PM Harper answers questions at SARM

[sumdumguy]

The thread is PM Harper answers questions at SARM. What questions did he answer?

[grower99]

Good to get me back on track. Thanks.

[CptnObvious]

The facts are straight forward. No farmer was ever charged under the Canadian Wheat Board Act which had its own penalty section. The Manitoba “poster-child” for the border-runners was found guilty of breaking section 94.1(f) of the Immigration Act, sections 11, 31, and 153(c) of the Customs Act, and section 145.3 of the Criminal Code all arising out of smuggling grain into the U.S. from Canada.
(R. v. McMechan, March 16, 1998)
In Lethbridge a dozen people were also convicted of violating several sections of the Customs Act for refusing to do what every other exporter of products from Canada does: present an export licence to Canada Customs. These convictions included: failure to report exporting goods, evading the payment of duties, and illegally removing lawfully seized property.
(R. v. Duffy, May 17, 2001 AB Court of Appeal 124)
Rather than pay small fines many of them chose to spend a few hours in jail while loudly proclaiming the Wheat Board had put them there. In fact they had put themselves there by willfully and deliberately violating many Canadian laws, then being convicted in a court of law and being sentenced by a judge. Since the Canadian judicial system is independent, the Wheat Board had no control over the process.
Export Licences are required under the Customs Act and are administered by various agencies which issue licences under the authority of the Customs Act. An Alberta oil producer would get such a licence as would a car manufacturer. For grain, the Wheat Board normally issued export licences to farmers who used the CWB’s no-cost “Producer Direct Sales Program” to export their own grain.
However, Prime Minister Harper has done more than spread misinformation and pardon a few malcontents. Among the many charges this group faced, several included removing their lawfully impounded vehicles from the Canada Customs impound lot. The evidence at trial showed they ignored the unarmed Canada Customs Officers as they drove off.
To quote Madam Justice C.L. Kenny’s judgement: “the Appellants were properly charged for violating section 114 of the Customs Act. The trial judge found that customs officers, acting in the scope of their duties, did seize the vehicles, and that the Appellants did willfully evade the customs officers attempts to place those vehicles into custody.” (Harrison v. Canada, Feb. 1998 ABQB 138)

[CptnObvious]

I wasn't there, all I have to rely on are legal decisions and the reports of others.

[TOM4CWB]

CaptnObvious,

I was there. Customs officers told the farmers to remove their vehicles... I watched them do this. Instructions they followed.

This was a simple trap... set by CWB instructions... which were followed very closely.

To portray the CWB as being free and clear of this situation... and not primarily responsible for the operational executions of orders Customs Officers were issued... is simply wrong and not believable.

I saw the special plaque on the Customs was after the demonstrations at Coutts... with the CWB thanking the Customs Officers for the outstanding services they provided.

Thanks for making this painfully clear... that the CWB is responsible for many myths.. paid for with blood sweat and tears... of our brother and sisters in our farm community... myths that are simply put... FALSE.

[wilagro]

CptnObvious: Tom and the other co-conspirators will ALWAYS ignore the truth no matter who presents it. They are willfully ignorant when it serves their ends.

Anyway they succeeded in their efforts to destroy the only marketing agent that worked on their behalf...now they scream for justice in dealing with the railroads. They should realize that nobody in government gives a red rat's ass if they get their grain to market or not because they will never be satisfied no matter what.

"Marketing Freedom"...what a joke.

[CptnObvious]

A little harsh perhaps, wilagro, however: it strains credibility that the CWB was destroyed, then 'POOF,' we are losing over $3 billion/year, and they cannot see the connection.

[blackpowder]

Again, too funny.

[bucket]

If was wrong for the cwb to displace farmers money thru the discretionary trading losses?

Isn't it just qas wrong what's going on today?

Why are there crickets about the current situation?

[TOM4CWB]

CPTNOBVIOUS,

I NEVER INDICATED THAT 2 WRONGS MADE THINGS FINE OR RIGHT. WE HAVE MUCH WORK TO DO.

BECOMING TRUSTWORTHY AND DEPENDABLE PROVIDERS OF HIGH QUALITY FOODGRAINS... IS FURTHER AWAY FROM BEING ATTAINED THAN IS ACCEPTABLE.

OUR DURUM MARKET HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO ARBITRAGE... AND THE RESULTS HAVE PAID HUGE DIVIDENDS TO GRAIN GROWERS NEAR COMPETITIVE POINTS NEARER THE US BORDER.

CLEARLY THIS IS NOT ABOUT CWB CONTROL OF LOGISTICS.

[CptnObvious]

TOM!! Oh, sorry, didn't mean to shout.

1)Why would anyone think you said two wrongs make a right?

2) Loss of the CWB and cuts at the CGC mean we are getting farther and farther from our traditional top notch quality.

3) If we still had the CWB, distance from the U.S. border would not be a disadvantage.

4) If the CWB was in charge of logistics we wouldn't have this extortion by the graincos, ship loading would be way more efficient, and rail movement would be slightly better and way more equitable.

[TOM4CWB]

cptn,

i - "it strains credibility that the CWB was destroyed, then 'POOF,' we are losing over $3 billion/year, and they cannot see the connection"
you said,

Two above wrongs you just brought up... justify the return of the CWB... you have advocated.

ii - wrong number one...so...

Cdn durum growers who tend to be closer to the US border... must lose their arbitrage benefit...

iii - wrong number two...

"If the cwb was in charge of logistics we wouldn't have this extortion by the graincos

(sadly mistaken... if US/export borders are closed... the cwbgrain forced through same grainco's same ports same lack of arbitrage and competition),

ship loading would be way more efficient
(again your memory failed you... the cwb had ships lined up worse than now...), and rail movement would be slightly better and way more equitable" (history does not back up this statement either; as to avoid ship demurrage the CWB was forced into the same inequities to resolve the backlogs at port).

i hope i whispered that quietly enough for you...

We have a much better solution coming forward now that all shippers... of all grains... and bulk commodities... have the same interests to solve the same market power the monopoly railroads hold.

Performance bonds, Competition and fair demurrage is a minimum for shippers/grainfarmers

when rail providers (a utility provider with monopoly)

neglect to provide sufficient and reasonable movement of grain/bulk commodities to export position (by intentionally reducing the RR capacity to increase RR profits) to force regulatory system into flowing through higher profits to shareholders.

Obviously a paradox... as more revenue for service does not result in better transport services... as increased profits were created by reducing service.

Interesting exercise... thanks Cptn!