The Manitoba government has not ruled out the possibility of using taxpayer money to fund a lawsuit challenging Ottawa’s plan to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s marketing monopoly.
Provincial agriculture minister Stan Struthers said the Manitoba government will continue to look at any measures that draw attention to the issue and dissuade the federal government from ending the board monopoly.
Those measures could include helping pay for legal action initiated last week by the pro-board group, Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB).
Read Also
U.S. government investigates high input costs
The USDA and DOJ are investigating high input costs, but nothing is happening in Canada.
Manitoba has been lobbying Ottawa to hold a binding farmer plebiscite on the future of the wheat board, but the Conservative government has indicated it has no intention of doing so.
Struthers, along with FCWB, several wheat board directors, deputy Liberal leader Ralph Goodale and some farm groups have criticized Ottawa’s position as arrogant and undemocratic.
“We’ve said that we will consider doing whatever it takes to make sure that the message gets out there to the federal government that they’re making a mistake running a knife through the wheat board,” Struthers said.
“We’re going to continue to agitate on behalf of farmers … we’re going to continue to agitate on behalf of people who will lose their jobs and we’re going to continue to agitate on behalf of people who depend on the Port of Churchill.”
Over the past few weeks, much has been made about the legality of the federal government’s plan to end the wheat board’s marketing monopoly by legislation.
Last week, FCWB filed documents in Winnipeg asking that the federal court review the legality of Ottawa’s plan to end the single desk marketing system by Aug. 1, 2012.
The group argues that Section 47.1 of the CWB Act requires Ottawa to hold a farmer vote before making changes to the board’s powers.
Winnipeg lawyer Anders Bruun filed documents on behalf of the group June 27.
Bruun is no stranger to wheat board legislation and has represented FCWB on previous occasions.
In 2007, he led a successful court challenge that thwarted Ottawa’s plans to introduce an open market for barley.
The Manitoba government contributed $20,000 to that effort. Saskatchewan, then under NDP leadership, contributed $30,000.
Struthers said the Manitoba government will be watching the FCWB’s latest legal efforts with interest.
“So far, we haven’t considered a request (for funding) from anybody in terms of a legal challenge but … we know that they (FCWB) are moving forward with that and I anticipate we’ll be sitting down and chatting with the group,” he said.
“We haven’t taken a decision on where we will go with that, but … we’re going to take a look at exactly how it’s moving forward and we’ve said that we will participate in any idea that draws more attention to the big mistake that (Ottawa) is making.”
Struthers said federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz has offered no details on how the federal government plans to mitigate damage to Manitoba’s economy.
The wheat board employs 400 people in Winnipeg and accounts for roughly 75 percent of the grain that moves through the Port of Churchill.
“They are doing permanent, long-term damage to the farm economy and to our provincial economy,” Struthers said.
“I don’t think anyone wants to settle for a few dollars that the government can throw out in a temporary way to make up for the huge economic impact that their bad decision … will have on the province.”
The Saskatchewan government continues to take a hands-off position in the wheat board debate, claiming the future of the board is a federal issue.
Last week, five wheat board directors from Saskatchewan sent a letter to the province requesting that premier Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government push for a plebiscite and endorse “farmers’ democratic right to determine the future of their marketing organization for wheat and barley.”
Provincial agriculture minister Bob Bjornerud dismissed suggestions that the province should be playing a more active role in the debate.
“Our position has constantly been that … producers should have the choice of how they want to market their grain,” he said.
“If they wish to use the wheat board and keep the wheat board, that’s fine with us … but at the same time, we feel that producers who want to market their own grain should have that chance, also.”
