What would Canadians say if this was Canada Post?

[AdamSmith]

CWB refuses government request Angela Hall, The Leader-Post
Published: Tuesday, November 28, 2006
The Canadian Wheat Board has refused to remove a document from its Web site as requested by the government, saying it doesn't defy a federal cabinet order.

Ottawa reined in the sole exporter of western wheat and barley in October by ordering it not to spend money advocating in support of its monopoly, which the Conservative government has promised to end.

The board said it received a letter Oct. 17 from Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl asking that a document be taken off the site because the preparation and posting of the document is believed to contravene the order.

"Having carefully reviewed the matter with its lawyers, the CWB does not agree with the minister's position and so will not be removing the document," the board stated in its weekly bulletin.

The document in question is the board's response to a government-appointed task force looking at how to end the CWB's single-desk, or monopoly. The four-page response is highly critical of parts of the task force report, which suggested ending the monopoly on wheat and barley exports in 2008 and creating a "CWB II."

"In essence, the task force has proposed that the CWB lose its single desk, which is the engine of its value proposition to farmers, and attempt to enter, with absurdly little in the way of assets, a concentrated, consolidated, mature grain handling and marketing industry with notoriously high barriers to entry, dominated by transnationals," the CWB response stated.

In Regina last week, Strahl restated the government's plan to let farmers vote in early 2007 on the future of barley marketing through the board. He said he has no timeline to change how wheat is marketed, and said farmers and buyers should plan to use the board this crop year.

[AdamSmith]

On the grounds of gross incompetance Strahl must;

Fire Measner with out severence!

Can about a dozen upper management suits!

Put the BOD on notice that they are not acting in accordence to their responsibilities by not taking care of these matters themselves. And if they are found to be commplicit in any wrongdoing they to will be removed.

There are billions of dollars of grain and the livlihood of thousands of families at stake here and these clowns have decided to play a game of chicken with the federal government.

How many of you out there think that this little temper tantrum the CWB is throwing isn't going to hurt your bottom line at the end of the year? Do you honestly think we're going to get the best performance from these guys with the poisoned atmosphere that exists there today?

[stubblejumper]

sounds like someone is having a temper tantrum and it's not the CWB

[AdamSmith]

ok stubblejumpper,

Good idea, lets let the bureaucracy run amuck and demand the ministers and our elected officials just go with the flow and offer zero direction and oversight. Let’s abandon our parliamentary system for anarchy.

I suppose the lines of responsibility that are laid out in the CWB Act are mere suggestions only, right?

And obviously you don’t care whether you get 3 dollars for you wheat of 5.50. That’s what I don’t get, is that you guys spew all this garbage about price premiums and single desk clout, and you couldn’t even care less what you get. Only so long as it’s the same as the next guy and so long as no one else makes money, you really don’t care whether you do or not.

Stubblejumper, and please don’t respond in any other fashion other than juvenile remarks that do not address the real issues at play here. It makes for such interesting and engaging debate for someone to ask very legitimate questions or make legitimate complaints and have the responses be so utterly meaningless and without any depth at all.

In fact it’s so enlightening to read chaffmeister’s or Incgnito’s legitimate questions being ignored entirely by the cwb diehards. It’s kinda like watching a heavy weight boxer land blow after blow to the head and torso of an opponent, whose only action in response is to spit in the face and hurl insults. At a certain point one can only feel pity for the poor bugger.

But I don’t feel pity at all, I want to see the final punch to the head, and see that pathetic creature fall to the mat in a pool of its own blood.

By the way; that that I just said, you may consider a temper tantrum. The original post was not, it was a legitimate concern that I naively thought might cause a cwb supporter or two to give pause and consider the marketing ramifications with respect to the current crop. But your response, in typical juvenile fashion only proves that some are beyond hope of ever reaching.

[craig]

The continued confrontational stance of the CWB with the federal government will only lead to continued pressure by the government to lessen the role the CWB plays in the future. If we think CWB prices look bad now where will they be when the government doesn't step up to the table to provide a replacement for government guarantees. The message is clear. If you don't want to play ball don't expect anything from the government.

[TOM4CWB]

Craig and Adam Smith;

The CWB is NOT being reasonable... and here is why:

Remember this strategy?

What determines a business success?

Suppose that in 1972, someone had asked you to pick the five companies that would provide the greatest return to stockholders over the next 20 years. Conventional economic theory would be a guide, so how would you approach the assignment?

In order to create prosperity, the companies we pick should have some sustainable competitive advantage, and something that:
a) distinguishes this organization from others in the business;
b) creates value for the industry it is involved in;
c) provides a service that is not easily copied.

Conservative economic strategy would have us pick the “right” industries as step one.
The 5 strategies for fundamental success would be:
i) difficult entry for new competitors;
ii) a product or service that isn’t easily substituted;
iii) low market power of the buyers;
iv) low market power of the sellers; and
v) cooperation between the competitors.

Economies of scale, patent protection, (a monopoly) and the largest market share would help a good selection process.

What would have been the best business strategy between 1972 and 1992? If we had taken conventional wisdom… and turned it on it’s head… we would have done the BEST!

Here are the results, the top 5 stocks, in reverse order:

Plenum Publishing, (15,689%)
Circuit City, (16,410%)
Tyson Foods, (18,118%)
Walmart, (19,807%)
Southwest Airlines, (21,775%)

Yet; Airlines, Retailing, Food processing, and publishing industries were awash is bankruptcies and massive competition during this time period.

Therefore… what made these five good businesses and what sustained their advantage?

It was not market power, technology, patents, or strategic position…

It was how they handled their work force.

Southwest Airlines whose stock had the best return from 1972-92 certainly didn't get this from economies of scale... it was just 2.5% of the US passenger market. During the first three years of it's history no Southwest planes were ever flown. Southwest exists in spite of regulated and protected markets, as it's competitors sought to keep it from flying at all. They made sure Southwest did not fly out of the Newly constructed Dallas-Fort Worth Int. Airport... restricting it to operating out of the close-in Love Field... thus the first advertising slogan; "Make Love, Not War." The competitors sought to prevent Southwest from even flying outside Texas. Southwest became the "Love" airline out of necessity, not choice.

The point here is do we in Western Canada need a Cooperative marketer for our grains...?

This is all about our state of mind... If we believe in a NEW CORP. that is to have a place in our every day grain businesses...

Like the Western Hog Exchange... or
Federated Cooperatives;

The NEW (Nutrition Energy and Wheat)CORP. (CWB)could thrive and prosper!

Some said Southwest was a slave driver!

The facts tell a different story.

Southwest Air had a unionised labour force. Much of its cost advantage comes from its very productive, very motivated by the way, unionized workforce. Compared to the rest of the airline industry in 1991, Southwest had fewer employees per aircraft (79 vs. 131) flew more passengers per employee (2318 vs. 848) and had more available seat miles per employee (1,891,082 vs. 1,339,995). Southwest turned around some 80% of its flights in 15 minutes or less, while other airlines on average needed 45 minutes. Southwest therefore had a huge productivity and equipment utilization advantage over all other airlines. Further these advantages in employee productivity created a huge cross benefit in customer satisfaction, on time performance and lowest lost baggage claims. Southwest used 737's.. so it wasn't fancy aircraft that gave the advantage. It was enthusiastic motivated people... that didn't have "can't be done" in their vocabulary!

[agstar77]

First the CWB is not a crown corporation. Second it was the Cons who declared war on the CWB refusing to consult with them before trying to dismantle it. Third political parties serve at the pleasure of the people and it seems this party serves itself. Between the trust debacle and the Nation of Quebecois they are proving they are incompetent to govern. The sooner they are turfed the better. They should remember they are a Minority Government! That is they are supported by at most 20 % of Canadians.

[AdamSmith]

From the Government of Canada Web site,
there it was listed under the "C's"

Departments and Agencies
This comprehensive list provides direct links to the primary Web sites of Government of Canada departments, agencies and Crown corporations, as well as links to Web sites maintained by organizations for which various departments and agencies are responsible



Canadian Space Agency


Canadian Tourism Commission


Canadian Transportation Agency


Canadian Wheat Board


Cape Breton Development Corporation


Cape Breton Growth Fund (CBGF)


Citizenship and Immigration Canada

From Mapleleafweb.com

How Canadian Crown Corporations Work
Who is in charge and how do Crown corporations function?
Crown corporations are enterprises wholly owned by federal or provincial governments, but they are structured like private or independent enterprises. While government ministries, departments, and agencies fall under the control of democratically elected government officials (or ministers), Crown corporations fall under the control of appointed board members, directors, and managers. As mentioned, Crown corporations are established to carry out regulatory, advisory, administrative, financial and commercial services, and to distribute goods and services.

When a Crown corporation is created, Parliament passes legislation establishing its mandate. Parliament also approves the tabled budgets of Crown corporations and any government-requested funds to cover operating deficits. In addition, Parliament reviews the annual reports of Crown corporations, queries responsible ministers during question period, and discusses corporate performance with ministers and senior management in parliamentary committees. Parliament must also approve any amendments to the legislation that governs a given Crown corporation.

The Financial Administration Act (FAA)
The federal Financial Administration Act (FAA) declares that Crown corporations are "ultimately accountable, through a minister, to Parliament, for the conduct of (their) affairs," often they are not subject to budgetary systems or the direct control of ministers. This said, Crown corporations generally enjoy greater freedom from direct political control than government departments and agencies. This kind of “arms-length” relationship is in place because it is widely held that there are certain activities that should be performed by government but require freedom from direct political influence.

The Financial Administration Act (FAA) organizes Crown corporations according to three “schedules” or types: departmental, agency, and proprietary. Each performs different functions and enjoys a different relationship with the government. Departmental Crown corporations (such as the Canadian Race Relations Foundation) perform no obvious commercial function and are treated the same as government departments; agency corporations with limited commercial functions (such as the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) are accorded greater freedom, while proprietary corporations (such as former Crown corporations Air Canada, CN Rail, and Petro-Canada) enjoy the greatest autonomy in financial matters.

The Financial Administration Act requires agency and proprietary corporations to submit annual capital budgets to the responsible minister, the Finance Minister, and the President of the Treasury Board. The budgets need the approval of all three ministers, as well as Cabinet, and ultimately Parliament. Agency corporations also submit operating budgets for approval to the responsible minister and the President of the Treasury Board.

Cabinet also controls the appointments for Crown corporations’ boards of directors and senior officers, a process that is often controversial – and customarily fraught with allegations of political patronage. Cabinet also controls the salaries of Corporation appointments as well as dismissals. Further, the legislative Acts governing some Crown corporations empower the Prime Minister’s Office to issue directives, allowing the government to order a Crown corporation to implement particular government policies.

An enduring debate about the role, necessity, independence, and functioning of Crown corporations has led to the privatization of some Crown corporations as well as efforts to reform the way Crown corporations work. To this end, in 1984 Parliament passes Bill C-24 and revises much of the Financial Administration Act. The Bill establishes new schedules, extends Cabinet's capacity to issue directives, and underscores the notion that Crown corporations can neither establish nor dispose of subsidiaries without Cabinet approval. This legislation also clarifies the budgetary approval processes pertaining to Crown corporations, and provides for the submission of corporate plans to Cabinet (for its approval) and to Parliament (for discussion).

More recently, in the aftermath of the Sponsorship Scandal, Treasury Board President Reg Alcock announces in February 2005 that ten additional Crown corporations will be required to make their records available to the public. Alcock takes this step to further address concerns about accountability in an era of greater transparency.

[AdamSmith]

And just to put more fuel on the fire, here are acouple of letters that have been sent to Minister Strahl and Minister Baird by some very concerned farmers in the designated area.



Hon. Chuck Strahl
Minister for Agriculture
Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Dear Mr. Strahl,

We are writing you to express concerns regarding improper behavior of a Federal Board under you, the Canadian Wheat Board. In particular the possible misallocation of substantial sums of money from the sale of grain entrusted to that agency which ought to have been returned to farmers.

The CWB is surrounded by a cloak of secrecy while handling billions of dollars. It is exempt from the Access to Information Act. It successfully repels legal attempts by farmers for transparency by arguing it has no “duty of care” to them but reports to Parliament through the minister, citing Sec 18.

Covert and highly partisan political activity is not what the curtain of secrecy around the CWB is for. That secrecy is supposedly to protect its commercial activity, but it is the CWB’s immunity from public scrutiny that makes the political activities possible. It refuses to answer questions about any of these activities.

In recent years, public concern regarding accountability has come largely from the Auditor General’s, and subsequently Parliament’s and Justice Gomery's findings with the Sponsorship program. You will recognize a similar pattern of behavior here.

Following are some examples:

1. David Herle, a close associate of former CWB minister Ralph Goodale and former P.M. Paul Martin, also operating as “Earnscliff Consulting” has received large sums of money from the CWB. He was the manager for Paul Martin's leadership campaign and the manager of the 2006 Federal Liberal election campaign. How and why was this firm chosen? When did he start being paid by the CWB? What, if any, services did he provide? Was he being paid by farmers while running these huge and undoubtedly all-consuming political campaigns?
2. CWB Directors and staff have attended Liberal Party Fundraising Dinners at farmers’ expense. Were there other cash donations as well? How much money in direct donations to the Liberal Party of Canada has the CWB made? Has any of this cash been returned to farmers by that Party?
3. The CWB ran lavish ads during the 2004 Federal Election promoting the Liberal policy positions and attacking opponents. Again in the 2006 election, that organization actively participated on one side of a very partisan policy issue, their monopoly. How much farmers' money was spent here promoting the Liberal cause?
4. Avis Gray, campaign manager for Reg Alcock, former CWB minister has been receiving funds from the CWB. What value are we getting?
5. Bob Roehle, CWB spokesman for years has since retired, and yet he still has some kind of contract with the CWB. Mr. Roehle is a chief Liberal organizer for the City of Winnipeg. How much money has been transferred to him? What did we get?
6. Because the CWB carries so much commercial and regulatory weight, it is widely felt in the grain business that they are not reluctant to suppress dissent. Any inquiry into the political antics of the CWB must include an opportunity for individuals and companies to give testimony without fear of further economic retribution.
7. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were “loaned” to a Prairie Rail Car Coalition. Will farmers get that back?
8. There is evidence that certain “independent” farm writers and the extremely pro-monopoly Farmers' Independent Weekly are receiving remuneration from the CWB. Again, only a complete audit can clear this up.
9. The CWB has financed a study by Price Waterhouse to illustrate its value to the City of Winnipeg. That study of course fails to address any of the huge lost potential to Winnipeg due to over-regulation. This is naked self-serving politics and has absolutely nothing to do with the marketing of farmers’ grain. What did this cost?
10. What other activities are they up to? Have they donated to other parties? Other activist groups? Is there no check on this kind of spending?

Parliament did not create a clandestine political action organization compulsorily funded by prairie farmers. Nor is the CWB intended to be an extension of the Liberal Party. If these expenditures are not authorized by the CWB Act, they are unlawful. Some farmers are even referring to these activities as “Ad-Scam West”. Losing our commercial freedom is serious, but subsequently losing our freedom of political association or disassociation is repugnant to all farmers.

Mr. Minister, you were quite right to order the CWB to cease using its resources to advocate for its monopoly. However you need to go further. It may well still be misallocating resources through some of the above listed channels. Other funds need to be recovered.

The CWB of course needs to be included in the new Accountability Act. That is why we are also writing to Mr. Duceppe. He should understand the CWB has nothing to do with agricultural supply management. Those provincially run programs are secure and popular. It has everything to do with the machinations of the Liberal Party.

Many Liberals take the view that what is good for Canada is limited to what serves the narrow self interest of the Liberal Party. Everything else is “un-Canadian” to quote a CWB appointee. Quebecers and all Canadians will recognize the pattern: favorite advertising agencies getting contracts; money laundered through an agency and given back to the Party; taxpayers’ (in this case farmers’) money used to further the narrow Liberal Party agenda; payments in kind returned to the Party from “volunteers” richly paid from another program; a Federal agency used as a tool with which to attack political opponents. Regardless of the sums of money the principle is the same.

CWB monopoly supporters will say we just have to trust them but what snippets that have been revealed beg this question: What else is going on there? If there is nothing else why not open up? They handle 3-4 Billion dollars each year. For years. This dwarfs the funds available in the sponsorship program.

In addition to CWB inclusion under the new Accountability Act we need a full forensic audit of all expenditures, every dime that was not returned to farmers. This inquiry will clear the air and remind all who are entrusted with others’ funds that they
will be held accountable. Mr. Goodale and the Liberal senate should have nothing to fear from transparency. Do they.

Because the CWB reports to Parliament through you, Mr. Strahl, you are authorized to obtain an accounting from them. We suggest not requesting any grain sales information at this time; they will try to hide behind the commercial sensitivity issue. Neither are we concerned with monies that made it to farmers’ hands. It is the difference between the two that matters.

I believe all farmers will support you if you obtain on our behalf and make public all disbursements by the CWB that did not go to farmers. We have a right to this information. Will you make it available for our examination?



Hon. John Baird
President of the Treasury Board

Dear Mr. Baird,

Those of us who farm in Western Canada are compelled to deal with the monopoly government buyer, the Canadian Wheat Board. We are thus forced also to pay all its expenses.
Virtually alone among Federal agencies, the CWB is immune from the Access to Information Act. It handles $3-4 billion every year. Neither will they account to farmers. They successfully take this position in court that they need not account to farmers but report to Parliament only through the minister. No minister has fully received or requested more than a cursory accounting.
We believe that having a government imposed monopoly, totally immune from even the possibility of public scrutiny is very bad public policy. Canadians have seen the incredible abuses of public funds in the case of only one program. That program, the sponsorship program, was entrusted with a much smaller amount, approximately $100 million. In addition, people knew it at all times could be subject to a potential review by the Auditor General. It has been assumed the activities of the CWB would not be. In another example the Australian Wheat Board is currently subject to a Royal Commission regarding misallocation of funds in Iraq.
We are requesting that the Federal Government does 2 things:
1. Ensure the inclusion of the CWB under the new Accountability Act. It would be reasonable to include a clause exempting a new non-monopoly CWB at such time as it is created.
2. The Minister of Agriculture should initiate a forensic audit of his agency to ensure complete accuracy, ethical business practises and remove any suspicion that some farmers might have. We are writing the Minister of Agriculture with some specific questions (attached). We believe he has the authority under Section 18 to order a complete accounting.
Some of the non-commercial activities of the CWB that have become public and some of the affiliations that the CWB has gathered give a strong suggestion as to why the opposition controlled Senate might not want the CWB books open. It appears that neither does the Honourable Mr. Goodale, who was Minister for the CWB for 12 years.

Mr. Baird, the CWB handles far too much money domestically and internationally to have all its activities kept in the dark. The Accountability Act is not complete until all parts of the Federal Government have been illuminated.

[Vader]

Object and Powers

Body corporate
4. (1) The Corporation is a body corporate having capacity to contract in the name of the Corporation.

Status
(2) The Corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty and is not a Crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act.

[Vader]

Do you suppose that David Anderson harboured any of the same conspiracy theories that have been put forward on this thread? Has the minister demanded any documents be handed over by the CWB for his and David's scrutiny? The minister is entitled to do these things. See section 9.0 (d) below. The legislation leaves no room for these ridiculous charges.

Accounts and Reports

Duties of the Corporation
9. (1) The Corporation shall

(a) keep proper books and accounts of its operations under this Act, showing such particulars as may be requisite for proper accounting in accordance with established accounting practice;

(b) with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint a firm of chartered accountants for the purpose of auditing accounts and records and certifying reports of the Corporation;

(c) report in writing to the Minister as soon as possible after the end of each month, as at the close of business on the last day of that month, its purchases and sales of all grain during the month and the quantities of grain then held by it, the contracts to take delivery of grain to which it is then a party, all securities then held by it and the financial result of the Corporation’s operations as at the end of that month, which report shall be certified by the auditors of the Corporation;

(d) make such reports and furnish such information as the Minister may from time to time require; and

(e) in each year, on or before March 31 or such other date as the Governor in Council may fix, report to the Minister in writing, as at the close of business on the last day of the preceding crop year, its purchases and sales of all grain during that crop year, the quantities of grain then owned by it, the contracts to take delivery of grain to which it is then a party, all securities then held by it and the financial result of the Corporation’s operations as at the end of that crop year and such further information as the Minister may require, and the report shall be certified by the auditors of the Corporation.

Report to Parliament
(2) The Minister shall lay a copy of each report of the Corporation made under paragraph (1)(e) before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after he receives it.

[AdamSmith]

Vader, your right, I'm wrong.

I was relying on the unammended version of the CWB Act.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction here.

The Goodale Act created an unaccountable corporation removing it from the Financial Administration Act.

A corporation with no ownership structure thus no real owners and no escape provisions for those who fall into it's realm of jurisdiction.

Vader, is there any oversight other than the BOD's for how the contingency fund is managed? Does the CWB report to anyone what comes in and where it came from and what goes out and where it goes to? I read that requests are made to the Minister of Finance. Where does he fit in to this? Is there any regulations that require the BOD's to make full disclosure of the financial activity within the contingency fund.

The task force was correct in recommending reapealing the act all together. If ever a structure was created that would invite abuse and corruption this is it.

[craig]

I'm confused. This implies that the minister has access to all sales imformation and that he can issue the report to parliment yet at the same time this imformation is supposely confidential.If this was true in the Australian Wheat Board would the government minister responsible not be liable because he had access to this imformation but did not bring this to public light. I would also suggest that audited books do not always bring to light wrong doing. I'm sure in the case of the CWB most audit reports would include a disclaimer suggesting that the audit was done on the basis of imformation provided and done to the best of their ability. It still begs the question as to why the CWB does not want to be included in the freedom of imformation act. It suggests there is something to hide. I'm sure there is still a way to protect sensitive commercial transactions.

[AdamSmith]

Vader or Agstar77, I'll ask again, What kind of oversight exists other than the BOD's with respect to the contigency fund?

How are farmers to judge that the contigency fund is being managed in their best interests without full discloser?

The huge basis levels on all the acronym pricing options is a huge red flag.

The CWB can't ignore these questions forever. Especially when your asking for the contigency fund to be increased to 100 million.

[Vader]

Oversight is through the Audit and Finance Committee, the internal auditor, the external auditors, and final submission of business plan to the Minister.