Wheat pool debate gets personal; legal action possible

By 
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: March 23, 1995

REGINA (Staff) – While much of the debate over Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s share offering legislation dealt with social, political, economic and legal issues, it also occasionally became personal.

And pool lawyer John Beke said the company is considering legal action against a number of people who spoke to the government committee looking into the legislation.

A letter from Beke to the Standing Committee on Private Members Bills accuses presenter Ed Wallace of making slanderous comments “of many persons and institutions” and of being “vicious in his attack on Mr. (Leroy) Larsen.”

Read Also

Agriculture ministers have agreed to work on improving AgriStability to help with trade challenges Canadian farmers are currently facing, particularly from China and the United States. Photo: Robin Booker

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

Wallace made a joke about the pool president’s intelligence and said Larsen had left a “false impression” with a radio reporter.

The letter also accuses two other presenters of circulating a document that looks like a subpoena from the committee with information about Larsen on it.

Beke said he wanted the committee to at least reprimand Wallace and the people who circulated the letter. No reprimand was given.

Larsen said he was unhappy he became an object of attack, but thinks it won’t be his reputation that suffers.

“I think it should have been embarrassing for some of the people on that side of the argument with the kinds of radical presentations that were being made,” Larsen said. “It wasn’t embarrassing to us.”

Many of those opposed to the pool legislation said they were angry because there was not an all-member vote on the share offering proposal.

But Larsen said the rancor of some of the presentations would have occurred even if there had been an all-member vote.

“When you go through a major change such as this, you don’t expect unanimous approval. There would have been opposition regardless of whether there was a vote or not,” he said. “You will find these people on major issues all the time being on one side or the other with a strong opinion.”

About the author

Ed White

Ed White

explore

Stories from our other publications