Notes   

CWB Opponents Stuck in the Past

Editor:

The Farmers for Justice (FFJ) news conference of Oct. 1 in Calgary was quite a Wild West spectacle.

It featured FFJ members in handcuffs and insisting on jail time rather than pay fines in their misguided vendetta against the Canadian Wheat Board and it had Alliance MPs and Alberta Conservative MLAs appearing in enthusiastic support.

It is unfortunate that some of these farmers are letting themselves be used by vested political and corporate interests and are fighting yesterday's battles over an incident that occurred in 1996.

That's two years before the CWB Act was changed to give democratically elected farmers control of the CWB.

The disgruntled FFJs don't have to deliberately break Canadian law to change CWB policy.

There are legitimate, open and democratic ways to change public policy but it requires hard work and respect for democracy.

If they want to ensure that the CWB does the best job possible in marketing farmers' grain under the CWB Act , they could run for a position on the CWB board of directors.

If they want to change the CWB Act and remove the single-desk or change the Customs Act under which some have been fined, they could run for Parliament.

Under the CWB Act they also have the avenue of a plebiscite among Prairie farms to decide the CWB's marketing mandate.

So far, farmers have voted to support the CWB because of the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue it earns annually for Western Canadian farmers through single-desk marketing.

Therefore, the FFJ renegades are really not protesting against the CWB.

They want to negate the democratic choice of the majority of farmers and ignore legitimate methods to make change.

They seem stuck at an obsolete point in history and oblivious to the fact that CWB governance is under democratic farmer control.

It is also interesting that Alliance MPs and Alberta Conservative MLAs, noted for their law and order platforms, are supporting a group that is flagrantly breaking the laws of Canada.

Don't they take an oath to uphold the integrity of Parliament and the laws it enacts?

I didn't know that the Alliance Party endorsed civil disobedience as a means to influence and change public policy.

I wish the FFJ and their handlers were more accurate in their portrayal of the 1996 border protests.

Farmers who exported small, non-commercial quantities of wheat are not being penalized for exporting grain without a licence.

They are being fined for driving off in vehicles that had been seized by Customs officials.  It is the same as if they had their vehicle impounded by the policy and they ignored them and drove away.

They can be thankful that they live in tolerant, patient, non-violent Canada.  It would be very foolhardy to ignore the orders of Customs officers in most other countries, including the U.S. and provoke the attention of the armed border guards.

Art Macklin
CWB Director
District 1

Friday, 30 August 2002

I am writing to request a permit, or a inter provincial licence to sell a hard red Winter Wheat called Maxim (Maxime) that is not grown on the designated area that the Wheat Board controls.

The Wheat Board has no pool account for this variety.  This means that the board should not pool this variety with other Western varieties.  Therefore, there should be no cost for a buy back on Inter Provincial licence.  We have also had discussions with the seed company ... to grow the seed under contract for them.  This will not effect the pooling system, which the CWB controls in Western Canada.

All I want is to be able to grow the wheat seed and transport it to Eastern Canada, to the company that I am contracting it with.

Time is of the essence, as we are approaching time to seed this Wheat.

Thank you,
Murray Wilson

The Response:

Dear Mr. Wilson,

In response to your letter dated August 30, 2002 for an inter-provincial licence to import Maxime (Maxim) winter wheat seed into the Canadian Wheat Board's designated are from eastern Canada:

Under section 42 of the Seeds Act Regulations (CFIA) it is a violation to grow seed that is not registered to be grown in that province.  Maxime (Maxim) is not registered to be grown in any provinces with in the CWB's designated area.

Therefore, we can not consider your request for an inter-provincial licence.

On May 16th, 1996, Trevor Magee, under oath, testified that farmers and Grain Companies receive the same buy-back.  

On Nov. 19th, 1996, in the "Ben-Ron Court Case" cross examination of Lawrence Klusa, testified that there is no buy-back contract between the CWB and the farmer. He testified that the buy-back contract is between the Grain Company and the farmer and the Grain Company may charge the farmer whatever they wish. 

Which statement is correct?  How can the Courts determine the facts when these contracting statements are made by CWB officials under oath and accepted by the Courts?

First the weather, then the Wheat Board, now the Court.  What's being done to us is shameful in a free country - our government will make us criminals for selling our grain.  How am I supposed to explain that to my children?  How can the Justice Minister sleep at night?

We won't give up.  We won't give in.  If we have to go to jail to protect our freedom to farm, then so be it.

Memorandum No. 2002-12

To: The Canadian Grain Industry

Re: Handling Foreign Grain

During the recent loading of two cargoes of Canadian grain, U.S. grain was also loaded to the vessel to meet the tonnage requirements of the contract.  The U.S. product was included without the permission of the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) and was discovered after the fact.

Peter Ekersley, CWB Election Coordinator 2002
Meyers Norris Penny
Brandon, MB

Re: 2002 CWB Directors Election

Dear Sir:

This is a follow-up of our telephone conversation where Ron Duffy and I made some very positive, progressive suggestions for the upcoming 2002 elections.

1. Each ballot have a carbon so that the voter, if he or she wishes, can mail a copy of the way they voted to the candidate of his or her choice.
2. We would also like to see a copy of the voters list of who voted or did not vote - available under Election Canada rules.
3. Candidates get to choose their own scrutineers - not the Minister - again Election Canada rules.

As we stated in our telephone conversation this would be an honest check on the election process.  Could we have a progress report?

We also would like a reply - if you were able to check on the $2,000,000.00 third party spending by the CWB in the last directions election in 2000.

Yours truly,

Art Mainil
Box 31
Weyburn, SK
S4H 2J8
Phone: 306-634-8009
Fax: 306-634-4705

Canadian Wheat Board

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is still pursuing farmers who have challenged his monopoly. Farmers who have helped draw attention to the need for reform in the Canadian wheat and barley marketing are presently facing fines up to $4,000. Now even the Liberal members of the agriculture committee have recognized the need for change and have recommended a free market for wheat and barley.

    Will the government listen and act on the committee's recommendation, and stop criminalizing farmers for trying to improve the incomes of their families?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal proceedings, they are of course not optional. The law does need to be enforced in all circumstances.

    With respect to the recommendation from the agriculture committee, it will go, in the words of the recommendation itself, to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The directors have indicated that they will take the matter under consideration, as is required by the law.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is only western Canadian farmers who face charges for violating the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Producers in other parts of the country have the freedom to make their own marketing decisions and process the grain grown on their farms. Western farmers should not be made into criminals for pursuing marketing choices.

    Will the government impose a moratorium on future charges against western grain producers at least until the minister has time to respond to the report of the committee?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I make no decision in respect of what matters are investigated or not or what charges are laid or not. It is up to the appropriate law officers of the crown.

Canadian Wheat Board is Government - Federal Government.

Contrary to what Ralph says, the CWB is Government - Federal Government.

The CWB is costing Western Canada billions every year.  There is a conspiracy between CWB and the Federal Government to confiscate grain production in Western Canada on a yearly basis.

Value added such as pasta is stone-walled by the Federal Government and CWB.

Organic producers are being destroyed by the CWB and the Federal Government conspiracy.

Different laws for Western Canada and the designated area.  A designated area of second class citizens.  Second class citizens in the designated are are denied added value, subjected to confiscation, manipulation and discrimination.

I've been to Quebec three or four times - I have never seen any durum grown.  I wonder if it was rerouted from Western Canada?

Quebec, Ontario, Maritime and BC farmers have access to a no-cost CWB license - no buy back.  Different laws for different people.

No Accountability: 1997-1998 CWB borrowed $185 billion, to do $4.5 billion of business, 90% was cash.

We'd Like Answers: Where did they borrow the money?  How much interest did they pay?  When was it paid back?  Who is the financial Guru in the CWB?  Western Canada is treated with complete contempt.

Let's look at why it will continue.  We don't have property rights in Canada.  There is no law that gives us the right to own property.

Endangered Species Legislation: Another conspiracy against Western Canada.  Confiscation with compensations.

Gun Legislation: $700 million cost and still going.  Another conspiracy aimed at Western Canada.  Confiscation without compensation.

Answer: Separation for resource rich Western Canada.

Last federal election Canadian Alliance offered a voluntary CWB if elected - they swept the west.  Western Canada separated in the last federal election.  All we have to do now is make it official.

We have got to have parity in Western Canada and a Justice System that respects such.

Today our Judicial System is an arm of Government used to implement and protect immoral and corrupt government policies.

Government appoints.  Government pays our judges.  Judges have got to be elected.

Answer is separation.

Art Mainil
Benson, SK
Ph: 306-634-8009
Fx: 306-634-4705

To some it was a signal that Flaman (like Wheat Board chairman Ritter who was originally elected on a pro-choice ticket) has been morphed into an enthusiastic supporter of the single-desk system.  

Like the folk who used to run East Germany, they would never send anyone abroad who could not be trusted to toe the party line.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner, M.P.
c/o 914 Confederation Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Sir:

Re: Bonus Payments to Producers by CWB Agents

You have asked my opinion regarding whether agents of CWB (whether operating elevators or mills) may pay producers additional amounts of money per tonne of wheat sold and delivered through them to the CWB, on top of the among set by regulation under Section 32(1)(b) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act ("the Act").

The elevator operators and millers have apparently been paying certain producers as much as $54.00 per tonne on top of the normal initial price.  These payments have been for feed wheat, and have been described as "premiums" or "selection allowances".

In some cases the "premiums" were shown on the "certificate" issued for the Board by the agent under Section 32(1)(d).  In other cases, the "selection allowance" was not disclosed on the Certificate, but was paid by separate cheque.

It is believed the agents then subsequently "bought back" the grain in question from the CWB - either for milling or export.

In my opinion, such payments to selected producers by the CWB and/or its agents, contravenes Section 32 and 33 of the Act.

Section 32(1)(b) sets the initial price the CWB "shall... pay to producers" at the time of delivery.  No other additional payments at the time of delivery are authorized.

For the CWB or its agents to pay some producers in a pool more than others to acquire their wheat would be contrary to the clear obligation imposed on the Board by Section 33(5) to ensure that "each producer shall receive, in respect of wheat sold and delivered to the Board during each crop year for the same grade thereof, the same price basis Thunder Bay or Vancouver..."

Such conduct also amounts to deliberate deprivation of the less privileged members of the pool of their entitlement to an "equitable distribution" of the pool's surplus under Section 32(1)(d) of the Act.

Section 68(2) of the Act makes it a specific offence to contravene the Act.

Yours truly,

G. Patrick S. Riley
Taylor McCaffrey
Barristers & Solicitors
Winnipeg, Manitoba

November 7, 1996

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner, MP
Room 914 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Hoeppner:

The investigation by Saskatoon Commercial Crime Section into the premium payments by ROBIN HOOD MILLS to HUDYE FARMS INC. is complete.  Investigators have examined the information provided by you along with other evidence, including the written opinion by lawyer Patrick RILEY of Winnipeg.

On consideration of all the evidence and having consulted the opinion of the Department of Justice, we have concluded that the practice of premium payments such as the one made to HUDYE FARMS does not contravene the Canada Wheat Board Act or its corresponding regulations.

Our investigation into this matter has been concluded.

Yours truly,

R.K. Leatherdale, Chief Superintendent
Officer in Charge, Criminal Operations
"F" Division
Criminal Operations
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Regina, Saskatchewan

November 29, 1996

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner, MP
Room 914 Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Hoeppner:

This will serve to formally notify you of our position on your request of November 19, 1996 through Ms. Debbie Campbell of your office, for a copy of the legal opinion from the Department of Justice respecting the alleged contravention of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Your request raises the issue of releasing internal correspondence between the Department of Justice and its client departments, to third parties.  The opinion was provided to our investigator in confidence and neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP are prepared to release it.

Yours truly,

R.K. Leatherdale, Chief Superintendent
Officer in Charge, Criminal Operations
"F" Division
Criminal Operations
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Regina, Saskatchewan

March 22, 1999

Mr. Butch Harder
Director, District 10
Box 88
Lowe Farm, Manitoba
R0G 1E0

Dear Butch:

As you know, I have been seeking an accounting for irregularities between the buy-back prices charged to farmers and the export prices charged to grain companies during the 1993-94 crop year.  The Court of Appeal ruled in September 1997 that I should seek an accounting from the CWB Advisory Committee and, as a result, I brought documentation to you personally early in March 1998.  To date, I have not received your response.

For reference, I have enclosed a copy of information compiled by my Attorney.  I have added a 'Tab 12' which includes the Appeal Court Ruling and an Affidavit of Trevor Magee where he states that the buy-back price set by the Canadian Wheat Board remains constant for a 24 hour period and that both individuals and companies would be quoted the same prices within that time period.

Once again, on behalf of producers, I would appreciate an explanation and accounting for these pricing discrepancies.

Sincerely,

Jake E. Hoeppner, MP
Portage - Lisgar

First Appearing
March 4, 2002
National Post

Prairie Injustice

Does the Canadian Wheat Board, with its monopoly over Prairie grain sales, obtain a higher price than individual farmers could themselves?  That is the only question that really matters to the tens of thousands of Western grain producers who are obliged by law to sell their crops to the board.  The board says its monopoly, buttressed by prosecution powers over farmers who go to market themselves, is the only way to enable it to get higher international sale prices and guarantee greater returns to all farmers.  Yet even after an investigation by Sheila Fraser, the federal Auditor-General, farmers are no closer to knowing whether the board's boast is true.

Ms. Fraser, who released her findings in Winnipeg on Wednesday, claims the board is reasonably well run.  "This is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," she said of her report, although she did "find some good practices."  In particular, Ms. Fraser dismissed the superstition that the board hides large sums of money from farmers.  "Financial accounts and transactions are being properly recorded and reported," she explained.  Money the board raises through sales is passed on to farmers with reasonable efficiency.

Interesting though this is, it is beside the central point, which is whether the monopoly justifies itself by procuring better prices for farmers.  And Ms. Fraser was not permitted to review sales contracts -- the only way of discovering the truth.  Interview she and her staff conducted with academics and grain industry consultants found that the board has a good reputation as a tough bargainer, but there are still no numbers to back it up.

We suspect that the merits of the monopoly are myth, but we may never know the answer, for Ms. Fraser's examination was a one-time fluke, permitted only because the federal government needed to make a concession to the board's detractors in order to get amendment to the Wheat Board Act through Parliament a little more than three years ago.  There is no plan to let the light of day in on the supposedly impressive sales figures.

It is unconscionable that farmers may not legally sell the fruits of their labour to whomever they please, regardless of the wisdom of doing so.  But it adds insult to injury that in being prevented from doing so, they are not even allowed to very the claim that they are financially compensated for their loss of market freedom.

The National Post
To the Editor

In response to  "Prairie Injustice" of March 4, 2002

I would like to inform you that of February 12, 1999, I asked my lawyer, Patrick Riley, to make available to the then Auditor General, Denis Desatuels, one hundred and four (104) Export Licenses and corresponding country sales contracts prior to his audit of the Canadian Wheat Board.  This information should have been available to Madam Fraser and her staff during the one time CWB audit and should not have been ignored.  I wrote Madam Fraser on April 10, 2002, asking for an explanation why there were no comments in her report on the variations of the costs of the Export Licenses.  To date, I have had no reply.

The recent Appointment of Ralph Goodale as Public Works Minister is an indication that the Liberal Party is in a crisis mode.  Mr. Goodale, as Wheat Board Minister, used the RCMP, Customs Officials, Department of Justice Lawyers and the Courts to cover-up questionable activities of the CWB.

On June 10, 2002 in Lethbridge, Alberta, five (5) farmers will go on trial for exporting grain into the USA to protest the CWB monopoly and the Board's refusal to grant a cost free Export License as guaranteed by the CWB Act and are readily available to exporters outside the CWB designated area.

If the Auditor General was denied access to the CWB Sales Contracts, in my opinion this is incriminating in itself and needs to be investigated.  The neglect by Opposition Parties to demand an explanation of the government why and who denied the Auditor General access to these Sales Contracts exposes their shallow support for agriculture.

Your closing comment in the Editorial, that it is unconscionable that farmers may not legally sell the fruits of their labour or verify the claim that they are financially compensated for their loss of market freedom, is dead-on.  The treatment of Western Canadian Farmers by this Liberal Government is more representative of a Third World Dictatorship than a compassionate and protective democracy.

Sincerely,