Harper Wants Third Parties to Influence CWB Election

Column # 681 11/08/08

No matter where you stand on the Canadian Wheat Board, you have to
admit that what happens to it is farmers' business. Not the business
of the butcher in Burnaby or the real estate salesperson in Regina.
Not the business of the dog groomer in Davis Inlet, the welder in
Wetaskawin or the taxi driver in Toronto. And, though there is
something of a closer connection here, not the business of the grain
company in greater Winnipeg. While the grain company might be affected
by the way farmers choose to market their grain, it is still their
choice, and if they choose the single desk of the CWB, that is no more
the grain companies' business than it is that of the far northern dog
groomer.

I think most Canadians would see this as logical. Unless of course
they happen to be members of Stephen Harper's Conservative government,
or that tiny number of farmers who show up in every survey as stoutly
believing that the federal government should be the one to decide the
future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

While those farmers could be written off as self-doubters, since they
don't even trust themselves to the task of governing the CWB, Harper's
gang lacks any such logical explanation. His party, it seems, believes
that everyone but farmers should decide the fate of the CWB. How else
to interpret the latest in a long series of attempts to thwart the
will of the majority of farmers?

Harper recently declared that anyone wanting to exert their influence
over the future of the CWB should be able to. Anyone, that is, except
farmers. To that end, the Conservatives have issued a Cabinet order
allowing outside parties the opportunity to spend unlimited amounts of
money to influence CWB director elections. Farmers who are CWB
candidates, on the other hand, will be restricted to raising just
$15,000 to put their own views forward. In doing so, he has declared
that this would "promote eligible voters to become fully informed
about the future direction of the CWB during the election of its
directors". It is a move that would be akin to allowing corporations
in other countries to spend money to influence Canadian elections.

Stephen Harper's record on campaign spending by third parties would
indicate he thinks democracy is for those with money. In 2000, Harper
vigorously opposed Jean Chretien's bill, which limited third-party
spending in federal elections. He launched a constitutional challenge
to the bill while head of the National Citizens' Coalition. Oddly
enough, when the Supreme Court of Canada threw out Harper's challenge
to federal election spending limits it used language similar to
Harper's on the CWB, but reached the opposite conclusion. It declared
that spending restrictions on third parties would provide "a level
playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse,
enabling voters to be better informed".

Let's face it. Most folks who run for the CWB spend a pittance on
their efforts. Publicly available information shows that many
candidates fund their campaigns largely from their own pockets. In
federal elections, candidates are often relatively wealthy, witness
the number of lawyers who regularly try to get elected. Candidates for
election to the CWB board of directors are less likely to be
well-heeled. They are farmers, after all.

But there are parties other than farmers who stand to gain mightily
from the end of the CWB. Viterra, for example, the grain company
formed from the amalgamation of Agricore United and Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool, has publicly declared it would stand to make millions if it were
able to market farmers' grain in an unrestricted manner. Surely this
would be incentive enough for Viterra to pour money into supporting
candidates that would support its view.

Harper's government has initiated a number of illegal moves against
the CWB, including an attempt to take barley from the single desk and
another to gag the CWB. The courts threw out both of these. Harper's
proposal on third-party spending violates the principle of the federal
election law. Since he is changing regulations this time, not the bill
itself, his actions do not have to go through Parliament, so
technically they may be legal. However, as editorial commentators
across Canada have indicated, they make a mockery of democracy.

Interested parties have till the end of August to tell the government
what they think of this.

(c) Paul Beingessner