CWB DILEMMA.

[TOM4CWB]

Thalpenny thanks for bringing this up!

If the CWB had earned the privilege of buying our wheat, I assure you we would not be having this discussion here today.

All the CWB election does, is allow those who refuse to learn to market their own products, an excuse to keep forcing me into subsidising their farms.

Democracy without respect for each other, is just gang warfare.

AND the majority of the voters to this point, so far, have decided to have your CWB GANG...steal... from the average commercial farmer's bank account.

Does this make what,... the CWB Gang does... right Thalpenny.......?

[parsley]

Let's go right to the Act itself, thalpenny, not the regulation you posted, because the regulation gets its' force from the Act, and bureaucrats have been known to create a regulation that doesn't mirror what the Act demands. Here is 46(d) directly from the Act:

"(d) to prescribe the terms and conditions on which licences described in paragraph (c) may be granted, including a requirement for the recovery from the applicant by the Corporation or any other person specified by the regulation, of a sum that, in the opinion of the Corporation, represents the pecuniary benefit enuring to the applicant pursuant to the granting of a licence, arising solely by reason of the prohibition of exports of wheat and wheat products without a licence and then existing differences between prices of wheat and wheat products inside and outside Canada;"
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 46; 1988, c. 65, s. 60; 1993, c. 44, s. 49; 1994, c. 47, s. 49; 1997, c. 36, s. 204; 1998, c. 17, ss. 24, 28(E)

I will give you some examples how Parliament's tariff formula has been applied since 46(d)'s inception. Let's begin with the price of wheat "inside Canada" as it was set by Regulation P.C. 3038, July 31, 1947:

"Domestic Wheat"
"The Board shall sell wheat to millers, processors, manufacturers, dealers and others for domestic requirements in Canada other than the production of alcohol at and for the price of one dollar and fifty five cents per bushel for wheat of the grade of Number One Manitoba Northern basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver........"


* means an exampled price, not a real price

Example #1

Year: 1947
Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $1.55
*World Price of Wheat $2.00 and going up because of shortages
*Parliament's Formula= $2.00 minus $1.55
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $0.45 per bushel


Example #2

1952
*Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $1.55
*World Price of Wheat $2.55
*Parliament's Formula= $2.55 minus $1.55
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $1.00 per bushel

1966
*Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $2.00
*World Price of Wheat $3.00
*Parliament's Formula= $3.00 minus $2.00
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $1.00 per bushel


2002
*Cdn Price of Wheat is Set at World Price of Wheat $x.00
*World Price is the Same as the Canadian Price of Wheat $x.00
*Parliament's Formula= $x.00 minus $x.00
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $0.00 per bushel


Any profits from operations of the CWB under Part IV of the Act, which is where 46(d) is situated, are required to be paid into the government consolidated revenue fund according to Section 7.(2) of the Act which states:

"Profits realized by the Corporation from its operations in wheat under this Act during any crop year, other than its operations under part III, with respect to the disposition of which no provision is made elsewhere in this Act, shall be paid to the Receiver General for the Consolidated Revenue Fund."

The tariff formula was/is applied to all license applicants which included farmers and companies in every province. I hardly think that in 1947, the Government would take tariff money from some exporting Ontario flour company and deposit it in Prairie farmer's pooling accounts, do you thalpenny? Tarrif money to only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers? Or in 1952, or in 1966 either. The concept is ludicrous as well illegal.

By constantly claiming that 46(d) [which is the Act], and 14(b) [which is the corresponding regulation], (with both of them in Part IV), describe the buy-backs, the CWB would be taking the "profits" from Part IV and putting them into the pooling accounts in Part III. This is in contravention of section 7.(2) of the Act since no provision is stated for profits in Part IV.

46(d) is not the buyback, thalpenny and wishing will not make it so.

2002 thalpenny's Wishlist Version as he disregards Parliament's legislative formula
* Designated Area Initial Price $3.25
* Destination Export Market Price at $7.00
*Halpenny's Formula= $7.00 minus $3.25
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to DA Pooling Account should be $3.75/bushel

This is exactly what the CWB is doing. And it has to stop.

Parsley

[parsley]

I want to correct the following statement I wrote:

"This is exactly what the CWB is doing. And it has to stop."

It should read;

"The CWB keeps telling us that thalpenny's Wishlist Version is what the Act demands, and that is not true. And it has to stop.

Parsley