CWB Benchmarking to study Wheat Marketing Perfotrmance

[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"?