CWB star on Larry Weber Show

[charliep]

Just curious as to why this discussion is relevant now given the barley plebiscite has occurred and the count of ballets likely done. The question is what is the result, what will the federal government do and how will the CWB/other groups react.

I will also note the study does not belong to John DePape or Informa Economics (forms Sparks) but rather the Alberta government. After 3 years, there has never been a formal response (at least to my knowledge).

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Reminds me of the Winnipeg Free Press article after Cheif Commissioner Hein stabbed Ken Bezwick in the back...

Denile isn't just a river in Africa... it is alive and well at the CWB.

Bob,

Just what had Ken negotiated... and why was it scrapped?

Would Ken's Ideas work today?

Do you know what Ken had planned to do with barley... Charlie, Bob, or John D.?

[craig]

It has become obvious contrary to statements made by Mr. Ritter and Mr Measner that the CWB has never had a contingency plan in place if in fact control of barley was removed from the board. Now they are scrambling to respond to the plebiscite results. There has never been any compromise offered or even considered. Is it surprising that so many producers want out. The CWB dealings with the Conservative government are no different than how producers who do not share the same views or philosphy as the Board are treated. It is my way or no way.

[JohnDePape]

No doubt this will get very little interest now that the barley plebiscite results have been announced, but still I feel compelled to comment.

To Bob Cuthbert:

I’m really not concerned about why you interrupted me or not, nor that you think I glossed over the Sparks barley study at the Frontier Center breakfast (perhaps you missed the point of the presentation), nor that you were disappointed that you didn’t get a copy of the study ahead of time in Calgary (BTW - no one did), but please allow me to address one of your comments.

You say the errors in the Sparks barley study were “astounding”. Perhaps you are not aware that our main source of data and information for the study was the CWB itself – Annual Reports, “Grain Trade Forecast to 2011-12” and Grain World presentations. Some information was confirmed and expanded on through discussions with CWB staff. (As you know, we asked to discuss this project with senior CWB staff but the requests were ignored). Other referenced sources were:

- Statistics Canada
- Agriculture Canada
- Canadian Grain Commission
- Economic Research Service, USDA
- Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (GAIN Reports)
- US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
- Alberta Grain Commission
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food
- Livestock Feed Bureau
- US Embassy in Tokyo
- Sparks Companies (internal balance tables)

In addition, I received information, data, analysis as well as direct verbal support, confirmation and guidance from a number of highly-respected people in the barley sector. If I have facts wrong, I’m sure you don’t mean facts that originated from any of these sources.

If there are factual mistakes that you saw but no one else caught, I think it’s your duty to the industry to set the record straight – as you see it. However, the fact that the CWB (via Adrian Measner) indicated it would publicly refute the study – but didn’t – says volumes. (Remember, the CWB released a sizable document (26 pages, I believe) refuting the George Morris Centre’s analysis of the Western Canadian cereal grain sector. If the CWB did this with the GMC study, why not the Sparks study?)

So, do I want you to, as you put it, “post the significant errors in the paper”? Do what you think you need to do Bob. Better yet, do what you think will benefit the industry. But if you do, please also comment on:
- The glaring errors in the recent UofS study. (Too many to list here.)
- The high cost of the CWB system (supported by the Federal Grain Monitor data).
- Your comment to me in Calgary: “We do struggle with barley”.

Rather than simply discuss how you feel that you and the CWB have been mis-treated I suggest keeping to substantive arguments.

Please call me if you want to discuss this more.

Respectfully,
John De Pape

[JohnDePape]

No doubt this will get very little interest now that the barley plebiscite results have been announced, but still I feel compelled to comment.

To Bob Cuthbert:

I’m really not concerned about why you interrupted me or not, nor that you think I glossed over the Sparks barley study at the Frontier Center breakfast (perhaps you missed the point of the presentation), nor that you were disappointed that you didn’t get a copy of the study ahead of time in Calgary (BTW - no one did), but please allow me to address one of your comments.

You say the errors in the Sparks barley study were “astounding”. Perhaps you are not aware that our main source of data and information for the study was the CWB itself – Annual Reports, “Grain Trade Forecast to 2011-12” and Grain World presentations. Some information was confirmed and expanded on through discussions with CWB staff. (As you know, we asked to discuss this project with senior CWB staff but the requests were ignored). Other referenced sources were:

- Statistics Canada
- Agriculture Canada
- Canadian Grain Commission
- Economic Research Service, USDA
- Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA (GAIN Reports)
- US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
- Alberta Grain Commission
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food
- Livestock Feed Bureau
- US Embassy in Tokyo
- Sparks Companies (internal balance tables)

In addition, I received information, data, analysis as well as direct verbal support, confirmation and guidance from a number of highly-respected people in the barley sector. If I have facts wrong, I’m sure you don’t mean facts that originated from any of these sources.

If there are factual mistakes that you saw but no one else caught, I think it’s your duty to the industry to set the record straight – as you see it. However, the fact that the CWB (via Adrian Measner) indicated it would publicly refute the study – but didn’t – says volumes. (Remember, the CWB released a sizable document (26 pages, I believe) refuting the George Morris Centre’s analysis of the Western Canadian cereal grain sector. If the CWB did this with the GMC study, why not the Sparks study?)

So, do I want you to, as you put it, “post the significant errors in the paper”? Do what you think you need to do Bob. Better yet, do what you think will benefit the industry. But if you do, please also comment on:
- The glaring errors in the recent UofS study. (Too many to list here.)
- The high cost of the CWB system (supported by the Federal Grain Monitor data).
- Your comment to me in Calgary: “We do struggle with barley”.

Rather than simply discuss how you feel that you and the CWB have been mis-treated I suggest keeping to substantive arguments.

Please call me if you want to discuss this more.

Respectfully,
John De Pape

[TOM4CWB]

Dear John,

I believe it is important for us to remember that it is Alberta Agricultre who Commissioned the Sparks study, vetted it, and also stand by it.

I realize in CWB circles this may not add to its credibility... however in many spheres of influence and in the business community especially in Alberta it was very important.

It was a common sense study & approach to a long standing distortion to the Alberta economy.

Much thanks and appreciation to Alberta Agriculture and all those who worked in and with our government.. to resolve the barley issue!

Job well done... !

[chaffmeister]

I agree Tom. It's hard to imagine where this issue would be without the support and dedication of the folks at Alberta Ag. But also, many individual farmers need to be acknowledged and encouraged, for spending many long days and nights working toward a better marketplace for the benefit of all (including those that oppose it).

Good on ya all.

[charliep]

Would agree with you both on the issue of farmer support in Alberta. The fact that the Alberta results held constant between the CWB survey and the plebiscite says something - both are firm indications of farmer opinion. Alberta farmers don't need more information - they have indicated their choice and are looking forward to action.

I note page 25 of the CWB survey. When asked, 56 % of Alberta farmers said they would prefer an open market over CWB single desk selling when asked the either or question.

[BobCuthbert]

Hello Everyone!

Just back from overseas. As you might expect, I have a lot to do. I may try to get to some of your questions, etc. However, I did find out one thing in the past couple of weeks. When this blog was set up, the respondents were as many as 14,000. Now, there are less than 100 hard cores. So I'm not really sure of the benefit of continuing to respond. Maybe it is time to move on. Good luck to all and God bless!

Bob Cuthbert

[gregpet]

So Mr. Cuthbert, now you choose to sidestep the issue and deflect all the questions since the volume on this blog has decreased. This would not by any chance be a typical CWB tactic, if it gets tougher get out!!! Kinda like the CWB's assertion on a voluntary barley market, it might require some work and thought. Monopoly good, competition bad.