Haney and the Wheat Board sitting in a tree...

[TOM4CWB]

Shaney,

No Problem... thanks for letting my post stand... and certainly no hard feelings... the beauty of the Internet is we CAN communicate freely and express our true feelings... which is a great asset for humanity and building a stronger community!

Thanks for your candor and opening up this topic for more to understand how their neighbour is feeling about how our money gets spent!

Cheers!!!

[HFL]

I guess as a designated area farmer I am to dumb to sell my own grain. Now it seems that I am to dumb to spend my own money. They have to do that for me as well.

[rockpile]

All of this discussion got me a little curious so I did
a little research. In 1981, the Federal Gov't got into
an arrangement with the CWB to purchase 2000
hopper cars. The Feds facilitated an agreement with
several North American financial institutions to
purchase the cars and then lease them to the CWB
for 25 years which would defray the upfront costs
to the Board yet yield a profit to the investors.
Considered a win win at the time. So yes, in fact the
CWB (meaning you and I and shippers of all types of
grain) paid for the cars. When the smoke cleared,
CPR was given outright ownership of the cars in
return for assuming 100% of maintenance costs.
Once those costs got too high, CPR bailed out of
the agreement. This was all happening during the
same time while the Feds were pouring hundreds of
millions of dollars into branch line rehabilitation.
(That's another story)
Now wake up time. In 2005 the CWB purchased an
additional 1660 cars outright. Both Measner and
Ritter are quoted in the press release. I have no
recollection of any squealing or whining about that
at the time. Also note, that in 2005 there were,
shall we say skeptics, elected sitting on the Board. I
don't recall any issue being raised by anyone at the
time.
So - today, the CWB owns about 3510 hopper cars.
I don't have the numbers for Sask and Alberta, but I
do know the Feds own 12,400. I believe (last
number I saw) that the total fleet is around 22,000,
some leased from the US I believe. If you love
reading, you can find most of this stuff on the
Transport Canada website.
Lakers; someone erroneously suggested that there
was excess capacity of bulk haulers on the Great
Lakes. Not the case. On both sides of the border
there is growing concern that the Lakes and the
seaway is losing much needed capacity and traffic.
Governments on both sides of the border are
starting to throw coin at this problem.
Last one: Tom and others west of Indian Head, Sask.
Are they no longer doing cross hauls? I do not
know, though I do know that Manitoba stuff comes
West.
No opinion on the ship purchase - I need more
information, not sermons, before I make my own
personal decision.
Rockpile

[Fransisco]

Rockpile, right or wrong the decision is not yours to make. That's the main point.

[rockpile]

Fran: Nor should it be. Welcome to the real world!
Rockpile

[Fransisco]

Oh yeah, in the "real world" nobody looks after their own money or makes their own decisions. How silly of me. LOL

[bucket]

The railcars can move from thunder bay to vancouver and benefit every farmer in the process. The same can not be said of the lakers.

And can someone explain exactly how we make money leasing something we own? We lease railcars to somebody for revenue and turn around and pay a higher freight rate to somebody so they can cover their lease rate.

[BTOfarmall]

If'n it walk like a Duck, Quack like a Duck, Guess What??? It a Duck.....

Hayknee one of dem. Always has Been, Always will be, Knew it from Day One. Gist another Puppet of da Industry. What else is New. FOLLOW THE MONEY.....

[jdepape]

Interesting argument comparing the purchase of railcars in 2005 and the purchase of lakers in 2011.

One key difference is how the CWB handled the two messages. In 2005, the release announcing the purchase only talked about how the CWB was purchasing these cars and how great a deal it was for farmers, yada, yada, yada. It went on to say that negotiotions were ongoing so it would report the cost later in the Annual Report.

The only reference to the purchase in the Annual Report was a footnote in the financial statments under "Capital Assets" (Annual Report 2005-06, page 73). No announcement, no self-congratulatory feature page in the report. BTW - they bought 1663 cars for $25.828 million - or $15,530 per car.

Now look at the laker announcement. Not just a simple news release - a full blown web-linked press conference. And they gave the cost right up front and that it would come out of the pool accounts.

Some would say the CWB made a tactical error by making such a big deal about it.

I think the mistake was made in 2005 - not enough disclosure - quietly announced the pending deal with no details, then just minimal reporting in the Annual Reports - just enough to be in compliance with financial reporting requirements.

I wonder how farmers would have reacted back in 2005 if they really knew what was actually happening.

[jdepape]

Just a point of clarification.

I see a number of guys complaining that their grain moves to the west coast andso won't even benefit from the laker purchase.

Not defending the purchase in anyway, but the financial return from the lakers - the $10 million a year they talk about - will go into "revenue from other sources" which is distributed to the pool accounts. So it doesn't matter which direction your grain goes.