Did the federal government consult with the Canadian Wheat Board before it changed the rules on spending limits for third parties in CWB elections?
It seems like a question that should have a simple yes or no answer.
But it seems nothing is ever simple when it comes to CWB issues, and this is no exception.
A lawsuit brought by the farm group Friends of the CWB alleges that wheat board minister Gerry Ritz did not consult with the board “adequately or at all” before recommending the change to federal cabinet.
Read Also
Final crop reports show strong yields, quality
Crops yielded above average across the Prairies this year, and quality is generally average to above-average.
That’s a clear violation of the CWB Act, the group argued in an affidavit filed in Federal Court in Winnipeg Sept. 10.
It also alleges the elimination of the $10,000 spending limit violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by creating different spending rules for candidates and third parties.
A spokesperson for Ritz said the minister would not comment on the case because it is before the courts.
However, in a statement published in the Canada Gazette Aug. 2 describing the proposed change, the government said Ritz “has consulted” with the CWB’s board of directors.
The board confirms that the minister did inform it of the proposal in July by letter and teleconference and that the agency responded to him by letter July 18, rejecting the proposed change.
However, FCWB lawyer Anders Bruun said his client doesn’t think that meets the requirements of the act.
“There was no meaningful consultation with the board at all, as we understand the facts,” he said during a Sept. 10 conference call with reporters.
Bruun declined to elaborate, saying evidence to support FCWB’s case will be presented to the court.
However, he did say that the key issue is whether there was meaningful consultation.
Section 3.06 (2) (1) of the CWB Act states the minister shall not make recommendations to cabinet relating to CWB election regulation “unless he or she has consulted with the board.”
There is no reference to the consultations being meaningful.
CWB chair Larry Hill said there was no further contact between the board and the minister after the July 18 letter, but Hill declined to comment on whether he considered the consultation to be meaningful or adequate.
“I guess that will be up to the court to decide,” he said.
The lifting of the $10,000 spending limit was announced by Ottawa Sept. 5, despite widespread opposition from farm groups.
In announcing the change, the government said it will “enable a broad debate and participation” in the CWB election.
Critics say it will enable wealthy corporate interests to have undue influence over the outcome.
This marks the second time FWCB has gone to Federal Court to challenge the federal government on issues relating to the wheat board.
In the summer of 2007, it successfully argued Ottawa could not legally end the CWB’s monopoly on barley through regulation rather than legislation, thwarting the government’s plans to implement an open market for barley Aug. 1, 2007.
The affidavit filed last week names 15 individual farmers from across the Prairies as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Bill Woods, a farmer from Eston, Sask., and member of FCWB, is one of them.
He said the group is going to court to protect democracy and the rule of law.
“We believe the government is again acting illegally, this time gerrymandering with the CWB director elections to favour anti-CWB candidates and their supporters,” he said.
He accused prime minister Stephen Harper of showing a “complete lack of respect toward farmers and democracy.”
The FCWB lawsuit will also rely on a 2004 case in which the Supreme Court of Canada rejected an attempt by the National Citizens Coalition to get rid of third party spending limits in federal elections.
The court said such limits serve to protect democracy and the public good.
That case dealt specifically with federal election rules, but Bruun said he believes it can serve as a precedent, noting that both cases involve federal statutes and deal with the same issue.
“You seldom get a precedent so close to your own situation,” he said.
“That decision provides us with a great deal of guidance on the issue and arguments, and on the factors the court took into account in upholding the constitutionality of spending limits.”
FCWB has asked the court to move quickly to hear the case, given the fact the CWB election period is already underway.
If that doesn’t happen, and if the case is decided in FCWB’s favour after the election is over, and if there is evidence of excessive spending, Bruun said the group may take more drastic action.
“It may be necessary to have the results of the election overturned,” he said, using common law rather than a specific piece of legislation.
