Who ultimately controls the Canadian Wheat Board – farmers or the federal government?
That contentious question, fundamental to the future of the grain marketing agency, will be on the table when the board and the government square off in Federal Court in Winnipeg June 16.
The court will hear two cases launched by the board more than a year ago, in the heat of the debate over the future of the board’s single desk authority over barley.
- One case challenges the legality of a gag order issued by the government in October 2006 forbidding the board from spending CWB funds to advocate retention of the board’s single desk marketing authority.
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
- The other case involves an order issued by the government in January 2006 directing the board to pay interim chief executive officer Greg Arason a specified level of compensation.
“In both cases we argue that the federal government overstepped its authority,” said CWB spokesperson Maureen Fitzhenry.
In response, lawyers for the federal government argue that the governance of the CWB is shared by the board of directors and the federal government.
They specifically rely on Section 18 (1) of the CWB Act, which states: “The governor in council (cabinet) may, by order, direct the corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this act shall be conducted, exercised or performed.”
CWB chair Larry Hill said the court challenges have a precedent-setting significance.
“It’s not just these particular issues,” he said.
“It’s about who gets to run this organization and it’s our position that it’s the responsibility of the board of directors.”
The gag order, which was issued in the run-up to the federal government’s barley marketing plebiscite, remains in effect.
Fitzhenry said during the 18 months that the gag order has been in place, the board has been scrupulous in abiding by the directive.
“We do take a lot of extra care and scrutinize everything we do to ensure we are following the law,” she said.
In a brief filed with the court last year, the board said the gag order impedes the ability of staff to perform its duties, creates a climate of fear and uncertainty, hinders the board’s ability to communicate freely with producers and violates the agency’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hill said the government has no right to tell the board how to spend farmers’ money.
“I’m responsible to the farmers that elected me, as are the other directors,” he said.
“It’s important that we be able to direct the organization to spend their money in ways we judge to be in farmers’ best interests.”
In its brief, the government denies that the directive affects the board’s ability to fulfil its mandate, impedes staff members from doing their jobs or prevents individual directors from expressing their view on grain marketing issues.
It argues the directive only prohibits the agency from spending farmers’ money to engage in the marketing debate.
The other case, involving compensation for Arason, was filed as a separate action, but the two have been rolled into one, which is one reason for the delay in going to court.
The government appointed Arason interim CEO after firing Adrian Measner in December 2005 and set his compensation at $31,666 per month.
The board says in its brief to the court that under Section 3 of the CWB Act, the government can appoint a president and CEO only after consulting with the board and only after the board has determined the remuneration to be paid.
It says neither of those conditions were met in the case of Arason’s appointment.
The board complied with the government’s order under protest and launched a legal challenge.
In its response, the government said the conditions described by the board do not apply to the appointment of an interim president and CEO. It also said it feared that some board members might take out their anger against the government by denying Arason appropriate compensation.
