Where are the incumbent CWB directors?

[Everest]

Only one week to go to nominations close, and where are the incumbent directors? The silence is deafening. Could it be that they’re afraid to stick their heads up? Can’t defend their actions?

Can’t defend the fact that under their leadership, administration costs at CWB headquarters have increased to 200% per tonne of what they were before they were elected? $3.30 per tonne now, vs $1.64 per tonne then.

Can’t defend their attendance at Jean Chretiens $400 per plate Liberal dinners?

Can’t defend prices that year in, year out, bring $1.00 per bushel less than North Dakota and Montana farmers get?

Can’t defend denying and derailing farmers desire to add value to their durum wheat? Or driving malt plants out of Canada to the US?

Can’t defend their 60 year old monopoly in the face of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, and its courageous move to operate in a commercial, competitive environment?

Can’t defend the major weaknesses in governance the Auditor General uncovered in here audit? Can’t defend that after 4 years, they really have done no forward planning, and operate with a drastic lack of performance measurements?

Can’t defend allowing feed companies, seed growers, Ontario farmers, Quebec farmers, BC farmers to sell or export their grain, and not allowing prairie farmers the same opportunities? Never mind tagging prairie farmers with the cost of ‘administrating’ these selling rights of other farmers?

We’ve heard from some challengers. Now lets hear from the incumbents who said they want to keep their jobs. I want to hear what they will to do about these things. Or defend their record if they think it is defensible.

[jmillang]

There are a couple of more steps between the packinghouse and the meat counter. There is the wholesaler, then there is the meat cutters, who may or may not be in the store or even employed by the store and then the retail store.

Marketing consumer materials revolves around pricing your product to a level that the consumer will pay. If you need to move more product then you drop the price. Retail pricing rarely is related to raw inputs or even cost of production. With carcass weights continually climbing (especially in the US) and we keep killing more head there is more and more beef in the market place. So the packers have all that they need to supply wholesalers, who don’t have big orders from retailers, who are not selling as much as they used to, and the cycle continues.

I was reading a US beef processor magazine a while back. In the article they are saying that the beef industry has got what they wanted, the consumer to consider beef as a premium product. Not that its premium it’s the first product to feel any price changes or consumers reduced spending. I also was talking with a meat manager a while back and the price of beef has gotten so high compared to other meats that even if stores wanted to use Beef as a lost leader to get people in the store they still would not buy it chicken pork are still cheaper in the consumers mind (note I said in their mind weather or not that is the fact).

Now throw in what the consumer wants and is willing to pay for, they get their beef meal one night a week now instead of 2 and we have dropped consumption by 50%. Consumers have backed away from beef and are likely to do so the rest of the winter. Beef is not the meat of choice 365 days of they year for most consumers (although I sure try) so summer is where we shine and winter turns to chicken, turkey and pork.

I a perfect pricing system yes the retail price would be reflected to the raw input but ask the steel miners if they have seen the price of steel rise with the price of cars.

[parsley]

The incumbents should certainly be addressing the questions posed to the CWB on this forum. They need to take responsibility for the policy decisions being followed that are superceding the requirements of the legislation they are obligated to follow. They must answer. thalpenny must be hiding under the bed again.

Parsley

[charliep]

Has anybody heard of plans for forum meetings, etc for director candidates? I realize the election is just under way but there is not much time to get information out to voters.

I think there is potential for some major changes in directors (at least in Alberta) and from there CWB direction. I note in the latest Grain Matters that the current directors whats to open up the CWB Act to allow alternatives to pay out the interest allocation from some of the long term debts that are being repaid. My experience suggests if you open one part of a deal/legisation, then everything is up for grabs. You want to make sure your director is representing your interests on these matters.

The Alberta Grain Commission has several links with regards to the CWB elections.

http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/navigation/agencies/agc/index.html

[ValueChainFX]

jmillang
Your comments Jeff fall pretty well in line with what most of the producers have heard for many years. (and I do agree with your words to a point)

The challenge producers and those in the industry have in my eyes, is that our industry needs to look outside the box for solutions. We all know the big guys own the commodities, and not just the big packers, but also the marketers, wholesalers and retails.

When a producer looks at the supply chain as a whole and cuts cost where he can and takes even a stable market price then we can survive as an industry. (With a few changes)

Anyone that believes the industry does not need to be re-engineered from start to finish has been sleeping to long, sat in too many meetings, or needs to return to their roots.

I do respect the Xperts in the industry and know they have done many good things for the industry in the past, but I also respect the producers enough to at least offer them choices, not say "That is the way it is, take it or leave it"!

[Kasro]

Charlie,

Re: opening CWB legislation

You point out something that I know, but until now had slipped by me. Perhaps it slipped by the current directors too. Or perhaps they hope no one tries what you suggest.

However I think that everyone should be assured the proponents of change to the CWB Act would attempt to get change affected. And given the current political pulse, as exemplified by the standing committee report, it may just happen! I perceive very little support in Ottawa for the CWB monopoly. Mr. Goodale doesn’t have many followers anymore, even in cabinet as I understand. However, to avoid the inevitable controversy, they may bury an amendment in an omnibus bill making it harder to do. That has been done before, particularly when the government or the PMO lack the courage to demonstrate leadership.

I too would like to hear from the incumbents. Comments from one or more of them on this matter would be enlightening. We all need to know where they stand in order to vote wisely.

Regards,
Kasro

ps. Does anyone think the CWB will really ask to open up the Act? Or will they deal with their interest problem outside the legal parameters. They do in other matters….like their export license scheme.

[Kasro]

To Whom it May Concern,

The silence emanating from the incumbent directors is still there. Or is it?

Are they now speaking through the CWB public relations department?

An open letter (Oct 22) from Chairman Ritter appears on the CWB website, 'clarifying' the issues around the jailing of farmers. A not so oblique entrée into the very important and currently debated single desk issue. Another open letter is stuffed into the envelope with interim payment cheques that dives headlong into other election issues. The CWB, its public relations machine, and its dollars supporting and defending the incumbent directors and their record. Does it remind anyone else of crass, plain, old-fashioned vote buying? Good grief, a cheque arrives in the mail, and with it glowing comments about how well we’ve carried out our responsibilities as elected representatives?

Shouldn’t you do that yourselves, Mssrs. Nicholson, Halyk, Macklin and Hill?

It’s rather convenient that you incumbent directors can get the CWB public relations department to do your campaigning for you. It helps you stay under your election spending limit if the pool accounts pick up your costs for you.

So, incumbents, please speak with your own voices. And try spending your own money to get your message across. It would make this election appear a lot less like the recent one in Iraq.


Still awaiting your personal responses to the questions and issues raised in the opening installment of this discussion thread…..

Yours truly,
Kasro

[TOM4CWB]

Kasro,

Very good points, I have been thinking a "little" about these issues myself today...

How about you and Parsley helping me with an open letter back to CWB Chairman Ritter?

This is my starting draft!


Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) Chairman Ritter’s Oct. 22 open letter to all western Canadian farmers

*CWB Chairman Ritter said;“Misinformation has been rampant since a small group of Alberta farmers declared that they will choose jail over paying fines associated with a 1996 border protest.”

Unfortunately Misinformation has been rampant surrounding the CWB Monopoly for decades. We hope this article will help correct this situation.

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “I believe it is important that other farmers are aware of the facts.”

On this point we agree! However, we hope that the all Canadian citizens become aware or what is happening down at the CWB.

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “Firstly, these people need not break the law to have their voices heard. A democratic process now exists to elect CWB directors, who set the direction for grain marketing. Since sweeping changes were made in 1998, 10 of the 15 CWB directors have been elected farmers. It is they who control the CWB, not the federal government.”

Interesting isn’t it that the CWB Act did change in 1998! There can be no question that the demonstrations by “designated area” farmers were in large part responsible for the changes in 1998 of the CWB Act. On who exactly controls the CWB, isn’t it interesting that CWB Minister Goodale refuses to inform “designated area” farmers who the new President of the CWB will be. The CWB does not set the initial prices we are paid as “designated area” wheat and barley producers, the Canadian Parliament does. And the Canadian Department of Finance must approve the CWB’s budget. Need we say more on who controls the CWB?

The CWB was requested, by a unanimous report of the CWB Minister’s own 1996 WESTERN GRAIN MARKETING PANNEL (WGMP) REPORT…. that the CWB, … itself…, change policy responsible for causing marketing problems for farmers… Yet many of the most important changes have not been implemented.

Therefore the demonstration against the CWB cannot be ended!
The elected directors corporately have stubbornly refused to implement the very reasonable and modest requests the WGMP made to allow a small measure of marketing freedom inside the CWB “designated area” (…just… western Canada).

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “In our democracy, citizens can debate issues and make their voices heard in any lawful way they choose. They can push for changes in the law. They can even be rude and noisy if they choose. What they are not entitled to do -- at least in my view -- is break the law.”

Interesting that CWB Chairman Ritter would declare that farmers are not entitled to break the CWB Act in a political demonstration, yet sadly the CWB itself… refuses to obey the CWB Statutes and Precepts…. on a daily basis.
You ask How?
In Section 32 of the CWB Act…, the CWB shall… “buy all wheat produced in the designated area and offered by a producer for sale and delivery”…. Obviously, therefore, the CWB only has an obligation to market “designated area” wheat and barley offered and delivered to the CWB by farmers.
Yet the CWB has decided that threatening jail terms and fines to force farmers into delivering their grain, is the “designated area” farmer offering and delivering grain!
How absurd. In Canada we have a Bill of Rights, which states, we citizens have “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”…. Further, the CWB’s own Code of Conduct assures us that the CWB must obey Common Law principals;
…Not to infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
.....To Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally.

....That for every wrong there is a remedy,
....The end does not justify the means,
....Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case,
....Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law!


*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “The CWB has no say and no control over sentences that were determined by the Customs Act and by judges in a court of law. But it should be made clear that the penalty assessed by the courts for the farmers' infractions was not a jail term -- it was a fine. The farmers in question have been given well over a year to pay, with an extra extension recently to allow harvest completion.”

The CWB had and still today has simple say and control over the legal process. Every farmer in the 1996 protest, …wanted…, to be charged for breaking the CWB Act, yet the CWB itself refused to charge anyone. Obviously if farmers were breaking the CWB Act, they should have been charged and convicted of breaking the CWB Act, yet this did not happen. The government of Canada firefalled the CWB from legal and judicial scrutiny, by charging farmers with Customs offences. These Farmers are determined to expose the injustices that have clearly occurred.

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “Farmers who exported small, non-commercial amounts of grain in 1996 (such as one bushel to a Montana 4-H club) were not charged for exporting without a license. Their offence was to remove vehicles that had been seized by Customs officials. However, most of the protesting farmers exported thousands of dollars worth of grain.”

Canadian Customs and or the CWB had no business charging anyone taking “non-commercial amounts of grain in 1996 (such as one bushel to a Montana 4-H club)” into the U.S. with anything.
The CWB Statute receives its authority from the “trade and commerce” provisions of the Canadian constitution, and since there was “no trade” and there was “no commerce”…(these farmers GAVE the grain away), they couldn’t break the CWB law! As for those “protesting farmers” who “exported thousands of dollars worth of grain” none of this grain was ever offered to the CWB to market. Further numerous attempts to obtain a license occurred, but the CWB refused to issue any export licenses to any of the farmers protesting.
Free CWB export licenses are routinely issued to all Canadian farmers outside the CWB “designated area” exporting commercial amounts of grain.

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “No one wants to see farmers in jail. Unfortunately, being jailed is a choice that these farmers say they have made to draw attention to their political concerns. Since I understand that they wish to make a public spectacle of being arrested, I hope this letter will help bring a clearer perspective to bear on such a sensitive issue.”

We agree on Chairman Ritter’s second last point as well, with these comments adding balancing perspective.

We hope you now have a better understanding of why these farmers are going to jail.

*CWB Chairman Ritter says; “Yours truly,”

You be the Judge. Isn’t Misinformation provided by the Chairman of the CWB rampant in this letter officially distributed by the CWB as a News Release?

[TOM4CWB]

Thalpenny, Charlie, Lee, and Julie;

Any of you have comments or suggestions?

Obviously Chairman Ritter has charged into this debate full speed ahead...

What do you folks think...

As this topic is likely to be the most interesting and mind stretching commodity marketing issue in decades!!!

[charliep]

Tom4cwb

I will hold off on commenting. Both Tom and my employers are on record for the stand on the issue of marketing choice for wheat and barley. If we didn't hold a similar belief, we would likely be working elsewhere.

This is the right time to bring ideas forward and contribute to the debate in the district CWB director elections. This process is the best way to push for change in CWB direction.

[charliep]

Just a comment on your last statement Tom4cwb. What would happen if farmers invested the time we are taking in debating CWB issues in gaining marketing expertise, finding opportunities,etc.

I sometimes look through the Commodity Marketing threads and look at the blend of market outlook/strategies and CWB policy issues. I look forward to the day when sites like this deal more with opportunities and less with politics.

[Kasro]

Amen charliep

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

Marketing is hard work, any way you want to slice it!

There can be no doubt that the CWB debate is making us think "outside the box" and for this all of us will be wiser and better marketers!

Hopefully now we can build, a better marketing system, if we know exactly what we need.

This painfull process can be profitable, if we choose to make so.

I can agree many times I have thought about what sacrifices have been made to bring this debate to a resolution.

However, just like Gandi working for independance in India, timing is everything!

The first time, Gandi tried to bring about independance, the people were not ready for the responsibility of what they were working for.

The second time, they got independance from England.

Are we ready for marketing choice now?

[melvill]

I'll echo Charlie's comments on two fronts.

1) I'd like to see farm managers use these discussion threads more for trading and sharing market opportunities and market strategies. There are often great opportunities in local areas or regions that aren't shared because, other than this forum, there really aren't many methods to do that. My clients are always testing my ear with market strategies that they've thought of. Again, if they're good, they need to be shared.

I confess that I would like to see this forum used for something other than political debate on the pro-CWB-anti-CWB issue. Not that the debate isn't needed but when there's nothing else . . . . . Kind of reminds me of a debate I was invited to participate in between two international visitors that I was helping to host on a bus tour of Alberta farms. The debate was between two visitors over which was the "best" religion to follow - Islam or Christianity. Both were adamant that theirs was the only "true" faith.

There is one thing that I'm reasonably certain about in the Board debate based on my nearly 16 years in this work. If the Board goes or there were to be a dual system. There will be winners (those with astute marketing skills) and losers (those with limited marketing skills) and, at the moment, that latter group is larger. (Now we'll see the postings fly!)

[parsley]

tom4cwb,

About Mr. Ritter's article.....The CWB is about as innocent in this entire debacle as is an entire Board of Directors who sicks a dog on a group of farmers. The farmers get injured. The Board blames the dog, and maintain they were just innocent bystanders!

melvill, farmers will read your threads on marketing triticale etc. that you will post. I presume you will start some new threads.

But some farmers might be interested in the threads about the CWB. Because the election is so near, it is important that farmers have the opportunity to discuss what is happening. Agri-ville provides that forum. I'ts rather interesting you choose not to encourage full-bodied CWB marketing debates at this particular time!

The CWB most likely supports your lobby, melvill.

Parsley