Flaman Claimed Buybacks Not Legal

[parsley]

Vader: This is a reply to your comments in the bio-diesel thread.

Those who ignore what you brush off as "ancient history", peril their reason. Successful grain marketing depends upon what we have learned.

Even the courts are very clear that any statute must be interpreted according the original intent, and of course that brings you right back to ancient history.

For example, the authors of the Wheat Board Act clearly describe, in the Cabinet Minutes (through Access to Information) that National CWB Licensing must levy all exporters with a national tariff (right across Canada)...they called it a "protective tariff".

This is what the Cabinet actually called it and who am I to argue their original intent? Cabinet Documents is the source the Courts will quote.

Today, the CWB argue that instead of that national tariff , only a regional buyback is required.

Even Rod Flaman launched a lawsuit based on the premise that the buyback is not required by the Act, but he dropped it after he was elected as a Director, and after intensive negotiations with the CWB. His Statement of Claim was first launched on July 13, 1999, and later ammended on October 20, 1999.


For example, in his June 19, 1999 fax-correspondence (one of many)to Ms.Margaret Redmod (who was then legal counsel for the CWB), Rod Flaman attacked this issue with a vengeance. This is what Rod Flaman said in 1999.

QUOTE
"There is no basis in law for the suggested producer direct sales program or the so-called "buy back". I am certain you are familiar with these facts."

"It amazes me that after 50 plus years there has not been a judicial review of this procedure. That is in fact exactly what I plan to pursue if this license is not granted. As you can also imagine, Mr. Silk and yourelf will be called to testify in the proceedings. If there is a judicial review I would expect a ruling that the Wheat Board buy back policy is illegal. If that happens the CWB might find that numerous individuals would commence litigation for financial losses going back many years. The potential losses to the CWB in this scenario would be considerable and real. UNQUOTE

Flaman quietly dropped the suit after his election. Agri-villers, I don't know why he dropped the law suit, but maybe someone else does.


Vader, you are Rod Flaman's vigorous advocate. You should ask him if he meant what he said or maybe he, like you, will dismiss it as "ancient history".

Parsley

[JD4ME]

Parsley,
I've been wondering something whilst watching the coal vs wheat discussion become a rod flaman discussion. why do you not do what r-calf would do if this was a cattle issue and instead of talking about this lawsuit that flaman had initiated why not get the people that would support you and relaunch this action. If you feel there is a valid legal point or wrong here then I can't understand why someone else hasn't picked up the ball after flaman purportedly dropped it.
Please don't take this as any kind of attack upon yourself it isn't it just kinda struck me as odd that no one had continued in that vein if it was a strong aurgument.

[Vader]

Perhaps Flaman decided that there were bigger fish to fry. Small things amuse small minds!

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

"Small things amuse small minds."

Honesty;
Integrety;
Principal;
Justice;
Brotherly Love;
Freedom:

These above atributes were a good chunk of the principals the Rod Flaman I once knew stood for... and were the "Small things" that I invested my time and money to encourage and foster.

The Rod Flaman we have come to know today appears to be far too important to bother with these "small minded" people and principals.

[Vader]

Tom, the small things I was referring to is the single minded hatred of the CWB and its destruction that you share with parsley. I doubt you ever took the time to know Rod Flaman and it is perfectly obvious that you simply view him as a tool to be employed in your vendetta irrespective of any element of truth.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

Who ever said I hated the CWB?

Please show me one entry where I ever said " I hate the CWB. "

I do not appreciate the management at the CWB's single minded position that the CWB refuse to create constuctive accountability that could increase the value of the CWB to each and every single grain farmer in the "designated area".

1. Daily Cash Prices are paid for our grain... yet the CWB refuses accountability and respect for us as grain farmers... by refusing to allow us to say:

NO... CWB DO NOT SELL TODAY.

THE PRICE IS TOO LOW.

2. Pooling is the only the only way the CWB will sell my grain...

ALL PPO's are sold to the pool accounts... This creates a massive lack of accountability back to me... because other than when I come up short at the end of the pool year... I cannot disipline CWB sales... which means I simply cannot disipline CWB sales.

3. Competitive forces that should create constructive change at the CWB... are lost in the CWB's DESTRUCTIVE Crutch... the pooling system.

Vader consider this... on the "New" Daily Price Contract (DPC), the CWB tells me IF I need a cash price...

The CWB "Hedges the Pool" when I sign up to ask for a cash price...

NOT THE DAY I NEED TO PRICE MY GRAIN.

Where does the CWB Act state CWB management has the right to do this?

Same on unpriced basis contracts... no other grain marketer that I deal with would dream of charging to sell cash grain through a binding contract with liquidation damages if I do not supply grain to them. In fact they allow me free liquidation of basis contacts at no charge... not run out and do the futures... keep the profit if there is one... and charge me if there is a loss.

The CWB has broken every rule in the book of integrety and honesty... and this fact creates conflict... there can be no doubt about this!

It has nothing to do with "single minded hatred" in any event... and Vader you know this to be a fact.

So maybe go take a cold shower... and take another look in the mirror...

The CWB is headed for a USSR collapse... and the present CWB management is fully promoting the demise and total destruction of the CWB...

I certainly am VERY disappointed in this path that has been appointed and chosen by the present CWB Board of Directors!

[parsley]

JD4ME,

You have asked a very thoughtful question, and farmers need to ask these kinds of questions. Hard questions.

1. Court Cases have Often Been Based Upon What Farmers THINK are the facts.


The organic folks wanted the CWB to issue them export licenses, without doing the buyback. Well, the CWB reply was that they couldn't issue export licenses without a change in the legislation. (The organic industry didn't believe them).

When the CWB appeared before the Standing Committee of Agriculture and were asked directly if the CWB could indeed issue export licenses to organic farmers WITHOUT a change to the legislation, the CWB changed their position, and said they could do so.


This is one example which illustrates that the CWB do not tell farmers the truth. And farmers have BLINDLY believed in the CWB and what the CWB tells them as gospel. Farmers have often based their courtcases, not on what the CWB ACT actually says, but on what the CWB has led them to believe. Time and time again.


Farmers were told that the CWB gets the best price for them over and over and over. When a group of Manitoba farmers got an unusually low return from the CWB, they sued the Board, saying the CWB was supposed to get the best price. The CWB actually pleaded that they had no duty of care to farmers, only to the government, and they won the case. (They did the same pleading in the Merchant motion to strike)

JD4ME, We've learned from those farmers who have ploughed that legal field.



2. Many lawsuits have attacked Parliament's CWB Act instead of attacking how the CWB itself applies their Act.

Many expensive lawsuits have been launched against the CWB Act itself. The Grain Commission suit is such an example. But instead of suing a sound Act, farmers have learned they should have attacked the CWB on the way the CWB Act has been applied to Western farmers. Administrative law.

For example, The Drivers License Act in Alberta is sound, but if all residents of Oyen were automatically denied drivers licenses, they shouldn't sue based on the validity of the Act, but rather they should sue on the way someone is applying that Act. Some policy wonk sitting in the backroom deciding that the residents of only Oyen, Alberta will not get licenses under any circunstances. Denials based upon location.

That is what happens right now, with every Western farmer automatically denied CWB export licenses and all other applicants automatically granted CWB export licenses.

It took awhile to understand what the problem was, because the only folks who are "experts" about the CWB is......the Board itself, and the CWB does not tell farmers what the CWB Act demands. They tell farmers what CWB policy is.

JD4ME, We've learned from those farmers who have ploughed that legal field.



Farmers have learned the hard way. Flaman finally understood what to sue for, but when he launched the case, his lawsuit he sued the CWB directors and the staff and the lawyers and others for money. Compenation. His dollar windfall could only occur if he proved maliciousness. Many of the previous lawsuits were soley to improve the system but Flaman's primarily seemed to be designed to seek financial damage. He quietly dropped the case, after getting elected. Maybe he did have some big fish to fry. We'd all agree he was certainly dealing with fish. And perhaps fried ones are worth more.

Meantime, millions of dollars have been spent on lawsuits, and the Western farmer has left a lot of dollars on the legal tables. It will continue.

The current Merchant litigation is suing for money being taken illegally out of the pooling accounts and it began in 2002.

You'd have to ask as a farmer, why the CWB continues to fight the case and insists upon paying for costs that the Federal Government will pay.

The Regina farmers' case is current as well and no decision has been rendered, but they are still doling out cash for their lawyers. These are real cases in the courts as we read.

As more and more farmers understand what the CWB Act actually says, the CWB continues to lose the respect and and the unquestioning support of Western farmers. that was once their hallmark. As more and more farmers understand how the federal Government's CWB has treated them, they will not be politely questioning as you are JD4ME.

They will seek relief from the court, because the Government does not look out for the West, and the Wheat Baord is the mouth of the Government.

The money being drained from the pooling accounts will continue to build an anti-Board climate in the West. Growing every day.

Parsley

[parsley]

Vader, could you review your reasoning?


Most farmers and the public will agree that the Federal Government should pay back the national licensing costs into the pooling accounts.


The idea is about more cash for farmers in their pooling accounts. That is not small minded or single minded or about hatred.


Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, two things,

1) the cost of licencing for those outside the designated area. One person administers all licencing for the CWB. The proportion of that persons time which could be allocated to eastern licencing would be in the order of $1500.00 per year or just over $100.00 per month. It could well take that much money to track those costs and bill them back to the Government. This activity will have no significant impact on western canadian farmers. For those who disagree with the CWB board of directors management decision to not pursue this activity the court action will cost farmers a lot more than the few dollars that farmers could ever hope to receive compensation for.

2) Export licences. The bottom line 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. If a challenge of the CWB's obligation to issue export licences ever made it to court the only defence necessary would be for the CWB to maintain that the proposed export would interfere with the CWB marketing. Considering that the core activity of the CWB is "single desk" marketing one must accept that any proposed marketing of individuals outside of the single desk could potentially interfere with the effectiveness of the single desk.

Under the current Producer Direct Sale policy anyone wishing to export grain is treated as a customer of the CWB and must purchase that grain from the CWB as would any other customer in the country where the proposed activity is to take place. The other half of the transaction is the producer selling his grain to the CWB and receiving payment as do all other producers in the designated area. In this manner all producers are treated equally. All grain is sold by the CWB in "single desk" fashion and the pool receives exactly that amount of money had the CWB made the sale rather than the producer.

Any time a producer is able to sell the grain in the destination market for more money than the CWB would have earned the producer is able to earn a premium and is allowed to keep 100% of that premium. This scenario works best for organic producers where the CWB is generally not able to earn that premium. For conventional grain it is highly unlikely that an individual will earn a premium over and above what the CWB would earn because without the benefit of the Canadian grain handling and grading system buyers are generally not inclined to pay an individual the same type of premium earned by the CWB. For example if a producer were to haul his grain into the US and sell to an elevator, that elevator could potentially sell that grain to a mill. The CWB would sell directly to the mill. The elevator would have to acquire the grain from the producer for something less than the mill sale price in order for the elevator to earn a profit.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

Nicely explained.

A farmer does not get a premium selling to a US elevator over what the CWB gets... therefore no benefit accrued... no reason to issue anything but a no-cost instant export license... the same as the CWB does for seed growers... feed mills exporting... and Ontario/B.C farmers issued an instant export license.

What did I miss?

[parsley]

Vader,

There is the cost of licencing for those INSIDE the designated area, too.

Inside DA Licensing cost outside DA Licensing costs = Federal Government pays

Surely it can't be that difficult to understand.


Parsley

[parsley]

Should read:

Inside DA Licensing cost outside DA Licensing costs = Federal Government pay both

[parsley]

The plus sign won't post!


Inside DA Licensing cost PLUS outside DA Licensing costs = Federal Government pay both

[Vader]

Tom,

You asked what did you miss?

You missed the whole point of single desk selling. If the CWB issued no-cost export licences there would be no single desk. People would be free to go into our premium markets and compete indiscriminately with the CWB. Some people would no doubt see it to their own advantage to price slightly lower than the CWB.

Tom, tell me this. Would the Japanese food agency be willing to pay you more for wheat than they are now paying the CWB? Would Cofco, the Chinese single desk buyer be willing to pay you, Tom, more for wheat than they are now paying the CWB?

Tell me which buyer you think you could get more money from were you allowed to compete head to head with the CWB.

[charliep]

How would farmers answer these questions when they don't know sales prices and other components contracts to these customers? If you argue their are premiums in Cofco sales, what are they?

As the CWB goes to the pricing contracts, will the payment/price signal always be a spread to a base grade? Or will the CWB allow price signals in their contracts directly? Example - soft white wheat/winter wheat sales to domestic millers reflect the actual price paid.

What is wrong with allowing some pricing outside the pool? A example today is malt barley. An example today is malt barley. The only tool is a fixed priced contract (heavily discounted for risk) based off current PRO forecasts (already heavily discounted for risk). Why not allow maltsters to forward price with farmers directly in the spring?