"CWB and the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION"

[parsley]

The point on any policy or program that the CWb has is that it has to be within the guidleines of the legislation. The CWB is now governed by a majority of elected farmers. That was not always the case.

So it is that elected majority who is responsible and accountable in how they guide the organization within the guidelines of the Act. So if farmers are dissatisfied with the policies they have, they'll turf them out in the next election.

The point you make about seed, EMFA, etc. highlights that you are a proponent of a black and white scenario - you seek the CWB to be consistent in application of its policies, and want marketing choice, so therefore the single desk selling should not exist in any form, for the CWB to be consistent in your eyes.

In the Act, there is room for judgement on the part of the organization of what constitutes a 'pecuniary benefit' to the pool account of the potential sale of any wheat or barley. The CWB has the responsibility to capture the value that is in a market as a result of the fact there is a single desk.

That is the nature of the buyback process, which enables direct marketing by farmers , but not at values that will undercut the values the CWB could get for the same grain in the same market. If farmers can exceed the values the CWB can get, they will generate a higher totla return for their grain.

I haven't missed the point at all. The CWB Board of Directors have determined that single desk selling adds value to farmers, and payment and pricing flexibility options must not impact on the CWB's ability to fully utilize single desk selling.

Does that mean that all the farm business needs and modifications are done? Not by a long shot. That's where the constructive points and advice that you often have, tom4cwb, are quite valuable.

Tom

[parsley]

thalpenny, thank you for raising legal issues. You are correct, the CWB and all of us must comply with the CWB Act.

You claim the CWB relies on the "pecuniary benefits' references in the Act as authorizing the buybacks for exports.

Based on this, how do you explain the same CWB requirement of buybacks for interprovincial sales, considereing the regulations you must follow clearly state, "no fee shall be charged"?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Thalpenny,

With one CWB Board order, today Creston grain farmers and every other BC farmer outside the “designated area” can be put back in the “designated area” by the CWB board of directors. This is of course not what I am asking for.

However, Creston grain producers get no-cost export licenses only because they are receiving more money for their wheat and barley from the USA, than they can get inside Canada. These Creston farmers are not charged the buy-back.

Yet the CWB issues these no-cost export licenses, because the fact is there in no pecuniary benefit enuring to the Creston applicant, because the price inside and outside Canada, is the same! Creston is absolute proof of this, and this is because NAFTA requires this.

Now that the MYTHS are taken care of lets get back to the issue.

The CWB simply refuses to issue an export license.

This way the CWB forces the farmer into the pooling account.

This is the essence of the monopoly.

Forcing farmers to use CWB services and break the Canada Grain Act, to serve the monopoly.

The only choice is leaving it in the bin, selling it at less than market value to the feed market, or paying the CWB extortion fee, or in some cases extorting money out of other grain producers who have been lulled into believing this monopoly was to their benefit!

When I took $18.00/t out of the pooling account doing the buy-back, did that maximize western Canadian farmers returns Thalpenny? This is a total abuse of the pooling system!

The benefit enuring the applicant and the price inside and outside Canada have nothing to do with the buy-back obviously when the buyback can be used to extract money out of the pooling accounts!

The benefit enuring the applicant and the price inside and outside Canada had to do with the two price system a quarter of a century ago, and was to take back undeserved profits of grain co’s who bought wheat at a low price, didn’t use it all domestically, and therefore wanted to export it when international prices were higher after it had been purchased.

At this point they could export if they paid the difference between what they paid, and the higher international price, which was then returned to the government, not the pooling accounts! This is why Export Licenses were never gazetted, there was no need, if they were being issued pursuant to the CWB Act, just to the Agents of the CWB!

If you say that the buy-back has anything to do with CWB Regulation 14, then the benefit has to be paid to the federal government, as section 14 comes from Part IV of which Section 7 of the CWB act requires profits to be returned to the federal government, again not Part III pooling accounts.

The CWB will some day be forced to admit that the Act is not being appropriately enforced or applied!

Is it smart to heap the coals on us, rather than correcting the situation by admitting to reality and stopping this miscarriage of justice?

[wedino]

Thalpenny, You state >The CWB is now governed by a majority of elected farmers.<

I'll argue with you that this statement is false. Landlords are allowed a vote & landlords are not farmers.

Thalpenny, lets correct this wrong & let farmers & only farmers elect the CWB board of directors.

Later..........Cam

[parsley]

Since thalpenny raised the issue about pecuniary benefits, it's important that this question be answered so his doesn't become a hit and run statement. I'll repeat it here.


The CWB and all of us must comply with the CWB Act.

You claim the CWB relies on the "pecuniary benefits' references in the Act as authorizing the buybacks for exports.

Based on this, how do you explain the same CWB requirement of buybacks for interprovincial sales, considereing the regulations you must follow clearly state, "no fee shall be charged"?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

Good point.

The CWB is not following the CWB Act because if they did, every one would realise that the monopoly really ended when the two price wheat system in Canada ended!

I have heard the CWB Directors admit, yes even the NFU ones, that the buy-back system is not working.

The only problem is that there is no other way to keep the monopoly.

Taking high quality milling wheat that works perfectly well in any milling operation in the world, and then out of the blue just saying it is worth CWB feed wheat price is insane!

Then saying that a pecunary benefit is being created by the CWB if they let it be sold for fair market value is extortion.

The Courts have not examined this part of the CWB system, and this is a shame.

In 1996 my hope was that we could get these issues before the Courts but the CWB used Customs as a fire wall to stop the real issues from getting to court!

This is finally starting to come back and haunt the CWB, and it should haunt the Courts for many years to come, as justice has been brought into disrepute because of the Customs CWB scheeme!

Only in Canada you say, for how much longer?