.
