WINNIPEG – The federal government was planning as early as August 2006 to put a gag order on the Canadian Wheat Board, fire the board’s chief executive officer, replace appointed directors with open market supporters and hold a three-option producer vote on grain marketing.
In a secret, but recently declassified cabinet document, which was presented as evidence in a Federal Court hearing in Winnipeg June 16, the government outlined a series of options for implementing marketing choice.
The court was hearing a request by the board to overturn the Oct. 5, 2006, gag order. CWB lawyer J.D. McDougall said the document, which the board obtained last week, shows the gag order was not about saving money but about suppressing the board’s ability to speak out.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
“It shows without any ambiguity what the purpose of the directive was,” he said. “It was not to save money. It is all about preventing the CWB from being a participant in the debate.”
The court had not issued a decision by deadline.
The once-secret document was presented to federal cabinet and outlined a number of options for achieving the government’s policy of marketing choice, including:
- Issue an order directing the board to refrain from advocating the single desk.
- Replace the five appointed directors including the CEO with supporters of the government policy.
- Hold a nonbinding three-option plebiscite, then introduce legislation for dual marketing.
- Table legislation to remove the requirement for a vote and move directly to create a dual market.
- Direct the board to issue export licences without charge.
The government later adopted most of those options.
The CWB is asking the court to overturn the gag order on the grounds that it violates the CWB Act and the board’s free speech rights.
The board is also challenging the government’s action in setting the compensation for interim board CEO Greg Arason in December 2006, a power the board argues belongs to its board of directors.
Before the hearing the government asked the court to dismiss both cases, arguing that the board missed a filing deadline on the gag order case and that the CEO compensation case is irrelevant now that a permanent CEO has been appointed.
