Flaman Claimed Buybacks Not Legal

[parsley]

You haven't addressed the issue of who LEGALLY is supposed to pay for the total cost of national licensing, Vader.

You are trying to tell Agri-villers that Parliament made the Government pay for everyone BUT the DA farmers costs.


The full truth is that Parliament made the Government pay for everyones licensing costs, INCLUDING DA farmers,

Aren't you being a bit deceptive?

Charliep, The really good thing about the organic business, is thankfully, the CWB doesn't market organic grain at all, so liason with organic buyers remains both enjoyable and profitable.

Parsley

[Vader]

Charlie,

I am not at all opposed to pricing outside of the pool. I believe that the pooling system does not send proper price signals to farmers. We should be devising a system whereby the end user (including the maltsters and brewers) can send price signals directly to the farmer so that he can decide if this or that crop makes economic sense.

But single desk selling is still of utmost importance. This prevents farmers from competing against farmers and driving down prices. Single desk selling is the only way I can see where farmers can exercise market power. Take away single desk selling and ultimately the multinational grain companies will merge to the point where they have the only monopoly in agriculture. Then you will see how bad monopolies can be.

[Vader]

Parsley,

In case I hadn't said it before, you are absolutely right. The grovernment is legally responsible for licence costs outside of the designated area. However it has been decided that for the few pennies that it would be worth to farmes it is simply not worth going after. The CWB needs to use its political capital wisely. There are large issues of national and international importance in front of all of us right now.

Your single minded determination to go after an issue such as this is evidence that your only goal is to submarine the CWB. There is no constructive thought here but simply an attempt to send a lethal shot that might sink the good ship CWB.

For anyone not familiar with the licenceing issue the CWB has one person whose mandate is to administer licences. The portion of their time which can be allocated to non-designated area activity would amount to about $1200 per year.

Farmers such as parsley who are making a big issue out of this will ultimately cost farmers tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs. This simply becomes an issue of who has the right to manage the CWB. Is it the duly elected directors of the CWB or a group of renegades. These renegades should be made to pay all of the legal costs when the dust settles so that they get the message that they cannot continue with a political agenda at the expense of others.

[parsley]

Vader,

Name-calling suits you, it seems, when you want to avoid addressing the issue and you have again sidestepped the issue, Vader.

Let's put it out there again:

The government is legally responsible for licence costs INside of the designated area, as well as outside the DA. You claim $1200.00 for outside DA costs. BUT, how much are the costs inside the DA that the Government is responsible for paying? It will account for all the remining licensing costs.

Isn't the Board of Directors and policy makers within the CWB who ignore the Act that governs them that are actually the renegades? You seem determined to nail farmers at every opportunity. You must hate your fellow farmers.

By the way Vader, ALL, I said ALL licensing costs are the Federal Government's responsibility, including lawsuits on licensing issues. When the Feds get the litigation bills for licensing, they will not be happy.

The Feds are responsible for eating the costs, not Prairie farmers as you again claim. Prairie farmers are so accustomed to being saddled with EVERYBODY'S costs by the good old Wheat Board, it's hard to get used to the idea of what the CWB ACT allows. Read it, Vader. And then reply.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, perhaps you are right about licencing costs inside the DA. I am not a lawyer and I cannot make such a determination. For those such as yourself who must focus on these type of issues I would say again that the real fight is over who should govern the CWB. When the courts decide and IF they decide that you were wrong then I would say again those farmers who launched the court action should pay for their mistake.

[parsley]

Vader, you made a legal determination about the costs ouside the DA though, didn't you? So why is it when it comes to 'INSIDE costs' in the DA, you conveniently plead you are not a lawyer?

You also provided us with a financial determination of $1500.00/year/Outside DA costs whilst you are conveniently silent on the 'INSIDE the DA' costs.

Your reasoning is lacking, Vader, and that is what happens when you try to evade FACTS.


********The main fact we both agree upon is that the CWB has broken the law; it's own CWB Act.******

You're quibbling that they haven't broken it by very much, but remember Jim Chatenay who went to jail for 23 days for not providing a CWB export license? Well, he didn't break the law by very much either. He donated one bag of wheat to a 4-H club across the US border. It landed him in jail. The CWB defended jail sentencing saying it was the principle of the thing.

This too, is principle. The CWB, according to you, Vader, have taken $1500.00 illegally, out of the pooling accounts every year for what, 25 years?

I disagree with your figure of course, but we certainly will discuss your math calculations. They're probably lacking in reason as well.

Parsley

[parsley]

PS Vader,

Just to remind you once again, Parliament's CWB Act governs the Wheat Board.

It doesn't matter who you'd LIKE governing the CWB, whether it be Chuck Guite or Svend Robinson or David Orchard, what counts in the courts in the final analysis is this...What did Parliament say?

[Vader]

Parsley,

Would I be correct in saying that all costs associated with marketing are correctly charged to the pool accounts?

[Vader]

A quick read of the CWB Act shows that amongst the powers of the Corporation is

(k) generally to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or incidental to carrying on its operations under this Act.

Further the only place where I find that the Federal Government is required to pay anything towards the operations of the the CWB are in the case of a loss.

Parsley, are you suggesting that the administration of the licencing procedure creates a "loss" to the CWB?

(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.

It would be my contention that there is a cost associated with licencing just as there are costs associated with accounting, marketing etc. but that such expenses cannot be considered to be "losses".

As I stated in a previous post, I am not a lawyer and should the courts decide that what I have stated above is correct then all legal fees should be charged against those who launched this ill-advised court action.

[parsley]

Certainly, Vader, I agree that regional DA marketing costs in Part III of the Act are to be borne by DA farmers, but that is not the issue at all.


This is about National licensing costs in Part IV of the Act, which are to be borne by the Federal Government. This is the issue that the class action suit addresses. (Incidentally, I am not in the class action, but maybe I should try to be.)

National licensing expenses include ALL Eastern and DA licensing costs. All Canadians, all applicants, Vader.

Access to Information reveals that Parliament incorporated a tariff/taxing function in Part IV Licensing of the Act and this "protective tariff" was paid by all exporters and importers of wheat and barley.

For example, when a grain dealer imported grain into Canada and paid the Federal tariff, Parliament did not expect the Western farmer to pay the expense of the grain dealer getting the import license. So Parliament downloaded the licensing/tariff section into the part of the Act that applies nationally, called Part IV.

This tariff/taxing function has both losses and profits. Parliament designated the CWB to collect the tariff for the Feds. National tariff money from exports and imports rolled straight into the Revenue Consolidated fund as a profit. The cost of licensing or licensing losses, naturally, were paid for by the Federal Government out of the same Revenue Cosolidated fund, and is in harmony with what the Constitution requires.

Simply put, all exporters and importers required the license, paid the tariff and the Feds paid the cost of licensing.


There is no longer a national tariff on grain in Canada because NAFTA prevents it, but there remains a national licensing expense which remains be paid by the Federal Government.

No provision has been made by Parliament for national licensing expenses to be taken out of Part III pooling accounts.

The CWB ignores the difference between national licensing responsibilities vs regional marketing responsibilities. The CWB itself even claims that national licensing costs are a regional responsibility, translating into, "The West should pay everyone's licensing costs. This is what the CWB itself is presently doing....sticking the bill on the West, and that is what the class action is about


But that is not how Parliament designed the CWB Act. Taxation is not marketing.

If Parliament would have wanted to tax ONLY the West for 'every man and his dog's licensing costs', they would have injected the tariff and the licensing expense sections into the regional marketing part III of the Act. Inside the DA, Vader. Instead they put the tarriff/ licensing cost sections into Part IV which is the NATIONAL part of the Act. And there it sits, reminding us all of the responsibility of the Federal Governent to pay all licensing costs, including the Prairies'.


I am on the side of the farmers, Vader, while you seem to want farmers to keep paying for all national licensing costs. You should be asking, "Will this class action get more money into the pools?" If the CWB is guided properly, they will also be on the farmers' side.

They should argue that the Federal Government should pay all licensing costs because it is the law. If the Feds started paying all licensing costs, nothing should change in the marketing side.

They should argue that the Feds should pay because it is morally right that Western farmers should not be paying the licensing expenses for big feed mills or Quebecors or seed growers.

They should argue the Feds should pay because it is decent to support hard-up farmers.

And finally, they should argue that the Feds should pay because, psychologically, the negativity that will emanate from this lawsuit will be overwhelmingly against the Board.

Farmers will remember thatthe CWB is using farmers' money to fight the very farmers that want to put more money in the pooling accounts for fellow farmers. You couldn't buy bad public relations like that if you tried!

The Board will shoot themselves in the foot, and they will bleed to death if they decide to appeal the court decision that allows the farmers' trial to proceed.

The way for the Board to win is so easy, Vader.... just ask the Feds to put the bloody money back.

Parsley

PS I'm not a lawyer either, Vader, but I can read. And every farmer reading this thread should be encouraged to read, and read again the Acts that govern them, and not be belittled for doing so. What the CWB tells farmers is not factual and it often differs from what they claim in court, and so they are not a reliable souce of information for an average farmer like me.

[Incognito]

The WTO will dictate what the CWB will look like because REG would not make a decision for the last 10 years.

All the scrapping will be over when SWP signs are painted over with CWB signs.

[parsley]

Farmers know that the CWB, under the head of Reg Alcock, will never make a decision in the interest of farmers, but will be made in the interest of the Liberal Government.

Big CWB signs? Do we have an ad agency in the West that would qualify for some funneled cash, incognito?

Parsley






Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, I've been looking in the CWB Act Part IV as you as suggested for the party responsible for licencing costs. I cannot find it.

Here is part IV of the CWB Act.

PART IV
REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT

Prohibited Activities

Trading in wheat or wheat products
45. Except as permitted under the regulations, no person other than the Corporation shall

(a) export from Canada wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation;

(b) transport or cause to be transported from one province to another province, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Corporation;

(c) sell or agree to sell wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada; or

(d) buy or agree to buy wheat or wheat products situated in one province for delivery in another province or outside Canada.

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 45; 1994, c. 47, s. 48; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).

Regulations

Regulations
46. The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) to prescribe forms of documents that may be required under this Part;

(b) [Repealed, 1998, c. 17, s. 24]

(b.1) to permit the importation into Canada of wheat or wheat products that are entitled to the United States Tariff in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Customs Tariff and that are owned by a person other than the Corporation subject, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, to any of the following requirements, namely,

(i) that the wheat be accompanied by an end-use certificate referred to in subsection 87.1(1) of the Canada Grain Act, completed by the person importing the wheat, declaring that the wheat is imported for consumption in Canada and is consigned directly to a milling, manufacturing, brewing, distilling or other processing facility for consumption at that facility,

(ii) that the wheat be denatured in a prescribed manner, if the wheat is imported for feed use, or

(iii) that the wheat be accompanied by a certificate issued under section 4.1 of the Seeds Act, if the wheat is imported for seed use;

(b.2) to permit the importation into Canada of wheat or wheat products that are entitled to the Mexico Tariff in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Customs Tariff and that are owned by a person other than the Corporation;

(c) to provide for the granting of licences for the export from Canada, or for the sale or purchase for delivery outside Canada, of wheat or wheat products, which export, sale or purchase is otherwise prohibited under this Part;

(c.1) granting permission to transport wheat or barley that is not described by a grade name or by reference to a sample taken under the Canada Grain Act, or any wheat products or barley products, under any circumstances or conditions that may be prescribed by regulation;

(c.2) granting permission to transport, sell or buy, in Canada, feed grain, as that expression is defined in the regulations, or wheat products or barley products for consumption by livestock or poultry, under any circumstances or conditions that may be prescribed by regulation;

(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;

(e) to provide for the granting of licences for the transportation from one province to another province, or the sale or purchase for delivery anywhere in Canada, of wheat or wheat products, which transportation, sale or purchase is otherwise prohibited under this Part, and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which those licences may be granted or the terms or conditions of the permission granted in those licences;

(f) to empower the Corporation to do such acts and things as may be necessary for the administration of this Part; and

(g) to provide for any other matter necessary to give effect to this Part.

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 46; 1988, c. 65, s. 60; 1993, c. 44, s. 49; 1994, c. 47, s. 49; 1997, c. 36, s. 204; 1998, c. 17, ss. 24, 28(E).

[parsley]

I copied 46(d) from your posting:

"(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;"

The Cabinet called this part a national "protective tariff", that every applicant had to pay.

Today, NAFTA does not allow the price of wheat in Canada to differ from the price of wheat outside Canada, so the tariff difference is $0.00 tariff.

There is no longer profit from tariffs in Part IV. And keep in mind, Vader, profits from Part IV National Licensing CANNOT BE MARRIED with profits from Part III pooling.

Part IV taxing Profits goes to the Feds. Part III Pooling profits goes to the farmers.

There are not only Profits, but Losses as well.

There is a cost of doing business in Part IV licensing, because the Board is:

"c) to provide for the granting of licences for the export from Canada, or for the sale or purchase for delivery outside Canada, of wheat or wheat products, which export, sale or purchase is otherwise prohibited under this Part;"

Those licensing duties performed under Part IV must be paid for, Vader.

No profits are left, but licensing costs continue. Section 7 tells you who pays.

Parsley

[parsley]

From the CWB Act:


"Section 7

Profits
(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."


"Losses
(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)."


Licensing in Part IV is a loss. It's a cost. It's money paid out.


The only income in Part IV would be the export tax required in section 46(d) above. Thus Part IV Profits (for the government) would be income less costs. Tariffs minus licensing costs.

When there is no price difference inside and outside Canada, obviously all Part IV costs are Part IV losses.

Don't forget, these sections went into the Act at the same time as Part IV, along with internal documents stating they were designed to work like a tariff.

Part IV losses are to be paid by the Feds.

Parsley