Charlie and Lee,
Did you read this?
How can Minister Strahl put up with these fear mongering, suicidal, management?
October 13, 2006
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/topics/task_force/index.jsp#response1
"The CWB is pleased to respond to the Task Force's questions.
Before doing so, however, we note that each of these questions refers exclusively to the "CWB". The questions are clearly premised on the assumption that the "CWB" would continue to exist in the absence of the single desk.
The name "CWB" carries many connotations; positive for those who support it and negative for those who do not. However, in the open market environment that the Task Force seeks to implement, the "CWB" as it exists today and, just as importantly, as farmers understand it today, simply would not, indeed cannot, exist.
This is not just a question of semantics. It is essential that farmers understand that in the absence of the single desk a "strong and profitable CWB" is a myth. In the absence of the single desk an entirely new entity would have to be created to assume whichever of the CWB's current functions might continue to make economic sense in an open market environment. Unquestionably, however, the CWB as farmers know it today would be gone. Preserving the name "CWB" does not preserve the essential value-proposition that it brings to western Canadian farmers. It is a mistake to think that there would be any similarity between the current CWB and whatever entity might exist after the single desk has been removed.
In the absence of a single desk there is no viable alternative for the Canadian grain industry other than that which exists in the rest of the world — an open market controlled by the same transnational corporations that currently control the global grain trade in every country except Canada and Australia. By last count four of these companies controlled 73 percent of the world's grain trade. This was up from 62 percent five years earlier and their influence is increasing. There is no reason to believe that in the absence of the CWB's single desk these same companies would not quickly control western Canada's grain trade as well."
I note that simply issuing export licenses... for "designated area" wheat and barley producers would do none of what the CWB claims above in this letter... not require a change in the CWB Act or mandate.
Simply put the CWB MUST respect our right as growers to offer our wheat to the CWB... or to access an export license as the CWB can issue and in fact has an obligation to issue under the CWB Act... when the price of wheat/barley inside and outside Canada are the same.
With the advent of Cash pricing... the CWB already ended the "single desk" as we knew it... and it is purely discriminatory NOT to issue export licenses.
Further the CWB needs to issue these export licenses... to protect pool accounts at the beginning of the season... and NOT allow the pool accounts to be cherry picked... as is happening today.
We are already in a crisis... since we have cash pricing today.
Did you read this?
How can Minister Strahl put up with these fear mongering, suicidal, management?
October 13, 2006
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/topics/task_force/index.jsp#response1
"The CWB is pleased to respond to the Task Force's questions.
Before doing so, however, we note that each of these questions refers exclusively to the "CWB". The questions are clearly premised on the assumption that the "CWB" would continue to exist in the absence of the single desk.
The name "CWB" carries many connotations; positive for those who support it and negative for those who do not. However, in the open market environment that the Task Force seeks to implement, the "CWB" as it exists today and, just as importantly, as farmers understand it today, simply would not, indeed cannot, exist.
This is not just a question of semantics. It is essential that farmers understand that in the absence of the single desk a "strong and profitable CWB" is a myth. In the absence of the single desk an entirely new entity would have to be created to assume whichever of the CWB's current functions might continue to make economic sense in an open market environment. Unquestionably, however, the CWB as farmers know it today would be gone. Preserving the name "CWB" does not preserve the essential value-proposition that it brings to western Canadian farmers. It is a mistake to think that there would be any similarity between the current CWB and whatever entity might exist after the single desk has been removed.
In the absence of a single desk there is no viable alternative for the Canadian grain industry other than that which exists in the rest of the world — an open market controlled by the same transnational corporations that currently control the global grain trade in every country except Canada and Australia. By last count four of these companies controlled 73 percent of the world's grain trade. This was up from 62 percent five years earlier and their influence is increasing. There is no reason to believe that in the absence of the CWB's single desk these same companies would not quickly control western Canada's grain trade as well."
I note that simply issuing export licenses... for "designated area" wheat and barley producers would do none of what the CWB claims above in this letter... not require a change in the CWB Act or mandate.
Simply put the CWB MUST respect our right as growers to offer our wheat to the CWB... or to access an export license as the CWB can issue and in fact has an obligation to issue under the CWB Act... when the price of wheat/barley inside and outside Canada are the same.
With the advent of Cash pricing... the CWB already ended the "single desk" as we knew it... and it is purely discriminatory NOT to issue export licenses.
Further the CWB needs to issue these export licenses... to protect pool accounts at the beginning of the season... and NOT allow the pool accounts to be cherry picked... as is happening today.
We are already in a crisis... since we have cash pricing today.
Comment