CWB Buybacks

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

I understand the CWB buybacks for producer direct sales to the US were below the CWB initial prices, on a number of wheat classes and grades, in the past few days.

Obviously the CWB "formula" for figuring out buyback prices is wrong.

I see further that the CWB adjusted the formula they use... to prevent a payment from occuring... finally the CWB has admitted that the system they use is wrong.

It is clear, that the buyback formula is a policy of the CWB, and has nothing to do with..."the difference betweeen the price inside and outside Canada AND the pecuniary benefit enuring the applicant"

The CWB has no business using the pooling accounts to do the buyback... it cannot be clearer than now, when the historical formula puts the "buyback" at a price below the CWB initial price... that what the CWB has been doing is trade actionable... illegal... and wrong.

When will the Alberta government demand a full accounting of this ill advised CWB "buyback" scheme that obviously cannot be maintained or justified?

[charliep]

Your concerns have been noted. I will let others respond.

[parsley]

TOM4CWB You're right that the buyback has nothing to do with..."the difference between the price inside and outside Canada AND the pecuniary benefit enuring the applicant"

You are referring to section 46(d) of the Act, but its not

the "price difference" AND "the pecuniary benefit"

46(d) states the "pecuniary benefit" (the export tax) is to be based ONLY on the price difference inside and outside Canada. And with no government set price of wheat (or barley) in Canada, that means there is no price difference and thus no pecuniary benefit.

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

"46(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;"

Parsley, please note..."and then existing differences between prices of wheat and wheat products inside and outside Canada;"

...AND... is inclusive..., not optional.

both are conditions... "the pecuniary benefit" AND the existing differences between prices... inside and outside Canada"

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

It appears we are saying the same thing, in a little different way.

There is no difference between the price inside and outside Canada... as proven by seed wheat for example, logic dictates as well that because there fails to be a difference, the CWB Act is stating there is... NO... "pecuniary benefit", therefore the CWB gives no cost export licenses for seed wheat and barley.

We are in essence saying the same thing Parsely... reading the purpose of the 1947 CWB Act and understanding how it worked... at that time in history... is critical to understanding what these Sections of the CWB Act mean.

[parsley]

That's right TOM4CWB, the key to understanding 46(d) is to observe what the CWB actually does and to put NO stock in what they tell us and want us to believe.

You're example of seed grain exports illustrates this, plus there are other examples such as grain outside the designated area, certain wheat and barley types, the Export Manufactured Feed Agreements, and the Creston-Wynndel region. Each of these examples are never exempted from 46(d), but with no "price difference" there is no "pecuniary benefit" and therefore no export tax.

Former moderator Thalpenny (CWB employee) doggedly tried to confuse readers into linking "pecuniary benefits" with the buy-backs, but CWB actual practice proves otherwise.

The Act requires all exporters to have a licence. The CWB either grants or denies the licences. When denied to a prairie producer, the producer has no choice but to sell to the CWB. For buy-backs, the producer buys his own grain back from the CWB and is exporting grain that has been legally purchased from the Board.

The illusion is that buy-backs are a tax, but they're not. Buy-backs are two legal changes of ownership, usually with the price difference in the CWB's favor.

As you know TOM4CWB, there is a reason for the CWB's attempt to deceive. With no linkage between 46(d) and the buy-backs, it means the CWB is imposing the monopoly without authorization from the Act.

The CWB is arbitrarly denying licences only on the prairies, and the Act does not give them the authority to do this. This is why the CWB so desperately grasps onto the "pecuniary benefit".

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

A simple way to look at this would be in the following way;

If part 4 of the CWB Act did not exist, then the CWB would have no legal right or reason to demand a farmer sell grain to the CWB, then buy it back, without this grain ever being possesed by the CWB.

The only reason the CWB does this... is to use the Part IV CWB "gun" to threaten the farmer, forcing the "designated area" farmer to "offer" under the threat of penalty... grain to the pooling account.

Part IV in no way authorises the CWB administration, the right to force the "designated area" grain producer into Part III of the CWB Act.

Section 7 of the CWB Act further requires that Part IV revenues or Costs, be;

"7(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."

AND

"7(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."

Since there are no provisions in Part III to pay for Part IV costs, or recieve Part IV revenues... the CWB's Board of Director's use of the pooling accounts to pay or recieve funds, directly attributable to...

Part IV "REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT"

Are unauthorised by the CWB Act.

Again, the CWB is required to operate the Part III Pooling accounts, as if Part IV of the CWB Act DID NOT exist.

If someone can prove from the CWB Act this is not the case, please come forward with an explanation!