An "Act of Parliament"?
According to reliable sources, grain farmers in the Province of Quebec
who export grain have been permitted by the Government of Canada to export
their grain in contravention of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Customs
Act, and the Regulation Respecting the Reporting of Exported Goods without
any sanctions like those being imposed in western Canada.
The decision by Ontario to begin issuing their own export licenses for
wheat and barley grown in that province was no doubt prompted by the
non-enforcement of the Customs Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act in
Quebec.
A recent request for information under the Access to Information Act
revealed that there were no sanctions for any infractions of any act with
respect to the export of wheat or barley at any of the border crossings in
Quebec or Ontario.
Not so in the rest of Canada. In a report to Howard Migie (AAFC)
from Jon Dyck dated June 26, 1997 which included a report by Clyde Bond,
DOJ (Crown Prosecutor), "Clyde noted that in Manitoba 62 people have
been charged with offences related to the illegal export of grain, while
in Saskatchewan, 123 individuals have been charged in eight separate
incidents. In Alberta, a total of 30 individuals had been charged in
two separate incidents." It sure makes on wonder that in one
part of Canada one can be jailed while in another part individuals go
"scott free" for the same activity.
A summary of the civil actions being taken by Customs and Revenue
Canada at this point has also been report by Mike Hadley of Revenue
Canada. According to Hadley,
"of the 211 cases currently under appeal, approximately 170
involve criminal charges under the Customs Act of exporting without a
license (s5) and failure to make a report in writing (s3). The s5
charge of exporting without a license is, as a result of the Sawatsky
decision, no longer valid. This is problematic because the s3
(failure to report in writing) actions were added as an afterthought and
have in many cases not been pursued i.e.. the defendants have not been
given an opportunity to respond to these charges.
Additionally, warning letters by Customs had not specifically
referred to a requirement to report in writing. Consequently,
there is now some question as to whether the s3 charge will stand up to
a court challenged. The difficulty with the s3 charge is that
exactly what constitutes a report in writing has never been Gazetted or
specified."
Even though the Crown describes their position as
"problematic" they continue to pursue the charges. At the
same meeting, Cathy Pitfield, speaking on behalf of the CWB,
"indicated that it's position (CWB) was that the integrity of the
grain marketing system must be maintained and the the laws in question
must be upheld." Minister Goodale was to mouth those same
sentiments a few days later that set in motion the continuance of persecution
against farmers in the west. Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board
like the grain Handlers Union, Railway Unions, the National Farmers Union,
the Western Producer and the Saskatchewan Wheat Board were ecstatic.
Western grain farmers were now bound to the road to serfdom.
One of the defendants charged in Manitoba received the following
interpretation from Revenue Canada representative N.L. Woram. In his
letter Woram declares, "The Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations requires
that exporters of wheat and barley obtain an export license from the
Canadian Wheat Board before such grain may be exported from Canada.
The Canadian Wheat Board regulations requires that the export permit be
provided to Customs prior to the export of grain. For Customs
purposes the requirement to obtain an export license and provide it to
Customs means that wheat and barley is controlled by an Act of
Parliament."
No one in the west would wish our draconian system on our brothers and
sisters in eastern Canada. However, if an "Act of
Parliament" means that laws are applied equally across the country,
then the west should accept no less than the equality bestowed on Ontario
and Quebec.
Ken Dillen
September 16, 2005 |