Who decides when the CWB defends farmers?

[Incognito]

They spend farmers money to pump out releases on the WTO,railcar ownership and seed, but nothing about the farmers right to ship grain in a container that has been jeopardized by a strike in Vancouver.
Who sets the agenda?

Staff? The CEO? Directors whom are farmers? The Feds?

The CWB's silence on this issue is deafening.. Heres your chance to be a hero, Vader. What say you?

[silverback]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reasonable reply from Vader. He seems to mysteriously disapear when pressed for reason and logic.

[TOM4CWB]

Incognito;

That you were required to ask this question says volumes.

Obviously the CWB shipping program has been hurt by this strike... malt barley, for instance.

I have heard that the CWB needs to start marketing other grains besides wheat and barley to survive:

Peas,
Lentils,
Canola,
Flax,
Rye/Trit.

So the strategic planning session this week is to map a plan to get more grains into the CWB fold and increase the critical mass and volumes the CWB handles.

Do we need to have the CWB defend farmers by marketing these grains Incognito? CWB management thinks it would be a great Idea.

What do western Canadian farmers think?

[Incognito]

NAFTA effectively ended our ability to create new orderly marketing agencies or expand existing ones.

Under NAFTA, farmers and government cannot implement single-desk selling for potatoes or cattle and we can't add canola to the CWB.

NAFTA Chapter 11, Article 1110 states:

No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment
except:
d) on payment of compensation..


Ethyl Corporation's NAFTA victory and the pending Sunbelt Water case indicate that, under Article 1110, the Canadian government would have to compensate companies such as Cargill if farmers and the government add
canola to the CWB's single-desk-selling jurisdiction. Affected companies would argue that such a move expropriates their potential profits and, by reducing the profit potential of their elevators and other property,
expropriates a portion of those assets.

If the government does not pay compensation voluntarily, Cargill and other companies could sue the Canadian government under Section B of Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

[JD4ME]

No they can't however they can enter the markket as a seller like any other person you or I could too. Stop and think about it, you want the CWB to market other grains but not from a monopoly position, should that not give you a benchmark on their ability to perform? It is what you have been asking for in cereals. I wouldn't decry it I would endorse it. But only with the CWB as another marketer in an open market.
As producers we can always use another bidder on our grains. right?

[TOM4CWB]

Incognito,

JD4ME has it straight on the logic for the CWB's move.

Now, how can we be sure the CWB does not cross transfer revenue from monopoly pooling into other grains?

Many deals CAN be made for non-transparent transactions for a single desk that go like this:

Sell Peas to customer X at market value of other sellers; If a wheat sale connected has a discount attached to sweeten the deal. This is done every day in the commercial trade to make sales.

Are we willing to have the CWB maintain the single desk on Wheat and Barley... but add more grains on a voluntary basis for these additional grains?

At the C.D. Howe Institute meeting, this spring in Winnipeg, Harley Furtan seemed to think adding additional grains to CWB marketing was key to long term survival of the CWB.

What say you?

[parsley]

Incognito, your statement that NAFTA effectively ends creation or expansion of "orderly marketing" agencies, is the CWB propaganda used to scare farmers!

As an agency that has functioned on deception, perception and lies since 1946 (that's right, 1946) there is no reason to think they would now come clean.

But lets examine NAFTA implications based on how the CWB actually functions rather than how they want us to believe.


First, Chapter 15 of NAFTA clearly states that "nothing in this Agreement" prevents a Party from "designating a monopoly" (1502) or "maintaining or establishing a state enterprise" (1503).


Certainly, Article 1110 of NAFTA requires compensation for expropriation of US/Mexico investments in Canada.

But the big question is: what is the expropriation by the CWB?


The CWB, expropriates the property (grain) of prairie farmers (incidently, not authorized by the Act).

It is only a case of "Who do the companies buy grain from"?

Under a market system, the companies can buy from farmers, while under the CWB system, the farmers have lost their ownership and thus the companies buy from the CWB.

The companies essentially lose nothing because in either case they can buy grain.


Unfortunately, NAFTA does not stop governments from expropriating from their own farmers.


Whether under monopoly or not, the government already maintains control over the companies by Part II of the CWB Act and the "works for the general advantage of Canada" phrases in both the Canada Grain Act and the CWB Act.

There is a good argument that these controls are so strong as to amount to expropriation, but they are already "maintained" without challenge by the US owned companies.


If a new grain was put under CWB monopoly, NAFTA would require fair compensation for grain the companies had already purchased from farmers, but not being able to steal the company-owned grain is hardly a deterent.


As to the subjective arguments about company profits under the CWB system or a market choice system, the companies seem pretty cozy under the CWB system.

Wheat and barley are the sure bread and butter for the companies with farmers carrying the risks. And they don't have to hire managers to source wheat for them either.

Parsley

[Incognito]

We collectively have the biggest case of ADHD I've ever seen. No wonder change is so elusive. Focus is not just a vehicle made by Ford.

Thanks for the points of clarification, Parsley.

[parsley]

JD4ME,

As soon as you hear any talk of the CWB including other grains in their schemes, you want to panic.


In a book called The Politics of Food, written by Don Mitchell, he explains, on pages 20 and 21, very clearly, how the CWB has performed:

"On the other hand, measures such as the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Price Stabilization Act in 1944 were aimed at keeping prices down for farm commodities."

"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".

Farmers managed to increase their average per-capita output by six-fold between 1951 and 1966 and they increased the total volume of Canadian agricultural production by 40 per cent. But net farm income remained below the average for manufacturing wages in Canada."

JD4ME, I don't want to hear one more Wheat Board 'expert' saying what good prices they get for farmers for the farmer's wheat.

I don't want to hear one more farmer saying that the CWB should have a chance at marketing other grains.

The CWB has already proven, over decades, that they are an instrument of the Federal Government to keep the price of food cheap.

Parsley

[JD4ME]

Parsley
I appreciate what you are saying, all I was offering was the fact that sometimes you have to look at a problem from a different angle to see the solution, FFJ and WWG can talk all they want about offshore values and US values and lack of premium from the board but the average farmer doesn't get it . Sure there are the larger and more business aware that can see premiums being offered at times external to the board and it grates not to be able to take advantage of it. But you have a greater chance to make comparisons on something like canola on a side by side basis becasue it's internal and something producers would understand more easily. I do understand your fear of cross subsidization from other pools to prop up others but I don't share the same fear to quite the same extent.
And as the great philosopher said "And thats all I have to say about that"
Forrest Gump

[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