Producer levy groups fund a separate/arms length lobby growers ombudsman group

[Rareearth]

Just thinking out loud, and I've given this about 5 minutes of my thinking time. Might need a beer or whisky now.

If the commodity levy groups were to fund a independent lobby or ombudsman office to look after producer interests they wouldn't have to worry about conflicts of interests with government, exporters, chem companies etc, with other in office production oriented mandates they seem to focus on.

This would open the doors to focused, effort, with results regarding the importance of export sales reporting and not just producer deliveries or actual after the fact exports.
A major piece of the puzzle is missing and it must be found.

[Guest]

why worry about shit like that ?
theres meetings booked for banff springs hotels, ocean front hotels , victoria, hotels in cities, free meals/booze, etc.
you know , important shit that will really help farmers***********************

[Guest]

plus it may hurt their future aspirations of entering trough feeding politics

[LWeber]

Just thinking out loud, and I've given this about 5 minutes of my thinking time. Might need a beer or whisky now.

If the commodity levy groups were to fund a independent lobby or ombudsman office to look after producer interests they wouldn't have to worry about conflicts of interests with government, exporters, chem companies etc, with other in office production oriented mandates they seem to focus on.

This would open the doors to focused, effort, with results regarding the importance of export sales reporting and not just producer deliveries or actual after the fact exports.
A major piece of the puzzle is missing and it must be found.

Anything is better than what you have today: Lots of work went into getting export sales resolutions passed at annual meetings with full resistance met in a less than Curteous fashion.
August exports were released October 05.

China bought canola last week with some indicating they are covered until Spring/Summer 2023.

In SK alone, there are over 30 million checkoff dollars on the table - every single year.
I refused to go to Ottawa in 2012 to celebrate Marketing Freedom because an idiot could have written better legislation to protect farmers. There is less transparency today than there was in 2012. Think about that for a second. Would I go back pre-2012? Never. Could a child have have written better legislation - Abso/fn/lutely.

1.622 MMT of beans sold in three days. but zero results from Canada...

OCT 14 - Private exporters reported the following sales activity:
• 392,000 metric tons of soybeans for delivery to China during the 2022/2023 marketing year
• 198,000 metric tons of soybeans for delivery to unknown destinations during the 2022/2023 marketing year
• 230,000 metric tons of soybean cake and meal for delivery to the Philippines during the 2022/2023 marketing year

OCT 13: Private exporters reported the following sales activity:
264,000 metric tons of soybeans for delivery to China during the 2022/2023 marketing year
242,000 metric tons of soybeans for delivery to unknown destinations during the 2022/2023 marketing year

OCT 12: Private exporters reported sales of 526,000 metric tons of soybeans received in the reporting period for delivery to China during the 2022/2023 marketing year.

[Rareearth]

Case i cant help but think your part of the problem..

There are many good people and great minds that serve as volunteers with the producer groups. These people could be your family, friends or neighbours, they do a service like it or not.

The producer groups fund (or some) fund the Canadian Special Crops Association which is more export and market related. It makes sense that some of the levy groups dollars fund that work as they are in touch with those pieces every day. There are no farmer interests directly related to that organization, as it serves the exporters, rail, container, broker, and foreign buyer inters more so. Market access in required but who should pay for it?

Levy groups are production research focused. Its required work.

Who was, is looking after Your interests be it carbon tax, diesel pricing, freight rates, or price discovery? Your closest Viterra terminal, or the seed sellers and fert dealers, etc?

I really dont think this is a divisive issue, just filling a big hole.

[TOM4CWB]

The last two years have been Zoom meetings in the vast majority of cases…

If Trudeau and BoBo refuse to allow transparency legislation… blaming the producers commissions is lunacy… just like blaming farmers for the 2012 CWB marketing choice federal legislation.

The lawyers got in there with both feet… Jerry was paranoid of judicial blow back… and the liberals reversing that legislation.

Like you said Larry… we are so much ahead of pre2012 … watching Minneapolis and Kansas wheat sales… virtually all our non durum milling wheat is basis off spring wheat and hard red (winter) wheat futures. Spring wheat is primarily a west coast North American shipping point…

Canola being driven by domestic crushers… China has messed it up so many times…

Australia trades canola on both EU and Canadian because of their marketing vs the futures …

Blaming farmer directors for our marketing transparency is simplistic rhetoric… Virtually every commission is no happier than any of us commercial western Canadian farmers.

During the market week I trade Canola futures and options from 6pm to 12:15pm daily… (Sunday evening to Friday afternoon) liquidity is reasonable. Wheat is similar…Miles ahead of 10 years ago!

Blessings and Salutations

PS… if the CGC had an single ounce of courage… and actually worked for the interests of grain growers… much more transparency could/should have happened… successively both the Liberals and Conservative governments installed Commissioners politically motivated.. that have taken away farmers interests… and told to turn the CGC legislative powers …over to grain companies. Stomach wrenching.

[LWeber]

The lawyers got in there with both feet… Jerry (sic) was paranoid of judicial blow back… and the liberals reversing that legislation.

Charlie and Chuck had legislation sitting on ice. All it needed was tweaking. Fed bureaucrats met with industry for two years to develop a list prior to 2012. There was nothing put in to ensure that transparency would be enhanced; worse, nothing from the list made it to legislation.

Don't try and make a silk pulse out of a sow's ear.

He didn't see the need for an Export Sales Reporting program from 2010 to 2012 and his view has not changed today - go check his Twitter account.

I don't care how it happens - charging the check off commissions with it through resolutions has not worked. There are too many fragmented views and too many positions to be policy oriented or effective.
Insanity is....

Next.

[wmoebis]

Harper and Ritz did a CGC review called the Compas Review. In that review they suggested doing away with the Office of Assistant Commissioners. Now don't mix that Office up with the Assistant Commissioners in management. There used to be six appointed Assistant Commissioners that worked at arms length to the CGC they were tasked with maintaining producers rights and Regulating the elevator systems to make sure everyone complied with the Grain Act. In place of that office they recommended opening a Grain Farmers Advocacy that would have the power and mandate to regulate or could have been expanded to regulate all aspects of the grain industry. Well Mr Ritz did away with the Office of Assistant Commissioners but never replaced it with anything left you farmers on your own.

The whole review is long so I copied the part that refers to this.

The Standing Committee recommends modern governance structure
for the CGC’s executive level and the appointment of a single
President or CEO supported by three vice-presidents. The Committee
also recommends that the CEO hold office during pleasure for a term
of five years.
Furthermore, the Standing Committee recommends that, because of
the intrinsic nature of the grain industry, a working knowledge of the
industry should be a criterion, in addition to managerial and other
skills, to be considered in the appointment process of a CEO.
2. The Six Assistant Commissioners and the Office of Grain Farmer Advocacy
There were some discussions during the Standing Committee meetings on the role of the
six assistant commissioners and whether or not their positions should be maintained. The
assistant commissioners are appointed by Cabinet for a fixed term, and they are regionally
located. They provide awareness in their
respective regions of some of the work
carried out by the CGC, and they also serve
as a mechanism for complaint resolution in
some cases. The Act is not very clear on
their roles, which means that the way
assistant commissioners perceive their role
may vary from one region to another.
“At the best of times, they are well regarded
by farmers for interceding with elevators in
weighing or grading disputes but the style of
their interventions are reportedly of
.
While some definition as to the duties of the
assistant commissioners perhaps would be
appropriate, the office of grain farmer
advocacy, as envisioned in this report, is very
unclear. If it is an office operating outside the
Grain Commission, how would it access
records in times of dispute on grades, etc.?
Would these be separate jurisdictions? Would
that be available to them? The fact that they
suggest that after three years this office could
disappear is extremely worrisome. First, we
see it as little more than an ombudsman with
ill-defined or no powers.
Terry Boehm, Vice-President, National Farmers Union
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Evidence No. 15 — 12:20
1st Session 39th Parliament
Ottawa, 28 September 2006
5
uneven quality. At the worst times, they are inhabitants of patronage heaven. The
continuance of these ambiguously defined positions is in our estimation incompatible with
principles of modern government.”7
In its review of the CGC and the Act, Compas recommended the establishment of an Office
of Grain Farmer Advocacy, a form of an ombudsperson with the mandate to ensure that
farmers understand their rights under the Act and to advocate for them in cases of disputes
with other stakeholders.
Although there were few concerns expressed about the new Office, the Standing
Committee regards these concerns to be very valid, particularly those regarding its powers
and the possibility that it may eventually disappear following a review, conducted every
three years, on the need for its services. Similar points were raised in another context by the
Standing Committee in its May 2002 report on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
The Standing Committee recommended an ombudsperson and provided details on the
mandate and the relationship to the Agency. Therefore:
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Standing Committee recommends the establishment of an
independent Office of Grain Farmer Advocacy composed of six
commissioners deployed regionally.
Furthermore, the Standing Committee recommends that the Office be
permanent and be funded to perform adequately its role of defending,
in the same manner all across Western Canada, the interests of all
grain producers in disputes with other stakeholders, including the
CGC itself. Finally, the Office should report directly to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food,

[TOM4CWB]

Larry I stated both the Conservatives and Liberals are responsible… the legal issues and concerns were real. Making the end of CWB ‘monopoly’ system legally non reversible was job 1. Triple redundancy.

It is all history now! No one is going to tickle that dog…

Cheers

[Guest]

Case i cant help but think your part of the problem..

There are many good people and great minds that serve as volunteers with the producer groups. These people could be your family, friends or neighbours, they do a service like it or not.

The producer groups fund (or some) fund the Canadian Special Crops Association which is more export and market related. It makes sense that some of the levy groups dollars fund that work as they are in touch with those pieces every day. There are no farmer interests directly related to that organization, as it serves the exporters, rail, container, broker, and foreign buyer inters more so. Market access in required but who should pay for it?

Levy groups are production research focused. Its required work.

Who was, is looking after Your interests be it carbon tax, diesel pricing, freight rates, or price discovery? Your closest Viterra terminal, or the seed sellers and fert dealers, etc?

I really dont think this is a divisive issue, just filling a big hole.

I got a bad taste in my mouth , I guess, when a guy here ran for a sask cereal group
Campaigned honestly, talked to many people when all of a sudden the board all ganged up together to make sure this local guy didn’t win , when it looked like he would , and they kept their little gang together
Volunteers don’t do shit like that, they shoulda been brought to task
Volunteering , yea , I don’t think so

[Guest]

Who was, is looking after Your interests be it carbon tax, diesel pricing, freight rates, or price discovery? Your closest Viterra terminal, or the seed sellers and fert dealers, etc?

did i miss something on carbon tax ?, freight rates?, diesel pricing , price discovery ??

[blackpowder]

U forgot the Code of Practice and now the fertilizer reductions.
They keep nodding their heads wearing a dumb smile agreeing to everything.
Every year I call my dollars back giving them the same reasons.
Crickets.