Despite widespread opposition from farm groups, the federal government has eliminated spending limits for third parties in the Canadian Wheat Board director elections.
One farm leader opposed to the decision says he wouldn’t be surprised to see the government’s move challenged in court.
“Changing the CWB Act regulations in the midst of the current election period means the government is clearly violating the democratic process once again, and inviting a legal challenge to protect farmer democracy,” National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells said in a news release.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
In an interview, Wells declined to say whether the NFU itself is considering going to court or whether it was involved in discussions with like-minded groups about a joint challenge.
The legal basis for such a challenge would be a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding third party spending limits in federal elections.
The group asking the court to declare those limits a violation of freedom of speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was the National Citizen’s Coalition, which was led at the time by Stephen Harper.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that third party election spending limits serve to protect democracy and the public good.
In an earlier brief to the government, the NFU said eliminating spending limits violates the spirit of the Charter.
“Further, it very probably violates the letter (of the law) and would therefore be ultra vires and illegal,” it said.
The $10,000 limit on third party spending has been in place since the first CWB director elections in 1998.
On Aug. 2, the government published in the Canada Gazette notice of its intention to repeal section 28 of the CWB election regulations.
It said the goal of the change would be to encourage open debate.
“This would enable farmers and other interested persons to participate in a thorough, public discussion about the future direction of the CWB and help eligible voters to make a better informed choice when voting,” it said.
Interested parties had until Sept. 2 to submit comments.
On Sept. 5, the government issued a three-paragraph statement saying it was proceeding with the change, adding it will “enable a broad debate and participation” in the CWB elections.
Wells said the fact the announcement came two days after the end of the comment period indicates the government spent little time considering those submissions.
“I’m as sure as I can be that this was all predetermined,” he said.
Those opposed to the proposal fear it will open the door for corporate interests opposed to the CWB’s single desk marketing system to spend money to support candidates who share that view.
Farm leaders say they don’t know of any farm organization that asked the government for such a change, and no farm group has come out with a public statement of support for it.
A 2005 review panel that consulted with farmers and other stakeholders about CWB election rules concluded there was no interest in changing the $10,000 limit for third parties.
A complete list of the submissions received by the government during the comment period was not available by the deadline for this article.
However, among those groups that made their submissions public, none supported the government’s proposal.
“This change will allow third parties, or third parties acting on behalf of other undisclosed players, to spend money without limit and without any accountability to farmers,” said the submission from Friends of the CWB.
It described the change as undemocratic and designed to provide an advantage to those opposed to the CWB’s single desk.
In its submission, the CWB said the government should shelve the proposal and review the spending limit as part of a comprehensive reform of CWB election rules in 2009.
The board said the decision of who sits on the board of directors must be made by farmers, and eliminating the spending limit undermines that goal.
“Without a cap on spending, other parties with vested interests in the results could lessen the opportunity of candidates and other interest groups to speak and be heard,” it said.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, which supports an end to the single desk, did not make a submission.
Executive director Blair Rutter said the organization’s position is unchanged from 2005, when it told the review panel the limit is a “reasonable restriction.”
Other provisions concerning third-party election advertising remain unchanged. Third parties will still be required to file a statement with the election co-ordinator providing the name of each donor that gives more than $100, as well as the amount of the donation, an accounting of the advertising expenses during the election and a statutory declaration attesting to the accuracy of the information.
