Flaman Claimed Buybacks Not Legal

[Vader]

You're doing a lot of lawyering parsley. I know you would like all of what you say to be true. It ain't gonna be so until a judge says it is. My guess is you are entirely wrong. You are making the basic assumption that any cost can be called a loss just because it is a cost associated with licencing. That just won't fly in a court of law.

The purpose of the wording in the Act is for the Federal Government to underwrite losses. Plain and simple. You have to go through some incredible contortions to make it sound like the government is on the hook for licencing. Further it can be argued that licencing is required to protect the single desk marketing and therefore it is in fact a cost associated with part III.

Pack your bags and go home parsley. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[JACKFLASH]

Vader:
You obviously have a hotline to the CWB. Which makes me think you are a Director or a High paid CWB hack.
Your defensive behavoir leads me to believe you have alot to hide.
I know the truth lies in the middle. So there is some serious money lost over the years in this licensing issue.

[Vader]

Being defensive does not imply there is anything to hide. I just happen to believe that the CWB is something worth defending.

For some strange reason I enjoy the debate. I should get a life.

[Vader]

Being defensive does not imply there is anything to hide. I just happen to believe that the CWB is something worth defending.

For some strange reason I enjoy the debate. I should get a life.

[parsley]

You accuse me of lawyering Vader, but aren't you doing the same?


Parliament designates losses and costs because it has to, if it wants to keep within the confines of the Constitution. Downloading Election Canada losses/costs on only Newfoundland would not be constitutional. "Who pays?" cannot become a legislative nightmare.

If the West was to pick up Licensing losses, do you think there may have been a teensy weensy argument or two about the West getting the total bill for national licensing when the Act was written, Vader? Or would the West have sat back and said, "Goody, goody, we get an entire whopping Licensing bill to pay".

The Act does not say that Licensing costs or Losses are to be paid by Section III Pooling as you would wish. Licensing losses and profits are dealt with in Part IV. If the Licensing losses were to be downloaded on just the Prairies, it would have been specified in the Act.

Bureaucrats will download anything they can get away with. Somewhere along the line, the Feds have quit paying the licensing bills and the CWB quit working in the interests of farmers. And they are being sued over it. I say good for the farmers. You denigrate them and want them punished. That is the difference between you and I, Vader. You hate farmers.

You should read how Australia completely divided their wheat marketing function from their national wheat licensing function. Two separate responsibilities in two separate places.

In Canada, these separate functions both lie within the CWB Act. The CWB is supposed to respect these divided functions, but they seem to be getting them muddled.

Does the CWB mix the marketing part with the licensing part whenever it suits their purpose? Dipping into the pools in Part III to pay Licensing in Part IV?

Would Ontario complain? Not unless they wanted to belly up to the table with cash, since the CWB refuses to send the bill to the Government.


You have already admitted Vader, that the CWB has broken the law. That they owe Prairie farmers cash. Your best defense seems to be, "Officer, I didn't steal very much", but you have admitted guilt, all the same.

And Jackflash, there is some serious, serious money or the CWB and the Attorney General of Canada would not be fighting and quibbling over $1200.00.


Your arguments lack reason, Vader, because the CWB wish has become the mother of your thought.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley,

Section IV of the act is in regard to
"REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND EXPORT TRADE IN WHEAT"

and it goes on to say that

"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; "

It then goes on to say

"46. The Governor in Council may make regulations

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

My read of this is that the CWB is empowered to regulate, control or prohibit export of wheat as befits its mandate to conduct orderly marketing. It says nothing about the Federal government picking up the tab.

The part of the act that you so often refer to where losses are to the account of the federal government are in fact stated in section III where the topic is the pooling system.

You need to take a class in remedial english Parsley.

[parsley]

Vader, Jackflash would probably agree with me if I say you sound as if you have taken a spin-doctoring course from the CWB. Because your facts are just plain wrong, your spins merely mirror the distortions that favor the CWB institution rather than farmers.


Wrong Fact #1 you state : "The part of the act that you so often refer to where losses are to the account of the federal government are in fact stated in section III where the topic is the pooling system."

YOU want "Who pays?" to be in the pooling Part III, Vader. It aint.


I refer to section 7 which is in Part I and not in Part III as you state.

The topic of Part I is not the pooling system as you claim, but the "Constitution of the Board" (which includes purpose and structure of the CWB), and it is here the basic issue of 'Who pays?' is addressed in the "Pricing, Profits, and Losses" section. 7.(2) and (3).

Right at the getgo, Parliament decided to get "Who pays" out of the way because of sneaky policy makers.


Wrong fact #2 you stated : "if you read the CWB Act is that licences need only be issued if in the opinion of the CWB the activity does not interfere with CWB marketing."

You've got away with this one too long. It's a very significant error.

What you are referring to lies in the regulations and NOT the Act.(specifically 14.1) Regulations must reflect what the Act actually allows.

The important point is that Canadian Courts do not allow regulations to have or authorize powers beyond what the Act states.

As to your interpretation of Sections 45 & 46 where you state: "My read of this is that the CWB is empowered to.... prohibit export of wheat..."


You would not say this if you held in hand the drafter's original intention stated in Access to Information confidential documents: "The Regulation of Trade and Commerce does not include 'prohibition'..."


Vader, you also stated: "Considering that the core activity of the CWB is "single desk" marketing ..."

My question is where in the Act do you come up with either "single desk marketing" or "monopoly marketing"?

Every Agri-viller should look for those words in the Act. They are absent.

One little hint. If you want help, go to Flaman rather than the CWB legal department; at least Flaman knows the fact that section 46(d) is not the buy-backs.


Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, with your help I will get this right yet. Stay with me please.

So section 7 is where the heart of the issue lies.

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).

So it all comes down to the definition of losses. Losses shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

What it does not say is that costs shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

What am I not understanding here Parsley. When do costs become losses? Only when costs exceed revenues is what I have been told.

So must we account for activity inside of section III and section IV separately? It does not say that in the Act. Nor does it say that licencing costs must allocated to one section or the other. What if licencing is a necessary activity under section III?

My interpretation of the right to operate a "single desk" would flow from Section 5.

Object 5. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada.
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 5; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).

And further a key element of orderly marketing is to control exports through licencing. It is not possible for the CWB to maintain orderly marketing without a licencing system and so it is obvious that the CWB will incur licencing costs. Since the farmers who participate in the "orderly marketing system" are the beneficiaries it only makes sense that the cost of licencing becomes an administration expense of the CWB.

It all ties together nicely if you see what I mean. Perhaps the phrase "I never would have seen it if I hadn't believed it" would apply.

You see what you believe and I see what I believe. Now how do we decide who is right? Perhaps we don't have to decide. The system is in place and has been for some time. It even seems to be gaining in popular support.

[parsley]

Vader, your conclusion that the single desk gets any legitimacy from "Object and Powers"in 5. in Part I is certainly Wheat Board mantra, but wrong.

You have to read what the Act actually says and what the Act meant at the time it was written in 1947.

You WANT the Act to mean wheat/barley/singledesk/DA. It doesn't. (In that remedial reading course I took), one of the important things I learned was that the CWB cannot continue to take a word in the Act and claim it means whatever the CWB wants it to mean. For example, "price inside Canada" is not the same as "initial price" in the DA.

Here's the section:
"5. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada.
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 5; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E)."

1. You seem to think grain means wheat and barley, but the Act says:

QUOTE
"grain" includes wheat , oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, ****seed and canola; UNQUOTE

2. The Act says "grain grown in Canada". Are you saying Canada means DA?

3. Words can take on new meanings over the years and that is why Courts always refer to the original intent of legislation. For example, in 1947, poetry and literature often included the terms "gay" party or gay young men or gay young women. The term "gay" today is hardly interchangeable with the 1948 interpretation of "gay".

Similarily, you have assumed that 1947's "orderly" means the same as "monopoly". "Monopoly" and "orderly" did not mean the same thing. When the drafters wrote the term "orderly" Vader, do you actually think they meant monopoly? Why didn't they just write "monopoly"? Were the drafters of the legislation unable to write what they intended?

Part I of the Act, to which you are referring, applies nationally, in spite of the fact you would like it to apply only regionally, Vader.

The Object, according to the Act itself, is about orderly marketing/wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, ****seed and canola/Canada.

It is not, as you are claim, about wheat/barley/monopoly/DA.

Parsley

[Vader]

I am not following you Parsley. You seem to be saying that the CWB should be using their orderly marketing mandate in regard to all grain for all of Canada. Is that what you want?

These blanket statements are part of the prologue of the CWB Act. Taken in its entirety the CWB Act restricts the marketing activity of the CWB to wheat and barley in the Designated Area.

If you want the CWB to market other crops you will have to organize a producer vote on the matter. I am sure that the CWB could do a fine job of marketing oats, lentils, canola etc. Who knows how much money producers are leaving on the table when these crops are marketed through the transnationals.

[Incognito]

Why would you even spout such diatribe when any new grains under STE's would be challenged by the other 147 sane members.

Remember the last vote on STE's was 147-1.

Yes the CWB is extracting a premium of some of the wheat they sell. Not all. Some.

What about barley, Vader? The CWB costs western Canadian farmers money.

And I don't need to read the duelling economists studies.

The one commissioner with more integrity than the others put together, quit because the CWB was costing western Canada 300 million dollars by being in the barley market.

The Western Grain Marketing Panel even recognized a change was required in barley.

Fix what you have first before you start spouting off about how much money is LEFT (pun intended) on the table with other grains.

[parsley]

Vader,

The CWB Act has two functions....a national one and a regional one. Part I in the Act reflects these functions.

Once again, you begin talking about regional marketing of wheat and barley in Part III. We can change focus and discuss regional marketing if you wish, Vader, about the Board selling the grain that is offerred to it, pooling, adding grains, and so on.

But what we began discussing was called the Constitution of the CWB Act and I was refering to the CWB's National mandated responsibilities, which of course, includes the Federal Government's duties to finance the national responsibilities of the Act.

It seems as if you either cannot differentiate between these two functions .... national or regional.

Or are you are purposely trying to make the CWB's dual function appear to be just one function....a Designated Area function, so that you can justify downloading national licensing costs on unsuspecting Prairie farmers?

Do you want to continue discussing NATIONAL responsibilities, or not?

Parsley

[parsley]

Incognito,

Naturally, Vader would like to avoid talking about the Fed's financial responsibilities and focus the discussion on the CWB selling grain in the DA.

After all, he could then reason he had 'discussed' it with the a large readership in the farm community (readers on Agri-ville), and perhaps he could even 'legitimately' recommend that the CWB should market canola and flax after such a consultation.

Not the DA, but discussing the National responsibilities the CWB has, could be very interesting, indeed.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley,

The CWB is all about selling western Canadian wheat and barley. It was formed back in 1935 because of farmers lobby efforts over the previous decade or more. The prarie pools were ineffectual without a federal mandate. The feds finally gave in and initiated the CWB Act albeit very reluctantly. In fact from 1935 till 1943 while the CWB did exist it was toothless because it did not have exclusive marketing authority. When the Feds finally decided to make the CWB the exclusive marketer of wheat during the war it was to their own benefit to prevent runaway inflation since they had promised wage and price controls as part of the war effort.

So the CWB has had a colored past but it has always been about western Canadian wheat. It was western farmers who organized the pools and who lobbied the gov't for a wheat board. When it was granted it had to be done by a Federal statute to make it work.

So there you go Parsley. I have talked about the national nature of the CWB.

Back to the designated area. The intent of the CWB Act was to allow western farmers to market their grain in an "orderly" fashion. Since this legislation was enacted at the behest of western wheat farmers the intent of the licencing provisions was to prevent leakage of western wheat out of the designated area where it would be marketed as non-designated area wheat and would then be destructive to the original concept.

[Vader]

Incognito,

The idea of the CWB marketing other grains was not mine. It was Parsley who suggested it. I was just following up. In reality I think that the CWB could be of benefit to western farmers marketing other crops outside of the single desk. I would hope that as the CWB moves to distance itself from the Federal government that it would be granted the right to cash purchase other crops. That would be my idea of a dual market.

In the WTO it was not 147 to 1. In fact the WTO negotiations take place behind closed doors and I doubt anybody but those behind the doors know what was discussed.

How many of the 147 countries give a damn about the CWB? I would suggest the only countries who really care are the wheat exporting countries. That would include Canada, US, EU, Australia, Argentina, Ukraine, Russia, Khazakistan and a few other minor players. The only ones of those who are actively lobbing against the CWB are the US and EU. And in fact the EU is becoming increasingly agitated about the falling US dollar and less focussed on Canada.

So the real vote was 2 to 1 with Australia not willing to speak up against the US.

One of the main discussion points of the WTO is trade distortion. Canada has agreed to give up the CWB guarantees while the US continues to use similar programs such as the Loan Deficiency Program (LDP) under the guise of domestic support. Meanwhile some thirteen trade actions by the US against the CWB have failed to show any evidence that the CWB is guilty of any trade distorting (non-commercial) practices.

In fact one of the recent US Department of Commerce investigations where US millers were required to provide information showed that those US millers paid more for Canadian durum wheat than they did for US durum wheat 59 out of 60 months. So if anything the CWB actually drives international prices up, which is what we as farmers would expect for our marketing agency. Undisciplined selling by US farmers (and Ukranian and Argentinian farmers etc.) tends to drive prices down and the same would be true in Canada were it not for the CWB.