Shouldn't the CWB Go to Jail? Part II

[parsley]

henbent,

The CWB's Jim Thompson is often called upon to be one of the CWB's expert witnesses because he has worked at the CWB for so many years and is thoroughly familiar with buybacks.

During the farmer trials in Regina 1998-99, Thompson testified before Judge Henning as an expert from the CWB. The judge wanted to understand how the buybacks worked. The CWB claimed the buybacks were a requirement to getting a license and were situated in 46(d)/14b). They claimed that farmers had to do a buyback in order to export.

At this point, the judge needed to know if buybacks were required by the CWB for interprovincial sales because, of course, 14.1 in the regulations state that the Corporation may grant interprovincial licences but NO FEE MAY BE CHARGED.

To require a domestic buyback would fly in the face of the CWB's own 14.1

This presented a problem for Thompson. Either the buyback in 46/14 covering both export/interprovincial actually wasn't required OR the CWB was ignoring it's own regulation

This is how Thompson finally answered the Court, under oath, after a whole series of related questions which are too lengthy for this thread:

From the transcripts, p. 383:

The Court: ".... so therefore, by definition, virtually the buy-back price only can apply to grain going outside of Canada."
Witness: "That's right, yes."

This evidence was NOT correct because the buyback is required for all interprovincial sales pertaining to human consumption not made to agents of the CWB.

I call that lying. Its either that or incompetence. I welcome your questions, Henbent.

Parsley

[henbent]

parsley, Not being an expert CWB witness, and not having the trial transcript in front of me makes this a difficult question for me to answer. You on the other hand have had experience, legal advice, and have spent serious time considering the Buyback option from the looks of it.
On the other hand I can only say in CALDER v R.(1960) 129CCC.202 (S.C.C.) an appeal against a conviction of perjury was allowed on the ground that, although the evidence given by the accused, which was the subject matter of the charge appeared to be false in fact, the evidence on this trial for perjury did not support an inference that it was false to his knowledge and that he gave it with intent to mislead the Court. Followed by R v. BOSSE (1964) Que. QB 63.
In other words, intent is the key issue here. "Opinion evidence" refers to evidence founded in whole or in part on some special knowledge or qualification not possessed by the ordinary witness. Even though all experts in the same field hold identical opinions, it remains "opinion evidence". In other words, it is up to the Court to draw whatever conclusions they wish from the evidence. I hope this helps you understand, what may have happened and now you can sleep at night!

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

Obviously the CWB is encouraged by your valiant defense on their behalf!

Too bad these types of defenses of the CWB Buy-back system...

do not stop US Tariffs...

Had the CWB followed the CWB Act... the WTO and US trade actions on CWRS and Durum could have been easily been avoided...

SIMPLE...

If the CWB had been issuing export licenses... as the NAFTA and CWB Act requires... our wheat and durum problems .... plus the millions and millions in court costs... would have all been avoided...

Now... shouldn't CWB staff go to jail for causing all these problems... while full well knowing.... what they were doing was wrong?

[ianben]

Would the existance or not of your CWB make any difference to US.
Here are a few examples of the way they operate.

The Vietnamese catfish which are farmed in the Mekong Delta have sparked a trade row between Vietnam and the United States.
The problem began after Vietnamese farmers - keen to reduce their reliance on rice production - started to export their own catfish to America.

This is something which concerned the US. Especially as their catfish market is worth around $600m a year, and especially after the imported fish started having an impact on this industry.

In fact, the cheaper fish from the far east has eaten into the lucrative market in the US, taking up to 20 per cent of the trade and forcing the price of the fish down.

This was bad news for the American farmers, and prompted the American Government to take drastic action.

Their solution was simple - they slapped a hefty import tariff on the foreign fish and even got the US Senate to pass a law stating that only American catfish could be sold as catfish.

The fish from Vietnam can now only be sold as 'Basa'.

Perhaps you guys are in NAFTA and so you can still sell wheat as wheat.
US has one rule for them and another for the rest of us, as looks like will happen with UN.

Here is a perhaps worse case

Haiti is the poorest country in the west

In the 1980's nearly all of the rice consumed in Haiti was grown within the country.
But after pressure from the international community, the Haitian government cut the tariffs it charged on imported rice. This meant the country opened up its markets to foreign imports.

Now this tiny Caribbean country has been flooded by cheap rice from America. Cheap imports which have been made possible because of the huge subsidies the US government gives its rice farmers.

This has driven down the price of the locally produced rice - and led to serious consequences for the 20 per cent of the population who rely on rice for their living.

Despite being one of the most open economies in the world, Haiti is now the poorest country in the western hemisphere.

According to Oxfam, some rice farmers have had to leave their land in search of work in neighbouring Dominican Republic.

They say that many have had to take their children out of school because they can't pay the fees. And people are going hungry.

And as many as 50 per cent of children in Haiti are malnourished, with the highest rate in the rice-growing areas.

Does the CWB make a difference?

Any excuse or none the US does what it thinks is BEST for US.

The rest of us blaming each other helps their cause.

The enemy is low commodity prices caused by low comodity prices not the US EU subsidies or the CWB.

Farmers across the world are in difficulties whatever system opperates.

Quarreling and name calling will not help.

The CWB or the free market is insignificant to your survival.

Get real. The world (US) is not going to change.

Is there a market for wheat at a price we can produce for?

US is hungry for energy though but perhaps better see what happens to Iraq before asking for more!!!

[henbent]

ianben, Thank you for your thoughts, you have pointed out some important issues. There are people here in Canada that admire the US way of doing things, that is playing hardball in trade matters. Since the NFTA was signed, some have set aside values that make us different from Americans. They have adopted the me, me, me, way of thinking. Its the everyman for himself. Divide and conquer we will prevail, if we say it loud enough and long enough. A discussion, however is just that a discussion, it is not viewed by all as a quarrel once it is over we must go back to earning a living.

[TOM4CWB]

Ianben;

If we work together, we can do much more than being a bully... and forcing a certain point of view on another party...

Co-operation of many people together in a movement that is based on respect for one's neighbour and his property... will build the strongest most productive alliance.

"What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead."- Fedor Dostoevski (1821-81)

[parsley]

Good Morning henbent,

You did your homework and I thank you for that.

You have concluded then, that the CWB's Thompson, (who has dealt with buybacks for years and years, and has appeared before Parliaments's Standing Committees, and has been the Board's Licensing mainstay,and has dealt with producers for years), is actually incompetent. Not lying, but incompetent. I disagree.


The trial transcript(would you like me to post that portion of the transcript?)
clearly reveals the witness Thompson as evading questions, ignoring questions, and being misleading throughout the Court's questioning. Thompson led the court to believe that buybacks were not required inside Canada.

(Some would call his performance very competent, henbent.)

But the bottom line is this...the judge needed to discover that that buybacks are required within Canada, and that the buyback licensing-requirement was not in the Act.

If Thompson would have answered truthfully, the judge would have seen that 46/14 could not describe a buyback licensing-requirement, because it is not congruent with 14.1's "no fee shall be charged".

Hence the jailed farmers wouldn't have been required to do a buyback to get a license. 'Reporting in writing' is showing a license at the border. But to get the license doesn't require doing the buyback.

The information that Thompsom provided to the judge was incorrect, and the Court based their decision using this so-called expert testimony. The outcome of the trial would have been very different if truthful information had been provided to the judge

I'll summarize two conclusions:

1. The outcome for farmers would have been very different if it were not for the CWB lying under oath.( Parsley believes the CWB knew the information was incorrect)

2. The outcome for farmers would have been very different if it were not for the CWB supplying the wrong information, under oath (henbent defends the CWB by saying Thompson , according to his knowledge, did not give false testimony, but by this measure is incompetent).

Either way, the farmers paid a terrible price and the CWB is responsible.

Parsley

[henbent]

parsley, The Court in its wisdom, convicted and sentenced these men, based on Canadian Laws as they exist. It is an unfortunate occurrence, but everbody involved knew what might happen if they committed the offence(s). It was a publicity stunt, designed to draw media, and public attention to what some people think is a bad law. There are lots of self interest groups that use the same tactic. Groups often look for a Bogeyman to point to, out of frustration with the law isn't entirely on their side. **No I do not work for the CWB, I work with the CWB though to support them and market my grain from our small family farm**

[rain]

henbent should these other people not have the right to work without the CWB. Say a grain company?

[henbent]

rain, I am not against the right to work. They have a right to grow what they want, except materials deemed unlawful by the existing laws of Canada, ie High THC MJ, hemp, however is allowed under authority of a licence. There are laws in this country that prohibit people from working and putting themselves in danger. It is not against the law for a soldier/sailor/airman to disobey an unlawful order either!! I hope I understood the question you asked.

[ianben]

Henbent
People are willing to go to jail over this issue so I my opinion this is a serious problem.For or against CWB seems more important than wether their is a real market for Canadian wheat.

UK still imports Canadian wheat but modern technoledgy allows home produced flour to produce loaves of nearly as good quality.

CWB/warburtons do get a premium but on much lower quantities than in the past.

All that will happen if we compete for this volume market is that both of us will get less per tonne.

Is this not what marketing is about?

Was US wrong to impose tarrif catfish?

Perhaps if Veitnam had sold for same price as US and been satisfied to supply 5% of market tariff would not have been imposed and 5% of high price market better than 20% of nothing.

Could US have sold rice into Haiti just above local price and perhaps the Haitians by now could have a better standard of living and be able to pay for it.

Cheap food is just making the rich fat and the poor hungry.

Real marketing by farmers could make a difference.

Do we have a right to produce and sell?

Henbent does the CWB market?

Tom Parsley do you or the people you want to deal with market?

Dont you all expect them to find a buyer for everthing you produce regardless of wether there is a demand.

How can we market with no reference to differing market situations?

[rain]

henbent does this mean if the law changes you will accept it.

[parsley]

rain,

We don't need a change in the law. The CWB Act allows licenses to be granted to me. Cerrtainly, the CWB grants them to Quebecors, big corporations and seedgrowers, etc.


The CWB POLICY...not the CWB ACT has decided to deny licenses to every Prairie farmer. WHY? Because the CWB boys in the back room decided to do a number on us to make us sell to the Board.

Does the Act need changing? No. We can have marketing choice tommorow. The Court will eventually tell the CWB that Prairie folks....any folks across Canada...don't need to do a buyback to get a license. And then order the CWB to issue licenses without discrimination.

Parsley

[rain]

My question to henbent stands. If the law or rules or what ever you want to call it changed tomorrow would henbent go with it. Once I have this question answered I can ask the next question.

[henbent]

rain, If the law changes, I might/might not go with it, I might/might not continue to farm. I might/might not cash out my equity, RRSP
and sit on my b--t and enjoy the dogfight. I might/might not join in if it becomes challenging and rewarding. If the law doesn't evolve or change. What do you think you will do rain? Whatever happens to you or I won't make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. People will take advantage of opportunities or be taken advantage of, methinks!!