How cute, Oberg has his own blog

[TOM4CWB]

Begood,

Eyes wide open has changed you mind?

Chairman Obergs words lack respect for the vast majority of grain growers in western Canada.

We are all alowed to dream... some visions are based in wise respect for folks humanity... the right of humanity to freedom and the right to choose who we will serve...

And others dreams of a power play to force themselves upon people against their will... bringing conflict.

The resulting action matches the motivation.

I disagree on what the posts in the comment section represent.

Cheers!

[begood]

Someone please feed back to Oberg's blog; the "vader " (aka Rod Flaman) rant about suffering farmers and upside of costing a durum farmer several hundred thousand dollars in 2008. I can't find it in the agriville archives. It's a classic that Oberg probably hasn't seen for awhile. However it was sent to the CWB as for Code of ethics and code of conduct consideration. For me it ranks as the most offensive attack on farmers rights; and I wonder how Oberg sees this type of director attitude today.

[begood]

Until you force yourself to at least see where someone else is coming from; you will never engage in anything other than a bitter war; which will bring great carnage on all participants; and an even greater number of on lookers and bystanders. If you are convinced that I have had my mind changed by comments posted on Oberg's blog site; then I would suggest you look further down the blog site's pages to the comments of the readers. That is what I am referring to; and I believe you have missed those comments; and the depape post which is also now on that same blog site. The fact is that people like Tom4cwb's do more damage than good to getting necessary choice for western Canadian farmers marketing outside the CWB.

[begood]

Cheers is beginning to grate on me. Maybe you could use some other different words that convey the message what you are trying to get across.

[Hopperbin]

I don't get it. I tried posting this yet again.

Hmmm we get compared to the USA that can replace wheat with high yielding corn and soybean. We have high yielding wheat and still choose not to grow it. Plus we sell our wheat to ethanol plants and feed mills instead of human consumption. This is not a fare comparison but a smoke screen.

Using the name Just a Farmer.

Keeps coming back as illegal characters in the url. What the hell is illegal about this???

[TOM4CWB]

Begood,

I am not the only one in Alberta to notice Chairman Allen Obergs contempt for his grain farming servants:

"New ship purchase debated
April, 2011

Wheat Board ships?
A shocking announcement early this month has erased all doubt as to the level of contempt that the Canadian Wheat Board holds for Western farmers. The CWB purchased two brand new ships for the purpose of transporting grain across the Great Lakes. Prairie farmers with no choice in the matter will finance the $65-million purchase over four years.

Adding further insult, the CWB erroneously claims that Prairie farmers will become "owners" of these ships. As Morris Dorosh pointed out in his newsletter, Agriweek, "Prairie farmers will not own them because Prairie farmers do not own the Board. The beneficial owner will be the Board's sole shareholder: the taxpayer of Canada." In other words, the federal government.

At the CWB's press conference, chair Allen Oberg talked about the strong business case for buying these lakers and how doing so would supposedly put extra money in farmers' pockets. This may or may not be the case. No matter what degree of due diligence done, no one ever knows these things for sure until long after they are set in motion. Mr. Oberg and company are speculating. They are doing so with other people's money.

This really is the crux of the whole matter. It is not up to the Wheat Board, a government-legislated monopoly, to decide how best to "invest" farmers hard-earned money for them. It is illegal for Prairie farmers to sell their milling wheat and malting barley to anyone other than the CWB, which puts the agency in a very privileged position.

The Board holds farmers' grain and money in trust for them. It is not Mr. Oberg's or the CWB's money to do with as they please. To spend it in this way is an abuse of trust, an abuse of power and goes well beyond the Board's mandate of marketing grain.

Others have pointed out that farmers have not been consulted about this purchase. Many feel blindsided by the announcement and rightly so. In the recent Wheat Board director elections, for instance, none of the incumbent directors campaigned on the issue of buying ships, even though they had to have known about the plan to purchase them.

Nor was there any mention of ships in last year's annual producer survey. But so what if they had consulted? And so what if a sizable chunk of farmers were in favour of the idea? The CWB board of directors would still have no business going ahead with this scheme because it's not their own money they are putting at risk.

Federal Wheat Board Minister Gerry Ritz was clearly not happy with this decision. When asked about it in question period, his response was, "I have constantly told the Wheat Board that farmers' money in the pool accounts is off limits to it. It should not be misappropriated like this." But we have yet to hear what the Minister responsible for the CWB intends to do about this misappropriation of growers' funds. To do nothing should not be an option.

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association would like to see Minister Ritz do one of two things. Either direct the CWB to stop the purchase entirely or at the very least give wheat and barley producers the ability to opt out of funding the purchase if they so choose.

Ontario Conservative MP Bruce Stanton recently brought forward a private member's bill that called for changes to the federal Wheat Board Act. The reforms would allow farmers to opt out entirely from having the Wheat Board market their grain entirely. Ultimately, this is what needs to happen. The CWB has to evolve from a compulsory organization into a voluntary one.

Prairie farmers have a moral right to their grain but they also need the legal right to sell their grain to whomever they choose - as is the case elsewhere in Canada. But private member's bills have a difficult time being passed into actual laws and even the most optimistic time-line would only see Mr Stanton's bill come into effect sometime in 2013 or possibly 2014.

Minister Ritz is going to have to act faster than that if he wishes to safeguard farmer funds.

Someone at the online farmer forum Agri-ville started a "name the CWB ships" contest. One person suggested the "HMS Held" and the "HMS Captive." This aptly sums up how many farmers feel, not only about how they are being forced to pay for these ships but the entire Wheat Board system.
by Rolf Penner

Mr. Penner is a farmer and the Manitoba Vice President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

Canadian Wheat Board
Prairie farmers will become owners of ships that move their wheat on the Great Lakes, under an agreement reached between the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and shipping companies Algoma Central Corporation and Upper Lakes Group Inc.

The CWB is purchasing two new lake vessels that will be ready for service in 2013 as part of a larger purchase by Algoma and Upper Lakes. Farmers will benefit from contributions that are expected to average at least $10 million per year to the CWB pools when the ships are in operation. They will also benefit from more efficient grain movement through a renewed fleet.

"As ship owners, we are moving forward to strengthen farmers' position in our grain supply chain," said CWB board chair Allen Oberg, a farmer from Forestburg, Alberta. "This historic step puts us at the helm. Through the CWB, farmers will share in the control and the profits of Great Lakes grain shipping. This is a value-added investment with significant net benefits for Prairie producers."

Oberg said the purchase agreement would not have been possible without the foresight of the Government of Canada in removing a 25-per-cent tariff on imported vessels last fall, making the renewal of the Canadian domestic fleet and this purchase economically feasible.

Algoma President & CEO Greg Wight and Upper Lakes President & CEO Pat Loduca welcomed the partnership with western Canadian producers in purchasing the new, state-of-the-art Equinox class bulk carriers, to be operated and managed by Seaway Marine Transport, which is a partnership of the two companies.

"This exciting initiative will modernize the Great Lakes fleet with larger, faster ships that consume less fuel and meet future environmental standards," Wight said. "By working together with Prairie farmers, we have forged a relationship that will have lasting value for all."

Loduca said the timing is excellent for this partnership, given the need to replace an aging fleet on the Great Lakes. He noted that the current strength of the Canadian dollar also helps keep new-vessel costs down. "We are very pleased to be seizing this opportunity along with the CWB, which helps ensure the long-term strength of our industry."

The CWB's cost for the two ships is $65 million, equal to approximately $1 per tonne, paid over the next four crop years. Prairie farmers also own a fleet of 3,400 rail hopper cars that move wheat and barley to ports and domestic customers.

Lake freight is a key element of Prairie grain producers' supply chain, stretching from farm to overseas customer. CWB-chartered lake freight to eastern Canadian ports has increased by about one million tonnes over the past decade, hitting 3.8 million tonnes in 2009. The CWB projects the export flow of wheat to increase over the next few years as demand strengthens in Europe, Africa and Latin America - destinations served through eastern Canadian ports.

Controlled by western Canadian farmers, the CWB is the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world. One of Canada's biggest exporters, the Winnipeg-based organization sells grain to more than 70 countries and returns all revenue, less marketing costs, to farmers."

All material on this website is © copyright
ALBERTA BEEF MAGAZINE LTD

I stand by my points. Obviously I am not alone.

"By believing passionately in something that still does not exist, we create it. The nonexistant is whatever we have not sufficiently desired." -Franz Kafka (1883-1924)

[jdepape]

Behold:
Censured may be too strong a word. But I find it
curious that a number of comments were
accepted before mine yet were submitted after
mine.
I use the same blogger - it seems that whoever is
accepting these comments on behalf of Mr.
Oberg (you don't really think he does it himself,
do you?) chose not to accept mine until they
could put together a response. (I checked back
periodically and both my comment and Oberg's
response went up in the same half hour or so.)

So, no, not censured, but clearly "managed". I'll
take it as a compliment. (by the way - I know the
CWB reads Agriville. My "censure" comment was
simply meant to get their attention)

[begood]

Sometimes we work our way, or are forced into becoming more "radical" than we ever first intended. our effectiveness then becomes much weakened.
The ultimate solution should involve changes that all can live with. It often seems that no one has listened to the valid points and concerns that have been expresses; and so the circle of becoming less flexible and accomodating continues.
Proof of that scenario is in the fact that you don't even know whose side someone like me would like to be on.

[silverback]

What valid points and concerns?

The only people who bring valid points or concerns to the table are those that are on the side of freedom of choice. The supporters of the board have no facts or figures to prove the board brings premiums to the farmers it is supposed to be working for. All they have is the fear of the unknown and the big bad corporations (who the board relies on every minute of the day).

It is pretty simple man, forcing someone to do business with you is wrong. Period.

There is no wiggle room there

Why don't you just come out and say whose side someone like you wants to be on? Is it fun to make us guess?

[Fransisco]

Looks to me like Obergs comment section is being selectively updated at a snails pace. I think some folks are going to see their final payment for 10-11 before they see their comments posted.

So here's a question, what is the purpose of Obergs blog? Is it to have a discussion about the future of the wheat board, or is it just another way for the board to tell us what to think.

Its starting to look like the latter to me.

[jdepape]

Having strong convictions does not make you
radical.  And as far as I can tell, no one involved
on either side of this debate has become radical.  
Committed and at times argumentative, but not
radical.

If the ultimate solution is something all can live
with, then there is no ultimate solution.  Those
with their arms wrapped around the single desk
will never agree to marketing freedom, and those
wanting marketing freedom fully and completely
reject the single desk.  There is no compromise
position that either group can live with.

The only reasonable "ultimate solution" is to allow
marketing freedom where everyone can market
their wheat the way they want to - unless it
means that others need to do it your way. In
other words, I'm sorry to advise, the only
reasonable solution is marketing freedom.

Begood - I'm not sure what side you are on and,
with all due respect, I don't care.  This isn't about
keeping score.  I know what my position is and
nothing anyone says or does is going to change
that, because my view is not based on a vote.

[begood]

There are just as many inflexable people on both sides of the CWB debate. Is it any suprise that its a war of words where no one even listens.
The CWB has cost me hundreds of thousands; at least a couple of times in the last 3-4 years. I'm sure they cost lesser amounts many times; and I am not sure they have ever returned a "premium" to me personally. Thus I would saay that, as an individual farmer, they have not been an asset to my marketing endeavors.
There are some positives. If you are a registered seed grower; the CWB doesn't crimp your style in many ways. It would be good for your farm; as a seed grower. The organic farmers are not complaining much about their special status; and in fact some support the CWB as a means to keep their USA access which they fear they might lose if we all had the same rights. The government cheque guarantees are very comforting and important. Dealing with unlicenced and unbonded grain firms and brokers catches all of us now and again. That risk should be unacceptable; and fixed with a workable guaranteed payment. It won't be a part of CWB (IMHO) Ten or fifteen working day payments leave lots of risk potential with the many unbonded grain buyers.
The CWB may very well have had a positive influence on railway control and costs to all farmers. But how could they have not known the railways were overcharging for maintenance. I'm sure that it would have been money well spent to have paid a smart, savy "ombudsman" type person to do a much better job overseeing our costs. And the CWB beurocracy may well be the wrong policeman for this important subject. And why wouldn't the rest of the farmers help a small staff by acting as 100,00 pairs of extra eyes.
And probably the CWB was instrumental in setting up an "on farm" Western Canadian weather network. No one else took that lead. But don't make the mistake that the CWB was responsible for the instrument development; nor the data collection and analysis. That was largely in place by the equipment manufacturer.
The list could go on and on.

The point is that if you won't acknowledge that there are some pluses and some minuses then why would the other side listen beyond your opening remark.

And thats why you don't know what I've said in the past. My personal conclusion is that I would personally be much better off if the CWB was gone right now. Waiting till next year, or later, just makes for another hundred thousand dollar personal loss.
And yes you are right that it is basically offensive to have some one control another person to help ensure their entitlement.

Now lets see your flexability. The chances are that your firmly held convictions have less popular support than even my comments above.