Chairman Mao seeking excuse to transfer money from opponents to supporters

[craig]

I guess I was surprised that it took this long for Chairman Mao(Ritter) to bring up the fact that the CWB would like to take over the control of adjustment payments from the government.What the chairman fails to mention is that he wants producers to backstop his plan and what he really doesn't want to talk about is the fact that he would like producers who use PPO's to share either all or the majority of the cost of this proposal. The CWB seems to believe that it is fine to spend millions of producers money to promote state trading organizations and their ideals and this proposal only reinforces that position.
So the reality. As I stated before initials are only symbolic in nature. Did the CWB not introduce EPO's to get more money in the hands of producers earlier? Does the CWB not have total control over the PRO values on which EPO's are based? Doesn't the CWB trumpet the strong participation of producers in using EPO's?
This proposal is nothing more than what the liberals were caught at when they found they were dipping into the public purse to support the LIberal party. What checks and balances are in place to stop the board from manipulating basis and adjustment factors to build healthy surpluses in the contingency fund. What proposal is in place to have those who use the pool accounts contribute to this contingency fund. The CWB who supposely prides itself in the principal of treating everyone equal is quite prepared to take money from a certain group of farmers( generally the ones who don't like the pooling concept) and give it to what it considers are it's friends and main supporters. The Board directors see this huge pot of money created on the backs of certain farmers as their money to spend as they see fit. Is it little wonder that there are many who don't want to be part of this process. I would hope that government can read between the lines.

[TOM4CWB]

Craig,

If the masters at the CWB had a speck of innovation... they could bring in a 70% pool top up... and cover the risk... FREE of Charges. The CWB already costs some $80 million to operate... the least they could do is EARN some of that $80M!

The attitude that they have their hands tied, and cannot provide better services than are offered now... is obscene!

Pooling should be a marketing tool, a privilege with responsibilities and a fair chunk of the cost to run it... attributed to the poolies themselves charged back...

The CWB PPO "Early sales adjustment factor" is an invitation to a law suit... and clear cross transfer of wealth to create an inequity. Where does the CWB Act, or the PPO Contracts authorise the CWB this authority?

POOLING should NOT BE a GOD the CWB DIRECTORS "7 of 15" BOW to the East and Worship each Morning!

[charliep]

Thought I would through up the article that provides the background for this thread.

Canadian Wheat Board wants to control adjustment payments

Tamara King, THE CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG - It takes longer to get money into the hands of western Canadian grain farmers than it should because of a cumbersome process for adjustment payments, the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board said Tuesday.

The board announced that initial payments to farmers for wheat, durum and barley will increase by as much as $43.50 a tonne as of Thursday, and confirmed it has already asked the federal government for even higher payments in light of soaring world prices.

Adjustments must be approved by Ottawa, a process that the wheat board says it would like to streamline by taking it over.

"It's really nobody's fault ... It's just the bureaucracy in Ottawa," wheat board chairman Ken Ritter said.

"Farmers need the money, they want the money, it's their money. If we can find a process that allows it to happen in a business fashion, but quicker, that would be ideal."

Adjustment payments can take anywhere from six to 12 weeks to move through the system. Ritter said adjustments go through numerous steps and several departments before being approved, which is why last December, the board sent a proposal to assume management of the process.

This year's rapid, unprecedented rise in prices helps to highlight the disconnect in the process, said board spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry. Even with Thursday's price adjustment, farmers will only receive 43 per cent of the expected final price on durum, Fitzhenry said.

"It must be frustrating to be a farmer and see record prices for wheat and durum right now, and anticipating being able to pay off bills with those record returns and not being able to get at much of it, yet," Fitzhenry said.


Paul Martin, a director general with Agriculture Canada, said the wheat board's request is under consideration.

"The government is looking at that proposal but there hasn't been a decision," Martin said.

In an earlier written statement, federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Ottawa is committed to ensuring farmers benefit from higher commodity prices.

"Farmers work hard to grow the grain they sell and they should get paid for that work as quickly as possible," Ritz said in a statement.

The Thursday increase in initial payments for wheat will be $28.50 per tonne, while the increase for milling durum will be $43.50.

For feed barley in Pool A, the increase will be $23.50 per tonne, while the increase for designated barley will range from $29.50 to $36.50.

[charliep]

Is pooling about inventory financing? I note on canola, grain companies have to finance inventory between the time a farmer delivers/gets paid and the day the final consumer/processor pays the bill? Why should the CWB be different (perhaps backed by government guarantees)? The CWB already grain company inventories for the pooling accounts (a deduction off your payments).

Is it about protecting the integrity of price averaging over a whole pooling year? Are there no other ways to manage price averaging risk? What about things like shorter pooling periods?

Is the reason to backstop CWB mistakes where they set initial payments too high and are forced to ask the taxpayer (not the federal civil service, not the government, not parliment, not the conservative party) to cover their mistake?

Comments about the contingency are noted. If a contigency is needed for a CWB that can set initial payments, where should the money come from?

[Ron]

I phoned my CWB farm rep and told him there is no way the initial payment backstop should come from PPO's.

He thought he agreed with me.
I explained that I have given the CWB thousands of dollars to build the contigency fund for PPO's so I could get out of the pool and IF THE CWB WANTS MORE MONEY TO BACKSTOP INITIALS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE POOL IT SHOULDNT COME OUT OF MY POCKET. I am already paying to get out of the pool, I shouldnt have to pay for the benefit of those who remain.

[craig]

Ron
The initial proposal from the board wanted to ramp up the current contingency fund to a high enough level to backstop the pool accounts and initial payments. I have never heard anyone from the board suggest that there was a need to put in place something to charge those in the pool accounts money to build this fund. It is interesting how the board likes to claim that they are the ones that take the risk in the PPO accounts and therefore are entitled to use the surplus funds anyway they so desire. The CWB seems to like to cloud the issue by implying that these surplus dollars just instantly appear at no cost to producers. Everyone still seems stuck on the importance of initials. Producers have lots of options on getting their money up front.The problem is not getting money to farmers. The problem is the CWB.