Response to Standing Committee

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight the Federal governments response to standing committes recommendations from this past spring as interpretted by the CWB.

http://www.cwb.ca/en/news/releases/2002/111502-01.jsp

The actual responseds are at:
http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/report/report_e.phtml

The specific response on the CWB mandate is as follows (apologies for copying but worth reading):

Recommendation 14

Whereas additional on-farm activities and local value-added processing are an excellent way to give farmers more influence in pricing, the Committee recommends that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board authorize, on a trial basis, a free market for the sale of wheat and barley, and that it report to this Committee on the subject.

The Government of Canada supports the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and is committed to preserving the ability of Canadians to operate the orderly marketing systems necessary for stability and profitability. The Canadian Wheat Board Act, as amended in 1998, provides a clear process that must be followed in order to alter the CWB's current marketing mandate. According to the Act, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board cannot introduce legislation into Parliament that seeks to change the marketing mandate of the CWB unless the Minister has consulted with the Board of Directors, and producers of affected grains have voted in favour of the proposal.


It must also be noted that those same 1998 amendments placed all the powers and authorities of the CWB in the hands of its Directors, two-thirds of whom are directly and democratically elected by producers themselves.

The Standing Committee directed this recommendation to the Board of Directors of the CWB. For the response from the CWB Board of Directors, see press release issued June 12, 2002 (http://www.cwb.ca/en/news/releases/2002/061202.jsp)."

I look forward to comments.

I would take the time to go over the other recommendations. The Agricultural Policy Framework is moving along and much of its push can be seen in this document (a good signal of push from the political side).

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

I see;

"a clear process that must be followed in order to alter the CWB's current marketing mandate" as a slap in the face to all potential marketing choice directors...

This nightmare is not going to be resolved any time soon.

So does this mean Minister Goodale would instruct CWB Justice lawyers to advise Choice CWB Directors... that they cannot issue free export licenses... to the "designated area" in the same manner as is done for the rest of Canada?

[charliep]

My interpretation is that there are politicians that have power in the current Liberal caucus and are not allowing change. The justification is there is an elected board of directors who can make decisions on behalf of all farmers (after all we are a democracy). No respect given to the right of an individual to run their business in the way they see fit. I find it interesting the reference is the reference is to Canadians, not western farmers and the words "to operate the orderly marketing systems necessary for stability and profitability". This should reference to the business risk chapter of the federal provincial ag policy framework but I have never heard the CWB referenced once in this discussion.

Having said that, the good ship CWB has been cut from its mooring to sink or sail. There will be no government lifelines to bail it out when (perhaps if) starts to take on water and sinks. A further signal I will look for is when the initial payments are no longer guaranteed by the government but rather a farmer contingency fund.

Finally, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. The CWB either survives as it is today or it perishes.

[AdamSmith]

After watching this amazing farce, otherwise known as the CWB director elections, I have become convinced that Goodale's experiment with democracy has become a bon-a-fide disaster.

These words and phrases all apply.

Un-democratic
Bananna Republic
Jimmy Carter (where are you when we need you.)
Crock
Sham
Corrupted
Outragous
Unscrupulous
Conniving
Offensive
Rancid
Abuse
Violate
Dishonest
Unethical
Improper
Shameful
Shamless
Immoral
Ridiculous
Absurd
And just plain god awful

[parsley]

Don't forget, guys, a clear process includes a wig and robe.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

Forget the wig and robe... they work for the Grits... and do you see anyone but the Grits governing any time soon?

Take one look at what Martin's camp did in BC yesterday!

The Court of public opinion... the average Canadian will be needed to force change at the CWB...

And this painful process started with prison terms Oct. 31st... obviously "designated area" producers will be required to spend more time in prison if change is going to come about!

Only in Canada... prison for freedom!

Well not only in Canada... but we as Canadians were supposed to be... are told we are... living in a free and democratic country!

Obviously... we have a very long way to go!

[charliep]

I find it interesting to think where the CWB will be after January 1/03 given the following.

1) A federal government that has drawn a clear line in the sand - no changes unless recommended by the board of directors and approved by an all farmer western Canadian plebiscite.

2) A incumbent board of directors (at least farm elected ones) that have drawn clear lines in the sand. The views of some may change with a different momentum from newly elected directors.

3) Five appointed directors that no one knows where they stand/who provides marching orders. Do farmers even have an understanding of their role?

4) A group of newly elected group of directors who have campaigned on clear viewpoints/objectives. This will bring a new viewpoint to the board. There will also be a stiff learning curve starting with learning the beauracracy at the CWB. No idea what the dynamics fo the CWB will be over the next 2 years.

5) A new chief executive officer selected (someone will have to help me with process) by current board.

This would not appear to be a situation where change can occur quickly or without a lot of divisive politics.

What will the new world look like after January 1/03?

[parsley]

charliep,

There are two perches to view the CWB from.

Farmer "Sheepster" is convinced that the CWB Act puts the Prairies under a statuatory monopoly.

The Government has just boldly announced they are not going to change a monopoly system either (as if there really is one), so the only way farmers can get change is first to elect a majority 'marketing choice' group of directors ready to change the monopoly tune and second to follow up with a full chorus lobbying Cabinet and Goodale to "change the monopoly". Will it work?

If the bass section singing "Change", doesn't get drowned out by a bed-wetting soprano who is terrified of the open market, Goodale at that point, could call for a producer vote, with the time of the vote and the question to be asked as part of his repetoire. The vote would have to pass before the Minister can change the conductor . You'll be dead charliep and so will I before this comes to pass. So why swallow the bait the Board and Goodale have put out?

Farmer "ThinkingOutoftheBox" is convenced that the the monopoly is only Wheat Board policy.

He hopes enough marketing choice directors are elected to push enough policy changes that will grant licenses to farmers within one working day. (And if not, good chance the courts will.)

The legislation stays humming in the background. The monopoly on SUPPLY (farmers' grain) is broken. Goodale and Cabinet would be acting beyond their authority to deny it. Only a change in the act could overturn the new policy. How could they stop denying licenses once they had begun? This would be political suicide and unconstitutional and a bewildered Goodale would be singing the descant soprano.

Which one do you view, charliep, as being the most successful way to bring about change?

Parsley

[charliep]

I would agree the second is the easiest/cleanest approach. You either have to have a willing board of directors who provides this instruction to operations or someone/a group with the willingness to challenge in court.

Would these licenses be available to farmers only? Could grain companies apply for these licences?

[parsley]

charliep,

Not just the easiest/cleanest approach, but also the timliest! We have a month to wait to see if we have a willing board of directors and if not, there there should be be someone/a group with the willingness to challenge in court. The farm community is fed up and this will not end with an election.

1. "Would these licenses be available to farmers only?"

Yes charliep. Farmers could apply and get a license and the CWB will probably have little say about it in the final analysis if it comes to court.

If farmers could not get licenses, it means that their property had been expropriated, and the rules of the land are very clear about expropriation. Certain rules must be followed and they were not.

That is why the CWB officials are very careful to not say that they "deny" an export license. Instead, they've chosen to let on like the buyback is a parliamentary requirement to getting the license,. (Which it is not). Haven't you always wondered why the CWB doesn't send out letters saying, "You are denied an export license".... They don't.

2. Could grain companies apply for these licences? Unfortunately for the grain companies, the elevators, the mills, etc,, the CWB Act has declared them as designated "for the general advantage of Canada" They're nailed to the Board's coffin. The grain companies know that supporting marketing freedom for farmers means that their captive grain supply will be cut loose.

By the way, the grain companies negotiated with the CWB and got EMFA licenses for grains being processed into feed. None of this grain passes through Board marketing or pooling, and all of them get an export license.

Once the farmers start to bypass CWB pooling and marketing, the grain companies will struggle like tied up elephants and they will put so much pressure on the CWB, it will be them who will inevitably free up the wheat Board system completely.

The companies' grain supply will bypass them via farmer's trucks heading south. A producer with 20,000 bushels of wheat will get it tested, and run it straight to say, General Mills, with the exact specs GM's needs. Sask Wheat Pool will be left on the sidelines drooling.

Can you imagine some of those wishy-assed politicians running an election campaign without corporate donations? They will get an offer they cannot refuse: 'No export licenses...no donations' .

Watch Change charge through the door.


Parsley