The CWB and Rats

[parsley]

In response to ianben's comments in the thread, Life After the CWB
The farmers in England are one jump ahead of the farmers in Canada. They can sell their wheat to a rat-baiter in England. or not sell to the rat-baiter. As a farmer, You can even start a company and go into competion with the rat-baiter. We can't automatically do that in Canada.

Here all elevators and grain cleaning buildings are declared , by the government, in legislation, as "works for the general advantage of Canada". Here we can sell only to the government's CWB. It exports the wheat and a company in the USA or elsewhere, could manufacture the bait and they ship it back to the store in Canada to sell it. Government employees (Rat Patrol Agents) administer the rat bait on farms , service the rat sites on farms.

. Now there might be a secret deal that the CWB BureaucRats have made with the rat companies and they are letting them manufacture rat wheat-bait without going through the CWB and doing the buyback....like in the EMFA. The governments are probably raising rats somewheres too.

CWB allowing RatBaitCompanies to buy Rat -Bait wheat without the buyback .... if everyone promises no-one rats! Sounds feasible to me!

Most of the time in Canada, ianben, this is what happens Some guys want more of the same with canola and flax. I'm trying to give them reasons why they need to look at what's happened and how to find out where the biggest trouble lies.

I've started this new thread. The old one takes too long to download.
Parsley

[dsheehan-millang]

Parsley, thanks for the opportunity to play catch up on all the submissions so far.

For the benefit of ianben and other international Agri-ville visitors:I am a representative of the CWB, and provide moderator services to this site on my own accord. An involuntary, couple week hiatus has prevented me from responding to the many 'calls to attention' that were issued by a few participants in this forum.

The CWB is a marketing agency that operates a single desk, selling on behalf of western Canadian farmers. The CWB sells wheat, durum and barley for export, and for human consumption in Canada. The grain marketed is only that grown in western Canada.

This organization is run by 10 elected farmer directors, and five federally appointed directors and is not an arm of government. There is guidance in the act for the process for any grains to be added or deleted from the CWB's mandate. So the CWB exists by virtue of a federal parliamentary act, and farmers themselves validate its existence through electing directors. Arguments about electoral apathy, misrepresentations about the true democratic nature of the organization and theories of governmental control of the organization are voices of dissent towards the organization. The election process is clear, and eligible producers can cast their vote every four years.

The originators of this Act understood that a single desk selling agency can create market advantage. But it is only effective when that advantage can be maintained and not undercut (create a market advantage and individuals will cherry pick it if possible - its economics). After all, a multiple seller environment means no single desk. So all the arguments that are presented that are around the edges miss a key point - does this marketing structure add value to western Cdn producers? Valid questions to evaluate this are welcome, but tirades that are focused on a penchant to deflect from the true democratic farmer control of this organization and leave false impressions of overt government involvement are outdated and undermine democracy. Accountability rests with the democratic process.

Regarding the Export Manufactured Feed Agreement - much ado about nothing. And again, the farmer directors of the CWB have prerogative over this type of policy, as long as they meet the Act's intent. There is an open and competitive feed grains market in western Canada. Farmers have been able to sell feed grains to whom they choose in that market since the early 70's. Therefore, feed mills can buy from who they choose. The CWB doesn't actively participate in this market.

The processed feed product does not compete directly with the CWB sales into the US market. But there is an open feed market in Canada, and the mills can buy at the price they can negotiate with farmers. There is currently no off-board Canadian market for milling quality wheat ot barley from western Canada for food use. This is the difference and the point missed so far on why there is no buyback for manufactured feed products and there is for export of the raw grain or for grain to be processed into export food products. Those products will directly compete with the single desk, and affect the pool returns for all farmers.

So the arguments focus on rhetorical, heart-string issues to avoid acknowledgement that the CWB creates value for farmers at a time when added value is so desperately needed.

The premise of some of the questions, decrying the CWB as the cause of economic loss on the Prairies, or of somehow having a self-serving view in its policy development is mischievous at best and deliberately malicious at worst.

There are pricing and payment programs where farmers can fix a price off of Minneapolis and take the individual risk or reward. There are programs where farmers can develop direct, personal relationships with international customers (the PDS sale program). These programs are developed to preserve the single desk and offer MORE options than an open market would offer because the single desk remains. A dual market is a myth.

The essence of the additional value the CWB creates is by virtue of the single desk. And all revenues, less net marketing and logistics costs and administration of about $2.70/tonne go to farmers. No retained earnings. No infrastructure overhead other than administration. Compare that to fluctuating basis levels on open market grains in Canada and the US. Canola basis that varied by $25/tonne since September. Basis levels in the US for wheat that have fluctuated by similar amounts.

There is no question that Cdn grain would move to market without the CWB. The question is would there be more or less value for farmers without the CWB? Farmers have been granted ownership of the organization, and control its destiny.

There are good questions that help add value to farm management and there are ones that are a waste of cyberspace.

Let's stick to the valuable ones.

Tom

[parsley]

It almost sounds as if the CWB doesn't market feed wheat and barley anymore, so I'll ask the question directly, Tom, and you can answer with a yes or no....does the CWB still market feed wheat and feed barley?
Parsley

[parsley]

Chas, I'm holding good to my promise that we'd take a look at who stands in the farmers' way to carrying on a business that, in a friendly way, creates wealth . The following is Reason #3 why governments cannot be regulators and players at the same time if farmers are to make money.

3. Regulations often become a tool to favor Government &/or /Business interests instead of fostering productivity and sustainability. This is another reason why we don't want governments to be a player in agriculture

Government and business partnering in the grain industry can be bad for the producer. For agriculture. If you think that the regulations that the CWB come out with are to help you as a producer Chas, you've been SOAKING in a tub filled with your dandelion wine. Regulations end up working in favor of the big players. Especially when the regulator softens.

The EMFA is a good example of the regulator (CWB) defending non-pooling of wheat and barley, while promoting pooling of wheat and barley

It often seems that quite a few of the power-seeking CWB bureaucrats are moved by a political concern...... for the common good.......... and most of the regulations that are brought forward stem from these people. Farmers interests disappear. The farmer doesn't matter. Equality of opportunity doesn't matter. The system matters.

Parsley

PS I forgot to note that not only grants but tax-credits become a self-interest tool. in Reason#2

[parsley]

This is the last Reason why governments should not be regulators and players at the same time if farmers are to make money. Chas, I won't be promising to do all this work again!

4. The market loses power....
When the power of the market becomes shared between Government and Corporation, a problem that arises is mistrust. Issues of wrongdoing sufaces. It's a sensitive issue.

Prime Minister Chretien, as we speak, is answering questions about his role as both a regulator and a player in a hotel fiasco. Government and Corporation. Grant-giver and grant-taker. Was it Self-serving ? Some of his bureaucrats will show anger towards the tough questions, saying it will undermine democracy, but for the most part, they understand each and every question becomes valid when it comes to accountability. . The truth of it is, the hard questions must be answered so the people know who to vote for.

One only has to look at polls that measure respect towards elected officials, and governments as a whole, to find a surprising level of contempt out there. Perhaps it is because fraud and corruption charges placed against persons in positions of trust in G7 countries, today, is in the news more frequently. It's a problem.

Most would agree that the Farm Community no longer have the same trust in those placed in positions of authority and influence, like they once did.

When the governmemt becomes a partner, its' role as regulator is altered and weakened. Who's interests come first?


For those that want to permanently ....control the market...or bend it, or break it and or re-design it.....You can't. Somewhere it the world, it survives. Farmers will be not be successful at taming the market, just as they are not successful at taming nature, so they had better learn to work in harmony with both markets and nature. Chas it's the same approach to take with the wife.
Parsley

[parsley]

The CWB continues to market feed wheat and feed barley for export.

[calfarmer]

BRAVO Thalpenny!!!
You speak the truth if only the parsley's in this world could see the
light,we could get on to solving our
farming woes.

[ianben]

Hi, good idea to start again.
Yes Parsley I could start a rat bait company in England. We get the same advice as you add value, diversify, you name it we should do it. Why? Have I not got enough money invested or am I not taking a big enough risk with farming? Do I know anything about the rat bait industry? Does it need more competition? Do I need more work and worry? NO.NO.NO.NO.!!!
I am a proffesional grain grower who wants to market his grain useing 21st century methods.I harvest my grain with a Case 2388 not a MF 780.
This is what the CWB should remember and realize it is a true global market and you are no longer the key player. So reinvent yourself try something radical. Live up to your reputation and gain some control over the market because I realise good prices for you will be good for me too.
I must agree Parsley this is getting to be a habit but I am enjoying the chat.
Nearly midnight AGAIN!
Goodnight Ian.

[TOM4CWB]

The CWB and MYTHS,


The CWB says, “A dual market is a myth.”

Am I a MYTH then?

My understanding of a “dual market” is an open or individual marketing system, operated by free choice, competing against, a voluntary pool marketing arrangement that has been, by agreement, formed for the mutual benefit of those who choose to be in the pool.

That’s funny, does this mean that my volunteer pooling my timothy seed, fescue seed, peas, seed wheat, seed barley, canola, and all the other co-operative pools that I personally am in, do not exist, and are a myth also?

Dual Marketing happens every day in Eastern and Western Canada, in the USA, and around the world whether the CWB denies it or not!

I do not get put in jail if I leave any one or all of these pools do I?

Why?

Is it because we choose to respect each other, and agree to co-operate?

Why?

Could it be because when we voluntarily work together, we can benefit from allowing each other’s strengths, and all are stronger as a result?

I preferentially market my products, and price discriminate to various markets every day, but not with a gun to my head, except with the good old CWB.

Allowing the Freedom of Spirit and Will of another human being, and allowing this person the freedom to choose their own destiny, IN MY OPINION is the first most basic right of a human in this Universe.

Could the following be CWB Myths?

“Farmers have been granted ownership of the organization (CWB), and control its destiny.”

Let us look in the CWB Act to see if this is Myth or Fact.

CWB Act 3.12 Directors and Officers

3.12(2)The directors and officers of the Corporation shall comply with this Act, the regulations, the by-laws of the Corporation and any directions given to the Corporation under this Act.




CWB Act 18 Directions by Governor in Council

18.(1)The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act shall be conducted, exercised or performed.
(1.1)The Directors shall cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as they act in accordance with 3.12, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions.
(1.2)Compliance by the Corporation with the directions is deemed to be in the best interests of the Corporation.

The practical side of this legislation is that the CWB staff must get approval for finances and sales of grain from the Government of Canada, since they guarantee all CWB activity. CWB policies are formed and approved by the CWB legal staff (Responsible to the Attorney General of Canada) and they simply tell the Board of Directors what they will or will not do.

Is this “Farmer ownership and control”?


“The essence of the additional value the CWB creates is by virtue of the single desk.”

Another Myth?

I would submit that the CWB does not create any additional value.

Why?

Any value that would be created by the “single desk” could be created, and in fact enhanced by allowing competition to hone the skills of the participants that had agreed to co-operatively market their grain together.

Co-operation is always more productive than coercion in the long run. The CWB spends literally millions of dollars each year protecting the “monopoly single desk” instead of paying attention to business and doing a good job of marketing our grain!

Why would the CWB ever be afraid to compete for our grain, if they are sooo gooood?

The CWB says, “There are good questions that help add value to farm management and there are ones that are a waste of cyberspace.

Let's stick to the valuable ones.”

I believe any question is a good one, if it causes people to think, don’t you?

The MYTH that we CWB critics are “deliberately malicious”!

IS THIS NOT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK?

If you had a gun to your head, how happy would you be?

Take the gun away, then we will become constructive and build each other up!

Wouldn’t that be better?

[chas]

Parsley you are getting my message and I think your getting charlie's too. Farmers are getting control of the wheat board to control their marketing in an orderly fashion. Corportations are in the pockets of government to set regulations to befit corportations not farmers. That's why I keep stressing that farmers of the world have got to own and control their own marketing boards and sell to the end user. The open market doesn't work, ask ianben. Parsley this dam website isn't working a whole lot better than to old one, other than Thalpenny freshen it up with alot of truths on marketing that ianben should be considering. Tom4cwb your canola contract is fine but I didn't consider it because of yield and variety prospects. Parsley, appman and you other Sask. farmers, the Alberta Government has a huge surplus in the general account and has ask residents of our fair province what we should due with the access. I suggested that we buy Saskatchwan and make a North American land fill site out of it as we can't seem to make a living farming it and there is money in garbage. SORRY Sask but that seems to be the attitude of this political and corportate mess that we have created. Chas non whiner.(wine}

[parsley]

Chas, you ought to get more sleep, you must work all the time.

This is what you say:

"Corportations are in the pockets of government to set regulations to befit corportations."

You think the corporations are pretty greedy, don't you? Take out corporations and substitute farmers:This is what you are asking for:


"Farmers are in the pockets of government to set regulations to befit
farmers."

Is this what you want?


calfarmer has jumped in, and glad to get your comments, but want to tell you it's darn hard to see that light at the end of the CWB darkness-tunnel of lies and misinformation. CWB bureaucrats have gotten away with feeding farmers misinformation-garbage, but they're not getting away with it these days. ...The Tom4CWB's of the farm community are able to pick out what are not facts!. (Remember, I was preaching about "Think clearly" Chas?).

calfarmer, Halpenny claims the CWB "is not an arm of government" Do you really buy that?
Parsley

[parsley]

Does the CWB serve
1. to add value to western Cdn producers or
2. is it an instrument of government?

Right from the beginning, the facts speak.

The following information stems from a CONFIDNTIAL document written on Thursday, May 2, 1946 at 5:00pm named the MINUTES OF THE WHEAT COMMITTEE OF CABINET MEETING

{keep in mind..the war is over ...it's 1946....and britain is short of food......canada's parliament is now operating the wheat board under emergency war legislation granted special powers that are soon running out.... and Britain wants a wheat contract}

Mr. MacKinnon "opened the meeting and read proposals put forward by United Kingdom officials to Mr. McIvor during his recent visit to London".......... "The proposal by United Kingdom officials had been that the $1.55 basis be maintained until July 31, 1946."

Mr McKenzie "pointed out the dangers of marketing Canda's wheat surplus in a limited number of other countries. This would have the effect of contracting trade."

Dr Wilson mentioned "the need of broad wheat exports to provide a sustaining cargo for Canadian shipping."

"It was finally agreed that the United Kingdom, through Sir Andrew Jonas, should be avised at once that Canada was prepared to proceed to negotiate a five-year contract on the basis of $1.55 per bushel No.1 Northern for the crop years 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948-49; not less than $1.00 per bushel for 1949-50 and 1950-51 with the actual price to be determined in advance. The quantity involved would be 180 million bushels per year, a stated percentage would be in flour, the actual amount, to be subjective to negotiation. The Wheat Board Officials were instructed to proceed along these lines."

{at this point in time, the wheat board has a problem with its' powers ...if they enter the contract...after war....there is usually a hike in the price of grain........how do you get cheap wheat for the contract?}


Mr McNamara "raised the question of the Wheat Boars's authority to operate in the event of a contract being entered into."

Mr Gardiner "suggested that food contracts requiring special legislation could be expected to get the consent of Parliament"

"A letter from the Department of Justice to the Wheat Board was read, suggesting legislation necessary for
continuance of the Wheat Board powers,after July 31, 1946 This suggested providing adequate legislation by enacting Western Grain Regulations amendments as deemed necessary, to expire July 31, 1947. It was agreed, however, that the authority for continuing the present Wheat Board powers would be derived from an amendment to the National Emergency Powers Act rather than amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act."

Parsley