Prairie grain farmers will get no help from the federal government in paying legal bills arising from trade disputes with the United States.
In June, the Canadian Wheat Board asked Ottawa for money to defray the roughly $15 million in legal bills it has paid since 1990.
But in a recent letter to the board, trade minister Jim Peterson turned down the request.
“In keeping with the government’s policy regarding legal costs associated with international trade litigation, I must advise you I cannot agree to the CWB’s request,” the minister said.
Read Also
CDC ends emergency bird flu response in U.S.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has ended its emergency response for H5N1 avian flu, owing to a decline in animal infections and no reports of human cases since February.
Meanwhile, pork producers are still waiting to hear if they’ll get help paying $12 million in legal fees arising from their recent successful fight against U.S. efforts to impose import tariffs.
“We haven’t received a definitive no, but the signals have not been positive,” said Martin Rice of the Canadian Pork Council.
Both requests were prompted by Ottawa’s announcement in April that it would provide $20 million to the softwood lumber industry to offset its trade-related legal expenses.
CWB officials say the lumber and wheat industries have both had to fight a series of trade challenges, and if the softwood lumber industry receives assistance, so should prairie grain farmers.
“There certainly seemed to us to be a parallel between the two,” said CWB director Larry Hill.
At the same time, he said the board went into the various legal and regulatory challenges expecting to have to foot the bills itself.
In Peterson’s letter to the board, he acknowledged that the trade harassment has been “difficult” for grain farmers and the grain industry but described the payment to the softwood lumber industry as a one-time exception to the rule.
The pork industry request was also prompted by the softwood payment, but Rice said federal officials have told him that the $20 million is not to pay past legal bills, but rather to cover future expenses arising from the ongoing dispute.
Rice said an argument can be made that government should pick up the tab when industries are the target of groundless trade harassment.
“It seems like an unreasonable cost of doing business that an industry should be expected to bear those risks, which are not a result of competitive issues but of other countries’ legislation and regulation,” he said.
