PC Leadership

[cowman]

Ivebinconned: Well Reform was what I thought was the last kick at the can! And yes it did divert the seperatist movement...no doubt about it.
I remember being at the local Reform nomination forum and guess what? All the old boys who had been in the Western Canada Concept were there! The whole thing shifted to Reform! All the executive, all the members!
By the time Reform had morphed into the Alliance I was sick of the whole thing.
But what are you going to do? I am not a Liberal or NDP supporter...no matter what! I believe in free enterprize and smaller government, and am probably considered a social conservative, although I like to think I am a Libertarian!
I am a seperatist but so far that isn't working too well, so you go with the best option available under the present circumstances? If that is Stephen Harper, federally or the PC party in Alberta....then that is my best bet for looking after my interests? By the way I voted Alberta Alliance last provincial election.
And yea I guess I am a Manning zealot, mostly because of his father. Probably not rational. Just my opinion.

[cowman]

I don't think that Preston Manning is in touch with rural Alberta at all. I hope he doesn't let the media hype push him into running.

[ivbinconned]

Thanks cowman.

Some of Mannings actions in the past were not well publicized because they fit well into the Machiavellian way of doing things. The liberal media has no problem with this, in fact they love it, and so didn't dwell on it.

But as time went on more and more observant people recongnized this and that is why he was turfed. You don't take the time energy and money of the "consevative" reform minded people of western Canada and then bring in the likes of the liberal Rick Anderson to handle your image...and not pay the price.

But he did not learn. In a dispicable juvenile fashion he set out to destroy that which he had helped build. It was a childish replay of that eastern MO of, if we don't run it we will not support it!

Dalton Camp would have been impressed!

At any rate, Stock, or anybody else, could not have withstood the onslaught that was engineered by Mannings people, one of which is our Ag minister. A position that will lead to the demise of Chuck Sraul. Harper is not so dumb.

Ray Speaker, in Winnipeg 1987, describe the process that has been used by Manning from day one. If the people are not, in their thinking, where you are, then you slowly mold and influence them to your way of thinking, and through this process stay outfront leading. It works for a while...but the chickens will come home to roost.

Now when talk of seperation and firewalls are being heard once again, when Alberta's "elephant in the room" wealth is becoming the talk of national interest...here comes Manning to once again lull Albertans into a sense of well being. Issues are being taken care of. Lets get back to work.

A deflection again!

Many will choose to EXCUSE and ignor Mannings past, and will make no attempt, to defend it.

[Vader]

Horner said.

"Our industry's sustainability is dependent on improved market access, the elimination of export subsidies and substantial reductions in production and trade distorting domestic subsidies of other countries," he said.

I disagree. The world has consumed more wheat than it has produced for seven of the last eight years. Is trade the reason why prices are low in spite of this shortfall? I think not. The problem is 135 million metric tonnes of inventory around the world. No trade liberalization will improve grain prices as long as this surplus inventory exists. We need to target this inventory and put a "stick of dynamite" under it.

What I really wonder is where in the world is this 135 million tonnes. In Canada we only have a carry over of about 6 million tonnes. On the surface that is insignificant. However when you consider that Canada is responsible for about 20% of world trade in wheat and when you also consider that world trade is only 100 million tonnes per year it becomes apparent that a significant amount of this surplus must reside in the consuming nations as opposed to exporting nations. (Contrary to what I am always hearing).

Perhaps if Canada's 6 million tonnes were to disappear from the market the buyers of the world might consider a 6% reduction in available inventory for purchase to be significant. In fact depending on how much of the 135 million tonnes is in exporting versus importing countries 6 million tonnes might be an even larger percentage of tradeable supplies.

My mission at the next CWB board meeting will be to examine the question of "where in the world are the available wheat supplies and how large are they".

As Canada moves to meet its biofuel committment perhaps we can eliminate our share of the exportable surplus.

Rod

[silverback]

Another question would be, "If there are stockpiles of Wheat around the world, where are they and who is paying the storage for that grain?" Does it turn over or has it been sitting for 5 - 10 years? Can the whales or cod eat wheat if we dump it in the ocean.? lol

[Incognito]

Your mission should be to decide how the CWB will operate in a dual market environment.

Canada's trade of wheat ex durum has fallen to 14% to 16% - not 20%. Time to get the briefing notes updated.

http://www.igc.org.uk/gmr/gmrsummary.htm

Global stocks at end 2006/07 are forecast to fall by 17m. tons to 119.m., including 45m. (52m.) in the five major exporters.
___________________________________

Knowing the above, what direction has the CWB taken?

Those are responsible questions you should be asking - not where is the frikkin 135 million tonnes of wheat in the world.

Google it - for goodness sakes.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

How Ironic that the CWB has been holding stocks of Wheat and Durum OFF the market... which has what effect?

Increase STOCKS.

The effect is to create opportunity for others around the globe; who would not otherwise look at growing the wheat and durum if it was not withheld... to fill that market gap.

Market distorting... a subsidy to domestic consumers; WTO issues for sure.

THe CWB is not required to pay interest on the stocks they force us to hold, risk or carry inflationary costs that accrue.

ASTOUNDING.

There is nothing in the CWB ACT that even authorises CWB directors to maximise returns be withholding our stocks... unless distorting International trade is a function of "Marketing grain in an orderly manner"!

Talk about being NON COMMERCIAL.

[Vader]

Incognito, where do you get the figure of global stocks falling? I looked at the website you gave and I see this.


SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN 2005/06

WHEAT: Estimated 2005 world production is increased 2m. tons to 617m. with small revisions for several countries. Total consumption is also up 2m. tons at 620m., with increases in Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Forecast world trade is 1m. tons higher at 109m. tons, reflecting continued strong purchases by Iraq and recent buying by Iran. Export shipments by Argentina, Russia and Ukraine are slowing considerably compared with the first half of the season. Turkey has recently sold large amounts of wheat flour, notably to Iraq. The forecast of global end-of-season stocks remains at 136m. tons, including 52m. in the major exporters.

[Vader]

I note that world trade varies between 102 MT and 109 MT. Stocks held be the major exporters back in 2003 was 40 MT. Today we are at 52 MT. I think that the major exporter stocks to trade ratio might be more important than total stocks to use, at least until China has a wreck.

Mr ASTOUNDED, you say that the CWB is holding stocks off the world market. Have you noticed that the CWB is on track to make record sales of durum wheat this year? Probably the largest percentage of the world trade in durum ever. Have also noticed what has happened to the traditional premium that durum wheat has enjoyed over spring wheat?

How much wheat should Canada plant this year? How much durum?

20 ethanol plants in Canada the size of the Husky plant in Lloydminster would use over 6 million tonnes per year and by my calculation would only get us 1/2 way to the 2010 federal target of 10% biofuels. How would that impact on the stocks to use ratios by 2012 especially if you could forecast what other exporters such as Australia and Argentina are projecting for ethanol production?

If Canada were to pull 5 million tonnes of wheat per year out of the export market and Australia and Argentina between them did another 5, the five major exporters would be cleaned out in five years.

Obviously there would be upward pressure on prices and therefore an incentive to increase production. One means to increse wheat production is by acreage shifts. Corn could be in short supply because of the demand for ethanol in the US which is expected to rise significantly due to their own energy programs. So wheat should not steal acres from corn. Soybeans and canola will have demands on those acres because of the corresponding increase in biodiesel production. It might not be easy to steal acres from canola or soybeans.

What about Brazil? They are the worlds leading producer of ethanol and they will be maximizing their sugar cane acres.

Perhaps it will be difficult for the world to meet the demands and world stocks will fall to near zero.

Would be nice if we didn't have to resort to feeding our wheat to the whales.

[Vader]

Incognito, your mission can be to figure out when and if the CWB will operate in a dual market environment, if you feel that is a productive use of your time.

My mission is to maximize revenues for farmers. Presently I do not believe that a dual market does that. Building ethanol plants might though!!!

[Incognito]

April 06, 2006

Harper, speaking in the Commons, reiterated a number of Conservative campaign promises concerning agriculture.

He said the government wants to replace the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program with a "simpler, much more responsive" system and is urging provinces to negotiate a new plan.

He promised to support existing supply-management programs, and said western grain farmers will be given "dual marketing options" when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

___________________________________

I don't sit on the BOD and get paid for fidiciary responsibility to farmers - if I did currency hedging and administrative costs would be on the top of my list; so it is not my "mission" to figure it out. Frankly, I could care less other than you have an audience of pick a number (50 60 75%) that support the CWB and what of your responsibilty to them?
____________________________

Global stocks at end 2006/07 are forecast to fall by 17m. tons to 119.m., including 45m. (52m.) in the five major exporters.
________________________________

i copied and pasted the above. Scroll down.

[wd9]

How quickly the Vader pulled the wool over everyone's eyes once again from the real issue, market access and Canada's WTO position, which is the topic of this discussion. Market access is a bit of a misnomer because we have access, just not fair or financially viable access.

All along the CWB has been 'representing farmers' by convincing the federal government to not negotiate - that no agreement is best, that we can't make any headway on access so just walk away.

With tariffs alone on wheat at $25 to 30 per tonne, canola - $77 per tonne, barley $27 per tonne, MBFarmer, you and I will not see progress in our lives.

I just wonder and am unable to understand why the CWB is ensuring with it's political clout there is no progress on WTO and that market access (tariffs too high to make the sale)alone will continue costing farmers billions in lost sales.

Let alone tariff escalation (the more a product is value added, the more it is tariffed) and defining which sensitive products (those products outside the WTO negotiations with their own special rules) costs to farmers and any ag processors in Canada.

Maybe we should do as the CWB suggests, become supply managed grains and find other work for 4/5 of the farmers and the arable land in the country. Not!!!

I would encourage our government to negotiate for open market access, that export and domestic subsidies be reduced in the coming years, that Canada can compete fairly with other countries with regards to tariff parity (tariffed higher on a competing product in the same country like soy 5% and canola 25%, barley against corn...) tariffs and subsidies.

MBFarmer, given the choice, would you like to see no progress or at least progress for the future?