Who decides when the CWB defends farmers?

[parsley]

Incognito,
(JD4ME, we've all lived on the amount of the CWB cheque we get at the end of the year and it is a pittance, and that is why Board supporters often grow non-Board grains)

On the topic of NAFTA, there are a number of implications to consider because section 61 of the CWB Act requires the CWB to comply with NAFTA.

Consider Article 314 of NAFTA that states: "no Party may adopt or maintain any duty, tax or other charge on the export of any good to the territory of another Party, unless such duty, tax or charge is adopted or maintained on any such good when destined for domestic consumption."

While there are many exemptions in the NAFTA Agreement, only Mexico gets any exemption on Article 314.

Now switch from what Nafta says to what the CWB Act states. For exports, Regulation 14(b) states: "the applicant PAYS TO THE CORPORATION a sum of money ..... arising solely by. the then existing differences between the prices of that grain or those products inside and outside Canada."

And for domestic sales, Regulation 14.1 states: "The Corporation may grant a licence for sale anywhere in Canada,... but NO FEE SHALL BE CHARGED."

For years, the CWB staff has clained 14(b) is the buy-back!

Any comments, Incognito? (How can Vader possibly explain what appears to be a CWB breach of NAFTA)?

[grassfarmer]

Parsley, You quote:
"The farm price of commodities advanced only 17 per cent from 1949 to 1970, with the price of wheat virtually frozen from 1945 to 1972."

"Farm income gains had to come from increased volume if they came at all".

These certainly are recognisable problems facing many farmers around the world as well as grain producers in Western Canada. It affects beef, pork, poultry, grains, sheepmeat - isn't it possible that more than the CWB could be behind this global income crisis agricultural producers find themselves in?

[Incognito]

It is not Incognito LLB; however, in a past life, if LLB involved booze, it may have been correct.

This is the guy you need Parsley:

http://www.steptoe.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=ws.DspBio&id=992&site_id=380

International Law and Trade
Stewart Baker's practice includes issues relating to government regulation of international trade in high-technology products, and advice and practice under the antidumping and countervailing duty laws of United States, European Community, Canada and Australia. He also counsels clients on issues involving foreign sovereign immunity, and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Do like the rest of Canadian companies when it comes to trade law, hire an American lawyer.

[parsley]

Incognito,

When farmers take out hail insurance, they read what the contract states. House insurance the same. Getting your replacement cell phone is the same. Reading, grunt work and time spent studying the manual, when you could be having a beer.

Farmers can read the basics in NAFTA and for that an international lawyer is not needed.

The basics are:
1. According to the CWB Act, the CWB has to follow NAFTA .

2. NAFTA does not allow an export tax to be slapped on (unless done domestically also)

3. 14(b) states a fee must be paid to export (the CWB claims buy-backs are this fee)

4. CWB legislation states a fee shall NOT be paid for a licence within Canada



Actually it was a trade lawyer who wrote a book on NAFTA that first pointed out that CWB regulation 14(b) and 14.1 contravene the export tax prohibitions of NAFTA.

But the reality is that 14(b) and 14.1 are both zero, because since NAFTA came in, there is no price difference inside and outside Canada. Thus there is no export tax violation.

Lawyers reading legislation would not know that, but anyone watching what the CWB actually does can figure that out.

The significant point is that the CWB has been giving false infornation when they claim 14(b) mandates the buy-backs.

Contrary to CWB claims, the buy-backs have nothing to do with regulation 14(b) and the price difference inside and outside Canada. This means there is no monopoly mandated by the legislation.

As Rod Flaman wrote: "The monopoly is a hoax." The truth then is still the truth, and remains unchanged by Flaman's opinion of the merits of a monopoly.

He was even taking the CWB to court on the issue and "guaranteed" to the Western Producer that he would win , plus claiming a bunch of money for himself then.

Now he loves the monopoly.

Parsley

[parsley]

Good Morning grassfarmer,

The CWB claim they get more money for farmers.

The points I am making are:

1. Agriculture in Canada has not progressed well in comparison to other manufacturing sectors.

2. Any more money in farmers' pockets is due to more PRODUCTION (the farmers' efforts), not better prices and not better marketing.

3. In Argentina, in the past, Agriculture was a money making industry and was targeted to be heavily taxed because it was doing so well. So here is one example where the "all over the world" does not apply.

4. ****The CWB has already ably proven over six decades, that they are not the solution to farmers getting better returns. Time to move on with a different focus. The same old, same-old is not meeting anybody's needs.****

5. My observation is that as more and more Governments all over the globe get more and more entwined with farming and agriculture, the poorer farmers become.

6. In documents from Access to Information, the minutes from the "CABINET WHEAT COMMITTEE". December 5th, 1946state:

"Dr. Wilson reported that in the present crop year distilleries would use 3 1/2 million bushels of wheat. About 50 per cent. of this quantity would be used in the production of potable alcohol and 50 per cent. in the productionn of industrial alcohol."

$1.25 in 1946 (That was the export 'price control price' set in place). USA prices were over $5.00

What would the quantities be today, grassfarmer? What is the price?

Those distilleries still enjoy cheap, huge quantities of wheat from the West and the Government and the distilleries want it to remain that way.

Parsley