Interesting report from the CBC

[JDGreen]

Intersting report from the CBC... There should be discussions about compensating Prairie farmers in the event new trade rules force an end to the Canadian Wheat Board, the board's former chairman says. Ken Ritter, who last year ended 10 years as chair of the Winnipeg-based grain marketing agency, says farmers need to start preparing for a time when they no longer have the CWB to market their wheat and barley. An impartial committee should be set up to look at how farmers should be compensated if that happens, said Ritter, a Kindersley, Sask.-area grain farmer. Ritter believes the G-20 nations will try to come out of the current economic crisis with a new trade agreement. During negotiations that have already begun, Canada will likely be making trade-offs to try to preserve the supply management system that covers the dairy and poultry industries in Canada, Ritter said. And that could spell the demise of the wheat board, Ritter said. "The government of Canada, whether it be a Conservative government or a Liberal government, when push comes to shove, will support supply management over the wheat board," he said. However, the current chair of the wheat board, Larry Hill, thinks it's too early to be talking about compensation or the board's demise."This is a time to remain firm. You don't show any weakness to your negotiating competitors," he said. Whatever happens with the current round of trade talks, changes are coming to the wheat board. Canadian negotiators have already agreed to get rid of government guarantees on money borrowed by the board.

[Wheatking]

We should be compensated for having to deal with the Wheat Board for the last 75 years.

I really hope that we are given some marketing choice soon but I hope that we can use it as a bargaining chip in the next round of trade negotiations in lowering subsidies and tariffs in other parts of the world.

[haveapulse]

When I ran for CWB director I suggested compensation of 6 billion to enable the restructuring of the industry in the post CWB time period.

This idea fell on deaf ears. Fact is whether you suport the demise of the CWB when the CWB goes, if and when it does there will be significant changes in the way this industry operates, and this cost should not be born by producers alone. Unlike Larry Hill I believe compensation is a discussion which we should have, and a number be determined for the if and when.


We need to be proactive with this figure, or risk as we did the the demise of the CROW, a settlement 1/10 the value.

We need to know what we ask for.
6 billion is not out of line.

[parsley]

If I were the government, I would order the Board to issue licenses, thus no more monopoly; leave the legislation intact,thus the CWB is still alive as an entity, and nobody can sue anything. Pars

[wd9]

6 billion to restructure? Sure would like to see the justification on that. Even a bit of an explanation.

Industry insiders say the the sales could be handled by 10 to 12 employees. CCGA could do cash advance. Cigi could be handled by check off as it kinda already does and gov funding. Producer cars by others who already do it. Weather we have enough of them. Grain standards would be so much smoother without them and be a net savings. Lobbying and policy creation would be a lot easier. Just think how much more the WBGA and wheat growers could do if the board was gone. There could be a cereals council that could be a successful as the canola council capturing millions and millions of MII and research dollars for production and marketing projects that cereals miss out on And on and on...

$6 billion????? For what? I'm thinking it may be more worth paying 6 billion to get rid of them.

[Zaphod]

So if they compensate farmers for getting rid of the board, that's almost like double-dipping. Farmers will be way farther ahead without the board, plus a cash bonus too. Sweet!

[BreadWinner]

I will gladly pay any CWB producer the difference in price with the demise of the CWB. But you will have to wait 15 months for the $ and I will use my own secret formula to figure out the payment. But if you are making more $ without the CWB you will have to pay me and I will also figure out that amount.

[dalek]

Trying to remember how big a cheque we got when they threw the Ontario market open.... oh yeah, 0! And whaddaya know, most of us were glad they did it, and a lot of us have made a pile more money over the years because of it.

[gustgd]

WD-9
I like the way you think!!!

I can't understand those who think that the govt owes me money to get rid of a govt program that I don't need or want.
The schizophrenic back flips that have to be done when dealing with CWB programs would astound...

[LWeber]

So the government guarantees are worth nothing?

Risk transference will occur. Shit rolls downhill. Whats that worth on your farm - for life?

If you are willing to absorb that risk as a cost of doing business through basis or private insurance as an offset to higher prices - great. But how many have had the discussion that there is a cost?

Yes the CWB costs farmers more than the risk value I am talking about; however, what input did you have in removing the gov't guarantees if and when it happens?

Right now as it stands you are going to give up the guarantees and the CWB will still be around - how stupid is that?

[charliep]

Actually what would be interesting to me is the governance and share structure behind this monster contingency fund. With farmer money put in (even if government contributes on your behalf), there has to be some level of accountability. Otherwise the money is likely to disappear like the current producer payment option contingency fund with no way to replace (widen out basis levels).

Government money in the contingency so they get to continue to pull the stings/set policy for the CWB.

A traditional cooperative with one share per farm business. Same say between farm families/businesses regardless of size/financial interest in CWB operations.

A new generation cooperative with deposits/share structure reflecting use of/business interest in the CWB operations. example - one share per 100 tonne of delivery over the past two years. More deliveries equals more votes.

Something else? What happens if the new venture gets into some else (something like suggested in the CWB document Harvesting Opportunities)? What happens if it fails?

Actually thinking is way off course as I guess the basic premise is the CWB will not survive in a post WTO agreement era and therefore farmers should be paid out.

[charliep]

Of interest on the $6 bln, that works out to $300/tonne of deliveries based on about 20 mln tonnes of CWB handling/pool account size (wheat and barley). That is, the necessary margin/contigency is equal to the historical price of the grain. Many grain companies would like this opportunity. Maybe they could partner with the AWB.