Flaman Claimed Buybacks Not Legal

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

This was the purpose of the CWB Act, Part IV:

If a Canadian grain company buys off "designated area" farmers at the initial price ( or any price lower than market value)... say 60% of that days market price... then the CWB has a statutory obligation to charge the difference (between the lower value paid and the higher market price)... and add this back to the pool accounts... if that grain company wants an export license for "DA" grain; and sell this grain itself.

Since farmer's produce is not graded... is not in the flow of trade and commerce... the original intent till 1992 was that farmer's could sell their own produce without CWB involvement.

I had many farm neighbours do exactly this... export to the US... without an export license... or with one it didn't matter....

And the CWB Orderly market was still in tact then.

The misapplication of the CWB Act is clearly apparent as Lorne Hein stated in 1992 that there was nothing the CWB could do about farmers exporting their own grain; themselves.

I know you are aware of all of these facts Vader.

It is too bad the CWB would not concentrate on marketing our grain... doing the best job in that area... and stop spending my money on wild goose chases that will exterminate the CWB at the end of the day.

If the new CWB DPC is actually accurate... isn't the CWB single desk advantage is gone anyway, as the premium US price is scooped by those with DPC sales outside the pool?

What is the difference between this program and no-cost export licenses... except the CWB admin. cost being charged?

[Vader]

Tom, it was never the intent of the CWB Act to allow farmers to sell their own grain in competition with the pools. It was exactly the opposite. The people who formed the original "pools" in the prairie provinces found that without a Federally mandated "orderly" marketing system where the CWB did all marketing of wheat and wheat products the pooling system would not work. The prairie pools lost millions of dollars in the 1920's because they did not have the Federal legislation giving them the exclusive right to market wheat.

For this reason farmers lobbied the Federal government for a CWB Act which would prohibit all but the CWB from engaging in the marketing of prairie wheat.

This is what we have and that is why exporting of wheat and wheat products is a prohibitied activity under the Act. You can look for all the loopholes you want in the definition of grain and the price inside and outside Canada etc., etc. but the fact remains that for the CWB to work properly they must have exclusive rights to marketing western Canadian wheat. The protection within the Act is enshrined in the words "orderly" marketing and the prohibition of exports.

The CWB allows producers to "compete" with the CWB only when they set a bar for those producers to cross. That bar is that the pooling system is paid the value of the grain which the CWB would have received if the CWB had done the marketing. In this manner those who are able to discover a premium in a niche market or an organic market are allowed to capture 100% of that premium for their marketing activities. If the producer is simply marketing to a US elevator for cash flow purposes and is not selling at a premium to what the CWB would sell into that market then that producer will lose money but the pool is kept whole. The pool has been compensated for the value of the grain because the producer has purchased the grain from the pool at the value that would have been achieved by the CWB.

For those producers who want to market into the US and who do not want to expose themselves to the downside risk of the pooling system there are the producer pricing options. The DPC is the latest of those offerings and producers must decide if these risk management tools make more sense than the traditional pooling system.

No matter how you slice it if you want to market in the US you have to pay the CWB what they would have gotten for that sale. If you want to market into Japan you have to pay the CWB what they would have gotten from that sale to Japan. Regardless of the evolution of the pooling system and I will be the first to admit that it is not perfect the hurdle to compete with the CWB will always be the same. You have to be able to a better job of marketing than the CWB in order to profit from it. You will not be allowed to claim a disproportionate share of a premium market just because you live close to the border or have a bigger, faster truck than your neighbor.

[cropduster]

Vader,your last post really is full of holes if not UNTRUTHS !!!Nice try tho`.The old LIES/fear mongering just don`t cut it any more. The CWB was mandated federally to keep the price of wheat DOWN for Mother England during/after the war years PERIOD.Try to find a better source of oxygen it`ll make things clearer!Who knows,you might even be able to distinguish a LIBERAL from a CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!

[Vader]

Cropduster,

You are actually correct. After years of lobbying by farmers for the CWB to be formed the government did form a voluntary CWB in 1935 but they actually legislated the price of wheat for the CWB such that the open market was higher and the CWB was unattractive. Such was the governments reluctance to grant the farmers wishes.

Later during the war the government was an opportunity to keep wheat prices from costing them money. Having instituted wage and price controls and promised the millers a set price for their wheat it was beginning to cost the government a lot of money to continue to buy wheat on the open market. The government finally granted the farmers wishes to give the CWB complete control over grain marketing but they did it for their own reasons. Then following the war they continued to use the CWB for their own purposes to subsidize the rebuilding effort in England and made a long term committment for wheat which cost prairie farmers a lot of money as grain prices soared after the war.

It is no wonder that farmers have a bad impression of the CWB from those years.

In spite of its colored past the CWB was formed to regulate trade of wheat in Western Canada. It was never about Eastern Canada and everything that I said earlier still applies.

The good thing today is that we have made great advances in getting the government out of the CWB. It is now under the control of farmer elected directors.

I look forward to the day when it is completely delinked from government, and is able to set its own initial prices and adjustment payments, appoint its own directors, make capital investments, and market other crops.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

A valiant effort at avoiding the intent of the CWB Act as written... CWB spin supreme.

Seed and Feed exemptions are not in the CWB Act, yet exist without obvious peril to present CWB Operations as you see them.

US northern tier states have unlimited access to CWB quality CWRS seed, yet economics and lack of real premiums dictate growing other wheat... proof CWB premiums are delusinary musings of fed. bueacratic vegetation left over from the second world war.

US HRS quality actually brought a premium to CWRS for a significant period last year.

There are many different ways of marketing a product... no doubt about it.

CWB marketers who insist on jailing those wheat farmers who objected to being scalped as many were by the Canadian system in the 1993-95 period... to pad large corporate pockets at the expense of wheat growers... will not and still cannot be tolerated by an honest Canadian Society today.

It is sad how much the CWB (and those who profit from it) will delude themselves to ignore reality... at the expence of those who work hard and deserve much much more!

Vader, Thou Shall not steal.

Theft is theft... if personal property is taken without permission.

[Vader]

Tom,

you said:

"US northern tier states have unlimited access to CWB quality CWRS seed, yet economics and lack of real premiums dictate growing other wheat... proof CWB premiums are delusinary musings of fed. bueacratic vegetation left over from the second world war. "

The reason US farmers don't grow our wheat is that they have higher yielding varieties. Those higher yielding varieties are inferior in milling and baking quality but in their system everything is comingled and quality is lost. There is no advantage to growing a CWRS in the US when you cannot differentiate that quality. American farmers have verified this to me personally over and over again.

This is one of the advantages of our variety registration system and our handling system. There are disadvantages which I have mentioned in the past but that is the situation today. Technology will dictate that we move forward. It is my hope that we can maintain a reputation for quality as we do so.

You continue to make allegations of theft. You should put your money where your mouth is. What individual is putting money in his pocket that is not accounted for in the audited financial statements?

I maintain that the annual audited financial statements are proof that the CWB is open and accountable. I also maintain that the CWB earns premiums in the market place.

Theft is a criminal offence and if you know something that I don't know you should be going to the RCMP. Otherwise you are welcome to disagree with the system and you can disagree with my analysis of the performance. That is fair ball. But lets use the appropriate terminology.

[Incognito]

Re WTO and CWB:

Don't believe all the briefing notes you get from Winnipeg, Vader. The Trade Minister thinks differently.

WTO framework agreement inked: Two Canadian measures which protect agriculture may come under attack as a result of a plan approved by the WTO on the weekend, Canada's trade minister says. There's no doubt the WTO is not going to be a friend of either supply management or the Canadian Wheat Board," Trade Minister Jim Peterson said after the deal was signed. The framework deal approved by consensus of the 147 members of the WTO will: Cut export subsidies on farm products; cut import duties on farm products and require state trading enterprises to stop trade-distorting activities. The WTO plan is not final; it just sets the general outline for detailed negotiations, starting in September. But the European Union's attitude is clear. "In our view, in the way the wheat board operates, we think there are certain elements of export subsidization involved," Franz Fischler, the EU's commissioner for agriculture, rural development and fisheries, said in June. "If we now discuss the total phasing out of export subsidization, then all forms mean all forms from the Canadian Wheat Board. This must be absolutely clear and there can't be any doubt," he added. The agreement could threaten the survival of the board, said Ken Ritter, board chairman. (CBC.CA)

. “It was one against 146,'' Canada's International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said. ``We had absolutely no allies at the negotiating table, so there's no doubt that the WTO is not going to be a friend of either supply management or the CWB”

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/08/02/wheat040802

[Incognito]

Vader:

Further to your previous reply to me.

Wheat wars has been all about price transparency and predatory pricing.

What if the US and EU would let farmers keep the govt guarantees if the CWB was price transparent and didnt predatory price?

[parsley]

I have to quit going to auction sales. Sorry I'm late, it does sound like briefing notes, Incognito!

1. The CWB has no legal monopoly control over farmers who have never offered their grain to the Board.

Henry Monk was one of the main authors of the CWB Act and in Access to Information papers he recognized that the Wartime CWB Act, which stated that farmers "shall" sell their grain to the Board was not constitutional in peace time. It is expropriation.

The CWB Act avoided a constitutional conflict by stating in the new Act, that the CWB will buy grain "offered" to it . There is no legislated monopoly. The CWB only has a monopoly because the CWB won't issue licenses in the DA. Rod Flaman called this a hoax.

2. I would be interested, Vader to see if the CWB has put back the money they stole, yes, stole, out of farmers' pooling accounts to attend Liberal fundraisers in Winnipeg. Has the money has been put back?

3. Farmer control? The farmer is to the CWB as the ring is to Svend. And the CWB needs their 'lookout', ... the Government of Canada, to provide and enforce the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian Grain Commission Act, Canada Customs, police (jailing),etc. and all the other little goodies that make up the "orderly marketing" heist.

Parsley

[parsley]

taken from Parliament. Not my words:

Tue, 04 Jun 2002

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,

last Thursday 10 officials of the Canadian Wheat Board attended the now
famous Liberal Party fundraiser in Winnipeg at a price tag of at least $400 each. The money for the tickets was taken from prairie wheat farmers who are forced to participate in this monopoly. Forcing farmers to donate their hard-earned money to the Liberal Party is clearly wrong.

Does the Prime Minister not see this as a highly unethical practice?

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago a
directive was issued that crown corporations were not to make contributions to political parties. I committed myself at that time that if any of them did, the money would be returned.

An hon. member: That's not a crown corporation.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond that. The government appointed five of the directors present at the Liberal Party fundraiser. They clearly contravened the code of conduct guidelines for directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. These guidelines state: "A director's political activities must be clearly separated from activities related to his or her appointment".

Does the Prime Minister support his wheat board officials violating their
own code of conduct and what will they do about it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor
for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no personal
knowledge at all of the matters that the hon. gentleman alleges, but quite
frankly, I take the allegations seriously.

I will make the appropriate inquiries and if any guidelines have in fact
been contravened corrective action will be taken.


How good are the Liberals and the CWB at putting back money into the pooling accounts, Agri-villers?

Parsley

[pourfarmer]

Curious about this electrolyte recipe for
scours?