Is the CWB Function Regulatory or Commercial

[Vader]

Someone once told me that regulatory functioning and the commercial functioning are worlds apart and that should you ever try to mix the two together chaos would result.

I call into question the nature of the current negotiations between the CWB and the Grain Elevators over rail car allocations. Is this is a regulatory function of the CWB or is it related to the commercial selling of grain?

If this is a normal part of the commercial selling of grain then it is right that the costs be paid by the producer through the pool accounts. Does anyone have an estimate of these costs?

If this is a regulatory function of the CWB then the costs should be borne by the taxpayers of Canada through the Federal Government.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

I just wrote on the marketing performance topic;

"Parsley,

This benchmarking performance review is only nessasary because of Part IV of the CWB Act.

As we discussed earlier, all costs associated with other operational costs outside Part III of the CWB Act must come from the Government of Canada directly, and not our pooling accounts.

This would mean the millions spent on the squabble over transportation that arises directly from Part II of the CWB Act must not be taken from the pooling accounts.

Since the Honourable Ralph Goodale has agreed to back the CWB in this fight, now he as minister responsible should cough up all the CWB's costs associated with little project!

The same must go for this evaluation of the single desk that arises soley from Part I and IV of the CWB Act!

What do you think shouldn't Ralphie G pay for all these costs?"

You are right!

We by law are not required to pay for all this...!

Now what do we do to get our money back from the federal government?

[Vader]

Now we have opened up another can of worms.

Let us look at all of the CWB's efforts at self-promotion, advertising and communications. Does this fulfill their marketing mandate or does it come under the regulatory function. If they are promoting the monopoly then perhaps that is promoting their right to regulate and that also should be put on Ralphie's tab.

[TOM4CWB]

Vador,

You are right for sure!

I will get right on this, this should be good for millions!

If we add up all the legal bills, promotional material to Canada Customs, time spent fighting farmers who need marketing choice, over the last 10 years it is sure to add up to quite a sum!

Vader, do you want to bring this the the Auditor General's attention?

[parsley]

Excellent points you have both put on the table for examination. It's interesting how they have separated the marketing and regulatory roles in Australia.

AWB Ltd. (Australian Wheat Board) is the export marketer of wheat from Australia. The Government then created the Wheat Export Authority (WEA) which then grants or denies permission to export.

The regulatory arm, WEA, limits the information they give to the marketing AWB Ltd.

The two roles are clearly defined in Australia. The problem with the CWB is that these roles have been overlapped by the Board, and they seem not be be following the legislation, but rather they have tried to fit the legislation to best support the monopoly.

Look at the Australian situation at:

www.wheatexpauth.com.au for your reading.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Well Vader,

I did some checking on the elevator and railroad control issue, and this comes directly under Part II, section 28 Administration.

(k) provide for the allocation of railway cars avaliable for the shipment of grain at any delivery point to any elevator, loading platform or person at the delivery point

This clearly would provide the authority for the CWB to make the arguments they are now making.

Part III, section 33 (1)(b) states:

(b) By way of expences incurred in its operations under Part II relating to pool periods subequent to July 31, 1950.

We are operating after 1950, so the CWB is allowed to squabble all it wants, except, what Part of the CWB Act did Ralphie G. make the instructions contained in the MOU?

This still leaves the whole regulation, Export License, Single Desk and dual market question outside both parts II and III.

If Part IV and the regulations made from this part like section 14 were all removed from the CWB act, there would be no need to study anything, because we would have voluntary marketing like we had before 1943 for all practical purposes.

I feel strongly that it is wrong for the CWB to spend millions of dollars that should have been returned back to farmers, on trying to brain wash us into believing that Part IV of the CWB Act is good for us.

The CWB Directors cannot change Part IV, therefore this debate and discussion was supposed to be carried out by the parliament of Canada, and not CWB Directors.

Sorry about getting excited about Part II, I guess those regulatory costs have been ours since 1950!!!

[Vader]

What section of the Act does the legal cost of defending the US Section 301 challenge come under?

On the surface this appears to be of a regulatory nature.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

At first glance, you certainly have a good point on the US trade chalenge against the CWB on wheat.

Since the Single Desk is the target of this challenge, and since Canada's lack of transparency on pricing is caused by the single desk, one would think this should be a result of Sections 1 and 4 of the CWB Act.

This should mean the government of Canada should be paying 100% of the bill.