It's all about listening and responding

[jdepape]

Did you know?

For at least the last 12 years the CWB has surveyed farmers on a variety of issues, from attitudes about agriculture to preferred marketing systems.

The proportion of farmers who were surveyed over the years who support the status quo (single desk) on barley ranged from 22% to 36%.

The CWB has done nothing.

In January of 2007, CWB officials met with Minister Gerry Ritz in Ottawa. In attendance were senior officials from the malting companies and the President of the Malting Industry Association of Canada. These representatives explained that the malting industry would not invest any more capital in the malt industry in Canada as long as the CWB has single desk marketing authority. They were demanding changes.

The CWB did nothing.

The Canadian malt industry kept to its word and has not invested in any new capacity. However, since that time, China has built a great deal of capacity and continues to import Canadian malt barley and has now increased exports of malt dramatically. (From practically zero in 2004 to an estimated 375,000 tonnes in 2010.)

We have effectively exported our malting industry to China.

In March of 2007, the Federal Government held a non-binding plebiscite on barley marketing. Farmers voted and only 38% supported the status quo.

CWB Chairman Ken Ritter said:
“The results of the barley plebiscite announced today are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings.”

The CWB has known farmers’ views on the single desk for over ten years, and they have done nothing. They know the impact the single desk is having on the barley value added industry, and they've done nothing.

Earlier this year, the CWB hired a consultant to study the malt barley industry. The consultant apparently told the CWB:
o The Pool and CashPlus need to offer producers better price signals.
o The Pool and CashPlus need to offer malt companies improved delivery liquidity.

As far as I know, the CWB has done nothing with this study.

The CWB operates on behalf and for the benefit of farmers. Democratically, the majority of farmers have told the CWB over and over they don’t want the single desk on barley; and the malt industry has told it in different ways what needs to be done to improve the malt industry (which also would benefit farmers). However, rather than act on any of this, the CWB does nothing but continue to argue adamantly that one of the options presented, the dual market, will not work. (I believe it can.)

This is all about listening and responding. Farmers know what is best for themselves. They need directors sitting at the CWB board table who won’t override farmers’ interests with their own ideology.

www.cwbmonitor.blogpost.com

[parsley]

Have you read this website?

Have you done your due diligence?

The only way you can effectively debate AND persuade, is to arm yourselves with facts.

Yes, facts.

This blog is full of facts and information.

Take the information to your local ag group, or alternately form one at your kitchen table, and then make an appointement with the B of Directors to propose what you want changed.

I hear your constant bitching.

Now, get off your lazy asses and arm yourselves with information. Pars

[bucket]

The board won't answer the call. But that's because I expect them, after this durum fiasco, to start firing incompetent people. We are currently paying demurrage but the price is 1.80 for durum. The cwb is technically blowing our money away to shipowners. Probably Paul Martin's csl boats to boot.

But how will we know? It's a secret. The cwb has known for close to 4 months they needed durum and that the only 1 and 2AD they had was sitting in bins. It wasn't in the field the spring was too late. So now they blame the farmer for not delivering and the government for not paying.

It is incompetence at its finest. And a few months ago they were issuing letter of "liquidated damages" for over delivery all the while needing the durum. And now wonder why they don't have the 1 & 2AD farmers support.

[parsley]

Assemble the stats: number of staff numbers who are supposed to do your marketing

Divide it by your profits

Present the numbers to the B of D

Twenty farmers, all armed with facts, demanding them to fire 20% of the staff is a beginning, isn't it. Pars

[bucket]

How about firing fifty percent of the lazy asses that couldn't market fifty percent of the best quality durum crop produced in over a decade and then pay demurrage on it once they do actually sell some of it.

[parsley]

Rather, stay with the 290% less staff, but instead 30% reduction in Board of Directors' salaries.

They'll notice.

One way to get their attention and remember why they are there.

They set the tone at the CWB.

Appointed and elected $%^*%'s

Gasp.

I'm swearing, Pars

Pars

[dmlfarmer]

jdepape says: We have effectively exported our malting industry to China.

Yet he fails to mention China has an 10% import tariff on malt, compared to a 3% tariff on barley.

jdepape says: "the malting industry would not invest any more capital in the malt industry in Canada as long as the CWB has single desk marketing authority."

yet he fails to acknowledge that the domestic demand for malt in NA and the EU is falling, and currently malt plants are operating at less than 85% capacity. Furthermore he ignores the fact that areas where malt demand is growing (Eastern Europe, SA as well as China) have also see investment in malt plants further reducing the need for investment in Canada.

Most troubling, jdepape asserts: "Democratically, the majority of farmers have told the CWB over and over they don’t want the single desk on barley"

In fact "democratically, farmers have told the CWB and the government in every director election that they want the CWB and the single desk by voting in directors supportive of the single desk. Polls, surveys, and non binding plebicites do not form the basis of a democracy, elections do. Until farmers actually vote in a majority of directors who want change, "democratically" there can be no change to the single desk.

But if jdepape is honest in his statement that "its all about listening and responding" then I am sure he will not have any problems responding to the following simple questions I have for him.

1. In an earlier post on your blog you state: "Intuitively, the concept of the single desk makes sense. Farmers should benefit from collectively negotiating from a position of strength and the potential for better prices seems almost obvious."

My question then is Why does the CWB not work? What changes would have to be made to or in the CWB so Canadian farmers would benefit from collectively negotiating?

2. You state: "... the dual market, will not work. (I (jdepape) believe it can.)"

Could you please tell me exactly how you see the dual market working in light of the AWB existing for less than 2 years after becoming a dual market entity in spite of the fact it had prepared for the dual market by raising a capital fund.

Most open market supporters claim that a dual market will work but none I have talked to can tell me how it will work. hopefully you will support your claim that it will work with actual details and a plan.


3. You state: "They need directors sitting at the CWB board table who won’t override farmers’ interests with their own ideology"

So as a farmer voting in the upcoming election, how do I know a open market supporter also won't override farmer's interest simply because of ideology?

Looking forward to your reply!

[parsley]

"Could you please tell me exactly how you see the dual market working "

Open they eyes, and the revelation will come forth, glowing in its' manifestation of a gun-free wheat marketing zone where two tribes compete side by side for markets, and they shall be called Eastern Canada and Western Canada.

Go forth and bear the news.

Ps. The CWB has taught me obfuscation. Isn't it wonderful? Pars

[dmlfarmer]

I assume Parsley is referring to the now defunct Ontario Wheat Board which before 2000 was the sole marketer of wheat in Ontario. In 2009 the GFO, which was formed by amalgamating the OWB with the Corn and Soybean Grower organizations, marketed less that 170,000 tonnes of Ontario wheat. Not exactly a glowing endorcement of the viability of a dual market. Thanks for adding to the argument that the dual market is not feasable. And for evading my original question rather than answering it.

[dmlfarmer]

I assume Parsley is referring to the now defunct Ontario Wheat Board which before 2000 was the sole marketer of wheat in Ontario. In 2009 the GFO, which was formed by amalgamating the OWB with the Corn and Soybean Grower organizations, marketed less that 170,000 tonnes of Ontario wheat. Not exactly a glowing endorcement of the viability of a dual market. Thanks for adding to the argument that the dual market is not feasable. And for evading my original question rather than answering it.

[stubblejumper]

I wonder who is paying depape for the blogs this close to an election.

[parsley]

The point is they co-exist with the CWB. They work separately from the CWB, but within Canada.

2 marketing systems within one country.

Two.

2

Creston Wyndell region of BC was taken out of the Designated Area. Now I'd agree you probably piddled your pants when it happened, but the value of the CWB pools did not deteriorate.

The value is determined by how well the grain is marketed.And divided amongst the farmers, right?

If 200 farmers from Saskatchewan withdrew from the CWB lassoo, there would be no consequence to the single desk. All the CWBvoting farmers you refer to, would remaion loyal to the single desk.

Surely even someone cashing a per diem can understand the point.
Pars