THE CWB, ORGAINIC AND UNREGISTERED GRAIN

[AdamSmith]

Parsley, I agree with Wedino I see no reason for a retraction.

You wrote "The CWB can show favoritism with buybacks....with no accountability.... and they do.... they can favor SWP over UGG and who can prove anything?"

That's the worst kept secret in the Western Canadian grain industry. The Pools have been strong allies of the CWB since it's inception while UGG has always preferred voluntary vs compulsary marketing. From car allocation to Warburton deals and everything else inbetween the Pools are favored over UGG and others. The historical based allocation system that existed until just recently was proof of that.

When you wrote "If employee X in the buyback dept..." I read that as an example of a hypothetical situation not as a factual one. Obviously the Agri-Ville monitors at the CWB didn't see it that way.

It's quite disturbing to see such intimidation being displayed for everyone to see. As I doubt your retraction was entirely your idea.

I think this demonstrates why the CWB continues to insist that they must operate from their lair of secrecy. And why it must be ended.

Keep the presure on parsley, we're obviously finding the raw nerves here.

AdamSmith

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

I think the accountability issue is the number one issue regarding the CWB.

The CWB claims they are a commercial entity, which is false, they are not.

1. If a commercial entity wants to wheel and deal, that is fine the market soon decides wether or not this entity survives. This is a brutal process. Certain players in this process invest millions to either allow this commercial entity to survive, while other forces spend millions to see that this entity is cut out of the market.

This is the competition of the market place, and only those who are brave and willing to take risks can be a part of this commercial system.

2. The CWB is not a part of this system because it does not matter how wrong a decision is, it is still right. There is absolutely no market competion to dicipline the CWB. The CWB therefore must be diciplined only by how much wheat we grow. The CWB believes if we grow it then they are doing a good job. The decrease in wheat and barley that is marketed through the CWB shows there is obviously a BIG PROBLEM.

3. Even GOD allows competition and freedom of choice. If I do not want to follow good, I can go to the dark side instead.

So as a principal at the CWB, the accountability issue has been totally discarded, if a person does not trust and have faith the CWB is straight.

The CWB is therefore a unaccountable religion.

It takes more faith for me to believe in the CWB single desk premiums, than to believe that Jesus Christ came 2000 years ago, was crucified, rose on the third day, and is comming back again!

I have much more historical evidence on the credibility of Jesus Christ than I do on CWB credibility!

CWB secret deals are common place and are often not a part of the regulations. I know, just look at pedigreed seed! Just look at Manufactured Feed! Take a look at Creston wheat and barley growers, and their special deals!

CWB trust is only for those with totally blind faith.

CWB credibility is not backed up except with unbelievable excuses and biased studies that prove nothing except that the CWB has the power to waste my money doing them.

If the Auditor General does not fully disclose buy-back examples and processes this audit process will have been a total waste of time.

The benchmarking process is a farce. The CWB believer directors took 2 years to find that they couldn't show a logical truthful CWB premium.

If CWB directors couldn't find an advantage on there own, then they hire a spin doctor to create new "facts" to prove there point?

Parsley, It appears saying that the emporer has no clothes, when he in fact is wearing none, was insulting and mean to this ruler.

Keep up the good work, stating he obvious appears to be a crime in Canada, Like in the Red Rose Commercials, only in Canada you say?

[Braveheart]

Accountability, like just about anything else, means different things to different people. Economists demand performance indicators be used to ensure accountability. Democrats say the election process provides accountability. Regarding the CWB, both performance indicators and the director election process could be used to provide accountability.

We've missed glorius opportunities in the past to monitor CWB performance. The KFT study used pricing information that could not be replicated by peer economists, and only monitored port performance rather than farmgate performance. A post graduate paper by Blair Rutter (UGG), did highlight farmgate performance, but has not had high exposure.

When the CWB had appointed commissioners there was absolutely zero accountability to farmers. The new structure of elected directors should give some measure of accountability. Unfortunately, the voting process is very flawed. The division of districts, voters' lists that include dead people, and persons that should have no legitimate input (ie. landlords, mortgagors, etc.), confusing preferential ballots, and other procedures that make banana republics look like shining examples of democracy have left the voting process as a less than effective process.

Accountability without a trusted performance indicator and a trusted voting process is as solid as the wind.

Regards,

Braveheart

[prairiedog]

Parsley, it seems somewhat curious that you would retract your statement. Was there some discomfort caused somewhere that we don't know about. I didn't notice any posting on this thread objecting to what you said. Parsley, you have perhaps identified one of the most fundemental problems related to the CWB and the grain handling industry and that is the question of trust. You have indicated via your statement that there is a less than trusting relationship between many farmers and the CWB Bravehart also uses the word in his discussion of accountability. Arthur Kroeger, in his report to the Minister of transportation identifies that fear and distrust characterise the relationship between the various elements of the grain industry. Trust however, is fundamental to any successfull relationship whether it be family, business, government etc. Our democratic institutions are based on the idea that they can be trusted. However whether it be the buyback arrangement, farmer returns, transportation, infact almost any issue associated with the CWB, doubts and distrust prevail. Parsley merely put the distrust and doubt in plain language.

[prairiedog]

Regarding costs for the organic buyback charged by grain companies, organic farmers have the opportunity to deal directly with the CWB, at an admin cost of $1.50/t to do the buyback process. There is also a credit facility allowing the farmer to pay the spread between the initial and Sales price at a later date, after his/her sale has concluded perhaps (interest does accrue, but at least the farmer's line of credit isn't being used up for this process.)

Much of this thread makes it sound like the CWB siphons off a bunch of money through this process. These sales values go directly to the pool account, and contribute to the total return that goes to every producer in the pool account.

When we met with organic growers across the Prairies last fall, these were the issues that were raised. This new process of dealing direct with the CWB, at lower admin costs and carrying the spread for farmers met most of the concerns. And many of the organic growers understood that they benefit in keeping values high, rather than having individuals bid down cash conventional prices because that would have an effect on organic values.

I noticed in the Western Producer a couple of weeks ago that organic growers in the southern US have gotten together to get a marketing service to provide market information, price information and market development. This is the type of services that the CWB offered to the organic industry last summer through a marketing specialist, who is now in place and getting started.


Tom