It's amazing what a curious mind can discover, if you know where to look.
The following is a submission by the Save the CWB Coalition that has been made publicly available. What was interesting was when I clicked on File then Properties then Summary, I discovered the document originated from the computer of a JNWhitley from the Canadian Wheat Board. I then clicked on Statistics and discover it was created Oct4.2006 and was last saved by Yvonne Rideout KAP's general manager. So the CWB wrote the submission and sent it to KAP, who then turn around and present it to Minister Strahl as their own work. These people are beyond reprehensible.
Farm Organizations¡¯ Presentation for Minister Strahl, AAFC
A Producer Plebiscite
October 2006
Introduction & Need for a Plebiscite
It has become apparent, throughout western Canada, that the majority of grain farmers want to be a part of any decisions on significant changes to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). The federal government has stated that they have the directive to change the CWB¡¯s marketing mandate. We disagree with this decision as the CWB Act clearly provides farmers the authority to determine the CWB¡¯s marketing mandate and requires the Government to hold a plebiscite. Section 47.1 of the Act states: ¡°The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless (a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister (1998,c.17,s.25).¡± Therefore, we wish to work with government to ensure that the best interests of grain farmers are taken into consideration.
It is imperative that any plebiscite that is presented to western Canadian producers offer a clear question on marketing. We, as farm organizations representing western Canada, have designed a question that meets that criterion and moreover, is neutral as not to mislead the discussion or decision of grain producers. This approach ensures that the majority of producers are represented in the process and are provided a voice in the future of the western Canadian wheat and barley marketing system.
The Question
It is essential that a plebiscite focuses on a question that asks producers to select between realistic choices. The question must avoid misleading phrases that suggest that farmers could make the CWB voluntary and still have the same benefits, features and programs that the organization is able to provide today.
Our organizations are suggesting the following wording for a plebiscite (with voters checking one option for each):
Wheat
¡õ I wish to maintain the ability to market all wheat, with the continuing exception of feed wheat sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.
¡õ I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system.
Barley
¡õ I wish to maintain the ability to market all barley, both malting/food, with the continuing exception of feed barley sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.
¡õ I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all barley through an open market system.
Voter Eligibility
Eligibility for voting should be as per the CWB Act:
1. Voter eligibility will be determined by the same criteria as that used in the CWB Director elections. Therefore, the voter list will be based on the 2005-2006 list of Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders.
2. Eligible voters will be entitled to one vote only. There shall be no weighted ballot based on the amount of grain sold through the CWB, farm size or acreage seeded/harvested.
3. Eligible voters are those ¡°producers¡± defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act as follows: ¡°Producer¡± includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein. All prairie producers in the CWB designated area who have grown wheat and/or barley at least once in the past two to five years are eligible to vote.
4. All producers who do not hold a valid CWB permit book are eligible to vote upon signing a legally-binding affidavit declaring they meet the eligibility criteria as outlined above. Statutory declaration forms shall be made available during the plebiscite period.
Respectfully Submitted
Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan
Keystone Agricultural Producers
Wild Rose Agricultural Producers
National Farmers¡¯ Union
The other is a news release from the Real Voice for Choice (don't you just love the irony of the name) What's interesting is the numbers they cite are identical to those #'s in the CWB submission to the Task Force. Doing the same File/Properties/Summary I discover The Real Voice media release was generated on Joan Martyn¡¯s computer ¨C Joan Martyn is listed on the Government of Saskatchewan¡¯s directory as the Office Administrator, Saskatoon Business Center, Agriculture and Food, Agri-Business Development Branch , Agriculture Business Services. But the info was plagiarized from the CWB¡¯s task force presentation.
NEWS RELEASE October 18th, 2006
East Selkirk, MB; Real Voice for Choice today released a detailed breakdown of the financial benefits realized by western Canadian farmers as a result of the single desk marketing structure of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Each year, producers have an opportunity to realize a financial gain of between $525 and $645 million. If the future of the CWB is jeopardized, producers will be the losers.
Based on independent technical analyses, the financial benefits which are directly attributable to the CWB¡¯s single desk marketing structure are estimated to be:
in millions of Canadian dollars
Value of CWB single desk marketing $297 to $417
Tendering, railway and terminal agreements $38
Net interest earnings $66
Approach to managing delivery system $115
Terminal blending $7 to $10
Farmer access to producer cars $6
__________________
Total annual benefits from Single Desk Marketing $525 to $645
In 1997, the CWB won a legal challenge against the CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB received $15 million compensation for damages. CN also reached a commercial settlement with the CWB. The compensation was never released publicly as a condition of the settlement.
Other benefits which producers enjoy from single desk marketing through the CWB include: annual price pooling as a risk management tool; producer payment options which allow producers to withdraw from the annual price pool account and spot price in market rallies; an Early Payment Option (EPO) which allows a producer to lock in 80, 90 or 100 percent of the Pool Return Outlook (PRO) while staying in the pool to benefit from potential market improvements. These options available to farmers through the CWB exceed those available in an open market.
Who will work for farmers in the future? The economic impact of giving up dollars which are extracted from the world marketplace will be impossible to replace. If changes are made to the CWB, farmers should be the people to decide the future through a plebiscite on a clear question.
Real Voice for Choice is a grassroots non-partisan producer group representing support for the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) single desk marketing structure. Real Voice for Choice is primarily funded by producers for producers.
Here's what the CWB presented;
Summary of annual CWB benefits and services
Annual net benefit
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for wheat
$146 - $255 million
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for barley
$59 million
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for durum
$92 - $103 million
Tendering and railway and terminal handling agreements
$38.1 million
Net interest earnings
$66.2 million
Approach to managing delivery system access
$115 million
Terminal blending
$7 - $10 million
Farmer access to producer cars
$6 million
Total
$530 - $655 million
In addition, the following must be considered:
The CWB won a 1997 legal challenge against CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB and CPR settled on a $15 million compensation for damages. On the same claim, the CWB reached a commercial settlement with CN outside the courts. The amount of compensation was never released publicly.
Now, I wonder what Wayne Easter, and Jack Layton think of all this. Or are they to busy throwing stones at glass houses to notice?
The following is a submission by the Save the CWB Coalition that has been made publicly available. What was interesting was when I clicked on File then Properties then Summary, I discovered the document originated from the computer of a JNWhitley from the Canadian Wheat Board. I then clicked on Statistics and discover it was created Oct4.2006 and was last saved by Yvonne Rideout KAP's general manager. So the CWB wrote the submission and sent it to KAP, who then turn around and present it to Minister Strahl as their own work. These people are beyond reprehensible.
Farm Organizations¡¯ Presentation for Minister Strahl, AAFC
A Producer Plebiscite
October 2006
Introduction & Need for a Plebiscite
It has become apparent, throughout western Canada, that the majority of grain farmers want to be a part of any decisions on significant changes to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). The federal government has stated that they have the directive to change the CWB¡¯s marketing mandate. We disagree with this decision as the CWB Act clearly provides farmers the authority to determine the CWB¡¯s marketing mandate and requires the Government to hold a plebiscite. Section 47.1 of the Act states: ¡°The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless (a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister (1998,c.17,s.25).¡± Therefore, we wish to work with government to ensure that the best interests of grain farmers are taken into consideration.
It is imperative that any plebiscite that is presented to western Canadian producers offer a clear question on marketing. We, as farm organizations representing western Canada, have designed a question that meets that criterion and moreover, is neutral as not to mislead the discussion or decision of grain producers. This approach ensures that the majority of producers are represented in the process and are provided a voice in the future of the western Canadian wheat and barley marketing system.
The Question
It is essential that a plebiscite focuses on a question that asks producers to select between realistic choices. The question must avoid misleading phrases that suggest that farmers could make the CWB voluntary and still have the same benefits, features and programs that the organization is able to provide today.
Our organizations are suggesting the following wording for a plebiscite (with voters checking one option for each):
Wheat
¡õ I wish to maintain the ability to market all wheat, with the continuing exception of feed wheat sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.
¡õ I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system.
Barley
¡õ I wish to maintain the ability to market all barley, both malting/food, with the continuing exception of feed barley sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.
¡õ I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all barley through an open market system.
Voter Eligibility
Eligibility for voting should be as per the CWB Act:
1. Voter eligibility will be determined by the same criteria as that used in the CWB Director elections. Therefore, the voter list will be based on the 2005-2006 list of Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders.
2. Eligible voters will be entitled to one vote only. There shall be no weighted ballot based on the amount of grain sold through the CWB, farm size or acreage seeded/harvested.
3. Eligible voters are those ¡°producers¡± defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act as follows: ¡°Producer¡± includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein. All prairie producers in the CWB designated area who have grown wheat and/or barley at least once in the past two to five years are eligible to vote.
4. All producers who do not hold a valid CWB permit book are eligible to vote upon signing a legally-binding affidavit declaring they meet the eligibility criteria as outlined above. Statutory declaration forms shall be made available during the plebiscite period.
Respectfully Submitted
Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan
Keystone Agricultural Producers
Wild Rose Agricultural Producers
National Farmers¡¯ Union
The other is a news release from the Real Voice for Choice (don't you just love the irony of the name) What's interesting is the numbers they cite are identical to those #'s in the CWB submission to the Task Force. Doing the same File/Properties/Summary I discover The Real Voice media release was generated on Joan Martyn¡¯s computer ¨C Joan Martyn is listed on the Government of Saskatchewan¡¯s directory as the Office Administrator, Saskatoon Business Center, Agriculture and Food, Agri-Business Development Branch , Agriculture Business Services. But the info was plagiarized from the CWB¡¯s task force presentation.
NEWS RELEASE October 18th, 2006
East Selkirk, MB; Real Voice for Choice today released a detailed breakdown of the financial benefits realized by western Canadian farmers as a result of the single desk marketing structure of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Each year, producers have an opportunity to realize a financial gain of between $525 and $645 million. If the future of the CWB is jeopardized, producers will be the losers.
Based on independent technical analyses, the financial benefits which are directly attributable to the CWB¡¯s single desk marketing structure are estimated to be:
in millions of Canadian dollars
Value of CWB single desk marketing $297 to $417
Tendering, railway and terminal agreements $38
Net interest earnings $66
Approach to managing delivery system $115
Terminal blending $7 to $10
Farmer access to producer cars $6
__________________
Total annual benefits from Single Desk Marketing $525 to $645
In 1997, the CWB won a legal challenge against the CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB received $15 million compensation for damages. CN also reached a commercial settlement with the CWB. The compensation was never released publicly as a condition of the settlement.
Other benefits which producers enjoy from single desk marketing through the CWB include: annual price pooling as a risk management tool; producer payment options which allow producers to withdraw from the annual price pool account and spot price in market rallies; an Early Payment Option (EPO) which allows a producer to lock in 80, 90 or 100 percent of the Pool Return Outlook (PRO) while staying in the pool to benefit from potential market improvements. These options available to farmers through the CWB exceed those available in an open market.
Who will work for farmers in the future? The economic impact of giving up dollars which are extracted from the world marketplace will be impossible to replace. If changes are made to the CWB, farmers should be the people to decide the future through a plebiscite on a clear question.
Real Voice for Choice is a grassroots non-partisan producer group representing support for the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) single desk marketing structure. Real Voice for Choice is primarily funded by producers for producers.
Here's what the CWB presented;
Summary of annual CWB benefits and services
Annual net benefit
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for wheat
$146 - $255 million
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for barley
$59 million
Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for durum
$92 - $103 million
Tendering and railway and terminal handling agreements
$38.1 million
Net interest earnings
$66.2 million
Approach to managing delivery system access
$115 million
Terminal blending
$7 - $10 million
Farmer access to producer cars
$6 million
Total
$530 - $655 million
In addition, the following must be considered:
The CWB won a 1997 legal challenge against CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB and CPR settled on a $15 million compensation for damages. On the same claim, the CWB reached a commercial settlement with CN outside the courts. The amount of compensation was never released publicly.
Now, I wonder what Wayne Easter, and Jack Layton think of all this. Or are they to busy throwing stones at glass houses to notice?
Comment