Old institutions may have to change

[cakadu]

There is sure some heavy debate going on at the CWB over whether or not to have a dual marketing system and follow the guidelines set out by the SPC earlier this month.

As could be expected, you have some of the board members that are dead set against relaxing the rules somewhat and others who want to at least give it a chance. The whole issue over whether we need the CWB or not has raged on for many years now.

What is the harm in seeing if a dual system will work? What are these CWB directors so afraid of? If the system were working and producers were making money, they wouldn't have a problem with it, would they?

At one point in time, the CWB maybe made sense, but like so many other things that were started during different times, they tend to have lost their effectiveness and should somehow be changed to fit the current (and possibly) future situations.

If we are making a move at the federal and provincial levels towards value-adding, how can that be done in the grain sector when there is just single desk selling and all these rules set out by the CWB? If we want producers to change their way of thinking, then the rest of the system has to change to accommodate what we want to happen in other areas. No sense in having one thing without the other - it just will not work.

Maybe the time has come to see some of these old institutions make changes that reflect the current situation and not deal with things the way they happened 30 years ago.

Not everyone will want to market their own commodity, so there will be a chance for these entities to be around...they won't have to go entirely, just deal with the new realities.

[cowman]

Linda: The problem with letting a dual market have a chance would be that no one would ever use the CWB! That is the plain and simple truth!
Unless they have their monopoly they couldn't function.
Was the CWB idea good? I believe it probably was. But the politics, and the graft overcame the benifit! So the CWB has become a dinosaur in a modern world. A holding tank for people who need a job!
My father hated them with a passion and if he was alive would have probably been running the border, so I guess I am biased! Three farmers are going to be sentenced in October for selling their grain to the highest bidder(and they do intend to go to jail)! Does this truly make sense? One of the farmers is Jim Ness, a member of the Canadian grain commission! Obviously a man of integrity!!! Need a few more men like him in Canada?

[carebear300]

Yes maybe the time has come for a dual marketing system. I have some misgivings about it there is pros and cons both ways. It has more to do with individual freedoms in my book then anything else. If it does happen producers will have to make up there mind and choose what they want and stick by it, to be fair to both systems. I don't actually no which system I would choose as much as believe in the free market system I have watched the so called free market work (personally last year with french green lentils) and I wonder if it is the way to go. I guess time will tell but one thing disturbs me about the free market system, it doesn't seem fair that somebody that needs to sell for cash flow gets less then the other person that can wait the market out. But that is just me worrying about the other guy again and what is fair. Maybe it is time for the dog eat dog mentality to take its course once and for all and let only the ones with lots of financial backing survive. It costs most people roughly the same to grow the crop and doesn't seem fair that one person is able to get twice as much for the crop then the other. After all that I don't know which system I would choose.

[edbaker]

Hi all,

How come I hear so much squawking about government, CWB, etc. and a lot of talk about the glories of a "free market" - but ...

not a peep about the half dozen or so entities that control the world's grain markets?

Free market, indeed!

While we complain about the oil companies' cartel, they are almost all public companies, so legally required to make substantial reports of their business, at least in the northern end of North America.

But most, if not all, of the grain market operators are private companies, so, not being widely held joint-stock companies, make very few reports, thus are able to maintain major secrecy.

And when they get involved with major operations in the animal trade, as well, one feels that the vaunted "freedom" of farmers raising grain or supplying some kinds of meat is largely a matter of the "smoke and mirrors" that I hear about.

Further, as the chemical companies have taken over most of the seed companies, though the grain traders may not control them, they often provide the major supply channel.

Some years ago I gave my farmer brother the book, "Merchants of Grain".

His response was, "Thanks for the book, Ed - but it made me mad!"

Five years ago I attended the big Farm Show in Louisville in Feb., which Ontario farmers attend by the busload, with my friend who builds the heating stoves that burn wheat or rye as well as corn.

I asked some groups promoting the best interests of farmers if they knew what they could do to help the best interest of farmers more than any other.

Most asked, "What (was my opinion)?"

I replied, "Do something to curb the power of Cargill".

Most replied, often with a bit of a snort, "For sure. And how do you propose that we do *that*?"

I didn't have much of an answer - but surely co-operative marketing of the farmers' product rather than individually would be preferable. And doesn't the opportunity to market a nation's product over a single desk tend to even the playing field somewhat, even if not as much as one would like?

Just some thoughts to chew on. From one rather far removed from farming.