CWB Benchmarking to study Wheat Marketing Perfotrmance

[TOM4CWB]

CWB Wheat Marketing Performance to be Studied

Richard Grey, of the University of Sask, Dept of Economics has been asked by the CWB to develop and recommend methods of measuring the CWB’s performance in wheat marketing.

Mr. Grey is accepting recommendations at www.usask.ca/agriculture/agec/working.html

Information sent to Mr. Grey before April 27th, 2001 will be considered in drafting the final recommendations to the CWB.

[AdamSmith]

Just think if the sports world adopted this concept.

Instead of having the Calgary Flames play the Edmonton Oilers to see who the better hockey team is, they could hire a bunch of high priced mathematicians,scientists and psycologists to examine each player to determine their physical condition and temperment, insert this data into a game model program and run the numbers. Wah-la, an unquestionable accurate way to determine a winner.

Nah! No one would take it seriously anyway.

But what if you had a league with only one team?

Never mind it's a stupid idea.

Right, Canadian Wheat Board!

AdamSmith

[parsley]

Yesterday, CWB Chairman Ritter announced on the radio he wants to settle this issue "once and for all". Can he do it by appointing Richard Gray? Does Gray have credibility with producers? Apparently not, if producers measure Gray's performance.

In the book Jailhouse Justice, an organic grower describes the process that Richard Gray used to complete the 1995 Canadian Wheat Board Value-Added Enhancement Study, A study funded by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Gray worked on the organic section of the book. 67 Saskatchewan organic growers had sent a full report to Gray showing strong united oppositin to CWB marketing of organic grain. Those views were entirely EXCLUDED in his report in the Value Added Study.

On the other hand, Gray included views that stated, "COAB is in favor of the CWB's role as single -desk seller, and suggests that this role could be expanded to include more CWB marketing of organic products".

That caused quite a divisive rift between producers and COAB (an organic body).

The COAB chairman from Manitoba sent an open letter to all organic producers, stating:
" There seems to be some feeling in the west that the Canadian Organic Advisory Board has had some dialogue with the Canadian Wheat Board (prompted I am sure by an erroneous quote in the CWB Value-Added Enhancement Study). May I assure you that this has never been discussed at any level by COAB."

Pretty clear. So then, why would, how could, Gray report this? Why did Gray entirely ignore the 67 Producer's report?

Is Gray credible in the 'producer community'?

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

I guess we have to thank our lucky stars for having such brilliant people in charge of the Canadian grain system.

Imagine how things might have been different had the Romans posessed such intelect? An entire empire could have been saved had they just been able to present to the people of Europe and the Mediterranean with the numerical evidence that life without Roman rulers couldn't be as good as life under Roman rule.

The silly Romans allowed people to use their own eyes to see with, there own experiences to make judgements by and there own desires to plan for a different future. No wonder that empire collapsed.

We can all rest assured the CWB has things well in hand and they'll tell us what to see, think and do.

And who better to do the job than a University of Sask. economist. Their work is renowned in (drawing a blank), hmm?, by (drawing a blank), hmm? Well, probably at two places anyhow.

AdamSmith

[chas]

Adam and Parsley; Recommended some people you would like to trust for the report to Mr. Grey. I suggest Adam Smith and Ken Ritter. Sorry Tom4cwb we don't like your name.(kind of biased).

[parsley]

Chas, there's not any problem getting some really good people to send in a report. Lots of producers are good at making a report and recommendations that is good for all farmers.

The trouble is, what will Gray do with the report? "Delete" with the 67 organic boys.....that's what he did in '95 with them. And Chas, If he would do it with one bunch of producers...organic, chicken, echinacea,feedlot, canola, or whatever, he'll do it with any bunch of producers. Farmers deserve more respect than he has shown.
Parsley

[prairiedog]

Hiring Richard Gray to evaluate the performance of the CWB is akin to hiring Homer Simpson to evaluate his favorite donut shop. Homer being the epicure that he is might be slightly more objective. The inflated egos at the CWB hate criticism so if they decide to have themselves evaluated why not hire someone like perfesser Richard Gray who is one of the most persistent and unrepentant apologists for the board. Of course even Homer Simpson would understand that the most effective evaluation of any market or marketing system is an open and competitive cash market. Does anyone really believe that this expensive little exercise will prove anything other than the CWB, in Richard Gray's opinion, is above reproach?

[TOM4CWB]

Well well,

What can we say,

I like the single hockey team explanation, good shot!

But how do we get through all the fog?

I hope we can do the ultimate benchmarking study, an exemption like Ontario has!

Some will like it, some will hate it, some won't care. Let's hope there is enough trust left to give an exemption at try!

If Ontario can do it , why not here?

[chas]

Hmmm who can I trust. Hmmm my MP??? My MLA??? My religious leader!???? Mr. Grey (give me a break). How about myself and mother nature. What happens when the open market don't work. Guess what? We can't trust ourselves.
Dandelions are trustful quess where I'm ahead boys. Hick. Chas.

[TOM4CWB]

Guys,

I was really trying to get some input on this idea, and over in another topic I mentioned that the Auditor General is going to be doing some benchmarking of his own!

Now if anyone has a good idea, why not send it to Mr. Grey and c.c. it to Mr. John McCullough, in Winnepeg, mcculljd@oag-bvg.gc.ca

This would allow two different people to see the issues that should be studied!

Then someone might do something, maybe?

[parsley]

Why don't we compose one online Tom4CWB, and send it in? Chas, you're pretty snorty today for being an old horse. 'Musta been in too many oats!

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

Hi all, I downloaded all the pertenant info of the U of S web site. Although I can't say I read every last word of the total 90 pgs. I did find one very notable passage in the third page of James Vercammen paper.

Vercammen writes " The working assumption throughout this paper is that CWB decisions are consistent with net returns maximization, (ie there are no wasteful management decisions).

That's like assuming every decision by the old Soviet politburo was made with only the best interests of the Russian people in mind. Give me a break!

I saw no need to read any further.

When you start off your acedemic exercise using blatantly false assumptions, the end result will be of no meaningful value.

I could go into great detail why this will be a fruitless exercise, that they are trying to measure and benchmark the unmeasurable and unbenchmarkable, and I just may do that at a later time. But I thought that this one piece of info may be of interest to some of you.

AdamSmith

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

This benchmarking performance review is only nessasary because of Part IV of the CWB Act.

As we discussed earlier, all costs associated with other operational costs outside Part III of the CWB Act must come from the Government of Canada directly, and not our pooling accounts.

This would mean the millions spent on the squabble over transportation that arises directly from Part II of the CWB Act must not be taken from the pooling accounts.

Since the Honourable Ralph Goodale has agreed to back the CWB in this fight, now he as minister responsible should cough up all the CWB's costs associated with little project!

The same must go for this evaluation of the single desk that arises soley from Part I and IV of the CWB Act!

What do you think shouldn't Ralphie G pay for all these costs?

[TOM4CWB]

Well, on part II I was wrong, as I stated in the Regulatory topic above, these expenses are brought back to Part III by section 33 (1)(b) of the CWB Act.

This however does not include benchmarking Single desk vs. Dual Marketing!!!

[TOM4CWB]

On Benchmarking,

The Western Grain Marketing Panel did a very close examination of the very issues the CWB is now looking at!

Western Canadian's all were invited, and took this study into the CWB very seriously!

Take a look at what conclusion was reached on feed barley:

I quote:

“4.5Barley Marketing in Western Canada…

4.5.1Current Situation…
The ineffectiveness of CWB contracts for feed barley came to a head in 1994/95, when the Board was unable to attract volumes to service the lucrative Japanese market.

The rise in demand by the domestic beef and pork sector, where barley is a key building block, adds pressure for less CWB control and freedom of choice in the marketing of feed barley. KenAgra found no evidence that the CWB gains any premiums from the export of feed barley.

…·The current barley marketing policy has depressed feed barley prices in Canada and benefitted the domestic livestock sector. Changes are needed, but there must be a period of adjustment for the livestock industry.” (WGMPR, page 60)

“ 7.4.4 Recommendations for Implementation

Barley (Western Grain Marketing Panel Report, page 96)
With respect to the proposals for changes to the system of marketing barley, the Panel recommended the following implementation:
·The change to open marketing system for feed barley should become effective as soon as possible but in any event, no later than the beginning of the crop year commencing on August 1, 1997. …

“In order to facilitate price arbitrage and until such time as the new barley policy is implemented, the CWB should institute a buy back procedure for farmers at the initial price plus an administration fee, and with no participation in the final payment from the pool.

Any off-Board barley purchased by the trade should be eligible for export, subject to obtaining an export permit.” ( WGMPR page 96)

“7.6.2 Marketing Systems …
Barley Marketing (WGMPR page 100)
Feed Barley should be placed under an open market system, not precluding the CWB, for both domestic and export markets as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Panel urges the CWB to reflect the urgency of this recommendation in applying its existing regulation to implement the intent of the Panel’s recommendation.”

Nothing has changed regarding these recomendations in the last 5 years.

Grain marketers keep coming back year after year saying the same things as the WGMPR.

The CWB has refused to implement this industry wide consensus.

Why?

Does the CWB think that another biased study will solve anything?

When will Alberta become so frustrated that they tell the CWB to shove it, and just leave the "designated area"?