Is the CWB trustworthy?

[cowman]

Are you kidding me? The last time I didn't shop at the co-op they didn't seize my truck and throw me in jail! And who are all these upstanding appointees? Good little Liberals everyone I'll bet! The CWB is a dinosaur that would be right at home in any communist state. I will agree the GOVERNMENT has put in place a way to eventually get rid of the CWB but TOM is right when he says our rights and freedoms are being violated.

[cowman]

My point is that the monopoly is like a patent protection - the benefit gets shared amongst farmers; all farmers own it.

And I respect that some people have problems with this, just as some people have problems with the concept of a patent.

But it is not the case that the federal government has involvement in the operations of the CWB or that this is some clandestine organization to stomp on western farmers.

In referring to the legislation guiding all other types of commercial entities, my point was that as a democratic society, this organization (the CWB) was recreated in 1998 by the same legislative process as was the legislation guiding other commercial enterprises.

Farmers now elect the majority of Directors. Farmers ultimately control the direction of the organization.

Tom

[bbrindle]

I'm really curious now. If the CWB wanted to:
1. Could the CWB stop pooling feed barley completely and buy on a daily cash basis?
2. Could the CWB open the Canadian domestic market so farmers could sell directly to processors?
3. Could the CWB provide export licenses with no buy-back process to a farmer who wanted one?
4. Could the CWB accept deliveries at the spout only and give up Part II of the Act (Control of Elevators and Railways)?
5. Could the CWB create truly separate pools for various classes of wheat?
6. Could the CWB allow grain companies to export grain without going through the CWB?

Are all of these things in the powers of the CWB or would some require changes by the federal government?

[TOM4CWB]

Tom,

I appreciate your trying to deal with this issue, however, Interpretation of the CWB Act is where it is all at.

I note it was against the law for Air Canada to lay off workers, until the Transport Minister said the law, as interpreted by his lawyer, didn't apply!!!

I further note that "special" packages are likely for these layoffs, with government blessing.

The CWB has a very specific Act, with very specific instructions from the Government of Canada on how it MUST be interpreted.

CWB staff and Directors have no choice in this matter, grain producers are no different.

This lays the flex issues at Sir Goodales feet, he alone can approve, or turn them down. The CWB Act is quite specific, Ralphie G has the last say, therefore all must be done to insure CWB policies meet his approval!!!

[parsley]

Finally there is a bit of free time and Parsley is back! It is most difficult to watch from the sidelines, especially while Thalpenny emphatically makes the statement - "Farmers ultimately control the direction of the [CWB] organization." Let's all read what the CWB Act actually states :

Section 18.(1) The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act shall be exercised or performed."

And futher, the Act states:

18.(1.1) "The directors shall cause the directions to be implemented......"
3.12 (2) "The directors...of the Corporation shall comply with this Act, the regulations, ....and any directions given to the Corporation....."

Should we believe believe thalpenny, or the Parliamentary Act? Which would hold up in court? I'll choose the Act, even knowing it means being pigeonholed by thalpenny as one who is attempting to present "strained linkage" about this issue.

Parsley

[parsley]

bbrindle,

You posed 6 questions! Yes, the CWB can generally do as they please, - as long as they are not instructed otherwise by the Governor in Council (Cabinet).

There is however, one very important point that needs to be emphasized: The directions and regulations of the Governor in Council given to the CWB CANNOT go beyond the authority authorized by the Act.

This is very relevant to bbrindle's third question - "3. Could the CWB provide export licenses with no buy-back process to a farmer who wanted one?" Since there are already numerous examples where the CWB already does this, the obvious answer is - Yes they can and do.

However, more importantly,at the same time, the CWB refuse to grant licences to farmers. The relevant question is - does the Act authorize this CWB control over farmer held grain? The answer is no. The CWB has simply bluffed this one over us for more than 50 years. And got away with it!

The CWB has held their monopoly for all these years simply by refusing to grant licences to prairie farmers. Thus, the only practical choice farmers have is to "voluntarily" choose to sell to the Board. (remember....the buy-back is still selling to the Board).

The requirement of a licence and their refusal to grant it, forcing sales to the CWB, amounts to expropriation without adequate compensation. (its somewhat like an offer you can't refuse).

But only an Act can authorize expropriation. The Governor in Council cannot expropriate without statutory authority. Certainly, 10 elected farmer and 5 appointed directors cannot choose to arbitrarily expropriate prairie farmers' grain. There is nothing in the CWB Act authorizing expropriation of farmer's grain.

So the answer to the question - can the CWB arbitrarily refuse licences to prairie farmers?
Yes, but only as long as we sit back and let them do a number on us.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

YOU ARE BACK, GOOD TO SEE YOU!!!

I think the practical side of CWB policy changes to operations involves the federal government to a great extent, contrary to thalpenny's pleadings.

Bottom line is that the CWB never wants to be in the position that Sir Goodale must discipline them publically, and any good civil servant would insist things never got that far out of control.

Since the CEO is appointed by Sir Goodale, and the CWB staff are essentially federal government employees, who are they ultimately responsible to, could it be those responsible to insuring legislation is maintained that continues their respective jobs?

This is not the CWB's staff's fault, I am not blaming them, it is simply a fact.

If Ottawa says no export licenses, none will be issued.

If Ottawa says start issuing export licenses to "designated area" grain producers tommorow, that is what would happen.

Feed grains for export through feed mills and seed wheat and barley are two situations that highlite Ottawa's command and control structure over the CWB.

The Fixed Price Contracts and other FLEX pricing options obviously had Ottawa's approval, and consultation with Ottawa was extensive in their development! After all Ottawa is resposible for the financing, trade implications, and outcome of these programs.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune!

[parsley]

Good MorningTom4CWB..... you say this:
"If Ottawa says no export licenses, none will be issued. "

You've missed the point! The point is that the Act does not provide Ottawa with the authority to issue those marching orders to the Board. Do you understand what I am saying?

The Supreme Court of Canada says, "Statuates are not to be construed as taking away or authorizing the taking away of the property rights of the subject, unless their language makes their intention abundantly clear."

Farmer held grain has not been expropriated by Parliament.
Parsley

[chaffmeister]

Hey folks:

Please allow me to wade in on this one.

Thalpenny suggests that there is no direct linkage between the fed govt and the directors of the CWB. After parsley's well informed response (as always), I'm afraid all I can offer is an anecdote.

A couple of years ago I was working with a group of farmers who were trying to get some CWB policy changes made. When I talked directly to a number of the directors, I was told that the decision we were seeking would have to be made by Ralph Goodale. When I asked Ralph Goodale the same question, he responded, "The board of directors makes that decision."

Who's right?

I can accept that this is just one small episode and that I could very well have been getting the official brush off or it was the CWB version of dodge-ball. I admit, it was not an "official request", more an unofficial inquiry. But I am certainly left wondering, how does anything get done when Goodale is expecting the board to handle thorny issues and the board is waiting to get instructions from Goodale?

Also - about the board of directors. I am told that one of the appointed directors refused to discuss or vote on a number of issues because they were, in his estimation, "farm issues" and he did not feel qualified to vote on them. Why was he appointed to be there? When there are non-farm issues to be addressed, hiring outside consultants may have been a better approach. And this would not be unusual as the CWB often hires consultants to tackle issues.

One more thing - I agree with thalpenny regarding the PRO. At least some of what whe says. Clearly it does fluctuate over the year. Most years the PRO will climb slightly over its lifetime (until it becomes an EPR). However, this year the CWB has been conspicuous by its bullishness. Others have been less bullish or even bearish for some time - we were perhaps equally conspicuous on the "bear" side of that argument. Not to say that we were right and they were wrong, only to say that there were others out there that saw it quite differently. The CWB is only as good as its people. And there are many good ones over there, please trust me, I know many of them. But they are only human and they don't have a crystal ball.

No one could predict the events of Sept 11th. Remember, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-13% of global wheat trade goes into the middle east region. In the face of increasing unstability over there and now "war premiums" being added to ocean freight rates, it is increasingly difficult to be bullish wheat prices - even if you are the CWB.

About futures markets being a predictive tool (as stated by thalpenny). I've heard this before and I always have a problem with it. The futures market does not predict. It can tell you right now what something is worth RIGHT NOW for delivery in the future.

If you look at a futures market which has a nearby month (say, Nov)at $250 and a deffered month (say, May) at $290 and decide to wait until May to sell because the market is "predicting" $290 for May, there is a pretty good chance that you will lose. There is nothing in the market to say that that price will still be there in May. The futures market is not predicting $290 will be the price in May, it is saying that TODAY you can lock in $290 for May delivery. Quite different. I guess I'm hoping that the CWB is not using the futures market to predict the PRO.

Chaffmeister

[ianben]

Hi Chaffmiester
Nice to hear from you!!
How is that son of yours? Letting you sleep now I hope.

Is any government going to allow total freedom in such a sensitive product as food?

Any industry in fact which has large economic consequences for the country has or will ask for government intervention.
Airline companies through-out the world are seeking government help to combat the fallout from the 11th Sept.

Why then do Canadian farmers expect the CWB not to be government influenced.

Would the freedoms advocated on this site make any difference to the global price?

As Rockpile said in another thread "We need to raise the bar for everyone" but how?

Regards Ian