Alberta Farmers offended by CWB...

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent...

I was not the only farmer at this meeting that felt this way... and it is sad that I had to report that the CWB "Accountability" meeting did not account for any CWB sales performance information, risk management mitigation info, Producer Pricing Option info on unacceptable CWB practices... when it was specifically asked for... there was the typical "Can't comment" respose... and the "You get offended at anything" when the CWB election co-ordinator sent my families CWB ballots out so they arrived the day AFTER the postmark was to be on them... Dec. 6th, 2002.

The illegal voting of many people that do not produce grain in the district they voted in...

is laughed off...

it is a funny joke to Chairman Ritter... and most CWB Directors, the numerous multiple ballots that were cast by a single producer... that the CWB Act says can only vote once... again is chuckled at...

In some countries democracy is as important as life itself... at the CWB it is a tool to educate me that I am a idiot... and shouldn't be offended when my family and myself are refused their democratic right to vote...

I am to be insulted, then sit down and shut up... that is the solution for your Chairman Ritter!

It was good that many of your CWB loving freinds... that saw exactly what happened... if their hearts are not too hard... to care... they too would have had concern about how exactly things were handled...

[wilagro]

Tom...They (the CWB reps) must regard you as 'that damned troublemaker' at it again. Perhaps your 'sourg****s attitude' after not getting elected to the board, influences their comeback to your questions. A little quiet diplomacy combined with a bit of tact might get you farther ahead in your dealings with the CWB.

Just a thought...

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

After, using a "little quiet diplomacy combined with a bit of tact", the CWB and CWB's election co-ordinators response was "SUE US"

After speaking quietly and calmly, on at least 2 occasions with Chairman Ritter, his response when he knows these problems occured... is to tell everyone that the election process is working just fine, without any problems.

I have encountered other farmers who had the same problem with the 2002 election process... and the same result, no ballot recieved in time for the voting deadline.

The CWB knows well that these illegal issues exist... they choose to do nothing... and tell us everything is just fine!

Pete at MNP had no response, no excuse, and the CWB a few weeks ago is still telling us that we should be registered in the district our elevator is in that we fill out our permit book... NOT THE DISTRICT THAT OUR GRAIN IS PRODUCED IN!

IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY OBERG, DISTRICT 5's DIRECTOR, HAD AN ACCOUNTABILITY MEETING IN DISTRICT 4?

WILL WE EVER KNOW IF HE WAS EVEN LEGALLY ELECTED BY DISTRICT 5 FARMERS?

[TOM4CWB]

Just a note I have a good understanding of the price pooling process at the CWB - I worked there a long time ago.

On the other component, I will be sitting in on a seminar that Adrienne Measner (CEO, CWB) will be givng at the University of Alberta (Successfull Marketing in Today's Grain Trade) tomorrow. Friday, both Lee and I will be getting together with the CWB business reps. (Glenn Tole, et al) to go over the new producer pricing options. With a frank discussion about some of the risks/flaws raised in other threads, I have no problem explaining these these new CWB risk management tools to farm clients and recommending where appropriate.

It is interesting that trying to get a discussion going around markets/strategies for other crops as well as evaluating risk tools/government programs is like pulling hens teeth. And yet a CWB topic that doesn't have a lot of action items a farmer can use to be more profitable gets over 50. Funny world we live in.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

I did not run in the last CWB election... so I fail to see how sour g****s have anything to do with this situation.

In 2000 when I ran in District 4, this is where TOM4CWB came from, I never expected to win... it was strictly an accountability issue for the Chairman of the CWB, Mr. Ritter. I worked to help Rick Strankman get elected.

I use PPO contracting because the CWB has deemed it illegal for Directors to use these options... I will bet the Ontario Wheat Board allows their directors to use options other than the pools.

THe CWB is so crass that they have told me several times, that if I don't like the PPO's why don't I just pool.

So, incase you think I do this just for the fun of it... you are wrong... it would be much easier and more profitable to pillage the pools... which was easily done last year... I chose on principal not to pillage the pools... because this system is just plain corrupt and wrong.

[boone]

CharlieP, I had a chance to speak to your ag minister, last month. I praised her for the way she quickly stood up for her growers and I requested formal adoption papers (I'm a sasky). But on this marketing issue she is just trying to stand up again and at this moment she didn't seem to have a full grasp on international rules pertaining to changes that would become permanent. I do know this though in ten years we will be right where we are, sitting around taking pot shots back and forth over the fence if we don't get some constructive dialogue in places like this. Divide and conquer keeps coming to mind.

[parsley]

henbent,

Do you suppose you could possibly begin to address the ISSUES we raise? It doesn't matter who the contributors to this website are, and it doesn't matter where they live, or if their family has helped them or if they have a pretty daughter. What matters is the issues that are being discussed. That is the reason many of us use this website.

You ignore the issues that cannot be refuted, and instead, attack the folks you disagree with, a tactic that the CWB often uses, I might add.

Answering a simple question becomes a maze of evasion. Ken Ritter IS unprofessional because he uses this same tactic.

For example, Ritter was asked if the CWB could issue export licenses without changing the legislation. A simple question, becaues if you look at the world around you, the seed growers are always being issued export licenses, and the big feed mills are always being issued licenses and Quebecors and Ontarians are always being issued licenses.

But it became a problem because the CWB had sent a policy paper to organic farmers and informed the farmers that the CWB could NOT issue unless there was a change in legislation. A lie and the farmers knew it!

So what does Chairman Ritter do to wiggle out of this one? He told Garry Breitkreuz at the Standing Committee of Agriculture that he wasn't sure if they could issue licenses or not! Can you imagine? The Chairman of the CWB informing Parliament that he didn't know whether or not the CWB could issue export licenses unless the legislation was changed....particularly when the CWB were handing them out on a daily basis?

Ritter looked like an idiot.

The issue, henbent, is one of crebibility. Ritter isn't credible. Anyone who cannot concede facts is not credible.

And trying to humiliate Tom4CWB or any farmer, at meetings, is unnacceptable in business. Ritter is there to serve the farmer. The farmer pays his bills. It's not the other way around.

Lack of accountability. Not owning up. Not being truthful. Lying. Deceptive. These are the most important things that have to change, henbent, not tinkering with the pooling accounts, or hiring another communications expert, or devising another accounting methodology for the interest money.

HAVE to change.

CharlieP, on the other hand is very respectful towards farmers on this website, and he is a helpful, knowlegeble Moderator. Read his CV on this website. If he disagrees with, or questions any positions, he sticks with issues, as you should.

henbent, farmers do not like what the CWB has become and what they stand for. You might want to meet that thought.. head on.

Parsley

[henbent]

TOM4CWB, parsley, What names did Mr. RITTER call you at the meeting?

parsley, Your fellows are the ones that are now stirred up on this site. It seems that the least opposition to your views, must be shouted down trashed and destroyed. I really don't think that there is anyone on this planet that could have a cerebral discussion with your group. You are right and everybody else is wrong! Why is it then, at the ballot box you fellows are failing? The answers that you fall back on are always the same, ly'n and cheaten goin on! Sorry that don't cut the mustard. By the way, I am not about to share all my trade secrets with you dudes.

[charliep]

Boone

You and I seem to be as close to compromise as anyone. Areas of agreement.

1) Need for a balance of market alternatives. Where we might disagree is whether this is by choice or regulation. Your point is that there are a number of crops and this is one route to accomplish this. Open to discussion.

2) Need for market planning and risk management. Being profitable is not an accident. A note that the CWB producer pricing opttions are moving this direction (still need for improvemement). Lee and I are working from the other side (open market) in terms of price risk management and simply getting farmers to market in pieces rather than thinking they can call the market/sell for the high.

3) A high priority on meeting customer needs. This will be Canada's number one priority and our ace in the hole.

4) Adding as much value as we can to the grain we produce domestically. This should be part of a rural devlepment. How many of you are seeing services in your community disappear as farms get larger.

My last posting to this one. I look forward to the discussions in other threads.

[charliep]

Forgot one other.

5) Finding business partners that can be trusted (within a business relationship) and setting up value chain relationships that work to meeting customer needs, are efficient/low cost and share the financial benefits (everyone who works in a value chain has to be rewarded).

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

Every time CWB management and staff refuse to answer legit questions... and fall back on "you just get offended at everything"… this is neither constructive, fair, or being accountable.

I know Chairman Ritter portrayed me as being a liar, when his own CEO sent me a letter (which I know he is aware of or at least should be aware of) saying the exact opposite to what Chairman Ritter said to the meeting at Sedgwick...;

That the CWB holds a futures position on PPO contracted grain until that grain is delivered by the farmer.

This is what Adrian Measner wrote me on February 24th, 2003;

"As you may be aware, the CWB hedges the producer pricing options by selling the futures when producers lock-in a FPC contract or when they lock-in the futures component of a Basis Price Contract (BPC). THE CWB UNWINDS THIS HEDGE BY BUYING BACK THE FUTURES AS THE CWB PUTS SALES ON THE BOOKS (ESSENTIALLY THE CWB IS BUYING THESE PRODUCERS OUT OF THE POOL ACCOUNT OR OUT OF ALL SALES). THEREFORE, MOST OF THE FUTURES BOUGHT BACK TO DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AT VALUES HIGHER THEN THE CURRENT MARKET." (EMPHASIS ADDED)

Taking off a hedge BEFORE the specific PPO contracted grain is delivered... is not risk management, it is foolish speculation. The CWB expects me to pay them if the futures goes higher, If I need to buy out of this contract. SO EXACTLY WHY DOESN”T THE CWB HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO HOLD THE FUTURES POSITION UNTIL THEY TAKE DELIVERY OF THIS CONTRACTED GRAIN?

WHAT IS REQUIRED OF ME, SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE CWB, if this is to be a fair commercial contract that has legal legitimacy. AGAIN the CWB tells me to sue them, If I don’t think the contract is fair.

THIS CWB PPO management of futures is not commercial, not risk management, and not to the benefit of my farm or your farm.

THE CWB could have lost over $75/t on my hedged PPO contract specifically, and this is probably exactly what happened.

October 1st, 2002, the CPS Mar. 03 CPS futures was quoted by the CWB at about $273/t. I Hedged on July 24th 02 at about $216/t. On March 18th, Mar 03 was worth about $186/t.

If the CWB was stupid enough to take off my hedge at a bad time… so it costs us $57/t instead of making us $30/t… is this my fault?


Since the CWB fails to even care about or try to understand these basic issues…, what trust and confidence am I to rely on... that Ritter even knows what is going on, let alone managing to extract a premium for "designated area" farmers?

If the CWB can't even manage such a simple task as PPO risk management, what makes you think they are extracting a premium for your farm HENBENT?

[parsley]

I will agree that merely two elected to marketing choice was a disappointment. But I was not dissappointed with the number of ballots that voted against CWB adherents for the monopoly. And they continue to grow.

Ten years ago, there were a few whispers of dissension aginst Board policies. Then it grew to dissidents asking unforgiving bold questions at Board meetings, "Why has the Admin budget grown by 50% this year ?"

This grew into Border runners. And now, there is a flood of farmers who simply demand marketing choice.

We went from a few complainers to a majority. And it is unstoppable until the ISSUES are laid at rest.

Let's attempt a cerebral discussion, henbent. Just issues. One step at a time.

Please answer this question as yes or no:

Would you agree that the CWB's Licensing arm issues export/interprovincial licenses to applicants right across Canada?

Parsley