"CWB and the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION"

[wedino]

Mornin Rockpile, You state <Your gas bill is being subsidized by all taxpayers to the tune of about 60%, to bring your home and farm heating costs in line with last years bills. Not a market function, >

I'll argue that Alberta residents are not being subsidized by all taxpayers as you state, but are being compensated for their share of the royality that Alberta is receiving from the NG produced in Alta. After all doesn't this NG belong to all citizens of Alberta.

Later........Cam

[wedino]

Rockpile, You state>Your gas bill is being subsidized by all taxpayers to the tune of about 60%, to bring your home and farm heating costs in line with last years bills. Not a market function, <

This got omitted from my previous message,

Sorry.........Cam

[wedino]

Going back to parsleys' comments directed at me -

I would say that parsley still reinforces my argument, that there IS a single desk agency for selling western Canadain wehat and barley.

Don't get aroused by the personal attacks and shreds that get thrown out on this website under the cover of anonymity - a dual market is an open market and single desk selling with the advantage to capture different values from different markets is lost under that scenario. Period.

The guidelines are there in the legislation to change the grains included in the CWB Act. Farmers will decide how they wish to use this legislation they have, or if they want to discard it. Elected Directors will ultimatley determine that. And the CWB will continue to modify in ways that add value and meet farmers' business needs.

parsley, re: the EMFA - do I hear you calling for the CWB to regain single desk status over feed grains in western Canada? I don't think your wheat and barley growing colleagues would agree with that policy. (you do grow wheat and barley don't you??)

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

Tom,

I think you missed the whole point!

THe CWB exempts Seed wheat with out a vote.

The CWB exempts Export feed with out a vote.

The CWB exempted Creston farmers so they could haul their grain to the US and get more money!

There is no legislated monopoly, come on admit it!

No vote is needed to exempt organic wheat and barley, admit it!

Please stop confusing the issues with procedures that are not backed up by either practical experience of history!

Farmers are the ones who pay for the CWB to be in existance, not the Federal governement.

Please listen, and help us all change, wouldn't that be a positive development?

[parsley]

Your comment Thalpenny,

"parsley, re: the EMFA - do I hear you calling for the CWB to regain single desk status over feed grains in western Canada? I don't think your wheat and barley growing colleagues would agree with that policy "


..... I thought everyone on this site knows that I would not want feed grains under single desk. I wish I could write more clearly, Thalpenny.


In fact I would advocate that feed grains not come under compulsory single desk selling. Or any other grains. I think it detrimental to our economy. I concur that a very large majority of farmers would support feed mills getting no-cost licenses. I would also hazard a guess that a large majority of producers would , at the same time, want the CWB issuing no-cost licenses to farmers. Could you agree that not many farmers would approve of granting this privilege to corporations without retaining the same privilege for themselves, even if they didn't envoke it? It's not unreasonable.

When you say,Thalpenny,

"And the CWB will continue to modify in ways that ........ meet farmers' business needs.",

I'm hopeful that you are beginning to acknowledge and appreciate the needs of farmers and farm families. We do have acute business needs, and the one of the most urgent ones at the present time is no-cost interprovincial and export licenses, thalpenny, and with your skills you could help to make that a reality.

Parsley

[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