Lift the CWB Barley Yoke from our backs!

[TOM4CWB]

CHarlie,

I see there are some folks that want the CWB yoke lifted early!

Western grower groups seek early Barley Freedom Day
"May 29, 2007 -- The Western Barley Growers Association, the Alberta Barley Commission, and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association have joined today in calling for the federal government to move up the date for the introduction of a free market on barley to June 15, 2007. Currently the federal government is proposing an August 1 implementation date.

“A key advantage of moving the date forward is that it would better enable our malting industry partners to source their needs directly from farmers," comments Jeff Nielsen, President of the WBGA. "This gives maltsters the market certainty they need to contract directly with producers for the rest of this crop year, as well as next year’s needs.”



The early introduction of Barley Freedom Day would also give farmers and grain companies greater ability to take advantage of export sale opportunities, in both feed and malt barley. The existing low returns projected under the CWB monopoly are currently undermining its ability to attract barley supplies to bid on these sale opportunities."

The CWB has had months to resolve this problem... and has done nothing.

"Can't be done" is what I hear... time and time again.
More like... WE won't admit WE made mistakes; and we won't fix our problems. Everyone is wrong but me!

[chaffmeister]

Great idea - except...

Apparently the Act states any regulatory changes can only take effect at the beginning of the crop year - Aug 1.

However...in the interim the CWB could do many things to facilitate the trade. It just won't.

[TOM4CWB]

Chaffmeister,

I know the Canada Grain Act clearly states grade specifications can only be changed at the Aug. 1 Crop year changeover... but I don't see this at all having an effect on Regulation changes concerning the CWB itself. A Jan. 1 07 changeover on barley was for a long time the preferential barley freedom date...

Can you actually quote the CWB Act section that states Aug. 1 is the only change date?

Here is the relevant section I can find respecting the changes to Barley:

"Directions by Governor in Council
Directions to the Corporation

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.

Directors

(1.1) The directors shall cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as they act in accordance with section 3.12, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions.
Best interests

(1.2) Compliance by the Corporation with directions is deemed to be in the best interests of the Corporation.
Purchase of wheat only

(2) Except as directed by the Governor in Council, the Corporation shall not buy grain other than wheat.
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 18; 1998, c. 17, ss. 10, 28(E).

Plans, Borrowings and Guarantees
Corporate plan

19. (1) The Corporation shall submit annually a corporate plan to the Minister for the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Scope and content of corporate plan

(2) The corporate plan shall encompass all the business and activities of the Corporation and shall contain any information that the Minister considers appropriate.
Borrowing plan

(3) The Corporation shall submit annually to the Minister of Finance for approval a plan indicating the amount of money that the Corporation intends to borrow in the coming crop year for the purposes of carrying out its corporate plan.
Terms and conditions

(4) The Corporation shall not undertake any borrowings described in the borrowing plan approved under subsection (3) unless the Minister of Finance has approved the time, terms and conditions of the borrowings.
Guarantee of borrowings

(5) The repayment with interest, if any, of money borrowed by the Corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions approved under subsection (4) is guaranteed by the Minister of Finance on behalf of Her Majesty.
Loans and guarantee of credit sales

(6) The Minister of Finance, on behalf of Her Majesty, may, on any terms and conditions that the Governor in Council may approve,
(a) make loans or advances to the Corporation; or

(b) guarantee payment with interest of amounts owing to the Corporation in respect of the sale of grain on credit.

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 19; R.S., 1985, c. 38 (4th Supp.), s. 5; 1991, c. 33, s. 1; 1998, c. 17, s. 11."

[TOM4CWB]

Chaffmeister,

I must chuckle about the "Agent of her Majesty thing and the CWB!

One would believe the CWB is not and Agent by the following:

"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."


But just look down a little further... and what do we have?

"Powers

6. (1) The Corporation possesses the following powers:
(j) to act as agent for or on behalf of any minister or agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in respect of any operations that it may be directed to carry out by the Governor in Council; and

(k) generally to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or incidental to carrying on its operations under this Act."

Just one example of Goofy Goodale doing a great job of hacking this legislation in 1998. Deception was an obvious goal!

[TOM4CWB]

Chaffmiester:

"Administration
Powers of administration of the Corporation

28. The Corporation may, notwithstanding anything in the Canada Grain Act, but subject to directions, if any, contained in any order of the Governor in Council, by order,

h) exclude any kind of grain, or any grade or quality thereof, from the provisions of this Part, in whole or in part, either generally or for any specified period or otherwise;

(h.1) exempt any elevator from the provisions of this Part, in whole or in part, either generally or for a specified period or otherwise;"

AS I indicated earlier... the August 1 date is about changing designated grades and kinds of wheat between pools... as follows:

Regulations
Application to wheat produced outside designated areas

40. (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, apply the provisions of this Part, in respect of wheat produced in any area in Canada outside the designated area, specified in the regulation.

Definitions

(2) For the purpose of the application of this Part in respect of wheat produced in any area specified in a regulation made under subsection (1),
"designated area"
«région désignée »
"designated area" shall be construed as referring to the area so specified;

"pool period"
«période de mise en commun »
"pool period" means such period or periods, not exceeding one year, as the Governor in Council may prescribe as a pool period or pool periods in respect of that wheat.

R.S., c. C-12, s. 32.

Designated wheat

41. (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate for the purposes of this Part

(a) any wheat within any grade of wheat specified in the regulation that has been delivered to the Corporation to be sold by the Corporation to purchasers who, with the consent of the Corporation, have selected and accepted the wheat for a use specified in the regulation;

(b) all wheat of any grade of wheat specified in the regulation; or

(c) all wheat of any class of wheat specified in the regulation.

Two or more grades

(2) No regulation may be made pursuant to paragraph (1)(a) or (b) that specifies less than two grades of wheat.
Coming into force

(3) A regulation made pursuant to subsection (1) shall come into force according to the terms of the regulation but not earlier than the beginning of the crop year next following the day on which the regulation is made.
Time when regulation to be made

(4) A regulation made pursuant to subsection (1) shall be made not less than five months prior to the day the regulation is to come into force.
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 41; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).

Separate application of Part to designated wheat

42. On the coming into force of a regulation made pursuant to subsection 41(1), the provisions of this Part, except sections 40, 41, 43 and 44, apply in respect of the wheat designated by the regulation, with such modifications as the circumstances require, as if the word “wheat” wherever it appears in this Part referred solely to that wheat and as if this Part had been separately enacted in relation thereto.

1974-75-76, c. 109, s. 4.

Grade name

43. The grade name of any wheat designated by a regulation made pursuant to subsection 41(1) is the grade name assigned to that wheat under the Canada Grain Act with the word “designated” inserted immediately preceding the first word or number of the grade name.

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 43; R.S., 1985, c. 37 (4th Supp.), s. 32.

Repeal

44. (1) A regulation made pursuant to subsection 41(1) shall not be repealed at any time other than at the end of a crop year.

Transfer of wheat where repeal

(2) Where a regulation made pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) or (c) is repealed, the Governor in Council may authorize the Corporation to transfer all wheat of any grade or class specified in the regulation delivered during any pool period and remaining unsold at the time of the repeal of the regulation to the pool period that commences at that time for wheat not designated by any regulation made pursuant to subsection 41(1).
Adjustment of accounts

(3) Where the Corporation transfers wheat under authority given pursuant to subsection (2), the Corporation shall adjust its accounts by crediting to the accounts for each pool period from which the wheat is transferred and charging against the accounts for the pool period into which the wheat is transferred such amount as the Governor in Council deems to be a reasonable price for the wheat so transferred, and all wheat so transferred shall
(a) for the purposes of the accounts for each pool period from which the wheat is transferred, be deemed to have been sold and paid for in full for that amount; and

(b) in the accounts for the pool period into which the wheat is transferred, be dealt with as though it had been sold and delivered to the Corporation by producers in that pool period and purchased by the Corporation for that amount, but no further certificates in respect thereof shall be issued under paragraph 32(1)(d).

R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 44; 1998, c. 17, s. 28(E).

[parsley]

chaff,


Refer me to the part of the CWB Act that states this.

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

I’m not a lawyer nor have I studied the Act as some of you. I was unable to re-contact my source so I did a little digging and this is what I came up with:

According to the Gazette:

<i>Section 9 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

9. Part III of the Act is extended to barley. </i>

Section 9 used to say “Parts III and IV of the Act are hereby extended to barley.”

So, although Part III was already “extended” to barley, these regulatory changes restate it (while NOT restating the extension to Part IV) – therefore, technically, these regulatory changes are “extending” Part III to barley. (At least, that’s how I think a lawyer would look at it.)

AND:

According to Part V of the Act:

<i>47. (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, extend the application of Part III or of Part IV or of both Parts III and IV to oats or to barley or to both oats and barley.</i>
and...
<i>(3) An extension of the application of Part III shall come into force only at the beginning of a crop year.</i>


As I said, I’m not a lawyer and I was only repeating what I was told by a very good source and here I’m just using my own logic. So if you can find anything that counters this, fire away.

[AdamSmith]

Isn't the point here, that the industry needs to be acting in a manner in which the market were actually open today.

If the cwb were to assure all that neither they or any of their minions would disrupt the open market process from occuring come Aug 1 2007.

If that were to occur then I think the buyers and the sellers would begin to buy and sell immidiatly.

But again the cwb refuses to co-operate, little own acknowledge the fact that theis is what farmers want to happen and that the feds are going to allow it to happen.

I don't get the MB Co-operator, but saw the May 31 issue yesterday and Allan Dawson has a story in there where the cwb is saying that this whole thing is illegal because the Minister never consulted the directors and the farmers never voted in favour of removing barley from the cwb.

Borrowing a great line I read on SDA the other day, These guys are delusional to the extreme point where they actually believe you can PICK UP A TURD FROM THE CLEAN END!

The absolutly scariest thing here is that these people still are in charge of the 2007/08 WHEAT crop.

I'd feel better if Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan were selling Canada's wheat.

[chaffmeister]

AS – you’ve nailed it.

The industry needs to be acting in a responsible manner. And by that I mean the CWB. My offshore contacts are telling me that they are fed up watching our little CWB circus. Right now, no one will sell them anything from Canada because of the uncertainty of the potential court challenge. (And trust me – they’re ready to do business with Canada in a big way.) To these guys, what they are seeing from afar is laughable.

Those that want to challenge this change need to consider three things (Ritter and Co. – pay attention):
1....The majority of farmers want this change. Period. This is not even a debatable point. Has been this way for at least 10 years (according to CWB surveys). It doesn’t matter which plebiscite or survey you look at – 2 out of every 3 farmers want this. Even the comments submitted to the government in response to the regulatory changes followed the same proportions – about 2/3rds of the submissions were in support of the regulatory changes.
2....Forget the “studies”. Actual data shows the CWB system is very costly. Those fighting for the status quo don’t seem to realize that trade data shows the CWB is a burden – not a benefit. So what are you fighting to keep? High cost, low opportunity. If more farmers were aware of this FACT, even fewer would support keeping the single desk. (I know this because I have changed people’s minds about the CWB simply by showing the data.)
3....The only disruptive thing right now in the barley market is the potential of a court challenge actually winning. Think about it – if there was an assurance that there would be no challenge, the changes would go through on Aug 1 and life would go on. (Actually, in my view, life would improve.) In fact, a lot of really good business would be going on RIGHT NOW – benefiting farmers.

As AS suggested – if the CWB made it clear that it wouldn’t get in the way of progress, we’d be discussing much more interesting things. Like (hypothetically) the implications of the selected location of a new malt plant; or a new IP program offered by Sleemans; or a specialty malt program offered by Rahr; or the pros and cons of long-term, multi-year contracts with maltsters; or discussions on whether to sell canola or malt barley in the fall as a cash crop – (what to sell, what to store); hedging strategies for malt barley.... etc, etc.

[AdamSmith]

So what your saying is, we're stuck in Purgatory until Aug 1.

What about after Aug 1?

Does the risk go away?

Will it ever go away?

The mindless luddite save the cwb crowd will always be there, scheming up ways to make sure the grain industry is as impoverished as possible.

Don't we all just have to move on and just accept that these parisites exist and there is nothing we can do to prevent them from acting like jerks?

And if they do, and they lose in court just let them know that we'll counter sue their asses off for damages and lost opportunities.

[chaffmeister]

Purgatory - yes. Unfortunately, by the looks of it.

Beyond that I'm more optimistic. Look at oats. Anyone complaining about free oats? Are they doing anything about it to disrupt the oat market?

[gregpet]

Chaffmeister, would mind sharing these facts or what trade data you are looking at to show that “the CWB is a burden – not a benefit.” I would like to use this in the discussions/debates about the CWB. Thanks.

[TOM4CWB]

Adam and Chaff;

I just figured out our high quality wheat today... guess what?

It is worth more... immediate payment in our pocket... than as milling wheat... EVEN IF YOU TRUST the PRO!

SImply astounding.

Year after year... feed is worth more than human consumption. WHeat or Barley... it matters not!

This is reallly all about keeping feed grain prices down... how can we grain growers put up with this?

[chaffmeister]

gregpet:

Go here:
http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/AnnualReports/AnnualReport200506DataTablesEnglish.pdf
This is the most recent set of data tables published by the federally appointed Grain Monitor.

Go to page 184. This shows the breakdown and the total cost of shipping and handling #1 CWRS wheat from the farm gate to an export position, for each of the last 7 years. In 2005/06 the average total cost (including freight) was $61.81 per tonne.

Page 185 shows the same for durum (a CWB grain): average total cost in 2005/06 was $72.61 per tonne.

Page 186 shows the same for canola (a non-CWB grain): average total cost in 2005/06 was $41.51 per tonne.

CWB grains are at least $20 per tonne more costly to handle than canola. Two reasons for this: (1) the CWB charges/fees on CWB grains but absent from non-CWB grains, and (2) elevation/handling fees for CWB grains are higher than on non-CWB grains. This doesn’t even include (1) the cost of not being able to sell/deliver CWB grains as cash crops, or (2) the downward pressure on non-CWB grain (canola) prices because farmers are forced to sell these non-CWB grains for cash, which pushes these prices lower than they would go otherwise.

The CWB must get at least $20 per tonne premiums on average just to cover these higher handling costs. And even bigger premiums if they’re going to cover the other opportunity / delivery costs mentioned above.

And they don’t.

Conclusion: the CWB costs farmers money.

[wilagro]

What a cabal of spoiled brat OUTLAWS. Can't wait for your "hard fought for" goodies. Your esteemed Ag Minister says Aug 01/07...what is the problem?

You guys and one gal, smarten up.