New CWB Initials rip off Fixed Price Contract Farmers

[parsley]

Charlie and/or/Tom,

Before these questions get lost again in the maze, I'll ask them again!

1.lrhm asked in another thread what is the volume of grain that is exported out under the Export Manufactured Feed Agreement/ year.

That question yet needs to be answered. Should be really easy statisticss to get.


2. Does the EMFA grain go through the buyback or does the CWB simply
issue export licenses? lrhm and Parsley both asked this question previously.

3.Why isn't the CWB marketing all this grain that the feed mills are marketing and exporting?

This is one question that I really want answered. The CWB has carefully chosen NOT to market this grain by setting up the EMFA. Many want to know why.

I sound very persistent I realize, but these are questions that really need to be answered for all farmers out there.
Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Why will no one even attempt to explain why #1CWES 12.5 protein buy-backs were higher than #1CWRS 13.5 Buy-backs.

How can this be?

Further when the CWRS buy-back pays a farmer to ship the highest quality wheat out of the country, and into the USA, against NAFTA, why do you call the US trade action wrong?

[chas]

You boys are bogging down in alot of detail that is purely government interference in our market but quess what we will never get rid of their lawyer logic until we can elected enought farmer power into government or the CWB to make the process equal to all. I think you are all whining for a marketing system that the american farmers are operating under. They are worst off than we are. Just talk to some of them on the internet they'll tell you how tough it can get. They can't get an operating loan unless they hedge their crop before seeding, to assure bankers their loans are covered. I don't think we need that type of and industry here. JDGreen your a little wet behind the ears, sharpen your pencil because your in for a ride with your attitude. Chas

[TOM4CWB]

Chas,

I hope you will allow us to ask hard questions, If not why not?

If the CWB monpoly is extracting a premium, then why on Friday Feb 2,2001 was the #1CWRS 13.5 buy-back under $195.00/tonne, when the PRO is $210.00.

This means every tonne I haul to the US the CWB pays over $15.00/t to me subsidy from your final payment pooling account.

This proves the US 301 investigation is justified! The CWB pays me to haul my wheat across the border $15.00/t.

Now if I haul my #1CWRS 13.5 across the US border without a CWB export license, and get charged with illegal exporting outside the monopoly, what would you say?

Why would I not want the $15.00/t from the pooling accounts?

Because I don't want to be a theif!

Would it be OK if I broke the CWB law so I wouldn't be stealing from you Chas?

[TOM4CWB]

whoaa there Tom. You seem to have some misunderstandings here. Your assumptions are misleading concerning the US sec 301 challenge.

The PDS price is the value the CWB can get from the US market on that day. The PRO is the esimated value of all sales to all markets over a 12-15 month marketing period.

Now when there are sales that the CWB has made previously at higher market values (and also at higher $US vs $Cdn) and by capturing higher values from some markets, the pool account estimate will look favourable to the PDS price on the day. In many ways, your question makes the argument why the CWB adds value to farmers, which is helpful.

Concerning the sale to the US, the PDS value is the competitive value into that market on any given day.

Based on the legislation, the CWB has the responsibility to capture the pecuniary value of grain sales into any market. That's to ensure that any benefit that is created by virtue of being the single desk seller of Western Cdn wheat is captured for the benefit of all producers who sell wheat that year. I think a look at US prices will show pretty soft prices post-harvest. The PDS prices are intended to capture the competitive value of a sale the CWB could make into the US market, on a spot or daily basis. It does not reflect the values that may exist in other markets. Of course these prices take into account the value of the grade or class of wheat as well. CWES, with it's extra strong gluten strength is carrying a higher value in the US market currently compared to some other markets. This price gets reflected in the PDS price, as it should.

Although the 'producer direct sale price' on the day for 1CWRS 13.5 is currently lower than the PRO estimate of what the farmer will earn from all CWB sales over the year for that grade, the farmer will undoubtedly receive a lower price when he resells the grain into the US cash market. This is because the PDS price relates to Minneapolis cash prices, which is the pricing point for most elevators from eastern Montana eastward. This mechanism ensures that a fair, competitive price is captured on exports to the US.

I had computer problems and a death in my family that has prevented me from fully participating in the forums over the past few weeks. But I'm back!

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

The CWB is refusing to recognize one thing, Section 32 of the CWB Act says I must "offer" my grain to you.

Does the CWB dictonary say that "offer" means "must sell to the CWB"

Please show me one legal dictonary in Canada that shows "offer" means "must sell"! The CWB Act doesn't even back you.

Why do you CWB folks refuse to admit the most obvious?

[TOM4CWB]

The CWB is refusing to recognize one thing, Section 32 of the CWB Act says I must "offer" my grain to you (if I choose and want to "offer" this grain to you).

Does the CWB dictonary say that "offer" means "must sell to the CWB"

Please show me one legal dictonary in Canada that shows "offer" means "must sell"! The CWB Act doesn't even back you.

Outside the CWB "designated area" they are subject to exactly the same enforcment as I am, under Part IV of the CWB Act, yet they get no-cost export licenses.

If the price outside Canada is higher than inside Canada, then why do they not get charged the difference?

If the price is the same inside and outside Canada, then I obviously do not receive a benefit if I export!

Why do you CWB folks refuse to admit the most obvious?

[chas]

Tom4cwb why would you even consider selling to the USA under the surcumstances you suggested anyway, besides it proves that the CWB does work. As to the legal interpertations of the CWB Act can I see my lawyer before I answer any in criminating questions. Chas

[TOM4CWB]

Chas,

I guess the point is that the CWB monopoly was never intended for farmers!

A buy-back that extracts 15.00 a tonne out of the CWB pooling account is not the intent of section 45 of the CWB Act or of section 14 of the CWB Regulations!

In fact section 7 of the CWB act demands that CWB Act Section 45 Section 14 Regulation profits be returned to the Receiver General of Canada, not the pooling accounts of the CWB.

This is the point, the CWB is not being straight with farmers, grain companies, or the tax payers of Canada, in my opinion.

I simply bring this up to see if I missed something in the Statutes, since I can see no other logical reason why the CWB continues without a firm legal base to operate upon!

Some day someone will get all these issues before a Court of competent jurisdiction, and then maybe we will be able to solve these issues!

What do you think Chas, should the CWB do a reference to the Federal Court of Canada, and ask them to answer these questions?

[TOM4CWB]

On Section 7, and lower pooling account returns, The CWB should be getting the money from Parliament, not from the Pooling accounts when a farmer is issued an Export License pursuiant to Sections 45, 46, and 14 of the CWB Act and Regulations.

It is very unfair when I have people come up to me about the buy-back and say "keep your mouth shut Tom". "With the last interm payment I already made money on the buy-back."

This means with about $30.00/t in many pooling accounts these guys get to have higher US prices plus steal from the pooling accounts.

According to Section 7, if Mr. Goodale wants to operate this way, then he should pay, not have it illegally come out of my final payment!

[parsley]

That is correct Tom4CWB. There are two parts to the CWB Act. One is the marketing-pooling part. It applies to the Designated Area.

The other part is the Regulatory part and it applies to all of Canada. Right now, the CWB is sliding money out of the DA pooling accounts to pay the regulatory costs in all of Canada. The CWB ACt says they cannot do this. It is illegal.

Look at it another way. The producer in Ontario applies for an export license. He is granted a no-cost license. There is a cost associated with this procedure. But the DA pooling account pays the costs!

On the other hand Chas in Alberta applies for an export license. He is routinely denied.

So Chas pays for the licensing costs of the guy in Ontario who is granted the license.

Meantime, the Act says the Government of Canada must pay those licensing costs.They're not.....

It's the principle of the thing! And the cost as well....over 50 years of downloading regulatory costs on DA producers adds up to a lot of $$$$$.

Only in the CWB, would farmer-directors not even know what the CWB staff are doing.
Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

I don't know that this can really be blamed on the CWB Directors!

It is obvious that the CWB Legal department sanctions these illegal activities, and probably even Ralphee G. is in the loop. Who knows, even Jean Chretien told all of them to do it, and they can't help themselves!

This of course does not change the fact that what they are doing is against the law.

Do you think we could hire Canada Customs and Revenue department to get our money back, and if they refuse to arrest them?