Webcast/Press Conference on CWB Barley Decision

[charliep]

Just a note to highlight there is press conference today on the CWB decision to continue marketing barley.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2007/061807.jsp

[TOM4CWB]

CHarlie and Agri-ville folks,

I understand the media in our group.... like you Incognito... or you Parsley... can call in at 1-800-391-4610.

[TOM4CWB]

Mistake!

1-800-319-4610

Sorry about that!

[charliep]

Today's press release.

CWB seeks judicial review to end barley market uncertainty

June 18, 2007

Winnipeg – The CWB will ask the courts to review the legality of the federal government’s attempts to remove barley from farmers’ single desk, the CWB’s farmer-controlled board of directors announced today. The CWB’s application will be filed immediately.

“The board has decided to take action in the interests of farmers’ commercial and financial viability,” board chair Ken Ritter said after CWB directors met by teleconference this morning. “We again invite the federal government join with us so that legal certainty may be established as soon as possible.”

Ritter noted the CWB’s core mandate is focused on farmers’ financial returns. “Market uncertainty costs farmers money. It is therefore our obligation and our responsibility to take steps that ensure their commercial interests are protected,” he said. “We also need to move quickly to safeguard western Canadian farmers’ reputation for reliability.”

The government announced on March 28 that it intended to make regulatory amendments that would remove barley from Prairie farmers’ single-desk marketer on August 1. The accelerated process has created great uncertainty in the barley market, which risks leaving many producers short of their expected returns and liable for contract defaults – both individually and through the CWB as their marketing agent.

“The economic consequences for farmers are significant,” Ritter said. “We have decided to ask the courts to establish legal certainty, after unsuccessfully appealing to the government to address these serious commercial concerns. The sooner this is resolved, the better it is for farmers and the entire industry.”

The CWB’s case will argue that the 1998 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act set out a clear process by which barley could be removed from the single desk – a process which the federal government has not followed.

[charliep]

Just note that the CWB put the damage to the 2006/07 pool volume at 400,000 tonnes. CWB planned pool size of 2.2 MMT versus an actual pool size of 1.8 mmt. The fact that the domestic feed market is out bidding their malt barley pool had nothing to do with this. Similarly, the fact the maltsters/exporters could not get price signals through for some extremely high price malt barley on the last 400,000 tonnes also had nothing to do with the CWB.

I also keep hearing the CWB will stay in the malt barley market regardless of outcome. What new and innovative contracting programs is the CWB considering? Shouldn't these programs be announced sooner rather than later? Wouldn't the programs be designed to meet farmers needs in both a CWB single desk and open market? The outcome should be daily cash prices for malt barley.

[Barleyman]

I think that there is a lot of job protection here. Directors are well paid. I'm not worried about canadian maltsters, they have had it too good for too long. Barley was added by legislation to provide cheap feed and malt to eastern interests, most if not all who vote liberal and support elections with donations

[parsley]

barleyman,

There is a Barley Freedom Day on August 1, 2007. More details coming up.

We'll find out on that day, which of the companaies are lined up wanting to do business with farmers, willing to dance, as opposed to those lined up at the CWB trough.

And a lot of the farmers growing the bulk of the acres will be attending, and can duly mark their appropriate evaluations in their blackberries.

Choosing ones partners carefully helps the bottom line.


Parsley

[parsley]

Tom, I would have, but I had a couple of calls to make.

Both were companies, stepping up to the plate for the Barley Freedom Day.

The Wheat Board call would have put me into the trough.

The plate or the trough?

Says it all.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

This is a very interesting quote from Chairman Ritter:

“Market uncertainty costs farmers money. It is therefore our obligation and our responsibility to take steps that ensure their commercial interests are protected,” he said. “We also need to move quickly to safeguard western Canadian farmers’ reputation for reliability.”

Who are farmers "commercial interests"?

I googled it... guess what popped up?

"High Court Rules "Commercial Interests are Subservient to Fundamental Rights" in Coca-Cola Appeal"

http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2004/1047.html

How fitting.

Farmers "Commercial Interests" can easily be taken as the industry partners they work with.

"Commerce is a branch of production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information or money between two or more entities. Commerce functions as the central mechanism which drives capitalism and certain other economic systems (but compare command economy, for example)."

If Chairman Ritter had said Farmers'... "Financial Interests" then we would be talking about our real day to day cash flow that keeps our businesses alive and communities prosperous.

Very tricky Comrade Ritter... your words certainly tell an interesting tale!

[parsley]

Farmers don't need to hear anyone yapping about how to "safeguard western Canadian farmers’ reputation for reliability.”


Farmers are dependable.

We need new partnering. Ones that get their jobs done.

The CWB trough is filled with Harders and Macklins and Ritters and it looks like some "Cargills".

Let them founder for the next month, after that they can starve.

Parsley

[kryger]

62% of Barley farmers voted for market choice. A lot of the Directors in the last director elections got less than that, but that was a clear majority for the CWB. If it wasn't so serious, this would be laughable. The Board is running scared and so they should. I voted for choice #2 on the plebiscite, now I wish I would have voted for #3.

[highwayman]

you nailed it Kryger. The vast majority of producers in our area that I have spoken with voted option #2 thinking that keeping the wheat board around in some capacity would not be such a bad thing. However now it is becoming painfully clear that they are only here to serve their own interests as a group of fatcats as well as their "commercial" partners in crime. Option #3 now looks like it would have been the logical choice. This entire issue of the single desk has most farmers completely fed up and most want to get back to their focus of production and working towards common goals with their own freedoms to do so. Wasting more of farmers money on fruitless law suits and judicial reviews is completely irresponsible and a waste of time and resources. Mr. Ritter, Mr. Toews, Mr. Wells, you lost-get over it,life goes on.

[parsley]

What if the law suits aren't about grain?

What if the law suits are about running for election?


Is Butch Harder or Measner or Art Macklin et al running for the Liberals?

Poolng accounts provide dandy campaign funding. Farmers learned that Liberal trick before.

Code of conduct been changed lately?Someone shoulld check!

Parsley