Would CWB votes be different if voting was based on tonnes of product sold to the CWB

[poorboy]

Wedino,

I think that anything would be better than one vote per permit book, however, I can see a couple of problems with an acre equalling a vote.

First of all an acre produces a different amount of bushels of wheat depending on where you farm. Secondly, not every acre produces crops that are sold to the CWB.

I think that the growers that are delivering grain to the CWB should be the voting ones. A producer that primarily grows non board grains should not have as big a say as a CWB grain grower because the CWB grower has a much greater involvement in the changes that may occur.

With the average age of farmers almost at 65, I am concerned that a lot of landowners that are retired and not interested in change are getting an equal vote to those who are trying to survive in the business and shape the future.

The voting may have exactly the same outcome as it is today, but is sure would be interesting to compare the two.

Lastly, I think that the CWB should get out of feed barley sales. It is such a small volume that I think the grain companies could do a better job of finding feed markets both domestically and offshore.

[poorboy]

The way we vote is a very important issue. What and when we vote for something is very inportant also.

I don't think something as important as marketing should be thrown in with director elections. Personallities and politics should not be in conflict with the issues of the day. Ten directors should not be without guidance from it members in the more important issues like marketing without a pure an concise consensus. Not made on pure politics and personalities. A separate vote should be made at permit book application time. For example a vote should be; 1.more marketing choice

or 2.retain single desk

The idea of the board thinking they have a mandate on the marketing issue is through director elections is far from the truth and a dangerous assumption. Why not hold a vote this summer for clarification of marketing choice.

Power is for them that govern for freedom of everyone. Ritter should pay attention because he is presently on a huge power and ego trip that will lead him no where.

[henbent]

Here is some food for thought. The Alberta Gov't, being the free traders that they are, are now considering going to observe as guests, an OPEC meeting. Won't that be good for all. Free the market for the farmers. But join the ultimate single desk club at OPEC. How crazy are these PC guys!!

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

OPEC makes much more sense than the CWB.

At least a significant majority of world production is in OPEC... the CWB is less than 5% of world trade in wheat and feed grains this year! If there were an institution like OPEC for grain sales... the justification to continue the CWB monopoly would be significantly increased! OPEC countries share supply info, back each other up, insure that a balance of supply is created... to the benefit of all.

The CWB has no power to do any of these OPEC functions... case in point...the CWB and Ontario Wheat board are even enemies... who don't even share sales info any more!

Alberta has a huge vested interest in OPEC function... and has constitutional rights internationally on non-renewable energy produced in this province.

We have every right to look after our energy resourses... just as that right to be involved in the consultation and international marketing of our wheat and barley... is vested in the Alberta Government.

I am really glad you brought this up!

[boone]

Tom4cwb; I can well understand why Alberta wants to grab hold of it's leavers of destiny, it is like Saudi Arabia. It knows if it doesn't do something about it's "ONE TRICK PONY " status it will never do anything about it when oil is back at $8.00 per barrel. If you look south of the yellowhead highway on the next trip to Jasper you'll see their urgency. They are masters of selfpillage and they see Ag as one area that they can make something sustainable. The question I have for you is this if we respect doctors for having an association that sets minimum fees and services, and lawyers for the same, how is it when professional ag producers do it, the word "MONOPOLY" is bandied about, or if labour wants a voice it's a entrenched "UNION" mentality. If a whole country wants input in it's future and minimum standards of health, education, or industry, it is "DANGEROUS NATIONALISM". They are all just words, but the intent speaks volumes.

[Everest]

Hey guys....

Don't forget, there is a BIG difference between OPEC, Canpotex, Law Associations, etc., and the Canadian Wheat Board.

The CWB is compulsory. OPEC, Canpotex and other marketing "associations" are voluntary. Make the CWB voluntary, like OPEC, and all debates and issues of accountability and performance will be moot. The CWB will survive in the real world that the rest of us operate in, by competing for and providing products and services to its clients who find value in what it has to offer.

[henbent]

TOM4CWB, How in the world can you pretend that OPEC and the CWB would be different? Single desk selling that helps maintain a world price. Benchmarking, to the penny, no to the 1/10 of a cent. Look around man, at the gas pumps, the price is the same everywhere. Free traders, that talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, that sums up Alberta. They want to rub shoulders with the big guys, like the USA. Trash medicare and the CWB and the border, we can all become YANKS or be OPEC ARABS!!

[TOM4CWB]

Henbent;

There is no doubt at all about the CWB and OPEC being different.

Everest hit it bang on... the CWB is controled by legislation, command and control principals... communistic theory... with the worst of both worlds of communism and democracy mutated into an absurd instrument of deceit for the purpose of controling the Canadian food supply.

If the Government of Canada needs to control our grain, then fine, buy it at fair market value, store it at the expense of the taxpayer... Then I will gladly turn my grain over to the CWB.

[chaffmeister]

henbent:

OPEC IS quite different than the CWB. As Tom said, the CWB represents about 5% of world wheat trade this year and more like 12% in recent years. OPEC members represent about 80% of all known oil reserves in the world and supply about 40% of the world's output. Quite different when you are assessing market power.

There is no way that the CWB has ever had the same impact on global wheat prices as OPEC has had on global oil prices.

As mentioned earlier, OPEC membership is voluntary - the CWB is not.

Individual members of OPEC are free to sell their oil to whomever and whenever they see fit. Their sales are not pooled with the rest of OPEC.

OPEC is not a single desk seller - it sets production (output) quotas for its members in order to stabilize prices, and as we all know, individual members are known to "break from the ranks" and over-produce when they feel a need.

The CWB's single desk selling does not "help maintain a world price". Remember, the CWB is a price taker.

[Dyno]

An interesting discussion! The trade numbers cited are very much on the low side for world wheat though. The point is, an OPEC-like wheat cartel with membership with the likes of Australia and Canada is worth researching. The new eastern eurpoean minor exporters could surely use some help with international marketing and we would be well advised to come up with ways to work with them becuase we will not compete on a cost of production basis. Ukraine has in excess of 40% of the class 1 soil in the world! Guess how much we have in canada, almost none. They have created their own domestic shortage through inpet marketing which was aided by the big multinationals. I read in agriline they are now re-importing 20,000 MT/month to survive the year! I understand the multinationals made about $50US/MT margin on the 10 million MT they bought at the farmgate in the Ukraine for $60 US and resold for $110 US FOB Black Sea port. Considering Ukraine, Kazikstan and Russia will outproduce and outexport Australia, Argentina and Canada, the US and the EU on wheat on a consistently lower cost basis into the future we better start recognizing real threats to our future in Wsetern Canada. As tom4cwb likes to say "follow the money", in this case follow the least cost producing area in the world. I think the threat from the nations formerly known as "minor exporters" will make the rest of our problems and issues seem rather trivial inside of five years.