KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:30 pm

Giving away Wheat Board assets and Pat Martin's outburst in the House

[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-ne ... urst-house ]

By Karl Nerenberg | December 3, 2014

If you believe that government monopoly agencies are not the best way to get Canadian agricultural products to market you probably applauded when the Harper government eliminated the Canadian Wheat Board's control of the prairie grain business.

That move "liberated" Western farmers, freed them from the bondage of "big government," Prime Minister Harper boasts, and allowed them to take part fully in the free market economy.

But even if you are an enthusiastic cheerleader for open markets in agriculture, you've got to be a bit worried about the Conservatives' current plans for the no-longer-single-desk Canadian Wheat Board.

The Harper government legislation that got rid of the Wheat Board's monopoly also stipulated that the agency should be fully privatized by 2017.

Farmers' offer of $250 to $300 million rejected by Board

Playing by Conservative rules, a 3,000-member farmers' consortium called Farmers of North America put together a bid to buy the Board and all its assets (grain elevators, rail lines, ships, offices, and other such stuff).

The 3,000 farmers offered somewhere between $250 and $350 million for the Board. On the face of it and based on estimated evaluations of the Board's value, that offer seems like a good price for Canadian taxpayers, who own at least some of the Board's assets. And the consortium would keep ownership of the Board's assets in Canada, which prairie farmers and the Harper government would consider to be something of a virtue, one might think.

The current Wheat Board's Conservative government-appointed board of directors rejected the offer, however, without giving any reason -- at least not publicly.

Now, there are persistent rumours that the Conservatives plan to simply transfer ownership of the Board, and all its grain handling equipment, to U.S. mega-corporation Archer Daniel Midlands, for a price of -- wait for it -- $0.00.

The entire process is totally non-transparent. It seems that neither the public nor Parliament has the right to know anything in detail about how the government plans to privatize a venerable Canadian institution

- - - - -SNIP - - - -

It was all a bit much for Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin, who stood up to ask a question following his colleague's round, only to have his incredulous anger at the Minister's non-answers overtake him.

"Let us see if I understand the Conservatives' business plan for the Canadian Wheat Board," Martin started out, calmly enough, and then continued for a bit in the same vein. "First, they take the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world and then they give it away, free of charge, to an American agrifood giant which, until recently, was their greatest competitor."

And then, well, then, something in Martin seemed to snap, and he said: "My question is simple, and I ask it through you, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister lost his freaking mind? Or is he that ..."

Not surprisingly, the Speaker cut Martin off at that point.

We relate the whole exchange, here, in case readers have only heard reports of Martin's final verbal explosion.

If unparliamentary language is never justified -- as some of us, including this writer, believe -- what preceded Martin's outburst at least explains, if it does not entirely excuse, this particular episode of verbal excess.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:49 am

Open letter from CWB

[ http://www.producer.com/daily/open-letter-from-cwb/ ]

December 5, 2014

Following changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 2012 by the Federal Government, CWB has always stated its intention to build a strong and viable CWB in the open market. CWB wants to provide farmers with greater choice, increased competition resulting in better prices, secure access to new markets and customers, and the ability for farmers to pool their grain with a company that they know and trust.

Recently there has been some speculation and inaccuracies regarding CWB’s future and our commercialization plans. We understand that CWB is in a unique position and will address some of the questions that have arisen without jeopardizing our business and putting our farmers customers or potential investors in an unfair competitive position.

Part of our dilemma is that when the monopoly ended and CWB moved into an open market environment, CWB needed to begin to transition into the same operating conditions as that of our competition. As everyone knows other grain companies are not required to release any confidential commercial information that would disadvantage their operations.

In accordance with the Act, CWB was tasked with providing a commercialization plan to the Government by 2016 and executing on that plan by 2017. CWB has always said it intended to beat those legislated deadlines. For the past two years CWB has been building a network of assets and is on the path towards commercialization.

- - - - SNIP - - -

Our objectives are to develop a strong and viable grain-handling company in Canada that can compete with the best in the business and to give farmers an opportunity to have an ownership stake. CWB is not being sold or given away. We are securing an investor to partner with farmers to ensure there is a strong and viable CWB for today and the next generation.

Dayna Spiring
Chief Strategy Officer, CWB
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:52 am

WELLS: Response to Open Letter from CWB

Letter from Stewart Wells - December 11, 2014

To the editor, A response to the CWB “open letter” of Dec. 5, 2014.

- - - -

QUOTE: “Our objectives are to develop a strong and viable grain-handling company in Canada that can compete with the best in the business and to give farmers an opportunity to have an ownership stake. CWB is not being sold or given away. We are securing an investor to partner with farmers to ensure there is a strong and viable CWB for today and the next generation.” - Open Letter from CWB, Dayna Spiring, Chief Strategy Officer, CWB, - Western Producer December 5, 2014 [ http://www.producer.com/daily/open-letter-from-cwb/ ]

- - -

Following the farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board’s evisceration in 2011, which included the firing of the farmer-elected Directors and the confiscation of the farmer-paid assets, everyone still working at the now government-run CWB was left serving at the pleasure of the Minister. It is not surprising, then, to find the current CWB staff working on damage control for the government. Their only alternative would be to look for other employment.

In the CWB’s letter the statement is made “As everyone knows other grain companies are not required to release any confidential commercial information that would disadvantage their operations” in order to deflect attention away from the government’s refusal to publish an audited financial statement for 2012/13. First of all, if the company is a shareholder company like Archer-Daniels-Midland they do have to publish lots of financial information, including what their Directors are paying themselves.

More importantly however, is that the CWB is not just another grain company—it is a grain company that has its operations, farmer payments, and borrowings guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayers. No other grain company operation in Canada creates this kind of taxpayer liability.

As well, the government is fond of saying that it has recently transferred over $300 million of taxpayer money into the CWB since the fall of 2011. A CWB with government guarantees and the government’s cash injections has a responsibility to be accountable to taxpayers.

It is also worth noting that the voluntary wheat board of the 1930’s published audited financial statements, even though they were competing with the rest of the grain trade. Nothing now is more commercially sensitive than it was in 1935.

Let’s not kid ourselves, the rest of the grain trade knows how much grain the CWB is or is not handling. If Minister Ritz’s CWB had handled the volumes that indicated a “strong and viable” marketer the government would be shouting those numbers from the rooftops instead of covering-up and suppressing important financial information.

In 2011 the Harper government endlessly repeated the argument that the government-controlled CWB-- stripped of its single desk marketing advantages—would be strong and viable. Minister Ritz claimed that all the CWB needed to keep was the rolodex of buyers’ phone numbers because other grain companies would sign contracts to handle CWB-sourced grain. Any business-minded person listening at the time knew what a fairy tale that was. How many tonnes did the CWB source for other grain companies to move in 2012/13? The Minister refuses to say.

Now, however, “strong and viable” is simply code for “We [the government] can’t sell the farmer-paid assets that we have confiscated in order to even reimburse taxpayers for the new costs created in 2011. No, we have to leave those hundreds of millions of dollars in the CWB, AND we have to find more hundreds of millions of dollars just to keep the company running past the next election cycle.”

So adding up the taxpayer liability of over $300 million created by the government in 2011, and then having the government walk away from well over $200 million of farmer-paid assets means that Canadian taxpayers are out over half a billion dollars. How many veteran offices would half a billion dollars keep open?

Lacking the nerve to mention the Farmers of North America (FNA) by name, the CWB open letter says that the CWB used some vague criteria to evaluate bids. Odd then that the first negative reports about the FNA proposal came from the Minister and not the CWB.

It is important to understand that the Harper government’s record shows it will never, ever, let Canadian farmers be in control of the CWB assets ever again. They just don’t trust farmers. Sure, farmers could be issued some kind of minority equity position, but never actual control. Apparently Mr. Ritz was just lying to Parliament and farmers when he was speaking in support of his Bill killing the farmer-controlled Wheat Board on Nov. 2, 2011: [from Hansard]: Ritz: “…Yes, they will elect their own board. After the interim period, where we control it as a government, yes, they will elect their own board should they decide to do that….absolutely farmers will run it…They may not incorporate, they may do a cooperative, they may do a not-for-profit…”.

Now the government/CWB line is “we will give away the farmer-paid assets to some existing grain company with “industry expertise and capital””.

With the broad realization that this is not a business deal, but rather a political maneuver—with the government saying to a company “if you just pretend to keep this charade going past the next election we will give you hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of farmer-paid assets”—farmers and taxpayers are starting to understand how they have been misled, and thus the need for the open damage-control letter.

When it comes to creating a human CWB shield for the Minister, the CWB open letter has to be classified as an “epic fail”.

Yours truly,

Stewart Wells
Chair, Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board
Swift Current, Sask.
306-773-6852
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:00 am

Farmers file Wheat Board case with Supreme Court

[ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/constitutional-and-classaction/ ]

December 16, 2014

Canadian Wheat Board Alliance- A coalition of farmers and other Canadians in support of democracy and a farmer-controlled CWB

(Swift Current, Saskatchewan) - Yesterday counsel for the farmer Plaintiffs in the Class Action lawsuit stemming from the Harper Government’s dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board filed documents seeking leave to have several key issues of the case considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Steven Shrybman of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell of Toronto, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs remarked “this Class Action addresses some fundamental issues surrounding the right of people to democratically choose to work together and to build and hold assets collectively. Our clients feel this aspect of the Class Action is uniquely important not only to western grain farmers, but also to the interests of Canadian society and business in general, and deserves the consideration of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Anders Bruun, a Winnipeg lawyer and co-counsel for the Plaintiffs stated “The recent Federal Court of Appeal ruling gave a green light for the Class Action to proceed with the parts of the case based on the misallocation of CWB Pool account funds in 2011/12. This part of the Class Action will be going forward regardless of the results of this leave to appeal application.”

Stewart Wells, Chairperson of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, said “There are three levels of loss - the values of the ongoing business, the hard assets including the contingency fund, and the misallocation of funds during the transition. Together these represent about a $17 billion loss to western Canadian farmers. The fact that farmers have lost $5 billion over the last 2 years that they would have received had the Wheat Board been in place proves the true value of the Wheat Board.”

“Clearly we believe the brand and the good name of the farmer-owned Wheat Board is also a form of property built and paid for by farmers, and this appeal will allow the Court to address this very substantial loss” explained Wells.

He went on to say, “I’m glad the plaintiffs have elected to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to address the inconsistency in lower court rulings holding that farmers have a right to advance a claim for pool account monies yet do not have a right to the property bought and paid for with those pool account monies.”

Wells concluded “the seizure of their CWB assets and Ottawa’s claim farmers have no right to them has galvanized the farm community to lay claim to all the Wheat Board assets farmers bought and paid for, not just the cash remaining in the Pool account.” -30-

For further information call:

Stewart Wells: (306) 773-6852
Anders Bruun: (204) 416-3562

Farmer Plaintiffs:

Harold Bell: Fort St. John, British Columbia
Andrew Dennis: Brookdale, Manitoba
Nathan Macklin: DeBolt, Alberta
Ian McCreary: Bladworth, Saskatchewan
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:26 pm

More to grain marketing than price

[ http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/03/04/ ... ice/45986/ ]

Without a doubt, the biggest fallacy about Canada’s grain producers is that they are good marketers. I would argue instead that few grain growers actually have real marketing expertise, and even fewer actually market what they produce.

- - - - -SNIP - - -

Canadian wheat

A useful case study is Western Canadian wheat. Dr. Rex Newkirk is vice-president of research and innovation at the Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi) in Winnipeg. He explains that Cigi has been instrumental in the development and maintenance of export markets for Canadian grain for many years by providing buyers of Canadian wheat with technical training on the milling, processing and utilization of that wheat.

Cigi’s work was complemented by the analysis and assurances of wheat quality provided by the Canadian Grain Commission and the identification of market and export opportunities by the Canadian Wheat Board. Together these three organizations created a brand for Western Canadian wheat. That brand identified Canadian wheat as very high quality, safe, clean and wholesome grain, and it assured customers that wheat from Canada would meet or surpass their expectations.

The effort succeeded, Newkirk says. “Canada had a strong brand for its wheat.”

However, the change to the CWB in 2012 has had a negative impact on that brand. There may have been expectations that the private trade would ensure our brand is maintained, but there have been problems. Buyers have reported being disappointed with cleanliness and quality in a number of shipments. They had even bigger concerns with the shipping delays last winter. In a world of just-in-time delivery, our brand was degraded by the inability of companies to deliver on time because of their difficulties in sourcing the specific quality requested by a buyer, rail movement problems, and delays in loading vessels.

In order to rebuild the tarnished wheat brand, Newkirk says, Team Canada was developed. Cereals Canada, provincial grain commissions, exporters, and individual farmers are now joining Cigi and CGC in actively marketing all grains. It is hoped by including people from every level of the value chain on trade missions to importing countries, we can assure buyers in those countries of the quality and value of Canadian grains.

- - - SNIP - - - -

Canada has worked hard to build a very favourable brand for our wheat. Until recently our wheat could be considered as Perrier compared to tap water. But to maintain that image will take a lot of work, especially by producers.

We cannot expect multinational grain companies to spend money to tell buyers that Canada has the best wheat in the world when they are also trying to sell wheat from other wheat-exporting nations. Branding of wheat ultimately falls on the producer, and it will be the effort that producers put into true marketing that determines whether Canadian wheat maintains its differentiation as the highest quality in the world, or if we lose this positioning to lower-cost producers.

Interestingly, Dolak also points out that countries like China, Korea, and India are increasingly using branding techniques to differentiate and market the commodities that they produce. It would be a real shame if Canada and Canadian producers lose our Canadian wheat brand to other countries because they are better marketers than us.

Make no mistake, using all available pricing tools to lock in a price is a critical, necessary skill for farmers. But this alone is not marketing. As farmers and industry, we must do more to actually market our grains rather than just price them.

The 4 Ps of grain marketing

Business theory breaks the job of marketing into four components, referred to as the Marketing Mix or the 4 Ps. These components are product, place, promotion, and price. any business which does not address all four of these components is setting itself up for failure in the long run.

If you are truly a good marketer you should also be addressing all four of these sectors, and you should be able to answer the following questions for whatever you produce:

MORE:

[ http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/03/04/ ... ice/45986/ ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:28 pm

Trade deals no impediment to restoring CWB

[ http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... story.html ]

By Ken Larsen, The Starphoenix March 5, 2015

Ottawa has killed the Canadian Wheat Board several times over the last 120 years, and each time western farmers have successfully demanded its return. The length of time farmers would tolerate working without the single desk wheat board became shorter each time.

- - - SNIP - - -

Now we've been forced to give up almost everything, and the playing field just keeps getting more uneven.

Remember a few years ago when, despite the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., Canadian softwood lumber exports were heavily penalized by the Americans and Ottawa did nothing beyond imposing and collecting the U.S. tariff from Canadian producers? It was a definite win for Ottawa's treasury, but hardly a happy outcome for British Columbia softwood lumber producers.

How about a more recent example of how meaningless these trade agreements are to all concerned when national interests are at stake?

Look at the recent invocation by the Harper government of an obscure law called the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to block the use of American steel in a construction project for an American ferry company dock in Prince Rupert, B.C. No fireworks. No Marines landing at Rideau Hall. Just a very quiet capitulation by the Americans.

What these instances demonstrate is that when it comes to international trade relations, national interests take priority over trade law and agreements.

Without getting into all the ways the single-desk CWB can be reinstated, two things should be remembered. First, collective bargaining is protected in our Constitution. Second, the courts have yet to speak on the legality of destroying the single desk without compensating the farmers who owned and benefited from it.

While these do not lay out a red carpet for the restoration of the single-desk wheat board, they do make the road to that destination smoother.

So when you hear some apologist throw up their hands and say we can never get back a single-desk CWB, drop a little piece of softwood lumber on their toe and remind them that a little Canadian steel in the backbone of our federal politicians means that we can exercise our right to restore a single-desk Canadian Wheat Board whenever we chose to do so.

- - - -

Larsen is a farmer in Benalto, Alta., and a member of the board of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is engaged in a class action lawsuit over changes to the structure of the CWB.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:11 pm

More fairy dust and false hope

[ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2015/02/3764/

February 26, 2015

When things go badly wrong for a politician a favorite tactic is to create a diversion [ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2014/05/fairy-d ... rmers-act/ ] and hope people focus there instead of on the mess in front of them. The people pulling Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz’s strings are masters at this. Farmers’ grain cheques cut in half and grain companies pulling off the greatest grain robbery in Canadian history? [ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/wp-content/uplo ... NTEXT1.pdf ] Blame the railways, everybody hates them anyway. Dealing with this nonsense is like playing “whack a mole” but a good deal less fun.

Now that the blame the railways game [ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2014/12/cta-rul ... narrative/ ] has worn thin the latest theme, conveniently provided by the Canada West Foundation, should be titled “don’t worry there is pie in the sky for you in the future.” They are doing so by hosting a propaganda exercise, grandiosely billed as a “symposium” at the end of April with the breathless title in all caps in case you missed it:

“THREE BILLION new consumers will need what the West has to offer. … Are we ready?
Feeding The New Global Middle Class. A Conversation That’s Never Happened Before About An Opportunity That’s Never Existed Before.”


This is pure twaddle. The single desk Canadian Wheat Board specialized in feeding the middle and upper classes of the world for decades before Ottawa’s Agriculture Minister killed it. The idea this is an opportunity that has never existed before is even more ridiculous. This same idea was fashionable in the 1970s. Been there, done that, and the results were a lot of my neighbours going bankrupt because they actually believed this sort of nonsense.

There is a long tradition in popular academia of claiming “if present trends continue” then disaster or prosperity is just around the corner. Luckily, present trends seldom continue. If they did everyone who gained a couple of pounds over Christmas would weigh several tonnes by Easter.

Usually these arguments come from the pessimists of the world. The Calvinist minister Thomas Malthus is one of the more famous. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus ] In 1798 he predicted that war and starvation were inevitable because population would always outstrip food production. Mechanization, birth control, and improved plant breeding fixed that for several centuries. Later the Club of Rome and Dr. Paul Erhlich talked of Limits to Growth and the Population Bomb respectively. In 1972 they claimed we were ten years away from global industrial collapse because of energy and materials shortages, population growth, and other calamities. Conservation, recycling, incremental technological improvements, and women’s empowerment put paid to that. Adjusted for inflation we have seen almost forty years of declining real prices for commodities – much to the consternation of farmers and other primary producers.

Some other examples are worth looking at. Instead of running out of ore for aluminum, bauxite mines are in fact closing around the world as the recycling of aluminum cans has reduced their life-cycle to a few days from use to re-use. Very modest fuel efficiency standards introduced in the United States in 1979 collapsed the price of oil for the next twenty years. Now, in spite of the effective removal of production from two of the three great oil producing regions of the planet (Iran and Iraq), crude oil prices are hardly looking very robust.

So before western farmers go for broke and repeat the 1970s it might be worth asking a few questions. China’s one child policy and a cultural preference for boys over girls have already limited the growth potential of China’s population. Given the severe gender imbalance, how many of those “2.5 Chinas” the Canada West Foundation symposium highlights will be middle class households driving new demand and how many will be grumpy bachelors? Given the depth and sophistication of Chinese culture, will they really adopt the more wasteful and improvident practices of the west or will they continue to follow their own culture?

The last British governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten said of China that for 18 of the previous 20 centuries it has been an inward looking and self-sufficient world power. So it is useful to ask with peace between China and Russia, how long will it be before northern China is developed for agricultural production? It is an area of grass-land ecology larger than western Canada and at the same latitude.

As ideas of women’s empowerment, education and local development spread, how big will the population bomb really be? India has already emerged as a major wheat producer and occasionally has significant volumes to export as well. What happens if the average Indian wheat farm follows the same productivity track western Canada has achieved for the last 30 years with public interest plant breeding?

Looking at the Canada West Foundation program of speakers what do we really have to learn from this bunch? The speakers so far are from private sector consulting and processing companies, or ideologically sympathetic governments. Will the New Zealand high commissioner tell us how to bypass the mountain ranges between us and the world market so we can export dairy products, or will he announce the end of their single-desk kiwi marketing board?

To quote their brochure, the keynote speaker is:

“The Hon. Gerry Ritz, Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s leading agricultural policy maker, Minister Ritz has industry knowledge acquired from running his own farming operation in Saskatchewan.”

Wasn’t he part of the generation that bought into the notions of fence line to fence line production, diversification, and value adding that precipitated the 1980s farm debt crisis in the west?

Western farmers would be well advised to take this new hype about getting rich because of global population growth with a large grain of salt. The only people certain to become rich out of all of this are the new middlemen Ottawa has inserted between western Canadian farmers and their former grain customers. The giant grain handlers, [ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/wp-content/uplo ... -Group.jpg ] processors, agro-chemical companies, and bankers who all hope a new generation of western farmers swallows this optimistic fluff and borrow money for new land and equipment from them are all looking to make money off farmers.

I normally have a bit of time for the Canada West Foundation. Among the various western Canadian think tanks it at least tries for impartiality and some academic rigor in its publications and these are usually worth reading.

However, the Canada West Foundation has now strayed deeply into academic fantasy land. Western farmers facing the theft of the seed genetics they have paid for with the passage of the UPOV 91 legislation [ http://www.nfu.ca/sites/www.nfu.ca/file ... 0%2791.pdf ] or the ongoing grain robbery [ http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2015/02/grain-c ... m-farmers/ ] showing up in their grain cheques have a more serious reality to deal with in the here and now.

Ken Larsen
Red Deer, AB
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:11 pm

National Farmers Union joins call for rail costing review and Maximum Revenue Entitlement adjustment

[ http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/nation ... adjustment ]

For Immediate Release April 2, 2015

(Saskatoon) - The National Farmers Union (NFU) has added its voice to the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Barley Development Commission, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission in calling for a full rail costing review and adjustment of the Maximum Revenue Entitlement according to the results of the report, Estimated Contributions Earned by Railways from Handling of Statutory Grains and Grain Products 2013/14, by John Edsforth of Travacon Research Limited.

“The last full rail costing review was done in 1992. The Maximum Revenue Entitlement, also called the Revenue Cap, is based on an estimate done in 2000-01. Back then there were 685 grain delivery points with 976 country elevators in Western Canada. Now there are only 272 grain delivery points and 342 country elevators,” said Jan Slomp, NFU President. “CN and CP’s costs have come down because they can run longer trains and make fewer stops, but they have not passed on their efficiency gains to farmers by reducing freight rates.“

“Farmers are paying more than their fair share of grain transportation costs,” said Matt Gehl, NFU Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Board member. “We are not just paying excessive freight rates. Delivery points are fewer and farther between, so farmers have to drive longer distances to deliver grain. That means higher costs for fuel, hiring or buying and maintaining bigger trucks and more time spent driving.” - 30 -

For more information:

Matt Gehl, Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Board member: (306) 216-6064
Jan Slomp, President: (403) 704-4364

- - - - -

Estimated Contributions Earned by Railways from Handling of Statutory Grains and Grain Products 2013/14, by John Edsforth
[ https://tinyurl.com/l7mhuky ]

The Maximum Revenue Entitlement – Myths and Facts by Quorum Corporation
[ http://grainmonitor.ca/Downloads/Papers ... ndMyth.pdf ]

Note: The Maximum Revenue Entitlement (MRE) provides a statutory limit on the amount CN and CP can increase the rates applied to the movement of regulated grain from western Canada to an export position in Western Canada. It applies currently to the rates and revenues earned by CN and CP, and affects all export shipments from western Canada handled through the west coast ports and Thunder Bay. Shipments destined to eastern Canadian domestic markets or to export positions are also eligible but must be routed through Thunder Bay (CP) or Armstrong (CN). Shipments through a west coast port for export to the U. S. for consumption are excluded. The revenue limits for CN and CP are based on an estimate of each carrier’s total tonnage, average length of haul, and revenues for the 2000-01 crop year. – from A Review of the Maximum Revenue Entitlement by Quorum Corporation
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:01 pm

Ritz locks farmers out, hands CWB keys to Bunge and Saudi king's fund

[ http://www.farms.com/commentaries/ritz- ... 90630.aspx ]

For Immediate Release April 15, 2015

“Today Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz announced that G3, a joint venture owned by two foreign corporations, Bunge and the Saudi investment company SALIC, is the beneficiary of CWB privatization. With this, the Conservative government has accomplished the biggest transfer of wealth away from farmers in the history of Canada,” said Jan Slomp, National Farmers Union (NFU) President. “The CWB’s physical assets, its commercial relationships, and its good name have all been given away. The “buyers” of the CWB actually get to keep the $250 million pittance they are “paying” for it. Bunge’s 2014 sales totalled $58 billion and multi-billion dollar SALIC is a subsidiary of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, PIF.”

“Where is the financial report or accountability? This is our money and taxpayer dollars,” said Ian Robson, NFU Board member from Manitoba. “The whole deal has been brokered in complete secrecy.”

The federal government has refused to release the CWB’s complete financial statements after dismantling the single desk, and has tabled only the non-financial portion of its annual report. It commissioned an audit of the CWB’s assets in the lead-up to privatization, and has refused to release the results. The new G3 entity is private and thus will not publish financial statements.

“Until August 1, 2012 farmers had full disclosure of the CWB’s financial position,” Robson continued. “The so-called marketing freedom and choice being offered today is a black box.”

Touted as an opportunity for farmers to own equity in the new company, a “Farmers Trust” will be set up to own 49.9% of the company. Individual farmers will be allocated $5 in equity per tonne of grain delivered. After seven years or when the reaches $250 million, G3 can buy it out. In effect, this is a sunset clause to terminate the farmers’ equity. The Trust will be managed by three appointed trustees, with one of them getting a Board seat. The farmers’ equity will not be shares in the company, but merely “units” in the trust fund. Farmers who participate will have zero control over this equity stake, nor will they have any say in how the company operates. The decision to terminate the Trust is entirely in G3’s hands.

“This $250 million “Farmer Trust” 49.9 percent equity gimmick is an insult,” said Doug Scott, NFU Board member from Alberta. “Since they destroyed the single desk, farmers have lost more than $7 billion dollars in less than 3 years. We had an elected Board of Directors at the CWB that managed the business in our interests and earned premium prices in the world market for all western grain farmers, year after year. Now, the Bunge-Saudi partnership plans to bribe us with our money just to get us to do business with them.”

“At least $170 million of public money was transferred to the CWB to promote its privatization, and Ritz claims – but will not provide evidence -- that the total taxpayer investment was around $300 million,” noted Slomp. “The federal government has turned over all of this value, on top of the tangible and intangible assets of the single-desk CWB, to the complete control of Bunge, an American multinational grain dealer and SALIC, a subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund, while farmers and the Canadian public have been locked out of all decision-making. This is not responsible, accountable, or transparent. This is not acceptable in a democracy.” - 30 -

For more information:

Jan Slomp, NFU President: (403) 704-4364 or (250) 898-8223

Ian Robson, NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Board member: (204) 858-2479

Matt Gehl, NFU Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Board member: (306) 216-6064

Doug Scott, NFU Region 7 (Alberta) Board member: (780) 650-1336
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:11 pm

NDP CALLS FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE ON WHEAT BOARD TRANSFER

[ http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-calls-emerge ... d-transfer ]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 17, 2015

OTTAWA – NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) has sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons calling for an emergency debate on the transfer of a majority stake in the former Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to foreign hands.

“It is unacceptable that the Conservatives dismissed a bid from Canadian farmers and chose a foreign-owned company instead,” said Martin. “An emergency debate is required in order to allow parliamentarians to address the substantial negative consequences this decision will have on western grain producers and the competitive marketing and transport of grain in Canada.”

This decision by the Conservatives will grant a majority stake in the former Canadian Wheat Board to a partnership between an American company and a wealth management fund for the Saudi Arabian government. Until it was dismantled by the Conservatives, the CWB pooled the selling power of multiple small farmers and handled transaction costs, playing a critical role in reducing risk and maximizing profits over the long run. – 30 –

For more information, please contact:

Heather Finn, Press Secretary, 613-355-9940 or
heather.finn@parl.gc.ca
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:11 am

SEVENTY-FIVE MINUTE DEBATE in SK Legislature: CWB sale to Saudi Arabia and Bunge

[ http://docs.legassembly.sk.ca/legdocs/L ... ebates.pdf ]

Cathy Sproule, NDP MLA Saskatoon-Nutana April 23, 2015 . . . Page 11

- - -

On Thursday: Ms. Sproule to move the following motion:

That this Assembly condemn the Sask. Party government for failing to stand up for Saskatchewan’s agricultural producers and for failing to protect Canadian interests by supporting the federal government’s giveaway of the former Canadian Wheat Board to a Saudi state-owned agricultural investment firm and an American agri-food giant.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:51 am

Support for single desk wasn’t ‘cooked up’

[ http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-o ... cooked-up/ ]

And farmers won’t control the voluntary CWB

By Allan Dawson, Reporter Published: April 24, 2015

In the heat of debate it’s easy to forget a fact or dismiss your opponent’s argument out of hand.

Perhaps that explains why Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz accused Lowe Farm farmer Dean Harder of citing a “cooked up” number when the two were sparring April 15 in Winnipeg over the privatization of CWB — the remnants of the old Canadian Wheat Board stripped of its monopoly marketing authority over western Canadian wheat and barley Aug. 1, 2012.

“Sixty-two per cent of western Canadian farmers wanted to keep the single-desk selling, so choice does matter,” Harder told Ritz. “And now we are not given the choice of control (of CWB) anymore.”

“That’s a number you cooked up,” Ritz said. “I don’t agree with that at all.”

But the number wasn’t “cooked up.” In the summer of 2011, the wheat board conducted its own plebiscite, when counter to the wheat board act, the government refused to do so.

Farmers were asked if they wanted to retain the single desk or replace it with an open market. More than 38,000 ballots (a 56 per cent return) were counted and 61.8 per cent of farmers voted to keep the single desk for wheat and 51.1 per cent voted to keep it for barley.

As much as Harder would like the single desk returned, his question to Ritz was about the soon-to-be sold CWB not having any farmer control.

“My point is, will you reconsider the ownership (in CWB) — farmers gaining majority ownership? Because that is a travesty — a major travesty,” Harder said.

“In your opinion it is, but you’re a very minor portion of farmers out there,” Ritz replied. He earlier stated all the “relevant” farm groups support the sale.

Ritz had earlier promised farmers could have an open market and a “strong and viable” voluntary board controlled by farmers.

Appearing before the House of Commons agriculture committee Nov. 2, 2011 Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was specifically asked if farmers would control a post-monopoly wheat board.

“Yes, they will elect their own board,” he replied. “After the interim period, where we control it as a government, yes, they will elect their own board should they decide to do that.

“So once we’re past that interim (period) absolutely farmers will run it.”

Last week’s deal reveals farmers can earn up to 49.9 per cent equity in the new CWB by delivering grain, but only one trustee overseeing that equity will serve on CWB’s seven-person board — and equity holders won’t be able to choose that representative. After seven years, CWB has the option to buy out the farmers’ equity trust. However, farmers have no ability to cash in their equity unless they retire from farming or die.

CWB also says the company’s financial report will not be made public, although some details will be shared with farmers in the equity trust. Nor will there be annual farmer accountability meetings like the wheat board used to have.

- - - -

Allan Dawson is a reporter with the Manitoba Co-operator based near Miami, Man. Covering agriculture since 1980, Dawson has spent most of his career with the Co-operator except for several years with Farmers’ Independent Weekly and before that a Morden-Winkler area radio station.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:17 am

RANCE: The farmers’ trust

[ URL? ]

by Laura Rance, Editor laura@fbcpublishing.com Manitoba Co-operator

DATE: ?

The farmers’ equity component is perhaps the most puzzling aspect of last week’s announcement that CWB has been sold.

We can see the advantages to the Harper government of getting the company off its books. Moving the western Canadian grain-marketing system to an open market was an election promise that came with baggage; the administration ideologically opposed to government intervention wound up owning and propping up an ittybitty grain company going head to navel with the private trade.

The fact that one of the partners in this new deal — the Saudi Agricultural Land and Livestock Investment Company (SALIC) — is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian government is too rich for words.

They have deep pockets and a vested interest in Canadian grain getting to export. The desert kingdom realized a few years ago the region doesn’t have enough water to produce all its own grain, so it’s been investing heavily overseas to secure supplies. Saudi Arabia imports more than nine million tonnes of barley a year, which may explain some of its interest in Canada.

We can see the benefits to Bunge Canada, the majority stakeholder in the newly formed Global Grain Group (G3) that will own 50.1 per cent of CWB when the deal closes in July. Bunge, already a player in export terminals and canola processing, gains a toehold in the Prairie grain-handling system and a source of wheat for its U.S. mills.

We can also see the advantages of bringing another competitive grain buyer onto the scene, especially one with international connections. But that said, CWB is breaking into a mature industry known for razor-thin margins. All the CWB export terminal capacity is in the East, putting it at a disadvantage in the larger market off the West Coast. With owned and planned country capacity of less than four per cent of the Prairie total, it’s got a tough road ahead.

CWB says it plans to continue delivering through other companies, but we don’t know how that’s going to work out. Does Wal-Mart carry President’s Choice products?

That brings us to the other “partner” in this deal — the farmers’ equity trust.

Farmers who deliver to CWB will be allocated $5 per tonne in equity in the partnership. That equity will be held in a trust for a minimum of seven years or until the trust, which owns 49.9 per cent of the company, is fully allocated.

After seven years, G3 has the option to buy out the farmers’ equity at fair market value. However, farmers don’t have the opportunity to dispose of it unless they retire or die.

There are some similarities to the patronage equity farmers once earned in the now-defunct grain co-ops. But there are also important differences:

• They don’t pay tax on their equity until and unless they make money from it;

• Although the farmers’ trust is overseen by three trustees, one of which will be appointed to CWB’s seven-member board of directors, there is no process for farmers to choose those trustees or influence the company direction.

“We want a trustee that is responsible, that has financial literacy, that understands the obligations of being a trustee and beyond that, we will determine who the trustees will be,” said an official during the technical briefing. Being a farmer isn’t on that list of criteria.

So even those who are philosophically in favour of owning a piece of the grain-handling pie have to step back and consider how much “ownership” and what value this proposition represents.

CWB says the $5 per tonne in equity is awarded at no cost to farmers. But will the new CWB be paying an “on-the-driveway” price that matches the competition’s plus the $5-pertonne equity, or minus? If the farmer is delivering into a pool, how does one know?

And how have those voluntary pools been performing anyway? That information has been deemed “commercially sensitive” and hasn’t been released. We suspect if they’d been wildly successful we’d be hearing about it.

Based on average total deliveries of 35 million tonnes a year and its current share of elevator capacity, CWB’s handle will be about 1.36 million tonnes annually for an equity allocation of $6.8 million. At that pace, it would take 36 years to build the farmers’ equity to 49.9 per cent or $250 million.

While some farmers have questioned why they could be forced to sell their equity stake after seven years, perhaps the more relevant question is how long might they be forced to hold on to it? At least with Air Miles you can go on a holiday.

All of the platitudes about “exciting opportunities” aside, getting rid of the single-desk monopoly wasn’t about giving western Canadian farmers another grain company. It was about giving them marketing freedom. In that spirit, we expect they’ll be voting on this proposition with their trucks.

laura@fbcpublishing.com
Laura Rance, Editor
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Thu May 07, 2015 7:13 pm

NFU warns of Bill C-48’s effect on feed mill licensing, low-protein wheat class proposals

[ http://www.nfu.ca/story/nfu-warns-bill- ... -proposals ]

For Immediate Release May 7, 2015

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, introduced on December 9, 2014, would make significant changes to how the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) operates, change the CGC’s mandate and eliminate the CGC’s duty to report to Parliament annually. The National Farmers Union has taken an in-depth look at this Bill, and has also considered its effect on proposed changes to feed mill licensing and a proposed new low-protein milling wheat class, which were the topics of recent CGC public consultations.

“Bill C-48 would stop the Canadian Grain Commission from carrying out its work in the interests of grain farmers, it would allow government to end the bond security system that now pays farmers if a licensed grain company defaults and it would create room for political interference with Standards Committee appointments, a critical component of grain grading system,” said Terry Boehm, Chair of the NFU Seed and Trade Committee. “In addition, C-48 would require imported grain to be given best possible Canadian grade and it would provide government with increased powers that can be used to enforce Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBRs) on behalf of seed companies.”

“The NFU is generally supportive of the licensing commercial feed mills – and not mills owned by farmer co-operatives and on-farm feed mills – but when you think about what would happen if Bill C-48 becomes law, it makes the question more complex,” said Ian Robson, NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Coordinator. “The government-run insurance-based producer payment protection system that Bill C-48 introduces would be much less reliable than today’s bond system. If Bill C-48 is passed, farmers will get a lot less benefit from commercial feed mill licensing.”

“By letting them refuse grain from unregistered varieties, Bill C-48 would also create the potential for feed mills to limit farmers’ range of choice for seed varieties used to grow feed, which of course would lead to higher farm costs for seed,” added Boehm. “By changing the mandate of the CGC to acting ‘in the interests of Canadians and grain producers,’ Bill C-48 removes the CGC’s obligation to protect farmers’ interests when they conflict with the interests of corporations, such as vertically-integrated livestock operations that own feed mills and multinational seed companies selling newer PBR-protected varieties. Thus the net benefit to farmers of licensing commercial feed mills is diminished, if not eliminated, by Bill C-48.”

The proposed addition of a lower-protein milling wheat class would have a negative impact on farmers, consumers, public wheat breeders and Canada’s reputation in export markets. The NFU is satisfied with the current wheat class framework and believes recent problems with gluten strength in some varieties can be solved in other ways. Even without Bill C-48, the benefits of adding a new low-protein milling wheat class would flow primarily to United States-based multinational grain companies, as they could increase their sales of low-protein wheat to existing customers, and to seed corporations that would obtain a larger market for wheat varieties developed for the American market.

“Canada’s comparative advantage in wheat exports has been quality, namely high protein levels. The proposed new milling wheat class is similar to American Dark Northern Spring Wheat, which means it would be harder to differentiate Canadian wheat from US wheat in export markets,” noted Doug Scott, NFU Region 7 (Alberta) Coordinator. “Bill C-48 would not only allow, but actually require, imported grain to be graded with the highest possible Canadian grade. This would allow grain produced on our farms to be mixed with grain coming in from south of the border, which would further undermine Canada’s reputation in our export markets.”

Canada’s deserved reputation for quality wheat was created, built and maintained by farmers producing and delivering the grain, along with institutions such as the CGC, CIGI and the single-desk CWB that supported and safeguarded the quality of wheat delivered to customers. The proposed new lower-protein milling wheat class would lead to farmers shifting away from high-protein towards high-yield production. Higher volumes would result in higher on-farm storage costs, increased trucking and higher local taxes for road maintenance. If a new lower-protein milling wheat class is created, Canada’s comparative advantage will be eroded and Canadian farmers will be forced into a downward spiral, competing for market share on price alone. - 30 -

For more information:

Terry Boehm, Chair, NFU Seed and Trade Committee: (306) 255-7638 or (306) 255-2880

Ian Robson, Region 5 (Manitoba) Board member: (204) 858-2479

Doug Scott, Region 7 (Alberta) Board member: (780) 650-1336 or (780) 358-2376


Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act - Key Points
[ http://www.nfu.ca/policy/bill-c-48-act- ... key-points ]

Submission to CGC on Licensing of Feed Mills
[ http://www.nfu.ca/policy/submission-cgc ... feed-mills ]

NFU Submission to CGC Consultation on Canadian Wheat Class Modernization

[ http://www.nfu.ca/policy/nfu-submission ... ernization ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper

Postby Oscar » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:04 pm

Media Release - August 27, 2015 NFU Denounces Lethbridge “Libricide”

[ http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?u=09 ... 5d89e24d0f ]

August 27, 2015

Publically funded research and development is once again under attack with the trashing of the library at the Lethbridge Agriculture Canada Research Station. This is just the latest in a long line of government libraries where collections were tossed into dumpsters, burned or went to landfills.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) denounces the destruction of publically funded science research and knowledge. “You know destroying history is wrong. But that is what the Harper government is doing when they destroy these public institutions” said Ian Robson, NFU Board member from Manitoba. “How much – if any – of the information was saved in an electronic format, as the government claims?”

Anecdotal reports of declining requests for library material do not excuse the wholesale destruction of irreplaceable documents. The money saved by closing these institutions is paltry at best, and pales in comparison to the value of research now lost to future generations.

Jan Slomp, National Farmers Union (NFU) President, points out “When these libraries are closed, facts and knowledge are destroyed. If we eliminate facts and knowledge, what are we left with other than ideology and fiction?”

These libraries are, in fact, being closed and their collections destroyed. There has been little or no attempt at keeping records or attempting to preserve material at universities. Shutting down the Lethbridge agriculture research library is yet another attack on Canada’s internationally-respected research community.

For more information on research-related programs and public institutions that have been ended or dismantled, see "Turning off the lights in Canada” in the NFU Newsletter, May-June 2013. - 30 -

For more information:

Jan Slomp, NFU President: (403) 704-4364 or (250) 898-8223
Ian Robson, NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Board member: (204) 858-2479

See also:

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada’s media release:

[ http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/ ... ews/082115 \

"Turning off the lights in Canada” in NFU Newsletter, May-June 2013
[ http://www.nfu.ca/story/union-farmer-ne ... -june-2013 ]


Website: http://www.nfu.ca
Telephone: 306-652-9465
Email: nfu@nfu.ca
Mailing address:
2717 Wentz Ave., Saskatoon, SK S7K 4B6
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

PreviousNext

Return to CLEAN FOOD . . .

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron