The CWB "single desk"

[TOM4CWB]

Incognito;

I keep running across this:

"All countries that are signatories to GATT, including Australia, have agreed to end export subsidies by 2013, and that includes a statutory monopoly for marketing wheat. So as things stand the single desk is now due to end in seven years."

It hadn't really sunk in... but this means the CWB too.

When did this happen?

[rbrunel]

Tom
even if we do get rid of the monopoly, what is the likelyhood that export subsidies will be eliminated by others. We have heard this before.

[Incognito]

I've run into it this week too. The Aussies are making it sound like it was signed into the WTO, it was in the 2004 document but it was a watered down version was signed last December to make it fly. The doc was like 300 pages and i've never seen it.

The former Aussie Ambassador to GATT said it was just a foregone conclusion that STE's were dead meat and a slow methodical approach would be easier on smaller farms as they make the progression to a fully open market.

So the left side and right side can dig in all they want - if the industry keeps going the way it is one December you are going to wake up and have 7 months to get ready for a new world.

Goodale announced the WGTA in December effective August 01 in Ottawa lest u forget and then the little nazi had the luck to have 1996 grain prices and everyone said - this aint so bad.

Any preceived value of the CWB is diminishing everyday on the world stage as a bargaining tool and within these boundaries as a payment to farmers.

The Gov guarantee is worth something.
Some argue that the board costs more than it is worth. Sure hope they don't have any 40 year old unmarried daughters at home with that attitude.

AT any rate, history dictates the left and right will fight until there is no value...and when a free trade panel somewhere says its over - wonder why you didn't take the first deal because it was the best deal.

How many wish they would have listened to Otto Lang and his bond theory to pay the crow out?

But the left said - why take CROW money its there for life - says so in the Act.

Their interpretation of the Act was incorrect - and who paid? That same crew and organization is demanding status quo again for all you bush haters you are acting like his quote...

Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again....

Even the former Liberal Tdade Minister said at the WTO meeting in Geneva - it was 139-1 - we were all alone and the CWB went wild - brought Easter in and gave him enough briefing notes to choke a Washington lawyer and said go forth and multiply.

Another tactic the left is using is that if you dismantle - you can't get it back...

It aint gonna matter - the right on this issue and the left on this issue are polarized and in the end some suit in the European Union is going to decide what grain marketing is like in western Canada.

Chuck may deliver a barley vote, test the waters and appease the right and sit back and see what the WTO brings just like Goodale did with WGTA. Damn WTO people made us get rid of it right now - but he really traded off supply management for 10 years for a quick resolution to the trans subsidy.

And what did you get - a 755 million a year subsidy - gone for 1.3 billion - 2 years worth of subsidy.

What fine negotiators the left and right side of the industry are for farmers in the middle ground.

The CWB right now is like an overweight, unemployed son or daughter that is 45 years old - not married and living at home.

It is costing you money - but still has sentimental value.

you have 4 choices:

1) cut the umbical cord after all these years and hope the family survives

2) hope someone marries into the family and shares your financial burden

3) do nothing and hope the problem goes away

4) take out an add in the western producer and transfer you problem to someone else

If i was Chuck et al right now i would opt for #4 except the paper i would use would be in Geneva. HE wont cause he has bigger gonads than me - but thats what Goodale was waiting for.

weird industry - 15 % of the right
15% of the left control what 70% of you get politically

and for 50 years you never got what was entitled and thats what i cannot figure out

holy - what a ramble - u taking lessons E VADER...lol

[TOM4CWB]

I was brushing off my Canadian Grain Commission files... and it dawned on me we have missed an important element in this CWB plebicite issue. The CWB Act is incorporated under "Regulation of Trade and Commerce"(91(3)) not "Agriculture"

This means all Canadians are responsible for the sales the CWB make... which of course is right because all Canadians stand behind the Pool Accounts of the CWB with the government guarantee.

Profits other than from Part III are to go to the Consolodated Revenue Fund, not to the Pool accounts (CWB Act Section 7(2)) and all loses come from the people of Canada... "shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament" (7(3)).

Since we see this:

"Ottawa (23 Nov. 2006) - The 340,000-member National Union of Public and General Employees is joining the campaign to save the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and asking the Harper Conservative government not to dismantle the marketing agency as big-time agribusiness is demanding."

Legally the Union who works for Canada, the CWB, the CGC, and all the Commerce between are a part of the CWB "Trade and Commerce" selling the CWB does.

If it was argued that a "Producer" of grain did not "produce" the grain until it was dumped down the elevator pit,
(causing the Honourable Minister of the CWB to withhold 16,000 ballots in the CWB Election)
and sold to the CWB in the last two crop years... surely the CWB is technically and legally the seller of this grain the monopoly holds.

Clearly the grower can only market this grain through the CWB "single desk", and the CWB is the seller into interprovincial and export markets... not the individual grower. This is why Goodale did not provide a "Maximisation of Returns" provision in the CWB Act in 1998. It is not the individual growers grain... it is the nation of Canada's grain.

NAFTA has ruled The CWB Act distributes the "profits" of all sales above the initial price...

Again the grower does not own the grain in the flow of "Trade and Commerce"... the people of Canada do.

Further,

A strong argument should be made that the people of Canada are the vendor who is the real "producer"... as the legislation uses elevators that are "Works for the General advantage of Canada" under the CWB Act; and the quality is determined by a manditory system that are the "Grades for the General advantage of Canada". The Barley or Wheat is "produced" and then sold, when it is loaded into a ocean going ship... at a Canadian Port, or loaded into a rail car headed for the USA.

Simple solution;

Tell the Union and all Canadians they are entitled to vote on a nation wide CWB "single desk"... that is going to end in 2013 as per GATT rules anyway.

WE can have the exclusion and inclusion vote all at the same time... both wheat and barley... get it all over.

Question: (something like this)

The Canadian Wheat Board "single desk" Monopoly must apply to Canada and imprision those grain growers who break this monopoly. (YES or NO)

[Incognito]

Archibald v. Canada

12]The appellants also take issue with the Trial Judge's apparent conclusion that, notwithstanding the Charter, the Canadian Wheat Board Act is valid law because it is authorized under the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction to regulate trade and commerce under section 91, class 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867.13 By way of example, the appellants point to his conclusion [at paragraphs 191-192, pages 439-440] that:

. . . without any consideration of section 1, [of the Charter] the CWB Act and the Board's monopoly are valid in law, and despite the Charter, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Ontario Separate Schools Reference, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, in regard to Parliament's legislative jurisdiction under section 91, class 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In Canada's free and democratic society, Parliament, with its undoubted power to make laws within the class of subject [sic] of trade and commerce, must remain free to fix what is quintessentially a political problem, by freeing or regulating the market, virtually as it and the government see fit . . . . Such decisions are for Parliament and not for the Court, so long as Parliament infringes no Charter rights, or if it does, so long as the infringement be demonstrably justified, or if a constitutional imperative exacts the unimpaired integrity of a head of legislative power. [Emphasis added.]

101]The Trial Judge was critical of Supreme Court jurisprudence which he interpreted to require that only the original purpose of legislation was relevant for purposes of a section 1 analysis. Irrespective of the view he expressed, he relied on the purpose of the legislation when it was last re-enacted by Parliament in 1967. No issue arises from the learned Judge's view expressed on this issue. Nor did the learned Judge's comments with respect to section 91, class 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal trade and commerce power, affect the validity of his Oakes analysis.

[TOM4CWB]

Murphy vs. CPR

"Per Taschereau, Locke, Fauteux, and Abbitt JJ.:

The Canadian Wheat Board Act, which controls and regulates not one trade or business but several, including the activities of the producer, the railroads, and the elevators, in so far as the provisions relate to the export of grain from the province for the purpose of sale, is an act in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce within s. 91 of the B.N.A. Act. The fact that it interferes with property and civil rights in the province is immaterial." [SCC 1958]

[Incognito]

gotta love the Internet eh Tom.

Good find.

[wd9]

re:Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again....

Incog, TOM4CWB, I misunderestimate both of you

[Incognito]

http://www.am1500.com/garagelogic/sounds/prez&who.mp3

dunno if this is the RIGHT one as speakers have LEFT the building.

[wd9]

re: The fact that it interferes with property and civil rights in the province is immaterial." [SCC 1958]

Rights and freedoms within Canada have never been that strong for the commoners.

Wonder what the SCC would say today?

[TOM4CWB]

Incognito & WD9,

In fact the "agriculture" part of the grain growing business is outside the jurisdiction of the CWB Act.

R. vs Sommerville

Sommerville transported 4326bu of feed wheat (grown in SK.) across the AB/SK border and fed it to cattle he owned in AB. Sommerville broke the CWB Act Section 32(b), [now section 45(b)].

"Except as permitted under the regulations, no person other than the Board shall transport or cause to be transported from one province to another, wheat or wheat products owned by a person other than the Board."

Somerville's Charges for breaking the CWB Act for not having a valid CWB license were dismissed. It was acknowledged that Sommerville couldn't get a license.

HELD
"Per Fauteux C.J., and Abbott, Martland, Ritchie and Spence J.J.:

The Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated with the object of marketing, in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada. The purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board Act was to prevent the Respondent marketing his grain outside Saskatchewan, and s. 32(b) [45(b)] was designed to prevent the transport of grain out of Saskatchewan for that purpose. The Act was held by this Court to be valid as an exercise of Parliament's legislative power in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce. To interpret s. 32(b)[45(b)] as applying to circumstances of this case would be to apply it for an object outside the intention of the Act and would involve the conclusion that the Act applied to purposes other than the regulation of trade and commerce. The facts of this case involve no trade in grain by the respondent and no commercial transaction.