http://cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/2011/06/manitoba-government-steps-in-it.html
<b>Manitoba Government steps in it</b>
Since Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger wants to get in on the Canadian Wheat Board debate, paying for an ad campaign with public money, I sincerely hope he looks at the issue with his eyes wide open and reviews all the facts, not just the rhetoric from the CWB. So far, it seems he’s not paying attention. Consider these facts:
In 2002-03, domestic maltsters in Alberta imported malt barley from Denmark because of price signal failure by the CWB, costing Canadian farmers an estimated $40 million.
In 2007-08, the CWB lost about $90 million in the Producer Pricing Options due to inappropriate hedging in addition to losing $226 million in the wheat pool account due to “discretionary trading” – what most people call speculating.
In 2009-10 the CWB accepted only 52% of the durum crop. Facing poor delivery opportunities and low Initial Payments, farmers began selling high quality milling durum into the domestic feed market. Cost to farmers: many millions.
In 2010-11, the CWB initiated a feed barley export program that hid much of the export value from farmers. Cost to farmers: in the hundreds of millions.
In 2008-09, Western Canadian average “net-backs” (handling, cleaning, CWB expenses, etc - excluding freight) were reported to be $28.91/tonne on wheat and $5.65/tonne on canola. (The reason canola is lower – competition and no CWB costs.) Even a $20/ tonne difference is worth about $400 million annually.
Every year, non-CWB crops are sold in the fall to pay for input costs, including those for CWB crops. It has been estimated that canola farmers receive in excess of $60 million LESS annually due to this excess selling pressure. Include all non-CWB crops, and the cost to farmers is closer to $100 million annually.
Add to that the cost of additional on farm storage required for CWB crops that can’t be delivered, and the cost is even higher.
CWB pool prices net to farmers are consistently below crop year average farmgate prices in the US northern plains. Considering the last 7 years, the pool returns on spring wheat and durum have consistently been below the lowest US street price. Applied to the whole pool, this totals over $3 billion in revenue below what average US prices would have provided.
PWC Study
In 2005 Price Waterhouse Coopers was commissioned by the CWB to study the impact of the CWB on the economies of Winnipeg, Manitoba and Western Canada. Its report stated that the CWB contributed “a $1.6 billion annual gross output impact on Canada’s economy” and an $86 million impact on the City of Winnipeg.
The study has some serious flaws.
First, the study included “premiums” as reported to it by the CWB. As much public data and information has refuted the idea of the CWB earning premiums, this part of the study is highly suspect as well.
The study included in its analysis, economic activity that would take place even without the CWB. Looking at the CWB’s “direct costs” – things like freight, storage payments, terminal handling, inventory financing, and “other grain purchases” – PWC estimated over $800 million in “gross output impacts”. I don’t dispute the calculations, but PWC failed to recognize that all this activity would happen without the CWB. About 20 million tonnes of grain goes through the CWB annually; that grain will get shipped and handled even without the CWB. As a result, this study is a gross exaggeration of the CWB’s impact on the economy.
Rather than give the CWB credit, it would be preferable for the authors to simply say thank you to all Western Canadian farmers.
According to PWC, the CWB is a “very large user of commodity hedging and foreign exchange hedging instruments offered through major exchanges and highly rated financial institutions”. What PWC – and therefore the CWB and Premier Selinger – fail to note is that very little (if any) of this activity takes place in Winnipeg. The CWB has chosen to favour hedging in US markets as opposed to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange (now ICE Futures). In fact, history shows that it was the establishment of the CWB that started the decline of the grain trade in Winnipeg. Where Winnipeg was once host to the largest wheat market in the world – Chicago of the north, some called it – once the CWB came to town, the multitude of grain-related businesses in Winnipeg shrivelled in size and importance. Just think of the economic activity of all those companies that no longer exist or left town.
The idea of Winnipeg losing over 400 CWB jobs and possibly many other jobs with the loss of the single desk is nothing more than fear-mongering; logic suggests quite the opposite impact.
Saying that the CWB is responsible for all the economic activity reported in the PWC study grossly exaggerates the impact of the CWB and insults the contribution made by Manitoba’s farmers and the remaining supporting industries.
Are you saying farmers should vote on the future of Winnipeg?
Selinger argues that the CWB should be preserved because of its alleged importance to the Winnipeg and Manitoba economies. But then he argues that farmers should get to vote on the future of the CWB – including farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Perhaps he doesn’t realize it, but what he’s really saying is that the fate of Winnipeg and Manitoba should be left up to Western Canadian farmers, of which 80% live outside of Manitoba.
Let’s face it. The economic impact of the CWB on Winnipeg, even if they were right (which they’re not) is an absurd argument in support of a farmer vote. Particularly when most of the farmers that would be voting live outside the province.
What Selinger should be looking at protecting and supporting is the health of one of the largest economic engines in Manitoba – agriculture. His focus on the CWB and a farmer vote indicates a lack of understanding and leadership. Not knowing the facts is inexcusable.
<b>Manitoba Government steps in it</b>
Since Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger wants to get in on the Canadian Wheat Board debate, paying for an ad campaign with public money, I sincerely hope he looks at the issue with his eyes wide open and reviews all the facts, not just the rhetoric from the CWB. So far, it seems he’s not paying attention. Consider these facts:
In 2002-03, domestic maltsters in Alberta imported malt barley from Denmark because of price signal failure by the CWB, costing Canadian farmers an estimated $40 million.
In 2007-08, the CWB lost about $90 million in the Producer Pricing Options due to inappropriate hedging in addition to losing $226 million in the wheat pool account due to “discretionary trading” – what most people call speculating.
In 2009-10 the CWB accepted only 52% of the durum crop. Facing poor delivery opportunities and low Initial Payments, farmers began selling high quality milling durum into the domestic feed market. Cost to farmers: many millions.
In 2010-11, the CWB initiated a feed barley export program that hid much of the export value from farmers. Cost to farmers: in the hundreds of millions.
In 2008-09, Western Canadian average “net-backs” (handling, cleaning, CWB expenses, etc - excluding freight) were reported to be $28.91/tonne on wheat and $5.65/tonne on canola. (The reason canola is lower – competition and no CWB costs.) Even a $20/ tonne difference is worth about $400 million annually.
Every year, non-CWB crops are sold in the fall to pay for input costs, including those for CWB crops. It has been estimated that canola farmers receive in excess of $60 million LESS annually due to this excess selling pressure. Include all non-CWB crops, and the cost to farmers is closer to $100 million annually.
Add to that the cost of additional on farm storage required for CWB crops that can’t be delivered, and the cost is even higher.
CWB pool prices net to farmers are consistently below crop year average farmgate prices in the US northern plains. Considering the last 7 years, the pool returns on spring wheat and durum have consistently been below the lowest US street price. Applied to the whole pool, this totals over $3 billion in revenue below what average US prices would have provided.
PWC Study
In 2005 Price Waterhouse Coopers was commissioned by the CWB to study the impact of the CWB on the economies of Winnipeg, Manitoba and Western Canada. Its report stated that the CWB contributed “a $1.6 billion annual gross output impact on Canada’s economy” and an $86 million impact on the City of Winnipeg.
The study has some serious flaws.
First, the study included “premiums” as reported to it by the CWB. As much public data and information has refuted the idea of the CWB earning premiums, this part of the study is highly suspect as well.
The study included in its analysis, economic activity that would take place even without the CWB. Looking at the CWB’s “direct costs” – things like freight, storage payments, terminal handling, inventory financing, and “other grain purchases” – PWC estimated over $800 million in “gross output impacts”. I don’t dispute the calculations, but PWC failed to recognize that all this activity would happen without the CWB. About 20 million tonnes of grain goes through the CWB annually; that grain will get shipped and handled even without the CWB. As a result, this study is a gross exaggeration of the CWB’s impact on the economy.
Rather than give the CWB credit, it would be preferable for the authors to simply say thank you to all Western Canadian farmers.
According to PWC, the CWB is a “very large user of commodity hedging and foreign exchange hedging instruments offered through major exchanges and highly rated financial institutions”. What PWC – and therefore the CWB and Premier Selinger – fail to note is that very little (if any) of this activity takes place in Winnipeg. The CWB has chosen to favour hedging in US markets as opposed to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange (now ICE Futures). In fact, history shows that it was the establishment of the CWB that started the decline of the grain trade in Winnipeg. Where Winnipeg was once host to the largest wheat market in the world – Chicago of the north, some called it – once the CWB came to town, the multitude of grain-related businesses in Winnipeg shrivelled in size and importance. Just think of the economic activity of all those companies that no longer exist or left town.
The idea of Winnipeg losing over 400 CWB jobs and possibly many other jobs with the loss of the single desk is nothing more than fear-mongering; logic suggests quite the opposite impact.
Saying that the CWB is responsible for all the economic activity reported in the PWC study grossly exaggerates the impact of the CWB and insults the contribution made by Manitoba’s farmers and the remaining supporting industries.
Are you saying farmers should vote on the future of Winnipeg?
Selinger argues that the CWB should be preserved because of its alleged importance to the Winnipeg and Manitoba economies. But then he argues that farmers should get to vote on the future of the CWB – including farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Perhaps he doesn’t realize it, but what he’s really saying is that the fate of Winnipeg and Manitoba should be left up to Western Canadian farmers, of which 80% live outside of Manitoba.
Let’s face it. The economic impact of the CWB on Winnipeg, even if they were right (which they’re not) is an absurd argument in support of a farmer vote. Particularly when most of the farmers that would be voting live outside the province.
What Selinger should be looking at protecting and supporting is the health of one of the largest economic engines in Manitoba – agriculture. His focus on the CWB and a farmer vote indicates a lack of understanding and leadership. Not knowing the facts is inexcusable.
Comment