Shouldn't the CWB Go to Jail? Part II

[henbent]

TOM4CWB, Thank you for the lunch offer. Unfortunately my appointment book does not allow me to accept the offer. I really don't think we have much in common at any rate, given the slings and arrows that have been exchanged.

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

You asked... I offered!

You have neatly avoided all my questions... you certainly have been using your "Masters of Evasion" as Parsley observed... looks like to me... you deserve a Doctorate!

[henbent]

TOM4CWB, Yeah right! We'll name you the King of Grainland.

[jensend]

henbent - try the decaf

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

I just want to see my good freinds able to use reasonable marketing tools...

Marketing tools that don't cost an extra $30-40/t over the huge $40/t we already pay to have CWB grains loaded onto a ship...

THE CWB may claim to return 98% to pool farmers... this cannot be said as accurate at all for those using PPO FPC/BPC's...

We need a cash price... one that costs 2% for the Basis...like the CWB claims it charges on selling through the pools...

It is easy to pillage the pools... but this is WRONG... cause it is stealing... just as taking grain I don't own... out of my neighbour's bin... without permission...

THEFT is THEFT... and this goes straight to the Common Law Principals and Maxims... Wrong is Wrong!

[parsley]

Yes Tom$CWB. theft is theft. And speaking of stealing....the CWB has admitted they are stealing out of the pooling accounts. They started off by saying it was only a few dollars every year. Of course they only added up the licenses they issued to a few....probably Newfoundland and added up the costs.

And then because they were pressed, they had to admit there was a tad more expense....so they got up to $100,000.00 per year for what they were dipping out of the pooling accounts.


Wait until they add up all the feed mill licensing costs to that! And wait until they add the DA licensing costs to that total. After all, the farmers in the West get their licensing costs paid by the Feds too. Not just Ontario gets lucky from the legislation!

Licensing cost estimations have continued to rise according to the questions being asked by farmers. Great way to do business. Isn't it time that the CWB sent the Feds a bill?

And isn't it time they started following the Act. And isn't it time the Accountants started following the Act?

Parsley

[henbent]

parsley, So everyone at the CWB is a crook. The auditors are all crooks. The government is made up of crooks. There is a giant conspiracy involving thousands of people that are all against you and your farm! Maybe a valium would be in order here!! Apparently the Americans faked the moon landing in 69 too!

[parsley]

Let's talk Act Facts, here , henbent:

Section 7. (3) of the CWB Act states:

"7. (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."

Section 7.(3) was introduced into the amendments to the CWB Act in 1947 as Section 5.(3),along with the introduction of Part IV. Part IV is regulatory and applies for all of Canada.

Since there is no charge for granted licences either for exporting per- 14(b), or for domestic sales per- 14.1 there is no income in Part IV. There is however an administration cost for the processing and granting of licences. This means that there is a loss in the licencing operations of Part IV.

The Act states that this loss must be paid for by the government but the CWB is snitching money from the pooling account of Part III to pay the losses of Part IV

Not legal, henbent!.

Very few farmers woould object to having more money put into their pooling accounts henbent. Think of all the cash waiting to be claimed......over the past , say, ten years, with interest ticking.


Nice little bonus at the end of the crop year.


Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley and Henbent;

Why wouldn't the CWB keep seperate costs specifically accounted for, when the CWB Act requires it?

How could the Auditor General of Canada refuse to clarify this issue... or at least mention it... when it specifically was brought to the attention of the Auditor General during the CWB Audit?

HOW can the CWB's Auditors today express stupid things like;

"On September 13, 2002, the North Dakota Wheat Commission filed anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions with respect to Canadian hard spring wheat and durum. At this time, it is not possible to assess the financial impact of the challenge. The Corporation believes that the action has no merit and will vigorously defend it."

It is not up to the Auditor to mouth the opinion of the CWB!

It is the obligation of the Auditors of CWB financials to form an independant opinion... make this opinion based on fact... and express it in the Annual statements to the Citizens of Canada!

THis is not the only sloppy job they have done!

They state;

"18. OFF BALANCE SHEET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS"

WHAT IN THE WORLD DOES THIS MEAN IN AN AUDITED FINANCIAL STATERMENT?

"As of the statement date, interest rate swap contracts with notional amounts outstanding of $176,197,348 and all foreign exchange contracts mature within one year. The interest rate swap contracts with maturities between one and five years and beyond five years had notional amounts outstanding of $538,441,072 and $944,533,842 respectively. The interest rate swap contracts rates ranged between 1.52% and 2.80%...."The largest notional amount contracted with any institution, as at July 31st,2002 was $1,391,130,666.00 (2001- 425,210,046.00) and Credit Risk with any financial institution as at July 31st, 2002 $24,759,486.00 (2001-$773,394.00)

Why does the CWB have over a billion dollars of "OFF BALANCE SHEET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS" with one institution... and Credit Risk of almost 24 million dollars of "OFF BALANCE SHEET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS" with one financial institution, that has nothing to do with the business of selling wheat or barley?

What on earth are these CWB people doing?

[parsley]

Tom4CWB,

Interesting reading you've been catching up on. Was the audited statement available at the accountability meetings?


You ask, "Why wouldn't the CWB keep seperate costs specifically accounted for, when the CWB Act requires it?"

I think the reason is this:

The CWB wants to pretend that the licensing costs can be legally taken out of Part III Pooling. If they take the licensing costs out of Part IV Licensing, as they are supposed to do, it will become very apparent that Western farmers are paying for every Tom Dick and Harry's licensing cost.

More importantly, it will also clearly show that the licensing part of the Act applies equally to all of Canada. Part IV applies to me and to eatmorewheat equally.

And then Western farmers might start asking,"Why is it the Wheat Board says Prairie folk have to do the buyback to get a license, but Ontarians don't. What can the Board reply?

Part IV applies to me, Tom4CWB and last I looked, I am still a Canadian.

Parsley