A group of organic growers say international trade rules would not
prevent the Canadian Wheat Board from experimenting with a dual market.
The House of Commons agriculture committee recently recommended
suspending the board’s monopoly on wheat and barley for a trial period.
It was a contentious report that has sparked a debate about whether a
voluntary board is a real possibility.
Board chair Ken Ritter said once the monopoly is broken there is no
going back under the provisions of the North American Free Trade
Read Also
Alberta may eliminate marked fuel
Alberta may soon stop selling dyed gasoline and diesel.
Agreement.
An association of organic farmers opposed to the wheat board’s monopoly
takes issue with that assertion. The Organic Special Products Group has
found an article in the NAFTA text that states: “Nothing in this
agreement shall be construed to prevent a party from designating a
monopoly.”
A subsequent article says the same thing about maintaining or
establishing a state enterprise.
“Whether the CWB is considered to be either a monopoly or a state
enterprise, the words in chapter 15 of NAFTA very clearly contradict
what the CWB wants us to believe,” said group spokesperson John
Husband, an organic farmer from Wawota, Sask.
He said the board is propagating false information in an attempt to
maintain its “captive control” over farmers.
Ritter argued that NAFTA articles such as the ones highlighted by the
organic growers can’t be viewed in isolation. Rather, they must be
analyzed in conjunction with other sections of the act. Protocols
between participating governments also have to be taken into account.
“Are you kidding, that the Americans in a consultation would agree to
going back to a single desk?” Ritter said. “I mean, that just doesn’t
make any sense.”
Putting the two articles to the test is the only true way to determine
how they would be interpreted and the board isn’t interested in doing
that.
“As we’ve seen in trade cases, there is very little certainty and
predictability of outcome. We just saw that in the dairy case where
they lose, they win on appeal, then they lose on another appeal,”
Ritter said.
International trade policy academic Mel Annand agrees with Ritter that
interpreting NAFTA goes beyond pointing to a particular clause.
“I would caution the organic growers of thinking that they can go and
read the text of NAFTA and say, ‘well here, the answer is obvious.’ “
He said taking away the board’s monopoly and then reintroducing it
would be politically and legally contentious.
“Like so many things, the answer is not always in the text of the
treaty but in questions of interpretation of the treaty and application
of the treaty by lawyers and by dispute panels and by legislators.”
In their News release
news, the organic growers also contend that the board
once dropped the barley monopoly and then brought it back without trade
agreement problems.
Ritter said that is because the continental barley market was so
short-lived it couldn’t be tested.
“You never got to the NAFTA issue at all.”
But he said arguing over whether Canada can legally return to a
monopoly is skirting the real issue: whether the wheat board monopoly
should be abandoned in the first place.
“Some of the board detractors have obviously glommed on to the issue of
‘can you do it’ as the only important issue, and I would suggest that
it is of a very minor importance.”
Some time within the next month, the board will be releasing a
comprehensive list of reasons why Canadians shouldn’t toy with the
monopoly. Topping the list will be what it does for farmers’
pocketbooks.
“Our analysis and evidence indicates that there is between $160 million
and $200 million for wheat and barley that the single desk earns for
farmers,” Ritter said.
