CWB MONOPOLY...Barley prices in Chaos

[dnach]

Send the whole works to jail, the time has past for the CWB years ago. The whole CWB mantality has stimed econmic growth in western Canada , especialy Sask, for years. The idea that it is economically feasable to ship grain half way around the world to people who can hardly pay attention let alone pay a decent price for our high quality wheat is hardly justifiable.
We need to process the majority of our grain and cattle at home, the cost of freight , handling and elevation are getting out of control and the efficiencies are horrible with grain handling unions. And they will not get better in years to come. Too many other countries aound the world, ie FSU and Brazil, can produce and ship grain cheaper and will continue to 'eat' away at our exports anyway.

[charliep]

Rain

I like your question/approach. I will let you post in a new thread if that is okay.

[rain]

Go for it Charlie

[charliep]

Done. I know how to clip and paste so will use your basic stuff.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

I have run for election in district 1, in 1998, and lost by only a few %... Then against Chairman Ritter in 2000, in District 4... Hence my name... Tom 4 CWB! Of Course I was not at all well known in district 4, but to become Chairman Ritter's subject... I moved here to Killam in 2001.

The CWB Election system is so badly flawed... and undemocratic for those who actually grow wheat commercially for a living...

THis is much like the SWP board of Directors... who it took bankruptcy to force democratic respect for the property of those who had had invested so much... without any say... finally those with much invested got 4 Directors...

I don't think the CWB is actually interested in having a democratic system that respects the property of those who are forced to use the CWB for actual commercial marketing services...

as the proof of this by the CWB at least yet is to the contrary...

the outlaw system at the CWB prevented;

My family and my self from voting in the 2002 election... when clearly the CWB Act required them to allow us to vote...

THe CWB allowed multiple votes... yet the CWB Act prohibits this...

The CWB Prohibits CWB Directors from using Producer Pricing Options themselves... more proof that the CWB PPO options are neither commercial, reliable... or above manipulation...

ALL of the above issues point to a CWB that is neither sustainable... nor an institution that is worthy of surviving in a free and democratic country... Maybe? Can the CWB change? Is the CWB even interested in Changing?

[parsley]

wilagrow,

It is important to realize that an Act of Parliament governs what the CWB Directors are allowed to do. At the present time, the CWB Directors are governing according to their their personal wants instead of what is legally allowable acording to the CWB Act. Many Agri-villers want the present Board to govern wthin the boundaries of the Act.

The Wheat Board presently tells farmers that the Act itself requires farmers to do a buyback in order to get an export license. This is simply not true. I presume you want the present B of D to continue governing by way of lies.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

I was reading CWB Director Bonnie D. DuPont at; http://www.enbridge.com/about/commentary.html
I found her speaches, after scrolling down past the Enbridge’s CEO's speaches…

Ms. DuPont’s “Risk Management at Enbridge: A Case Study”, she presented to the Conference Board of Canada –Toronto, Ontario October 10, 2002 shows great insight and wisdom in risk management....


AS FAR as CWB risk mitigation… PPO contracts are perfect… they absolutely maximize the CWB Monopolies opportunity to PILLAGE as much from me through PPO contracts as what is technically possible through a monopoly…

But what about MS. DUPONT’S moral responsibility to me, her subject?

Ms. DuPont says in this document:

“In the midst of ethics’ “perfect storm”, with turbulence patterns converging from Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Dynegy, WorldCom, and the rest, and with new corporate governance laws, regulations and standards being put in place, CEOs, Boards of Directors and corporate leaders are being required to re-examine business ethics, governance practices, and accountabilities.”

Ms. DuPont is right on… she continues;

“The Statement on Business Conduct commits Enbridge employees to:
•conducting the company’s business in accordance with the laws
wherever we operate,
•dealing honestly and fairly with all stakeholders,
•ensuring employees are treated fairly and that human rights are
respected, and
•conducting our business safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.

In the post-Enron world, we felt it appropriate to revisit and reaffirm our core corporate values, which include: integrity, accountability, innovation and flexibility, value creation, and social responsibility.”

We also adopted the “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights”, which deal with responsible corporate action in “zones of conflict” and are very relevant to our business involvement in Colombia. These principles are internationally recognized, and Enbridge was the first Canadian company to adopt them.”


Parsley;

...it sure looks to me like the CWB is operating in “zones of conflict” and since Ms. DuPont...is a CWB director… She has an obligation to stop The CWB from PILLAGEING "designated area" wheat and barley growers!

What will she do?

[parsley]

Obviously, she is ignoring the legislation that governs her and her Board. Does she ignore the legislation because:

1.She is instructed to do so by her Minister? or

2. Her personal political philosophy demands that she supports a monopolist position? or

3. She cannot understand the legislation?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

Looks to me like probably some of all three...

There is so much to learn... and by the time appointed directors spend enough time... and put in the effort needed to understand what is happening... if they really care about the "designated area" farmer more than political position and money... they soon find themselves back on the outside... either because of the negative liability created in holding the director's position... or because Minister Goodale refuses to reappoint them... cause they found out the real problems at the CWB... and opened their mouth once too often...

Enbridge had better be prepared for BAD PRESS from their relationship with the CWB... either that or ...stand for truth and justice... and take liberal political retribution...

No wonder Minister Goodale didn't get anyone from the business community... that knows the grain business... who is respected and honest... to fill the vacant CWB Director's position...

[parsley]

Bonnie DuPont claims a core element of a company's corporate governance sucess is, as she says, "communication and transparency, with shareholders..."


I would assume that farmers are at least considered as "shareholders" in the CWB.

In the first posting in this thread, as a farmer, Tom4CWB, you are asking, "HOW ON EARTH CAN THE CWB CLAIM THESE ARE FAIR “PREMIUM” PRICES WE “DESIGNATED AREA” FARMERS ARE BEING PAID, when the CWB can easily turn around and sell this same wheat for $170/t?

Isn't lack of transparency the very element you are complaining is lacking in the CWB?

Lots of forumed talk from DuPont, but it is just that...talk.

Parsley