CWB Robbing the Pooling Accounts

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

Isn't it interesting that the Ontario Wheat board costs Ontario a small percentage of what the CWB costs "designated area" wheat and barley farmers?

Interesting cause the CWB issues the export licenses for Ontario...

Now it does appear that the biggest CWB cost on a per tonne base... is the cost of administrating the Part IV export license requirement stipulated in Part IV of the CWB Act!

If the CWB had A CWB Act, that ended at the last section of Part III of the CWB Act, Export Licenses would not be required in or for any CWB marketing or sales transactions.

Now it is clear why the CWB will not answer CWB Director 2 James Chatenay's request for the specific cost of CWB export licenses...

The export licensing cost is obviously the largest single administrative cost at the CWB, as it appears!

When will Minister Goodale get involved in this ethical fiasco?

It is interesting that CWB Minister Goodale was appointed by the PM to clean up government conflict of interest and ethical problems,...

Yet Minister Goodale's own CWB is the seemingly worst offender at breaking these guidelines, and the Canadian statutes that are the legally required action in Canada...

Don't you wonder if the CWB will end up sinking Minister Goodale?

[chaffmeister]

thalpenny:
If you won't answer the question, can you at least advise why you won't?

[charliep]

Perhaps this is not a decision that can be taken at the operations level but rather requires specific policy instructions from the board of directors.

If the board of directors indicated this is the direction the CWB should go, then the operations side would make it so.

The current CWB director election is critical to setting the future direction of western Canadian grain marketing. Hopefully everyone is encouraging their neighbors to take the time to become aware of the issues and vote.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

This is what the CWB Act states on this issue:

7. (1) Subject to the regulations, the Corporation shall sell and dispose of grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under this Act for such prices as it considers reasonable with the object of promoting the sale of grain produced in Canada in world markets.

(2) Profits realized by the Corporation from its operations in wheat under this Act during any crop year, other than from 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.

(3) Losses sustained by the Corporation

(a) from its operations under Part III in relation to any pool period fixed thereunder, during that pool period, or

(b) from its other operations under this Act during any crop year,
for which no provision is made in any other Part, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 7; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).



Now Charlie, there is no specific "provision", in the ordinary meaning of the word "provision"...

That assigns Part IV expences to be paid from any other Section in the CWB Act, than Section 7... which says "shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament" ... "from its other operations under this Act during any crop year, for which no provision is made in any other Part"

How Can any CWB director, Staff member, or CWB Minister of the Government of Canada break the laws of Canada legally?

It is obvious the Government of Canada owes "designated area" wheat and barley producers a huge sum of money for CWB buyback expenses, export license expences, trade challenge expenses, and CWB promotion expences that result from the CWB defence of the "single desk" or CWB "monopoly" as the CWB call it!

All of these operational costs, are to be paid by money provided by parliament, and if God himself were elected he cannot change this part of the CWB Act... unless... I am missing something???

Again Thalpenny, why haven't you filled us in, if we have missed something???

[parsley]

charliep,

"If the board of directors indicated this is the direction the CWB should go, then the operations side would make it so."

sure is a direct quote from the CWB bible,which is revised almost daily, I'm sure, but there's this little inconvenience called LEGISLATION that voids what the CWB directs.

Legislation sure stands in the way of bureaucratic want, doesn't it?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

I find it interesting that the CWB Act specifies that Part III will pay for the Director Elections specifically...

And even:

"by way of expenses incurred in its operations under Part II relating to pool periods subsequent to July 31, 1950." CWB Act 33 1 (b)...

Amazing that if parliament had meant for the pooling accounts (Part III) to pay for CWB Act IV licensing expenses, that they didn't specify it like they did for paying Part II expences after 1950!

I know, all this is tooo complicated for the average person to understand...

And like the Judge said, I am just a farmer, what makes me think I have the right to read legislation and make a decision based on what I read?

I believe I heard a saying...

All it takes for evil to prevail over truth and justice, is for good people to say and do nothing!

[parsley]

One more comment, charliep,

Some members of the CWB's Board of Directors were UNAWARE that the Export Manufactured Feed Agreement even existed.

Director Butch Harder, as I understand, indicated he didn't know the EMFA even existed when the EMFA was first brought to light, and when he was asked about it, so in fairness to him, how could he possibly know there were EMFA licensing costs? And how could he know that the EMFA licensing costs were being paid for out of the pooling accounts?

From listening to what another Director said, Ian McCreary knew that the EMFA was in existence and he knew the EMFA licensing costs were being debited from farmer's grain accounts. He publically said so. Why did McCreary know and Harder not know?

Staff would have to be informed in order to do the paying out, but obviously it would not have been a unified Board directive, as some members of the Board were mushroomed in the dark. Does staff take direction from some individuals or from those "in the loop"? Do they not have a duty to follow the Act, or do they just "pay out " and no questions asked

Even the Minister must follow the Act, or resign.

So when it comes to dipping into the pooling accounts, the legislation governing what can be debited has obviously been overidden.

Somebody along the line superceded what Parliament dictates, even though policy cannot supercede legislation. Dangerous stuff. And liable stuff, I believe.

But then, those are just the thoughts of a farmer.

Parsley