THE Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside convictions of 22 farmers charged with violating customs regulations when they tried to cross the U.S. border to sell grain is the end of an arduous process.
In the nine years since the charges were filed, there have been many changes to the Canadian Wheat Board and to farmer attitudes toward the 1996 protests.
Because of these changes, there is little point in starting the old cases anew.
The convicted farmers were protesting the CWB monopoly on sales of western grown wheat and export barley. Yet they were never charged under the CWB act.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
They were charged under the Customs Act for failing to report goods in writing and for driving off in trucks that Canada Customs had seized.
After a nine-year legal battle, the appeal court last week ordered new trials, saying customs officers erred in demanding a Canadian wheat board licence from six of the protesters. The court also noted confusion surrounding the other 16 cases related to presentation of documents.
The federal government has since clarified customs regulations, effectively closing this avenue to future challenges.
As well, the CWB has changed, perhaps due in part to the actions of the farmer protesters.
Since the fractious days of the border protests, the board has become more accountable through farmer-elected directors. It is no small point that the majority of prairie farmers have since then consistently voted for directors who support the board’s monopoly powers.
The wheat board has also initiated independent audits of its operations and started a host of pricing programs including some that allow farmers to accept cash prices for grain based on a price average from the northern U.S. elevators.
While opposition to the CWB single desk system remains, the stormy debates of 10 years ago have calmed.
As crown prosecutors ponder their next move, they must take these changes into account and consider what is to be gained from new trials.
The cases do not challenge the wheat board’s authority and changes to the customs regulations render the cases irrelevant for future defence arguments.
Then there’s the cost to taxpayers and the stress on the families involved in a case that ultimately has no effect beyond direct punishment of the farmers. Given the years already devoted to the cases, it seems time to let it go.
The protesting farmers also must take stock. Although they lack control over whether the cases proceed, they must accept that there is less appetite today for carrying on the fight.
There is also little reason, given that the narrow scope of the trials on these cases would limit the farmers’ abilities to argue the larger philosophical issues of the wheat board monopoly.
