CWB monopoly to cost "designated area"

[TOM4CWB]

Trade challenge will cost farmers millions

Winnipeg -- The latest U.S. trade challenge against imports of Canadian spring wheat and durum will cost western Canadian farmers $8 million to $10 million to defend, according to CWB estimates.

Thalpenny;

Please explain where the CWB Act specifies that farmers pooling accounts should pay to defend the CWB Part IV monopoly?

Where exactly do you find this provision in the CWB Act?

[Everest]

As a matter of interest, who picks up the cost of "defending' the supply managed commodities when they are challenged? Who is covering the cost of the dairy challenge currently underway? Is it government, or is it the dairy boards?

I may be wrong, but I have been under the impression that the real costs of any defense, other than any 'lobbying', are borne by government through the Ministry of International Trade.

[parsley]

Very astute of you tom4cwb.

This all relates to Part IV, the so-called "monopoly teeth" of the CWB which in the regulatory part of the Act.

During the last changes that were made to the CWB Act, Howard Migie, Director General, Adoption and Grain Policy Directorate provided reasons to Parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture as to why the Government needed to retain control, (and 5 appointed directors), over the CWB.

In his written submission he stated:

QUOTE
"5. In addition to the substantial financial guarantees that the government provides to the Canadian Wheat Board, there are a couple of other very important reasons why the Canadian Government needs to have some involvement with respect to the management and direction of the Board.
a. One is the control that the Canadian Wheat Board has over export licences across Canada.

(1) If we are going to have a Board of Directors which is managed by farmer elected directors from the Prairies, and yet have a CWB which has control over export licences outside the Prairie region, then it is important to have some Federal government involvement.

(2) In the CWB Act, there is currently a provision where the Governor in Council can give direction to the CWB and that provision is retained in Bill C-72. It is something that has been used rarely, to my knowledge it has only been used twice in the last 20 years.

(3) One was in connection with an embargo on exports to the former Soviet Union. And this is a situation where it may not be in the interest of Prairie farmers but there was some overriding Government interest at stake.

(4) And the second one was with respect to ordering the Board to provide an export licence for barley from Ontario in one instance in the early '80s.

(5) The authority to control exports is clearly an important power that the CWB has and it's not a power that the government normally delegate to private enterprises or to enterprises whose Board of Directors are controlled by the private sector..

(6) Therefore, it is important that the government retain some authority or influence if necessary, with respect to export licences." UNQUOTE

The US keeps challenging, but why would the Board or the Government worry? They don't pay. But legally they should

1. According to the Act, the Government has financial responsibility for Regulatory Part IV.

2. Meantime, the CWB tells farmers that the the monopoly is described in the Regulatory Part IV of the Act.

3. We've already discussed how the CWB's Part IV licensing expenses are paid out of Part III's pooling accounts and that is illegal.

But is it even worse than that?

1. When it comes to trade challenges, the CWB say they are defending the monopoly in Part IV.
2. We know Part IV costs are to be sent to the Federal Government.

3. The CWB downloads the trade action defense costs on the farmers pooling accounts in Part III! They cannot!!

You are right, tom4cwb.

I'm sure the CWB Directors who depend upon CWB per diems to pay their farming bills (off-farm job, melvill) will encourage taking additional $millions from the pooling accounts and dedicate it to discussing, planning, strategizing, organizing, and formalizing ways to fight off the Americans. Think of the hundreds of jobs created from trade disputes with Western farmers farmers picking up the tab.

This could be the question for the courts, tom4cwb:

"Unless specified by Parliament, is it legal for the CWB to take money out of the Part III pooling accounts to pay for a Part IV expense? ", tom4cwb?

Looks like the "CWB-Government" is asking Prairie farmers to change the dirty diapers on their licensing baby again.

Parsley

[parsley]

On their website, the CWB has stated:

"All sales revenue, less the costs of marketing, is returned to western Canadian farmers"


This should be changed to:

"All sales revenue, less the costs of marketing and all licensing, is returned to western Canadian farmers"

thalpenny, please inform the CWB that they are providing information that is not accurate, and please recommend that it be ammended.

Parsley