KURTENBACH: Harper, Ritz, and the CWB
June 18, 2011
To the Editor,
A majority of the producers of wheat and barley in the Canadian Wheat Board [CWB] area and probably many other Canadians may be puzzled why our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and his trusty CWB minister, Gerry Ritz, are so gung- ho to render the CWB meaningless.
Now, with thanks to the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, affinity between Harper and American political conservatism has been revealed in a fairly long excerpted statement by former U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.
He suggested Harper would be useful in advancing the U.S. agenda for Canada and that giving him a "success story", like the softwood lumber deal, would "shore up" Harper's ability to stay in office without appearing to "sell out to the Americans."
Wilkens also stated that, "Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who, along with many members of his caucus, has an ideological and cultural affinity for America."
On another issue, Wilkins stated, "Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force;" and also added, "keeping Canada in the game [my underline] in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; . . ."
Why would we Canadians want to align ourselves to the greatest military power on Earth which seems to believe that bombs and bullets are the way to make the kind of peace they want? And would use Canada to do so.
It is now easier to understand why Harper's Conservatives are determined to gut the CWB and turn over producer control of wheat and barley to American multinational grain traders.
The loss of this distinctly Canadian organization, the CWB, with its international reputation for grain sales, will be a serious loss for all Canadians. There will be job losses for CWB employees and other related businesses. The extra earnings that the CWB has garnered for producers of wheat and barley for many years will be siphoned off to foreign corporate shareholders, out of the Canadian economy.
We all know that the first duty of corporations is to get the highest return possible for its shareholders.
Leo Kurtenbach,
Saskatoon, SK
Phone: (306) 652 5129
= = = = = = =
Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/
us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.
By Lee Berthiaume Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM
A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings. [ . . . ]
= = = = = = =
CWBA sympathetic to lack of Conservative Agricultural talent facing the Prime Minister
NEWS RELEASE Canadian Wheat Board Alliance May 9, 2011
www.cwbafacts.ca
(Regina) Many western farmers feel some sympathy for the dilemma Prime Minister Harper faces appointing a new agriculture Minister. Although his caucus has several rural members, few of them are successful farmers.
Just before the Federal election farmers voted to give 80% of the Wheat Board directors’ seats to farmers who support the single desk. In response Prime Minister Harper’s Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said the Board’s future was up to farmers. Now, just days after the Federal election Canadian Press is reporting former Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz is contradicting his earlier statement by saying he will now remove the single desk whether the Wheat Board’s farmer elected Directors like it or not.
“Former Minister Ritz needs to remember that farmers are only 2% of the population and are spread over 57 western ridings, so claiming the Conservative Party has a mandate from farmers to change the Canadian Wheat Board is not credible” noted Bill Gehl, chairperson of the CWB Alliance, a group of farmers who support the Wheat Board.
Gehl observed: “virtually every academic study and trade inquiry has shown that the Wheat Board increases the farm gate price of grain. It should be obvious to anyone who can run a calculator that is why farmers have consistently supported the Wheat Board’s single desk.”
“We are calling on Prime Minister Harper to appoint an agriculture minister who understands the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk to western Canadian farmers and who will respect farmers’ rights to democratically chose their marketing system through the elections to the Board of Directors of the Wheat Board” concluded Mr. Gehl. --30--
For further information call Bill Gehl at 306-543-7875.
Or, log on to
www.cwbafacts.ca
Who We Are
The Alliance is a politically non-partisan organization focused specifically on the Canadian Wheat Board. Members of the Alliance recognize the advantages the Board brings to producers through the single desk and price pooling, quality assurance through the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), as well as the important role the CWB plays as an advocate for farmers in transportation, producer cars, and on the world stage in trade disputes and negotiations. The Alliance draws memberships throughout the west.
= = = = = =
NFU - CWB petition
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
June 13, 2011 2:49 PM
The Government of Manitoba has begun a campaign to oppose the federal government’s plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk. The campaign includes a petition that supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB.
The petition preamble reads as follows:
Whereas the federal government's unilateral move to end the current Canadian Wheat Board would jeopardize returns to farmers, over 2,000 Manitoba jobs, an internationally recognized head office in Winnipeg, and the Port of Churchill, I support the right of farmers to decide the future of their grain marketing agency.
Here’s the link to the petition:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
Please pass this message on. It is important that as many people sign the petition as possible.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wipf
NFU Executive Director
= = = = = = = = =
NFU SUPPORTS MANITOBA GOVERNMENT’S STAND ON CWB
http://www.nfu.ca/press_releases/2011/06-15.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 15th, 2011
Saskatoon, Sask. – The National Farmers Union (NFU) is expressing its support for the Manitoba Government’s campaign against the federal government’s plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) single desk. On Monday morning, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger launched the campaign at the CWB’s head office in Winnipeg by stating that a farmer plebiscite is necessary before any changes to the CWB are considered. “The NFU supports the stand that the Government of Manitoba is taking against the federal government’s plans to remove the CWB’s single desk. The NFU calls on the federal government to hold a plebiscite on the matter where western wheat and barley farmers can vote on the issue as reasonably laid out in the CWB Act,” stated Boehm.
During the press conference, Selinger also drew attention to the economic benefits that the CWB generates for all Manitobans, including the fact that the CWB posted $5.2 billion in revenues last year and that over 2000 jobs in Manitoba are directly or indirectly linked to the CWB’s operations. “This is a very serious issue for the entire Province of Manitoba, as well as all Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers, and beyond. The CWB puts $1.5 billion extra into farmers’ pockets each and every year. If the single desk is removed, this wealth will be going straight into the pockets of the big grain companies and railroads,” stated NFU President Terry Boehm.
“The CWB generates these benefits at very low cost to the farmer. Estimates peg the total cost of the CWB’s operations at just 9 cents per bushel. By the way, those 9 cents are recovered by the CWB in foreign exchange transactions and favourable borrowing terms that this large entity is able to obtain for farmers. There’s no question that the CWB is extremely efficient. A lot of talented people work there who are able to devote themselves entirely to finding the best prices for our grain. The CWB has played a very large role in making Canada a powerhouse in the global wheat and barley markets,” stated NFU Region 5 Coordinator Ian Robson.
The CWB also plays a very significant role in transportation and grain handling, which enables it to ensure overall efficiency of the grain transportation system and advocate for the interests of farmers. This is crucial because Prairie grain farmers are further from tide water than any global competitor, and railway charges are a grain farmer’s highest cost. Given that the CWB directs grain movement from country elevators to ports it can ensure that producer cars and short line railways are utilized, and that the two big railway companies, CP and CN, are challenged when they have provided poor service or imposed unfair costs on farmers.
“The CWB has been active in pushing for a costing review. It’s clear that the railways are overcharging farmers for shipping their grain, to the tune of $200 million per year. How are farmers going to effectively challenge the railways without the CWB?” stated NFU Board Member Doug Scott.
“The federal government is completely ignoring the fact that the CWB belongs to farmers. We pay for it, and we make the decisions about its operations and the future of the single desk. The federal government is being highly undemocratic by trying to run roughshod over the rights of farmers like this,” said NFU Region 6 Coordinator Ed Sagan.
“We encourage all farmers and citizens to fill out the on-line petition prepared by the Government of Manitoba, which supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB,” stated Boehm. - 30 –
The on-line petition is located at:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
For further information, please contact:
Terry Boehm NFU President (306) 255-2880
Ian Robson NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Coordinator (204) 858-2479
Edward Sagan NFU Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Coordinator (306) 728-3760
Doug Scott NFU Region 7 (Alberta) Board Member (780) 358-2376
Kevin Wipf NFU Executive Director (306) 652-9465
= = = = = = = = =
Wheat board's going... now what?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
business/wheat-boards-going-now-what-121432864.html
Monopoly did much more for farmers than just sell their grain for them
By: Laura Rance
The allure of the U.S. market has perhaps been the biggest driver in the campaign to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.
But unless they tread lightly, it could be one of the first markets Canadian farmers lose after the federal Conservatives make good on their election promise.
Southern Prairie farmers have fumed for years over the difference between U.S. spot market prices and the CWB pool prices, which are an average of sales made to customers in 70 or so countries throughout the year.
As things are now, farmers can't legally haul to a U.S. elevator. They must sell their wheat through the board, which does the marketing direct to U.S. processors as it does with customers elsewhere. Farmers have the option of buying their grain back from the pool and then selling into the United States, but most find doing the paperwork too bothersome.
U.S. exports, currently at two million tonnes for wheat and durum and 600,000 tonnes for malting barley, are about one-tenth of Canada's total sales. Not surprisingly, spot prices on a given day are often higher than average prices from all sales to all customers over a year.
Many farmers think that if freed of the pooling system, they could simply sell everything to the United States. In an open market, they would be free to try.
Here's the catch. Long lines of Canadian grain trucks at northern U.S. grain elevators will be about as welcome as a snowstorm in May -- especially if those deliveries plug up the pipeline or have an effect on prices, either real or perceived. Just ask softwood lumber, cattle and hog producers. A trade backlash that makes crossing the border prohibitively expensive is almost inevitable.
The Canadian Wheat Board has spent nearly $18 million fighting 14 trade cases with the United States since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, which supposedly secured Canadian access. Under a voluntary CWB, the task of taking on U.S. trade law will fall to commodity groups and taxpayers through federal and provincial governments.
The unfortunate reality about the so-called "Canadian Wheat Board debate" is that virtually all of the rhetoric has centred on the merits of the single desk. The often-bitter arguments have waffled between the economics, whether farmers do better by pooling their grain and sharing the average proceeds, and the philosophical, whether private entrepreneurs should be forced to market collectively.
Very little discussion has taken place over the board's other roles and who will step into them once the board no longer represents all wheat, durum and barley growers. Many assume a voluntary board will continue to carry out the same market development, research and customer-service functions, but with little consideration as to how it would do that, or why.
Farmers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, are the biggest private-sector investors in wheat and barley research in Canada. They pay a checkoff on sales that raises about $6 million annually for varietal development through the Western Grains Research Foundation.
That will change, perhaps even disappear, under a voluntary board. Why would remaining board supporters continue to shoulder the costs of research that also benefits their competition in an open market?
The Canadian Wheat Board is one of the founders and major clients of the Canadian International Grains Institute (CIGI), which offers technical support and training to Canada's customers. Other commodities and other countries have market development agencies too, such as the largely government-funded U.S. Wheat Associates. But while it travels the world cheerleading for U.S. wheat, it has no direct relationship with customers.
The Canadian approach for wheat, durum and barley is customer specific and unparalleled. It has played a key role in branding Canadian wheat as the best in the world. And it's cheap, costing about half of one per cent of the CWB's total sales.
If CIGI, which is financed through matching contributions from industry and government, loses the CWB's contribution, it loses 60 per cent of its funding. Who fills the gap and how?
For as long as it exists, a voluntary board will only be working for the farmers who continue to use it. With no physical assets, its access to capital will be limited. So will its ability to provide initial payments in pool accounts. It's not reasonable for the federal government to continue guaranteeing initial prices, because the board will be in direct competition with private trade. This has implications, not only for farmers but for its 400 employees, and downtown Winnipeg.
The debate over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board ended May 2. Farmers will be freed from single-desk selling. But ending the monopoly is the easy part. It's what comes afterwards that gets complicated.
Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator.
She can be reached at 792--4382 or by email:
laura@fbcpublishing.com.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 7, 2011 B6
= = = = = = = =
WikiLeaks : US bid to "shore up" Harper from the day he was elected
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/
2011/06/wikileaks-us-bid-to-shore-up-harper.html
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
An embassy cable written by US Ambassador David Wilkins the day the Cons were first elected in 2006.
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/
us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
suggests Harper would be useful in advancing the US agenda for Canada and that giving him " a success story" like the softwood lumber deal would "shore up" his ability to stay in office without appearing to "sell out to the Americans".
It's pretty well a quid pro quo blueprint for every Canada-US initiative Harper has dutifully followed ever since.
Excerpted :
The election of a new government, after thirteen years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing U.S. interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe.
Significantly, the socially liberal core values of the opposition are more in line with most Canadians than the minority Conservatives, weakening their mandate even further. Given a relatively weak mandate and tenuous hold on power, Harper will move deliberately but cautiously to get a few successes under his belt before doing anything even remotely bold.
Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America. But as he has done already with many of his core social and fiscal values, he will simply have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as "selling out to the Americans" to a skeptical Canadian public. I know Harper will be warm and cordial in his dealings with the U.S., but he also has to demonstrate that he has the ability to advance Canada's interests with Washington, and he may feel compelled to step back from gestures that could be construed as a close embrace.
That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government. I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil's Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.
Another area where the new government will seek engagement will undoubtedly be border security. Finding a few high-profile SPP-type deliverables to improve cross border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper's credentials. Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts.
Enhanced info sharing on Canadians, the shiprider program, the imported war on drugs.
On other issues, Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force; we have little to contribute to this debate and should stay out of it. He has also suggested that the missile defense decision could be re-examined.
With regards to our transformational agenda, there will be numerous opportunities for engagement. However, I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas -- keeping Canada in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.
And right about now I'm guessing you're remembering some of Harper's more bizarre outbursts on Iran,
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/
2006/07/matter-of-judgment.html
his caginess about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and Canada's new "leadership role in Haiti"
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/
2010/01/haiti-its-security-circus-now.html
where DFAIT is buying up property to house an infusion of Canadian officials.
Back to Wilkins' cable :
"We're going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.
I look forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda."
Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, enhanced information sharing, war on drugs, joint maritime operations, security perimeter ... There's also a section on Canada "engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba."
Has Canada done anything independent of this cable under Harper?
David Emerson, who crossed the floor to the Cons to implement the soft wood lumber deal a week after he was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver, is mentioned in a second Wilkins cable
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/
cable.php?id=06OTTAWA2837
just after the deal was signed with USTR Ambassador Susan Schwab eight months later.
http://www.fmc-law.com/upload/en/publications/
2007/z_AckahE_An_Examination_of_ITAR_July2007.pdf
Here they are quoted discussing International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a US law which proscribes Canadian dual nationals from some countries from work on the arms deals that comprise 40% of Canadian defense procurement from the US, and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:
"It would be better, she continued, if we could look at issues as if there were a common border surrounding Canada and the U.S., rather than as an issue caused by the Canadian-U.S. border. Emerson agreed. He said that policies such as the WHTI are a "running sore" in the bilateral relationship and are inconsistent with policies to integrate the Canadian and U.S. economies to the maximum extent possible."
So, again, Steve, we ask: How's that US security perimeter deal with Barry coming along?
= = = = = = = =
Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/
us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.
By Lee Berthiaume Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM
A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings.
In addition, the document shows that even before it was elected, American officials were planning on how they could use a Harper government to advance their own agenda on law enforcement, border security and co-operation in the hemisphere. The cable lays out a number of potential policies and areas of co-operation—most of which have since come to pass.
The document from the US Embassy in Ottawa is dated Jan. 23, 2006, hours before Paul Martin’s Liberals were defeated by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, giving the latter their first minority government.
"The election of a new government, after 13 years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing US interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe," reads the cable from then-US ambassador David Wilkins.
It does go to pains to note the weak position the Harper government would be in, not just because of its minority status, but also because most Canadians were more socially liberal than the Conservative government.
In addition, "relations with the US will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America," Mr. Wilkins wrote. The new prime minister would "have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as ‘selling out to the Americans’ to a skeptical Canadian public."
"That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government," Mr. Wilkins wrote. "I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil's Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk."
Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.
However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.
A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion. The Bloc Québécois ended up supporting it to avoid an election, and the BC government also eventually signed on after a number of amendments.
Looked forward to helping ‘connect the dots’ for Harper
While resolving the softwood lumber dispute may not have provided the success story US and Canadian officials had been hoping for, many of the other items identified by Mr. Wilkins as being on the US "agenda" continued moving ahead.
The ambassador said the new Harper government would seek engagement on border security, and he recommended "finding a few high-profile [Security and Prosperity Partnership]-type deliverables to improve cross-border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper's credentials."
Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts," Mr. Wilkins concluded.
At the SPP meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, leaders agreed to a number of initiatives, such as the creation of a powerful advisory group composed of the continent’s largest businesses, a cross-border emergency and disaster management agreement, and a commitment to improving security at the border without making trade more difficult. Then in May 2006, Congress approved an 18-month delay in implementation of visa requirements for cross-border land and sea travellers.
While the significance of each of these possible "deliverables" is debatable, it is clear that many of the other areas identified as US priorities were nonetheless acted upon. Canada and the US have since significantly increased information sharing in a variety of ways. They have also made joint maritime operations a common activity on the border, starting with the Great Lakes and Operation Shiprider, and they have worked more closely on fighting drug trafficking, both along the border and in the hemisphere. This has included tougher laws and sentences for drug offenders.
Not all of the issues of interest to American officials were bilateral. Mr. Wilkins, who at one point said he was looking forward to "forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda," wrote that there were a number of other areas where the US could lead Canada.
"I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas," Mr. Wilkins wrote. "We're going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners."
Some of the priority areas identified by the ambassador included working to keep Canada "in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there."
One of the government’s first decisions was to extend the Afghan mission to 2008, while it has taken lead role in censuring Iran on the international stage and, in summer 2006, made Canada the second largest donor to Haiti.
Again, the degree to which the decisions, particularly on Afghanistan and Iran were influenced by US officials is unclear, as many of them fell squarely in line with the Harper government’s views and priorities. However, Mr. Wilkins also suggested getting Canada to begin "engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba."
In 2007, the Harper government made the Americas one of its first international priorities, a major and surprising shift in Canadian foreign policy after decades of work in Africa. Among the positions adopted included cooler relations with the Venezuela and even Cuba, and stalwart economic, development and political support for Colombia—all of which reflect US policies.
While there have long been indications of behind-the-scenes Canadian-American co-ordination when it came to the hemisphere, this is the first indication that the US may have been responsible for the Conservative government making Latin America and the Caribbean a priority.
lee@embassymag.ca[/b]
KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper
50 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
KILLING THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD: Harper
by Oscar » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:41 am
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:43 pm, edited 12 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
NEUFELD: Letter to the Editor
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:59 pm
Letter to the Editor by Joyce Neufeld
7/27/2011
The Editor
Once again, Cypress Hills-Grasslands M.P. David Anderson is promoting his Government’s plans to kill the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) without a producer vote (how’s that for freedom). As in most of his rants, Anderson aims his guns at Stewart Wells and the Organic producers and what he refers to as “the outrageous buy-back”. If Anderson would study the Producer Direct Sales option of the CWB, he would find out the true facts.
When conducting a PDS, the CWB quotes what it is getting for a similar product in a particular market on a given day (known as the cash price). Farmers then pay this cash price to the CWB pool. The CWB will then pay the farmer the initial payment, and over time, will pay the total value of the grain received by all farmers in the pool. The result of this transaction means farmers can earn the pool price, plus the additional premium they are able to negotiate with a buyer.
The PDS provides farmers with the opportunity to take advantage of marketing opportunities that they identify on their own, without undercutting each other and destroying the power of the single desk. Plus, the CWB will assist with the paperwork.
As far as the Conservative mandate goes, only 24.33% (using Anderson’s own formula) of eligible voters voted for the Conservative government.
As a marketer, in transportation, and as an advocate for farmers, the CWB puts over $800 million in additional money in farmers’ pockets. That’s $11.00 every year on every acre of western Canadian cropland. The CWB provides numerous benefits to farmers, from premium prices in world markets to helping retain effective access to producer cars.
Without the CWB what happens to the Port of Churchill which gets 95% of its port business from the CWB. In 2010 the CWB shipped over 600,000 tonnes of western Canadian wheat through this Port saving farmers thousands of dollars in transportation costs. Grain shipped through the Port of Churchill is drawn primarily from northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba.
Farmers now have the opportunity to exercise their CHOICE of their support for the single desk CWB in the current CWB vote. Please return you ballots. Don’t let Harper, Ritz & Anderson infringe on your FREEDOM!!
Joyce Neufeld
Waldeck, Sask.
306-778-2218
7/27/2011
The Editor
Once again, Cypress Hills-Grasslands M.P. David Anderson is promoting his Government’s plans to kill the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) without a producer vote (how’s that for freedom). As in most of his rants, Anderson aims his guns at Stewart Wells and the Organic producers and what he refers to as “the outrageous buy-back”. If Anderson would study the Producer Direct Sales option of the CWB, he would find out the true facts.
When conducting a PDS, the CWB quotes what it is getting for a similar product in a particular market on a given day (known as the cash price). Farmers then pay this cash price to the CWB pool. The CWB will then pay the farmer the initial payment, and over time, will pay the total value of the grain received by all farmers in the pool. The result of this transaction means farmers can earn the pool price, plus the additional premium they are able to negotiate with a buyer.
The PDS provides farmers with the opportunity to take advantage of marketing opportunities that they identify on their own, without undercutting each other and destroying the power of the single desk. Plus, the CWB will assist with the paperwork.
As far as the Conservative mandate goes, only 24.33% (using Anderson’s own formula) of eligible voters voted for the Conservative government.
As a marketer, in transportation, and as an advocate for farmers, the CWB puts over $800 million in additional money in farmers’ pockets. That’s $11.00 every year on every acre of western Canadian cropland. The CWB provides numerous benefits to farmers, from premium prices in world markets to helping retain effective access to producer cars.
Without the CWB what happens to the Port of Churchill which gets 95% of its port business from the CWB. In 2010 the CWB shipped over 600,000 tonnes of western Canadian wheat through this Port saving farmers thousands of dollars in transportation costs. Grain shipped through the Port of Churchill is drawn primarily from northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba.
Farmers now have the opportunity to exercise their CHOICE of their support for the single desk CWB in the current CWB vote. Please return you ballots. Don’t let Harper, Ritz & Anderson infringe on your FREEDOM!!
Joyce Neufeld
Waldeck, Sask.
306-778-2218
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Paul Beingessner's column on producers cars, shortlines and
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:01 pm
Paul Beingessner's column on producers cars, shortlines and the CWB
This column was written by the late Paul Beingessner in 2008. The relationship between the CWB’s single desk authority and the survival of producer car option and the short line railways are not necessarily well understood by everyone. Now that farmers are in a position to vote on the single desk for wheat and barley in the CWB’s plebiscite, it is a good time to review Paul’s insightful article.
Column # 693 Lies Someone Told Me 03/11/08
Of all the lies told about the future of the CWB if it loses its monopoly, one of the biggest is the idea that producer cars and short line railways will somehow survive this sea change. They won't. At least not the ones in Saskatchewan, which is home to all the short lines that exist on grain dependent branch lines. There are, in fact, seven of these. They are the Great Western Rail, Southern Rails Cooperative, Red Coat Road and Rail, Fife Lake Railway, Wheatland Railway, Thunder Rail, and Torch River Rail.
Other short lines on grain dependent branch lines operated for a time in Manitoba and Alberta, but eventually failed. The striking difference was the fact that the railways that failed in Saskatchewan's sister provinces were owned by private investors. The seven short lines in Saskatchewan are all community owned. And, while they do move other traffic, all are heavily dependent on producer cars for the majority of their traffic.
The short lines in Saskatchewan started life as attempts to retain grain handling options for farmers. They were seen as means to an end. Maintaining the railway would not only allow farmers the option of loading producer cars, it would also allow for the possibility of other economic development initiatives in the community. Alberta's and Manitoba's grain dependent short lines were started and owned by private investors wanting to make a buck. Without a substantial grain elevator presence, which the short lines do not have, there is no buck to be made owning a grain dependent short line.
There may be, however, survival, if the short line attracts enough producer cars and other traffic to pay the bills and maintain the track. While it has been a tough business, the older short lines, Southern Rails, Red Coat and Great Western, have been able to do just that. They have also succeeded to some extent in the economic development game. Red Coat garnered a rail car repair facility, Southern Rails gained a pulse processor, and Great Western operates its neighbouring short lines - Red Coat and Fife Lake. The latter has a kaolin mine.
But producer cars remain critical to their survival, and survival is a year-to-year thing. Producer cars themselves depend entirely on the CWB. Ten or twelve thousand producer cars of CWB grains move each year, mostly from short lines. Though farmers grow millions of tonnes of canola, peas, flax and lentils in Saskatchewan, virtually none of these move in producer cars. Nor will they, since the grain companies that control these crops don't want to lose the lucrative handling charges they make by moving them through their country elevators.
With the CWB, producer cars work for two reasons. One is price pooling. Price pooling works because the CWB has a monopoly over export sales of wheat and barley. Its overwhelming position in the market means it makes sales year round, into all available markets. This allows farmers to have confidence in a pooled price. Without the single desk, the CWB's dominance disappears, as it has to rely on its competitors to handle grain for it both inland and at port. Its sales would be limited and price pooling would be a scary prospect for farmers who wouldn't know how large or small the pool might turn out to be.
The second reason producer cars work now is the CWB's ability to take part in the railways' car ordering systems. Small blocks of cars have a low priority for the railways, but the CWB's size gives it flexibility to allocate cars to producers. Without the CWB, a farmer wanting to load his own car could still get one, if he could find a terminal that would take his grain and allow him the advantage producer cars currently allow (not something they do now). But he would get that car at the railway's leisure. This is not a happy prospect for someone selling into a spot market that needs timely delivery.
Without a dominant CWB, producer cars might exist in theory. Their practical use would be almost non-existent. And without virtually all the producer cars they now obtain, short lines would rapidly fail. Their debts and high track maintenance costs would ensure this. And with them would go other community investments on their tracks and any future economic prospects that depend on rail. That, sadly, is an economic certainty.
© Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734
beingessner@sasktel.net
This column was written by the late Paul Beingessner in 2008. The relationship between the CWB’s single desk authority and the survival of producer car option and the short line railways are not necessarily well understood by everyone. Now that farmers are in a position to vote on the single desk for wheat and barley in the CWB’s plebiscite, it is a good time to review Paul’s insightful article.
Column # 693 Lies Someone Told Me 03/11/08
Of all the lies told about the future of the CWB if it loses its monopoly, one of the biggest is the idea that producer cars and short line railways will somehow survive this sea change. They won't. At least not the ones in Saskatchewan, which is home to all the short lines that exist on grain dependent branch lines. There are, in fact, seven of these. They are the Great Western Rail, Southern Rails Cooperative, Red Coat Road and Rail, Fife Lake Railway, Wheatland Railway, Thunder Rail, and Torch River Rail.
Other short lines on grain dependent branch lines operated for a time in Manitoba and Alberta, but eventually failed. The striking difference was the fact that the railways that failed in Saskatchewan's sister provinces were owned by private investors. The seven short lines in Saskatchewan are all community owned. And, while they do move other traffic, all are heavily dependent on producer cars for the majority of their traffic.
The short lines in Saskatchewan started life as attempts to retain grain handling options for farmers. They were seen as means to an end. Maintaining the railway would not only allow farmers the option of loading producer cars, it would also allow for the possibility of other economic development initiatives in the community. Alberta's and Manitoba's grain dependent short lines were started and owned by private investors wanting to make a buck. Without a substantial grain elevator presence, which the short lines do not have, there is no buck to be made owning a grain dependent short line.
There may be, however, survival, if the short line attracts enough producer cars and other traffic to pay the bills and maintain the track. While it has been a tough business, the older short lines, Southern Rails, Red Coat and Great Western, have been able to do just that. They have also succeeded to some extent in the economic development game. Red Coat garnered a rail car repair facility, Southern Rails gained a pulse processor, and Great Western operates its neighbouring short lines - Red Coat and Fife Lake. The latter has a kaolin mine.
But producer cars remain critical to their survival, and survival is a year-to-year thing. Producer cars themselves depend entirely on the CWB. Ten or twelve thousand producer cars of CWB grains move each year, mostly from short lines. Though farmers grow millions of tonnes of canola, peas, flax and lentils in Saskatchewan, virtually none of these move in producer cars. Nor will they, since the grain companies that control these crops don't want to lose the lucrative handling charges they make by moving them through their country elevators.
With the CWB, producer cars work for two reasons. One is price pooling. Price pooling works because the CWB has a monopoly over export sales of wheat and barley. Its overwhelming position in the market means it makes sales year round, into all available markets. This allows farmers to have confidence in a pooled price. Without the single desk, the CWB's dominance disappears, as it has to rely on its competitors to handle grain for it both inland and at port. Its sales would be limited and price pooling would be a scary prospect for farmers who wouldn't know how large or small the pool might turn out to be.
The second reason producer cars work now is the CWB's ability to take part in the railways' car ordering systems. Small blocks of cars have a low priority for the railways, but the CWB's size gives it flexibility to allocate cars to producers. Without the CWB, a farmer wanting to load his own car could still get one, if he could find a terminal that would take his grain and allow him the advantage producer cars currently allow (not something they do now). But he would get that car at the railway's leisure. This is not a happy prospect for someone selling into a spot market that needs timely delivery.
Without a dominant CWB, producer cars might exist in theory. Their practical use would be almost non-existent. And without virtually all the producer cars they now obtain, short lines would rapidly fail. Their debts and high track maintenance costs would ensure this. And with them would go other community investments on their tracks and any future economic prospects that depend on rail. That, sadly, is an economic certainty.
© Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734
beingessner@sasktel.net
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Bunge CEO answers investor questions re CWB
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:03 pm
Bunge CEO answers investor questions re CWB
Grain giant steps up
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
grain-giant-steps-up-126001773.html
Bunge sees future in grain
http://www.producer.com/News/Article.aspx?aid=38915
Agri giants poised to grab share
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/23/
agri-giants-poised-to-grab-share/
Transcript of the whole call it is at:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/
282772-bunge-limited-s-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript
- - - -
Operator
Our next question is from Christine Healey of Scotia Capital.
Christine Healy - Scotia Capital Inc.
Alberto, you've recently made some comments in the press on your plans to expand into Canada with the imminent removal of the Canadian Wheat Board. Maybe you can talk about why this makes Canada more attractive for Bunge and also give us an idea on how you expect to grow here, given that Viterra, Cargill and Richardson control 80% of the market? Would M&A be an option to Bunge?
Alberto Weisser
It was taken a little bit out of context, my comment, because we were in Canada, the groundbreaking ceremony to expand, double our capacity in Altona. And journalists asked about it and my answer was a very general answer, that for us, it's very important to have free trade in general. And it was more reacting to the news that we were reading about the intention of the federal government in Canada to move in that direction. And my reaction, my comment was in an environment like that, it is very natural that companies like us, who are the largest canola processor, who have all the infrastructure on origination and so on, that we will also try to get involved on grain to make everything more efficient, so -- but we are obviously in the wait-and-see situation. This has been going on for a while. We have to wait until the decision is taken by the authorities on what to do.
Christine Healy - Scotia Capital Inc.
Okay. And if legislation is introduced in the fall, like it's planned, and we here think it is going to happen, would Bunge be interested then in getting grain elevators in Western Canada? Or would you be looking to just try to merchandise with those actual infrastructure?
Alberto Weisser
Well, I will not tell you exactly what our plans are, but let me tell you we have 6 elevators in the Eastern Canada. We have one in Western Canada. But I think it would be very natural that we would start adding and improving, using all of our infrastructure to also do some participate in the grain business.
Grain giant steps up
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
grain-giant-steps-up-126001773.html
Bunge sees future in grain
http://www.producer.com/News/Article.aspx?aid=38915
Agri giants poised to grab share
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/23/
agri-giants-poised-to-grab-share/
Transcript of the whole call it is at:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/
282772-bunge-limited-s-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript
- - - -
Operator
Our next question is from Christine Healey of Scotia Capital.
Christine Healy - Scotia Capital Inc.
Alberto, you've recently made some comments in the press on your plans to expand into Canada with the imminent removal of the Canadian Wheat Board. Maybe you can talk about why this makes Canada more attractive for Bunge and also give us an idea on how you expect to grow here, given that Viterra, Cargill and Richardson control 80% of the market? Would M&A be an option to Bunge?
Alberto Weisser
It was taken a little bit out of context, my comment, because we were in Canada, the groundbreaking ceremony to expand, double our capacity in Altona. And journalists asked about it and my answer was a very general answer, that for us, it's very important to have free trade in general. And it was more reacting to the news that we were reading about the intention of the federal government in Canada to move in that direction. And my reaction, my comment was in an environment like that, it is very natural that companies like us, who are the largest canola processor, who have all the infrastructure on origination and so on, that we will also try to get involved on grain to make everything more efficient, so -- but we are obviously in the wait-and-see situation. This has been going on for a while. We have to wait until the decision is taken by the authorities on what to do.
Christine Healy - Scotia Capital Inc.
Okay. And if legislation is introduced in the fall, like it's planned, and we here think it is going to happen, would Bunge be interested then in getting grain elevators in Western Canada? Or would you be looking to just try to merchandise with those actual infrastructure?
Alberto Weisser
Well, I will not tell you exactly what our plans are, but let me tell you we have 6 elevators in the Eastern Canada. We have one in Western Canada. But I think it would be very natural that we would start adding and improving, using all of our infrastructure to also do some participate in the grain business.
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
PENNER: Wheat board still not listening
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:07 pm
PENNER: Wheat board still not listening
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/
wheat-board-still-not-listening-126391543.html
By: Rolf Penner Posted: 07/29/2011 1:00 AM |
The Canadian Wheat Board has a long history of not listening to farmers. After the federal Conservatives won a majority in May, one might have thought the board would rethink its our-way-or-the-highway approach. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.
Instead, the CWB seems as defiant as ever, even though they have no power to stop the change that is so obviously coming. That change, of course, is the transformation of the board from a compulsory organization -- where it is illegal for western farmers to sell their milling wheat and barley to anyone else -- into a voluntary one.
Recently, the CWB quietly released its annual producer survey. Once again, the results show support for the "single desk" is falling, particularly among younger farmers. When asked the two-part question on wheat, "Which do you prefer, the single desk or an open market?" 52 per cent of decided farmers under the age of 45 chose the open market.
More revealing was the survey's three-part question on support for the single desk, dual marketing or an open market. When it comes to wheat, 58 per cent of respondents want something other than the single desk. That's up significantly from 2010 and consistent with the trend over time. Only 24 per cent of younger farmers (under 45) supported the existing monopoly structure. Put another way, a whopping 76 per cent of the younger generation of farmers surveyed want something other than the status quo, a monopoly.
Instead of listening to a decade's worth of survey results, or the three out of four western provinces that are in favour of marketing choice -- or the federal government, which rightly points out it doesn't need to hold a plebiscite in order to repeal or change the Wheat Board Act -- the board has other ideas. It has instead decided to waste a lot of farmers' hard-earned money on another illegitimate and irrelevant survey that doesn't even list the most popular option, a voluntary board, as a choice.
As usual, the board is purposefully and completely missing the point. Those of us who want to choose for ourselves with whom we market our grain don't want a vote. A vote is just another way of taking the decision out of our hands. It doesn't give us a real choice. It does the opposite -- it takes that choice away. [ . . . ]
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/
wheat-board-still-not-listening-126391543.html
By: Rolf Penner Posted: 07/29/2011 1:00 AM |
The Canadian Wheat Board has a long history of not listening to farmers. After the federal Conservatives won a majority in May, one might have thought the board would rethink its our-way-or-the-highway approach. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.
Instead, the CWB seems as defiant as ever, even though they have no power to stop the change that is so obviously coming. That change, of course, is the transformation of the board from a compulsory organization -- where it is illegal for western farmers to sell their milling wheat and barley to anyone else -- into a voluntary one.
Recently, the CWB quietly released its annual producer survey. Once again, the results show support for the "single desk" is falling, particularly among younger farmers. When asked the two-part question on wheat, "Which do you prefer, the single desk or an open market?" 52 per cent of decided farmers under the age of 45 chose the open market.
More revealing was the survey's three-part question on support for the single desk, dual marketing or an open market. When it comes to wheat, 58 per cent of respondents want something other than the single desk. That's up significantly from 2010 and consistent with the trend over time. Only 24 per cent of younger farmers (under 45) supported the existing monopoly structure. Put another way, a whopping 76 per cent of the younger generation of farmers surveyed want something other than the status quo, a monopoly.
Instead of listening to a decade's worth of survey results, or the three out of four western provinces that are in favour of marketing choice -- or the federal government, which rightly points out it doesn't need to hold a plebiscite in order to repeal or change the Wheat Board Act -- the board has other ideas. It has instead decided to waste a lot of farmers' hard-earned money on another illegitimate and irrelevant survey that doesn't even list the most popular option, a voluntary board, as a choice.
As usual, the board is purposefully and completely missing the point. Those of us who want to choose for ourselves with whom we market our grain don't want a vote. A vote is just another way of taking the decision out of our hands. It doesn't give us a real choice. It does the opposite -- it takes that choice away. [ . . . ]
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
CWB letters in Western Producer
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:13 pm
CWB letters in Western Producer
----- Original Message -----
From: Cathy Holtslander
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: [Our Board:5] CWB letters in Western Producer
Here are some letters that were published in the recent edition of the Western Producer.
- - - - -
Voting a must
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38879
By Andrew Dennis, Brookdale, Man. July 28, 2011
The present government’s fact-finding panel designed to determine whether the Canadian Wheat Board could survive in a dual marketing environment, and commissioned by this same government’s former ag minister, reported strongly that the CWB could not survive.
Without the CWB we will go from one seller (our CWB) and hundreds of buyers in 70 countries around the globe — the ideal situation if you are into getting the best price at all — to tens of thousands of sellers and three to four extremely shrewd buyers, the ideal situation for the lowest price possible. Nothing you can buckle down and do there.
This can seriously harm farmers who grow grains other than wheat and malt barley as all the grain prices generally move in parallel for the most part.
Faced with this dilemma, an anti-wheat boarder will usually state that we have to learn to work together as farmers and neighbours to put larger volumes of like-quality grain together to extract a higher price from the market by circumventing the line companies (let them handle it and arrange shipping of course) and sell direct to destination buyers.
Give me that right at least, they say. Of course that is exactly what their very own CWB is already doing for them with more volume, precision and expertise than any group could ever muster, so it becomes clear that anti-CWB individuals don’t know what they want, are unclear of the existing process and are believing the collection of half truths being told them by the entities looking for cheaper grain. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
Invisible wall
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38877
By Eric Sagan, Melville, Sask. July 28, 2011
Where is (Saskatchewan) premier Brad Wall?
During the proposed takeover of Potash Corporation, premier Wall was both visible and vocal in ensuring Saskatchewan interests were not jeopardized.
Sadly and inconsistently, he has been dreadfully silent on the federal government’s intention to efficiently destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
Although the premier’s government has indicated it supports marketing choice, he seems willing to accept that this will involve farmers choosing between a mere handful of self-interested multinational corporations to deal with.
He has also indicated that his government will not engage on this issue because it is a federal issue. How ironic it is that the approval of the potash takeover was also a federal issue, but that did not stop premier Wall then.
Perhaps the premier is really more concerned about big corporate interests, rather than farmer’s and Saskatchewan’s interests. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
CWB performance
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38875
By Ken Larsen, Benalto, AB July 28, 2011
Ed White (Politics monopolizes single desk issue, WP July 14), among others, has complained that a convincing business case has never been made in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk. The fact is the business case is so simple, compelling and routine that newspaper pundits seldom report it.
The CWB’s audited statements show that more than 98 percent of sales revenue is passed back to farmers. Private corporations, with their requirements to pay off banks, investors and risk managers, cannot come close to this performance.
The CWB’s sales premiums have been tested and proven in 14 international trade tribunals. These tribunals are held under oath with both the CWB and its opponents being required to provide complete sales records.
Every one of these exhaustive investigations by the United States has shown that the CWB gets premium prices for Canadian grain when compared to the private trade. [ . . . ]
------
Cathy Holtslander
Director of Policy and Research
National Farmers Union
(306) 652-9465
--
----- Original Message -----
From: Cathy Holtslander
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: [Our Board:5] CWB letters in Western Producer
Here are some letters that were published in the recent edition of the Western Producer.
- - - - -
Voting a must
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38879
By Andrew Dennis, Brookdale, Man. July 28, 2011
The present government’s fact-finding panel designed to determine whether the Canadian Wheat Board could survive in a dual marketing environment, and commissioned by this same government’s former ag minister, reported strongly that the CWB could not survive.
Without the CWB we will go from one seller (our CWB) and hundreds of buyers in 70 countries around the globe — the ideal situation if you are into getting the best price at all — to tens of thousands of sellers and three to four extremely shrewd buyers, the ideal situation for the lowest price possible. Nothing you can buckle down and do there.
This can seriously harm farmers who grow grains other than wheat and malt barley as all the grain prices generally move in parallel for the most part.
Faced with this dilemma, an anti-wheat boarder will usually state that we have to learn to work together as farmers and neighbours to put larger volumes of like-quality grain together to extract a higher price from the market by circumventing the line companies (let them handle it and arrange shipping of course) and sell direct to destination buyers.
Give me that right at least, they say. Of course that is exactly what their very own CWB is already doing for them with more volume, precision and expertise than any group could ever muster, so it becomes clear that anti-CWB individuals don’t know what they want, are unclear of the existing process and are believing the collection of half truths being told them by the entities looking for cheaper grain. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
Invisible wall
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38877
By Eric Sagan, Melville, Sask. July 28, 2011
Where is (Saskatchewan) premier Brad Wall?
During the proposed takeover of Potash Corporation, premier Wall was both visible and vocal in ensuring Saskatchewan interests were not jeopardized.
Sadly and inconsistently, he has been dreadfully silent on the federal government’s intention to efficiently destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
Although the premier’s government has indicated it supports marketing choice, he seems willing to accept that this will involve farmers choosing between a mere handful of self-interested multinational corporations to deal with.
He has also indicated that his government will not engage on this issue because it is a federal issue. How ironic it is that the approval of the potash takeover was also a federal issue, but that did not stop premier Wall then.
Perhaps the premier is really more concerned about big corporate interests, rather than farmer’s and Saskatchewan’s interests. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
CWB performance
http://www.producer.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?aid=38875
By Ken Larsen, Benalto, AB July 28, 2011
Ed White (Politics monopolizes single desk issue, WP July 14), among others, has complained that a convincing business case has never been made in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk. The fact is the business case is so simple, compelling and routine that newspaper pundits seldom report it.
The CWB’s audited statements show that more than 98 percent of sales revenue is passed back to farmers. Private corporations, with their requirements to pay off banks, investors and risk managers, cannot come close to this performance.
The CWB’s sales premiums have been tested and proven in 14 international trade tribunals. These tribunals are held under oath with both the CWB and its opponents being required to provide complete sales records.
Every one of these exhaustive investigations by the United States has shown that the CWB gets premium prices for Canadian grain when compared to the private trade. [ . . . ]
------
Cathy Holtslander
Director of Policy and Research
National Farmers Union
(306) 652-9465
--
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Feds must give farmers say in CWB's future
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:15 pm
Feds must give farmers say in CWB's future
http://www.leaderpost.com/business/
Feds+must+give+farmers+future/5182586/story.html
By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post July 30, 2011
Thus far, the federal government hasn't produced one shred of evidence, one scrap of research, to justify its decision to remove the single-desk monopoly on wheat and barley sales from the Canadian Wheat Board.
But there's plenty of evidence and research that the single desk has been a boon for western Canadian farmers and its removal will cause significant, and permanent damage to the Western Canadian economy. Some of that evidence is the government's own website.
For example, a paper prepared by the economic and policy analysis directorate of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada says that eliminating state trading enterprises (STEs), like the Canadian Wheat Board, may not lead to improved market returns for producers.
"The assumption of a competitive alternative inevitably leads to the conclusion that elimination of STEs would lead to improved performance,'' said the 1998 paper prepared by AAFC in advance of international trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. "In fact, markets are rarely competitive,'' the paper said, due to domination by a few large companies, which are able to generate and capture "excess profits."
The paper concludes that in a market of "imperfect competition,'' such as global agricultural commodity markets, the "STE could enhance overall market performance.''
The fact that the AAFC paper is more than dozen years old doesn't alter its essential truth: that in an imperfect market, dominated by large players, size matters. And the CWB - the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world, with over $5 billion in annual sales to more than 70 countries - has a size advantage.
How much of an advantage? According to agricultural economist Andy Schmitz, the CWB generated a 'price premium' of $107 million a year for western wheat and barley farmers from the 2004-05 to 2008-09 crop years. In effect, the single desk generated a premium of $428 million over four years, versus the open market. [ . . . ]
http://www.leaderpost.com/business/
Feds+must+give+farmers+future/5182586/story.html
By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post July 30, 2011
Thus far, the federal government hasn't produced one shred of evidence, one scrap of research, to justify its decision to remove the single-desk monopoly on wheat and barley sales from the Canadian Wheat Board.
But there's plenty of evidence and research that the single desk has been a boon for western Canadian farmers and its removal will cause significant, and permanent damage to the Western Canadian economy. Some of that evidence is the government's own website.
For example, a paper prepared by the economic and policy analysis directorate of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada says that eliminating state trading enterprises (STEs), like the Canadian Wheat Board, may not lead to improved market returns for producers.
"The assumption of a competitive alternative inevitably leads to the conclusion that elimination of STEs would lead to improved performance,'' said the 1998 paper prepared by AAFC in advance of international trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization. "In fact, markets are rarely competitive,'' the paper said, due to domination by a few large companies, which are able to generate and capture "excess profits."
The paper concludes that in a market of "imperfect competition,'' such as global agricultural commodity markets, the "STE could enhance overall market performance.''
The fact that the AAFC paper is more than dozen years old doesn't alter its essential truth: that in an imperfect market, dominated by large players, size matters. And the CWB - the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world, with over $5 billion in annual sales to more than 70 countries - has a size advantage.
How much of an advantage? According to agricultural economist Andy Schmitz, the CWB generated a 'price premium' of $107 million a year for western wheat and barley farmers from the 2004-05 to 2008-09 crop years. In effect, the single desk generated a premium of $428 million over four years, versus the open market. [ . . . ]
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Post-monopoly CWB has tough job: report
by Oscar » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:19 pm
Post-monopoly CWB has tough job: report
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
post-monopoly-cwb-has-tough-job-report-126391498.html
By: Martin Cash Posted: 07/29/2011 1:00 AM
WITH the clock ticking on the introduction of legislation that will end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on marketing wheat and barley, it's becoming increasingly clear that whatever form a successor organization takes, it will have a tough go of it.
In a paper released Thursday by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, University of Manitoba economist Milton Boyd concludes the end of the monopoly would likely produce benefits to farmers and the industry.
But the paper actually serves to bolster one of the key arguments Canadian Wheat Board officials have been making about the board's relative survival in the aftermath of the legislation.
That is -- a post-monopoly CWB will be hard-pressed to deliver value-added service to Prairie farmers.
On several occasions federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz has said the CWB needs to articulate a new plan in a post-monopoly environment.
In a speech in Winnipeg at the end of last month he implored the CWB to "roll up their sleeves and work with us not only in the best interests of the farmers who want choice, but in the best interests of those who continue to support the board."
But in his paper entitled Removal of the Canadian Wheat Board Monopoly: Future Changes for Farmers and the Grain Industry Boyd concludes that a successor entity to the CWB "may face challenges in the long term as a voluntary board, whatever organization form it would take."
In an interview he said the current lay of the land in the Prairie grain-handling industry is so competitive and capital-intensive that, regardless of what form a new entity takes, it would be an extremely risky and difficult proposition. [ . . . ]
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
post-monopoly-cwb-has-tough-job-report-126391498.html
By: Martin Cash Posted: 07/29/2011 1:00 AM
WITH the clock ticking on the introduction of legislation that will end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on marketing wheat and barley, it's becoming increasingly clear that whatever form a successor organization takes, it will have a tough go of it.
In a paper released Thursday by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, University of Manitoba economist Milton Boyd concludes the end of the monopoly would likely produce benefits to farmers and the industry.
But the paper actually serves to bolster one of the key arguments Canadian Wheat Board officials have been making about the board's relative survival in the aftermath of the legislation.
That is -- a post-monopoly CWB will be hard-pressed to deliver value-added service to Prairie farmers.
On several occasions federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz has said the CWB needs to articulate a new plan in a post-monopoly environment.
In a speech in Winnipeg at the end of last month he implored the CWB to "roll up their sleeves and work with us not only in the best interests of the farmers who want choice, but in the best interests of those who continue to support the board."
But in his paper entitled Removal of the Canadian Wheat Board Monopoly: Future Changes for Farmers and the Grain Industry Boyd concludes that a successor entity to the CWB "may face challenges in the long term as a voluntary board, whatever organization form it would take."
In an interview he said the current lay of the land in the Prairie grain-handling industry is so competitive and capital-intensive that, regardless of what form a new entity takes, it would be an extremely risky and difficult proposition. [ . . . ]
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
CWB Farmer meetings
by Oscar » Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:07 am
CWB Farmer meetings
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/decision/meetings/
The federal government plans to take away the CWB single desk on August 1, 2012. Let's talk about what this means for your business, and what's at stake for the future of the grain industry.
Join your elected directors at a discussion near you.
City Date Time Location
Regina, SK Aug. 8 7 p.m. Travelodge
4177 Albert St.
Saskatoon, SK Aug. 9 7 p.m. Saskatoon Inn
2002 Airport Dr.
Oak Bluff, MB Aug. 10 7 p.m. Oak Bluff Recreation Centre
101 MacDonald Rd
Dauphin, MB Aug. 11 7 p.m. Ukrainian Orthodox Auditorium (8th Ave. Hall)
304 Whitmore Ave.
Medicine Hat, AB Aug. 15 7 p.m. Medicine Hat Exhibition & Stampede - Higdon Hall 2055-21st Ave. SE
Camrose, AB Aug. 16 7 p.m. Camrose Regional Exhibition - Gold Room
4250 Exhibition Dr.
CWB elected directors are hosting these six informational meetings to answer your questions and hear your views.
Once the single-desk marketing system is gone, it will be gone forever. Its removal could affect market premiums and prices, producer cars, delivery access, branding, transportation advocacy, and more. Enter into the future with eyes wide open to the magnitude of this change.
No registration is required. Admission is free. Refreshments will be served.
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/decision/meetings/
The federal government plans to take away the CWB single desk on August 1, 2012. Let's talk about what this means for your business, and what's at stake for the future of the grain industry.
Join your elected directors at a discussion near you.
City Date Time Location
Regina, SK Aug. 8 7 p.m. Travelodge
4177 Albert St.
Saskatoon, SK Aug. 9 7 p.m. Saskatoon Inn
2002 Airport Dr.
Oak Bluff, MB Aug. 10 7 p.m. Oak Bluff Recreation Centre
101 MacDonald Rd
Dauphin, MB Aug. 11 7 p.m. Ukrainian Orthodox Auditorium (8th Ave. Hall)
304 Whitmore Ave.
Medicine Hat, AB Aug. 15 7 p.m. Medicine Hat Exhibition & Stampede - Higdon Hall 2055-21st Ave. SE
Camrose, AB Aug. 16 7 p.m. Camrose Regional Exhibition - Gold Room
4250 Exhibition Dr.
CWB elected directors are hosting these six informational meetings to answer your questions and hear your views.
Once the single-desk marketing system is gone, it will be gone forever. Its removal could affect market premiums and prices, producer cars, delivery access, branding, transportation advocacy, and more. Enter into the future with eyes wide open to the magnitude of this change.
No registration is required. Admission is free. Refreshments will be served.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UPDATE: CWB - Aug. 2, 2011
by Oscar » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:24 pm
UPDATE: CWB - Aug. 2, 2011
Quality Canadian grain could lose out in post-wheat board era
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/
570450--quality-canadian-grain-could-lose-out-in-post-wheat-board-era
Owen Roberts, Urban Cowboy Mon Aug 1 20110
I’m delayed at one of America’s most unpredictable airports (Chicago O’Hare,) watching fellow travellers gape at dire financial news blasting out of the airport’s television monitors.
Americans are trying to figure out what’s happening to their country’s threatened credit rating, fragile stock market, and loan default situation. Politicians who oppose President Barack Obama say he has an “addiction” and a “spending disease.” They say he isn’t serious about trying to balance the government’s books, so they have a “moral obligation” to refuse to strike a debt deal.
How sad for everyday Americans, who are literally quaking in their boots, standing by as what some are calling a financial civil war unfold at their peril. Higher interest rates are predicted, which will be devastating for recovery. If and when that happens, watch out. As America’s fortunes fall, Canadians are bound to feel a ripple effect, at the very least. We’re a major exporting nation, and the U.S. takes the lion’s share of everything we ship beyond our borders.
This is putting western Canadian grain farmers in a pickle. One of the biggest changes ever in Canadian agriculture is pending as the federal government prepares to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board by next summer. Wheat is our biggest agricultural export, and for the past 75 years, every grain of wheat grown on the prairies and headed for markets abroad has been sold by the wheat board. It’s the law.
But the federal government thinks prairie farmers shouldn’t be bound by a single selling agent, such as the wheat board. They should have options, according to Ottawa. So, it’s charging ahead with its plan, and in a relatively short time prairie farmers will have to fend for themselves when it comes to selling grain.
Who’s standing in the shadows? Private companies, some of which are Canadian. But others are American or international, and huge. Candidly and honestly answering a reporter’s question recently, a spokesperson for a U.S. grain company said his firm was anxious to get access to world-class Canadian wheat, which is renowned for quality. Critics of the board’s dismantling called him something akin to a predator. But from a business sense, it’s a strategic move … provided, of course, there’s a buyer.
MORE:
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/
570450--quality-canadian-grain-could-lose-out-in-post-wheat-board-era
= = = = = =
CWB review biased
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/review+biased/
5190729/story.html
By Bill Gehl, The Leader-Post August 2, 2011
Re: "Working group established to plan for open market", Leader-Post, July 26.
The American humorist Will Rogers once said "where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much at all." He could have been talking about federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's new working group to plan for the end of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The only people on this working group are industry-funded cheerleaders. Little wonder, when farmers, producer car loaders and others with in-depth knowledge of the West's very successful grain export business have long recognized that without the wheat board's single desk, Ritz's idea of a strong and viable wheat board is just a fantasy.
MORE:
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/review+biased/
5190729/story.html
= = = = = =
WATCH: Video message from Allen Oberg
http://www.youtube.com/canadianwheatboard#p/u/0/
caosKH5wvAo
A video message featuring CWB board chair Allen Oberg on his Alberta farm has been posted online. Oberg talks about the current farmer plebiscite on the future of the CWB.
Oberg urges all farmers, whatever their views, to participate and return their ballots before Aug. 24.
View the video on the CWB's YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/canadianwheatboa ... aosKH5wvAo
= = = = = =
The Bulletin - August 2, 2011
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsletter/ ... 80211.html
At a glance
Farmers and the general public are invited to a series of meetings across the Prairies to discuss the fate of the CWB and the implications of the federal government's plan to remove its single desk. The meetings, being held by the CWB's farmer-elected directors, are open to everyone. All meetings begin at 7 p.m. They take place in Regina on Aug. 8 (Travelodge, 4177 Albert St.); Saskatoon on Aug. 9 (Saskatoon Inn, 2022 Airport Dr.); Oak Bluff, MB, on Aug. 10 (Oak Bluff Rec. Centre, 101 MacDonald Rd.); Dauphin, MB, on Aug. 11 (Ukrainian Orthodox Auditorium, 304 Whitmore Ave.); Medicine Hat on Aug. 15 (Medicine Hat Exhibition and Stampede, Higdon Hall, 2055-21st Ave. SE); and Camrose, AB, on Aug. 16 (Camrose Regional Exhibition, Gold Room, 4250 Exhibition Dr.).
MORE:
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsletter/ ... 80211.html
Quality Canadian grain could lose out in post-wheat board era
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/
570450--quality-canadian-grain-could-lose-out-in-post-wheat-board-era
Owen Roberts, Urban Cowboy Mon Aug 1 20110
I’m delayed at one of America’s most unpredictable airports (Chicago O’Hare,) watching fellow travellers gape at dire financial news blasting out of the airport’s television monitors.
Americans are trying to figure out what’s happening to their country’s threatened credit rating, fragile stock market, and loan default situation. Politicians who oppose President Barack Obama say he has an “addiction” and a “spending disease.” They say he isn’t serious about trying to balance the government’s books, so they have a “moral obligation” to refuse to strike a debt deal.
How sad for everyday Americans, who are literally quaking in their boots, standing by as what some are calling a financial civil war unfold at their peril. Higher interest rates are predicted, which will be devastating for recovery. If and when that happens, watch out. As America’s fortunes fall, Canadians are bound to feel a ripple effect, at the very least. We’re a major exporting nation, and the U.S. takes the lion’s share of everything we ship beyond our borders.
This is putting western Canadian grain farmers in a pickle. One of the biggest changes ever in Canadian agriculture is pending as the federal government prepares to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board by next summer. Wheat is our biggest agricultural export, and for the past 75 years, every grain of wheat grown on the prairies and headed for markets abroad has been sold by the wheat board. It’s the law.
But the federal government thinks prairie farmers shouldn’t be bound by a single selling agent, such as the wheat board. They should have options, according to Ottawa. So, it’s charging ahead with its plan, and in a relatively short time prairie farmers will have to fend for themselves when it comes to selling grain.
Who’s standing in the shadows? Private companies, some of which are Canadian. But others are American or international, and huge. Candidly and honestly answering a reporter’s question recently, a spokesperson for a U.S. grain company said his firm was anxious to get access to world-class Canadian wheat, which is renowned for quality. Critics of the board’s dismantling called him something akin to a predator. But from a business sense, it’s a strategic move … provided, of course, there’s a buyer.
MORE:
http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/
570450--quality-canadian-grain-could-lose-out-in-post-wheat-board-era
= = = = = =
CWB review biased
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/review+biased/
5190729/story.html
By Bill Gehl, The Leader-Post August 2, 2011
Re: "Working group established to plan for open market", Leader-Post, July 26.
The American humorist Will Rogers once said "where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much at all." He could have been talking about federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's new working group to plan for the end of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The only people on this working group are industry-funded cheerleaders. Little wonder, when farmers, producer car loaders and others with in-depth knowledge of the West's very successful grain export business have long recognized that without the wheat board's single desk, Ritz's idea of a strong and viable wheat board is just a fantasy.
MORE:
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/review+biased/
5190729/story.html
= = = = = =
WATCH: Video message from Allen Oberg
http://www.youtube.com/canadianwheatboard#p/u/0/
caosKH5wvAo
A video message featuring CWB board chair Allen Oberg on his Alberta farm has been posted online. Oberg talks about the current farmer plebiscite on the future of the CWB.
Oberg urges all farmers, whatever their views, to participate and return their ballots before Aug. 24.
View the video on the CWB's YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/canadianwheatboa ... aosKH5wvAo
= = = = = =
The Bulletin - August 2, 2011
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsletter/ ... 80211.html
At a glance
Farmers and the general public are invited to a series of meetings across the Prairies to discuss the fate of the CWB and the implications of the federal government's plan to remove its single desk. The meetings, being held by the CWB's farmer-elected directors, are open to everyone. All meetings begin at 7 p.m. They take place in Regina on Aug. 8 (Travelodge, 4177 Albert St.); Saskatoon on Aug. 9 (Saskatoon Inn, 2022 Airport Dr.); Oak Bluff, MB, on Aug. 10 (Oak Bluff Rec. Centre, 101 MacDonald Rd.); Dauphin, MB, on Aug. 11 (Ukrainian Orthodox Auditorium, 304 Whitmore Ave.); Medicine Hat on Aug. 15 (Medicine Hat Exhibition and Stampede, Higdon Hall, 2055-21st Ave. SE); and Camrose, AB, on Aug. 16 (Camrose Regional Exhibition, Gold Room, 4250 Exhibition Dr.).
MORE:
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsletter/ ... 80211.html
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
BEINGESSNER: Farmers Show Strong CWB Support - 2008
by Oscar » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:34 pm
Farmers Show Strong CWB Support in Director Elections
Column # 698 - by Paul Beingessner - 08/12/08
One of the most contentious CWB director elections to date ended on Sunday, with a result sure to have the federal government gnashing its teeth. Supporters of the CWB's single desk won four out of five of the districts holding elections. The exception was District Two, in Alberta. Three of the five elected directors are new to the board, as incumbents in these three districts were not eligible to run again.
In the four districts that elected CWB supporters, the margins of victory were large, with 60 percent of voters, on average, voting for single desk supporters. The largest margin fell to Bill Woods, in District Four. This was formerly held by Ken Ritter, who could not run again. Significantly, the two Conservative MPs whose ridings cover most of District Four are Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and David Anderson, the MP with responsibilities for the CWB. Both Anderson and Ritz have been vocal and aggressive opponents of the CWB, claiming that their own electoral victories showed that farmers want to see the single desk eliminated.
Woods took the district on the first ballot, with 63.4 percent of the vote. Wood's main opponent, Sam Magnus, held several positions with the federal Reform and Conservative parties, including a stint on the national council of the Conservative Party. Magnus' status within the party didn't help him much as he garnered only 28.5 percent of total votes. If Ritz and Anderson have a vestige of honesty, these MPs will drop the pretense that their schemes to neuter the board are supported by a majority of farmers.
Several other points stand out from the election. The Conservative government continued its overt interference in the election, including pruning the voters list further and sending letters to a select group of farmers, telling them how they might obtain ballots.
The culmination of government interference came when five prairie MPs used their parliamentary expense accounts to send personal letters to farmers on the voters list, telling them to vote for anti-single desk candidates. One of these MPs was David Anderson. As Wood's substantial victory demonstrated, this strategy failed miserably. Hopefully, when Parliament resumes in January, in whatever form it might take, Anderson will be required to account for this misuse of Parliamentary money, and to explain how he acquired the voters list. That list is supposed to be confidential to the candidates.
Another of the four MPs, Andrew Scheer of Regina-Qu'Appelle, used his expense account to send a personal attack on re-elected CWB director Rod Flaman. Flaman was Scheer's Liberal opponent in the federal election. Scheer claimed that Flaman "shamelessly shirked his responsibilities to the farmers who elected him and spent the last year campaigning for federal office while collecting his CWB pay cheque".
Apparently farmers trusted Flaman more than they trusted Scheer, whose closest connection to agriculture is being an insurance salesman in Regina. Flaman won the district with 60.3 percent of the vote on the third ballot.
Currently, the CWB board consists of fifteen directors, with ten elected by farmers and five appointed by the federal government. Eight of the ten farmer-elected directors support the single desk, but the directors appointed by the Conservative government in Ottawa line up directly with the government in its opinion of the CWB. The very strong showing by pro-CWB candidates calls into question the legitimacy of the directors appointed by the government. Clearly they do not represent the wishes of farmers who want the CWB to continue its current mandate. As such, their role at the board table should be minimized to any specific areas of expertise they might have. Obstruction is not considered an area of expertise.
On a positive note for those candidates who were defeated, the Saskatchewan government seems to have a home for anti-single desk defeated candidates in Enterprise Saskatchewan. The Agriculture Sector Team has a couple on its board, including the chair, Gerrid Gust. While the province has aligned itself with the federal government's anti-board stand, maybe it's time for the Saskatchewan Party to reconsider its support of a position farmers' clearly do not support.
On a final note, the rate of return of ballots reached 54 percent, a very good return for a mail-in ballot. The Conservatives have yet to find a way to manipulate the voters list that will give them the result they want.
© Paul Beingessner
(306) 868-4734
beingessner@sasktel.net
Column # 698 - by Paul Beingessner - 08/12/08
One of the most contentious CWB director elections to date ended on Sunday, with a result sure to have the federal government gnashing its teeth. Supporters of the CWB's single desk won four out of five of the districts holding elections. The exception was District Two, in Alberta. Three of the five elected directors are new to the board, as incumbents in these three districts were not eligible to run again.
In the four districts that elected CWB supporters, the margins of victory were large, with 60 percent of voters, on average, voting for single desk supporters. The largest margin fell to Bill Woods, in District Four. This was formerly held by Ken Ritter, who could not run again. Significantly, the two Conservative MPs whose ridings cover most of District Four are Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and David Anderson, the MP with responsibilities for the CWB. Both Anderson and Ritz have been vocal and aggressive opponents of the CWB, claiming that their own electoral victories showed that farmers want to see the single desk eliminated.
Woods took the district on the first ballot, with 63.4 percent of the vote. Wood's main opponent, Sam Magnus, held several positions with the federal Reform and Conservative parties, including a stint on the national council of the Conservative Party. Magnus' status within the party didn't help him much as he garnered only 28.5 percent of total votes. If Ritz and Anderson have a vestige of honesty, these MPs will drop the pretense that their schemes to neuter the board are supported by a majority of farmers.
Several other points stand out from the election. The Conservative government continued its overt interference in the election, including pruning the voters list further and sending letters to a select group of farmers, telling them how they might obtain ballots.
The culmination of government interference came when five prairie MPs used their parliamentary expense accounts to send personal letters to farmers on the voters list, telling them to vote for anti-single desk candidates. One of these MPs was David Anderson. As Wood's substantial victory demonstrated, this strategy failed miserably. Hopefully, when Parliament resumes in January, in whatever form it might take, Anderson will be required to account for this misuse of Parliamentary money, and to explain how he acquired the voters list. That list is supposed to be confidential to the candidates.
Another of the four MPs, Andrew Scheer of Regina-Qu'Appelle, used his expense account to send a personal attack on re-elected CWB director Rod Flaman. Flaman was Scheer's Liberal opponent in the federal election. Scheer claimed that Flaman "shamelessly shirked his responsibilities to the farmers who elected him and spent the last year campaigning for federal office while collecting his CWB pay cheque".
Apparently farmers trusted Flaman more than they trusted Scheer, whose closest connection to agriculture is being an insurance salesman in Regina. Flaman won the district with 60.3 percent of the vote on the third ballot.
Currently, the CWB board consists of fifteen directors, with ten elected by farmers and five appointed by the federal government. Eight of the ten farmer-elected directors support the single desk, but the directors appointed by the Conservative government in Ottawa line up directly with the government in its opinion of the CWB. The very strong showing by pro-CWB candidates calls into question the legitimacy of the directors appointed by the government. Clearly they do not represent the wishes of farmers who want the CWB to continue its current mandate. As such, their role at the board table should be minimized to any specific areas of expertise they might have. Obstruction is not considered an area of expertise.
On a positive note for those candidates who were defeated, the Saskatchewan government seems to have a home for anti-single desk defeated candidates in Enterprise Saskatchewan. The Agriculture Sector Team has a couple on its board, including the chair, Gerrid Gust. While the province has aligned itself with the federal government's anti-board stand, maybe it's time for the Saskatchewan Party to reconsider its support of a position farmers' clearly do not support.
On a final note, the rate of return of ballots reached 54 percent, a very good return for a mail-in ballot. The Conservatives have yet to find a way to manipulate the voters list that will give them the result they want.
© Paul Beingessner
(306) 868-4734
beingessner@sasktel.net
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
UPDATE: Canadian Wheat Board - Aug. 3, 2011
by Oscar » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:49 pm
UPDATE: Canadian Wheat Board - Aug. 3, 2011
CWB phone-in - Thursday, Aug. 4, on CKRM – 620 – Radio
with AG Minister Gerry Ritz and MP Tom Lukiwski
The phone number is 1 866 767 0620 from noon to 1 PM in Saskatchewan.
You can listen online at
http://www.620ckrm.com/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=119
and click on the "Listen Live" button on the lefthand side.
= = = = = = =
PCs another pest for Australian wheat growers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/
us-australia-farmers-idUSTRE7721K120110803
August 3, 2011
(Reuters) - Outback Australian farmers - hardened from dealing with extreme weather, fires and pests - now have to wrestle with modern trading tools and technology after a tough day tilling the land as they adapt to the rigors of a deregulated market.
For many, especially older farmers facing a bewildering host of new choices, the changes mean they may miss out on the best prices or even come under pressure to sell up to bigger farmers or foreign investors.
Farmers visited during a Reuters crop tour in eastern Australia last month had mixed feelings on the ending of the monopoly held by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB), which meant they now had to keep close tabs on day-to-day global prices.
Wayne Dunford, 60, who grows wheat near Parkes in central-west New South Wales state, said many farmers faced an uphill task coping with the new system.
"They're not used to things like forward selling, futures and hedging, preferring the old system where they just delivered to the wheat board under the single desk system," said Dunford.
Some older farmers were also less technologically savvy than younger farmers or lacked the business skills required to market wheat on their own after the single desk system ended three years ago.
For nearly 60 years until 2008, AWB had sole marketing rights over the country's wheat export sales.
When restrictions were eased, commodities giants such as Cargill Inc and Glencore International swooped on the world's fourth-largest wheat exporter, eyeing it as an opportunity to gain a new source of grain.
Canada, the world's second largest wheat exporter, is the last major western supplier to operate a wheat marketing monopoly through the Canadian Wheat Board that has had sole marketing rights since World War Two. But the country's conservative government plans to abolish the system in August, 2012.
FARMERS NOW FIRE UP COMPUTER EVERY DAY
Australia's decision to free up the market was one many smaller farmers opposed, as they liked the system that allowed them to deliver into AWB pools while concentrating on growing grain.
"Under the old style wheat board you knew what you were going to get (in terms of price). Our wheat board was very efficient as they knew how much wheat they had and how much they had to sell," said Brian Johnston, 55, who farms an area some 400 km north of Sydney.
He said farmers now had to fire up their personal computers virtually everyday in an effort to get the best rates in a volatile wheat market. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
When the Wheat Board went down Down Under
By Cathy Holtslander
Director of Research and Policy, National Farmers Union
for publication August 3, 2011
By now prairie wheat and barley producers should have their ballots for the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite which asks whether they want to keep the single desk marketing system for their crops. It is a good time to hear about how Australia’s wheat board single desk ended, and how that has worked out for farmers and grain companies.
In 1939 the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) was created as a government agency. In 1999 it was changed into a company owned by Australia’s farmers and some investors. Each farmer held a “class A” share, and had a vote in electing the 7 farmer directors. “Class B” shares could be bought and sold on the Australian Stock Exchange, and the owners were entitled to elect 2 directors. The single desk authority of the AWB came from a law that gave the AWB veto power to stop any other company from exporting wheat. In addition to its role as a grain exporter, the AWB also had a subsidiary company that was the largest seller of farm inputs in the country.
While the details of how the AWB was structured and the legal basis of its single desk marketing responsibilities were slightly different from our Canadian Wheat Board, as a farmer-controlled entity, its ability to market the country’s wheat production was virtually the same.
As in Canada, there was pressure from grain traders to get rid of the single desk. In response, the AWB directors proposed restructuring into two companies: one that looked after input sales and the other that looked after grain exports while maintaining the single desk and pooling the grain. Their proposal was rejected. In December 2006, right in the middle of harvest, the government changed the legislation and took away the AWB’s veto power over exports, breaking the single desk. The Minister of Agriculture was given the power to accredit exporters instead.
Almost immediately, companies that had been looking forward to this day jumped into the export market, buying outside of the pool and selling abroad with the Minister’s blessing.
In response to the new situation, and after internal struggles, the AWB proposed a new governance structure that the managers said would make the company more competitive. Instead of a majority of farmer-directors, under the new structure farmers would only elect 2 of the directors. The class B shareholders would elect the majority of directors. This change was sold as a way for farmers to “influence” decision-making (instead of actually making the decisions). The proposal also limited the proportion of all class B shares that any one owner could have to 10%, but only for the first three years. It also allowed the farmers to reject any takeover bids for the first three years. To take effect, the proposal had to get 75% support in a vote.
Farmers did not rush to mail in their ballots. The AWB management pushed hard to get farmers to approve the change. Finally in 2008, after extending the voting period, a little over half of the producers voted and the required majority was reached.
Now it is 2011 – three years later. The class B shareholder restriction has been removed, and not surprisingly, the company has changed hands.
In late 2010 the North American fertilizer company Agrium bought the AWB, even though it had no experience in selling grain. At the time Agrium said it would evaluate how things were going and decide shortly whether to keep the international grain marketing side. Meanwhile, it had acquired the largest farm input retailer in Australia, worth nearly $2 billion in annual sales.
Less than two weeks later, Agrium announced its deal with Cargill for the international grain marketing business. The sale passed the Australian foreign investment regulatory and competition bureau reviews in May 2011. Australian farm organizations tried to get the government to put some conditions on the sale to Cargill –- such as transparent freight rates and protection of the pools -- but they were unsuccessful.
In three short years Australia’s 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, selling virtually all of Australia’s wheat (12% of world wheat production, worth about $5 billion) on their own behalf to being mere customers of Cargill’s, one of the world’s largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately-owned and based in the United States.
Since 2006 the AWB’s share of Australia’s wheat sales has dropped to 23% with 25 other companies in the market, all looking to make money on the spread between purchase and sale prices. When the AWB had its single desk power Australian wheat could command premiums of over $99/tonne over American wheat, but by December 2008 it had dropped to a discount of $27/tonne below US wheat.
And what is the view from the tractor seat?
Here are some recent comments about the post-single desk environment from an Australian farmers’ bulletin board:
“More middle men to screw the prices down -- traders are not interested in farmers getting high prices. As long as they make a margin it doesn’t matter to them if prices are high or low.”
“Terrible logistics in organizing export cargoes, with multiple exporters all wanting to load ships at the same time leading to shipping bottlenecks. Someone has to wear the cost of idle ships waiting to load. Guess who eventually wears that cost? Deregulation hasn’t benefited the average Australian farmer at all.”
“I think our quality to the export market has to suffer. How many two-bit outfits are now jamming grain in sea containers that don't know any thing about grain?”
“Deregulation has allowed for more buyers, which has an advantage, until one does not pay. The AWB had the advantage of promoting Australian grain as a premium product. This is slowly being eroded, I think.”
At this critical point in western Canadian agriculture history, farmers can take heed of the Australian experience. The federal government has announced its intention to defy the Canadian Wheat Board Act and end the single desk without a binding farmer vote. In its place, Minister Ritz has offered nothing more than empty rhetoric about “freedom” and sound bites about “a strong voluntary CWB”.
Farm organizations are calling on the government to hold a legal, binding vote as required under the current law. In the meantime, it is important to be a well-informed and proactive voter in the CWB’s own plebiscite. Your ballot will send a strong message about how much farmers really value their own marketing agency and all its benefits.
Cathy Holtslander
Director of Policy and Research
National Farmers Union
(306) 652-9465
CWB phone-in - Thursday, Aug. 4, on CKRM – 620 – Radio
with AG Minister Gerry Ritz and MP Tom Lukiwski
The phone number is 1 866 767 0620 from noon to 1 PM in Saskatchewan.
You can listen online at
http://www.620ckrm.com/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=119
and click on the "Listen Live" button on the lefthand side.
= = = = = = =
PCs another pest for Australian wheat growers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/
us-australia-farmers-idUSTRE7721K120110803
August 3, 2011
(Reuters) - Outback Australian farmers - hardened from dealing with extreme weather, fires and pests - now have to wrestle with modern trading tools and technology after a tough day tilling the land as they adapt to the rigors of a deregulated market.
For many, especially older farmers facing a bewildering host of new choices, the changes mean they may miss out on the best prices or even come under pressure to sell up to bigger farmers or foreign investors.
Farmers visited during a Reuters crop tour in eastern Australia last month had mixed feelings on the ending of the monopoly held by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB), which meant they now had to keep close tabs on day-to-day global prices.
Wayne Dunford, 60, who grows wheat near Parkes in central-west New South Wales state, said many farmers faced an uphill task coping with the new system.
"They're not used to things like forward selling, futures and hedging, preferring the old system where they just delivered to the wheat board under the single desk system," said Dunford.
Some older farmers were also less technologically savvy than younger farmers or lacked the business skills required to market wheat on their own after the single desk system ended three years ago.
For nearly 60 years until 2008, AWB had sole marketing rights over the country's wheat export sales.
When restrictions were eased, commodities giants such as Cargill Inc and Glencore International swooped on the world's fourth-largest wheat exporter, eyeing it as an opportunity to gain a new source of grain.
Canada, the world's second largest wheat exporter, is the last major western supplier to operate a wheat marketing monopoly through the Canadian Wheat Board that has had sole marketing rights since World War Two. But the country's conservative government plans to abolish the system in August, 2012.
FARMERS NOW FIRE UP COMPUTER EVERY DAY
Australia's decision to free up the market was one many smaller farmers opposed, as they liked the system that allowed them to deliver into AWB pools while concentrating on growing grain.
"Under the old style wheat board you knew what you were going to get (in terms of price). Our wheat board was very efficient as they knew how much wheat they had and how much they had to sell," said Brian Johnston, 55, who farms an area some 400 km north of Sydney.
He said farmers now had to fire up their personal computers virtually everyday in an effort to get the best rates in a volatile wheat market. [ . . . ]
= = = = =
When the Wheat Board went down Down Under
By Cathy Holtslander
Director of Research and Policy, National Farmers Union
for publication August 3, 2011
By now prairie wheat and barley producers should have their ballots for the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite which asks whether they want to keep the single desk marketing system for their crops. It is a good time to hear about how Australia’s wheat board single desk ended, and how that has worked out for farmers and grain companies.
In 1939 the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) was created as a government agency. In 1999 it was changed into a company owned by Australia’s farmers and some investors. Each farmer held a “class A” share, and had a vote in electing the 7 farmer directors. “Class B” shares could be bought and sold on the Australian Stock Exchange, and the owners were entitled to elect 2 directors. The single desk authority of the AWB came from a law that gave the AWB veto power to stop any other company from exporting wheat. In addition to its role as a grain exporter, the AWB also had a subsidiary company that was the largest seller of farm inputs in the country.
While the details of how the AWB was structured and the legal basis of its single desk marketing responsibilities were slightly different from our Canadian Wheat Board, as a farmer-controlled entity, its ability to market the country’s wheat production was virtually the same.
As in Canada, there was pressure from grain traders to get rid of the single desk. In response, the AWB directors proposed restructuring into two companies: one that looked after input sales and the other that looked after grain exports while maintaining the single desk and pooling the grain. Their proposal was rejected. In December 2006, right in the middle of harvest, the government changed the legislation and took away the AWB’s veto power over exports, breaking the single desk. The Minister of Agriculture was given the power to accredit exporters instead.
Almost immediately, companies that had been looking forward to this day jumped into the export market, buying outside of the pool and selling abroad with the Minister’s blessing.
In response to the new situation, and after internal struggles, the AWB proposed a new governance structure that the managers said would make the company more competitive. Instead of a majority of farmer-directors, under the new structure farmers would only elect 2 of the directors. The class B shareholders would elect the majority of directors. This change was sold as a way for farmers to “influence” decision-making (instead of actually making the decisions). The proposal also limited the proportion of all class B shares that any one owner could have to 10%, but only for the first three years. It also allowed the farmers to reject any takeover bids for the first three years. To take effect, the proposal had to get 75% support in a vote.
Farmers did not rush to mail in their ballots. The AWB management pushed hard to get farmers to approve the change. Finally in 2008, after extending the voting period, a little over half of the producers voted and the required majority was reached.
Now it is 2011 – three years later. The class B shareholder restriction has been removed, and not surprisingly, the company has changed hands.
In late 2010 the North American fertilizer company Agrium bought the AWB, even though it had no experience in selling grain. At the time Agrium said it would evaluate how things were going and decide shortly whether to keep the international grain marketing side. Meanwhile, it had acquired the largest farm input retailer in Australia, worth nearly $2 billion in annual sales.
Less than two weeks later, Agrium announced its deal with Cargill for the international grain marketing business. The sale passed the Australian foreign investment regulatory and competition bureau reviews in May 2011. Australian farm organizations tried to get the government to put some conditions on the sale to Cargill –- such as transparent freight rates and protection of the pools -- but they were unsuccessful.
In three short years Australia’s 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, selling virtually all of Australia’s wheat (12% of world wheat production, worth about $5 billion) on their own behalf to being mere customers of Cargill’s, one of the world’s largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately-owned and based in the United States.
Since 2006 the AWB’s share of Australia’s wheat sales has dropped to 23% with 25 other companies in the market, all looking to make money on the spread between purchase and sale prices. When the AWB had its single desk power Australian wheat could command premiums of over $99/tonne over American wheat, but by December 2008 it had dropped to a discount of $27/tonne below US wheat.
And what is the view from the tractor seat?
Here are some recent comments about the post-single desk environment from an Australian farmers’ bulletin board:
“More middle men to screw the prices down -- traders are not interested in farmers getting high prices. As long as they make a margin it doesn’t matter to them if prices are high or low.”
“Terrible logistics in organizing export cargoes, with multiple exporters all wanting to load ships at the same time leading to shipping bottlenecks. Someone has to wear the cost of idle ships waiting to load. Guess who eventually wears that cost? Deregulation hasn’t benefited the average Australian farmer at all.”
“I think our quality to the export market has to suffer. How many two-bit outfits are now jamming grain in sea containers that don't know any thing about grain?”
“Deregulation has allowed for more buyers, which has an advantage, until one does not pay. The AWB had the advantage of promoting Australian grain as a premium product. This is slowly being eroded, I think.”
At this critical point in western Canadian agriculture history, farmers can take heed of the Australian experience. The federal government has announced its intention to defy the Canadian Wheat Board Act and end the single desk without a binding farmer vote. In its place, Minister Ritz has offered nothing more than empty rhetoric about “freedom” and sound bites about “a strong voluntary CWB”.
Farm organizations are calling on the government to hold a legal, binding vote as required under the current law. In the meantime, it is important to be a well-informed and proactive voter in the CWB’s own plebiscite. Your ballot will send a strong message about how much farmers really value their own marketing agency and all its benefits.
Cathy Holtslander
Director of Policy and Research
National Farmers Union
(306) 652-9465
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
KURTENBACH: Agriculture Without the CWB
by Oscar » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm
Agriculture Without the CWB
Friday, October 28, 2011
To the Editor,
I find it necessary to again write in support of maintaining the CWB.
Its loss will simply mean that farm families will have lost any control of the marketing of export wheat and barley. But it will also mean that a truly democratic structure like the CWB , which could become a democratic base for the marketing of all primary agriculture production, will be erased.
Instead, It will be handed over to global corporations.
Most people will agree that many corporations already have too much power. The only reason they have that power is because the people that we have elected to represent us seem to wilt and succumb to the smooth-talking corporate lobbyists. And we need to remember that, due to our agreements under NAFTA, once the CWB is gone, it can never be restored.
Brewster Kneen, a former theologian, who publishes a monthly newsletter of food system analysis, [and has done so for many years] and the author of a number of a books, has made this statement regarding our government's efforts to eliminate the CWB. "The right-wing ideology of the Harper regime comes through in his emphasis on the 'right' of individual farmers over the expressed interests of the majority." Since our present government is in power with the support of only 40% of Canadian voters, it does not take much imagination to see what could take place during the remainder of their term of office.
Now, after finding that 62% of CWB area farmers wished to maintain the Board, the government decided to hire an auditor to establish the cost to taxpayers of getting rid of it. The cost of the audit would be between $500,000 to $1 million. They would be required to list the costs of employee severance and pension costs, potential broken long term contracts, and other costs. A CWB analysis, already carried out and reviewed by the accounting firm KPMG, concluded the total costs could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Brewster Kneen has suggested that these costs which will have to be born by Canadian taxpayers, should be
treated as a subsidy to global grain traders.
Loss of the CWB could be compared to the loss of the greatest grain gathering co-operative in the world, the Prairie Pools. The devolution of this co-operative became a corporate entity named Viterra. Its legal responsibility requires it to return the highest dividends possible to
its global shareholders. Now operating in Australia, there has been a request by the grain industry and farmers in Southern Australia for a Senate inquiry into Viterra. There have been numerous allegations including the 'impact on others in the farming sector' and 'cartel behaviour'.
Leo Kurtenbach
Saskatoon, SK
Telephone: (306) 652-5129.
Friday, October 28, 2011
To the Editor,
I find it necessary to again write in support of maintaining the CWB.
Its loss will simply mean that farm families will have lost any control of the marketing of export wheat and barley. But it will also mean that a truly democratic structure like the CWB , which could become a democratic base for the marketing of all primary agriculture production, will be erased.
Instead, It will be handed over to global corporations.
Most people will agree that many corporations already have too much power. The only reason they have that power is because the people that we have elected to represent us seem to wilt and succumb to the smooth-talking corporate lobbyists. And we need to remember that, due to our agreements under NAFTA, once the CWB is gone, it can never be restored.
Brewster Kneen, a former theologian, who publishes a monthly newsletter of food system analysis, [and has done so for many years] and the author of a number of a books, has made this statement regarding our government's efforts to eliminate the CWB. "The right-wing ideology of the Harper regime comes through in his emphasis on the 'right' of individual farmers over the expressed interests of the majority." Since our present government is in power with the support of only 40% of Canadian voters, it does not take much imagination to see what could take place during the remainder of their term of office.
Now, after finding that 62% of CWB area farmers wished to maintain the Board, the government decided to hire an auditor to establish the cost to taxpayers of getting rid of it. The cost of the audit would be between $500,000 to $1 million. They would be required to list the costs of employee severance and pension costs, potential broken long term contracts, and other costs. A CWB analysis, already carried out and reviewed by the accounting firm KPMG, concluded the total costs could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Brewster Kneen has suggested that these costs which will have to be born by Canadian taxpayers, should be
treated as a subsidy to global grain traders.
Loss of the CWB could be compared to the loss of the greatest grain gathering co-operative in the world, the Prairie Pools. The devolution of this co-operative became a corporate entity named Viterra. Its legal responsibility requires it to return the highest dividends possible to
its global shareholders. Now operating in Australia, there has been a request by the grain industry and farmers in Southern Australia for a Senate inquiry into Viterra. There have been numerous allegations including the 'impact on others in the farming sector' and 'cartel behaviour'.
Leo Kurtenbach
Saskatoon, SK
Telephone: (306) 652-5129.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Kurtenbach: Support for the CWB
by Oscar » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:14 pm
November 10, 2011
Hon, Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Your intention to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board [CWB] will trigger a series of events that threatens Canada's Food Sovereignty. Without any definite and detailed plans of what would replace the present CWB, powerful transnational corporations would soon control the handling, buying, and selling of the export of wheat and barley. Primary producers in the CWB area will have lost their long-time democratic right to cooperatively market their own grain through the CWB. I would respectfully suggest that your actions to extinguish the Board would eventually be followed by the elimination of other Canadian primary poducer-controlled Boards.
I am a 92-year old retired operator of a grain and livestock farm. I have lived and worked on the land all my life, except for three years in the RCAF during World War 2. Our family has always been a strong supporter of the CWB. As you will note, I am old enough to vividly recall the disorderly pricing, grading, and marketing of grain during the heyday of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
I am at a loss to understand how your kind of democracy gives your government the right to ignore the democratic right of 62% of producers who support the single-desk selling of their export wheat and barley, while your government received the support of only 39 % of all Canadians that voted.
It certainly appears that there is clandestine collusion between global corporations involved in food and grain markets, and some members of the present Conservative government. It has all the earmarks of a fascist type takeover.
I would humbly suggest that the loss of the CWB will accelerate the exodus of reasonably sized family farms throughout the CWB prairie grain area.
Yours sincerely,
Leo F. Kurtenbach,
Box 319, 915 Saskatchewan Cres. W.,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
S7M 0M7
Phone: 306 652-5129
Hon, Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Your intention to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board [CWB] will trigger a series of events that threatens Canada's Food Sovereignty. Without any definite and detailed plans of what would replace the present CWB, powerful transnational corporations would soon control the handling, buying, and selling of the export of wheat and barley. Primary producers in the CWB area will have lost their long-time democratic right to cooperatively market their own grain through the CWB. I would respectfully suggest that your actions to extinguish the Board would eventually be followed by the elimination of other Canadian primary poducer-controlled Boards.
I am a 92-year old retired operator of a grain and livestock farm. I have lived and worked on the land all my life, except for three years in the RCAF during World War 2. Our family has always been a strong supporter of the CWB. As you will note, I am old enough to vividly recall the disorderly pricing, grading, and marketing of grain during the heyday of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
I am at a loss to understand how your kind of democracy gives your government the right to ignore the democratic right of 62% of producers who support the single-desk selling of their export wheat and barley, while your government received the support of only 39 % of all Canadians that voted.
It certainly appears that there is clandestine collusion between global corporations involved in food and grain markets, and some members of the present Conservative government. It has all the earmarks of a fascist type takeover.
I would humbly suggest that the loss of the CWB will accelerate the exodus of reasonably sized family farms throughout the CWB prairie grain area.
Yours sincerely,
Leo F. Kurtenbach,
Box 319, 915 Saskatchewan Cres. W.,
Saskatoon, Sask.,
S7M 0M7
Phone: 306 652-5129
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
PULFER: Meeting on the Unilateral Dismantling of the CWB
by Oscar » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:25 pm
Meeting on the Unilateral Dismantling of the CWB by the Government of Canada (Bill C-18)
Re: Official Opposition 'hearings' regarding Bill C-18 which unilaterally dismantles the Canadian Wheat Board
From: Jim Pulfer
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Official Opposition 'hearings' regarding Bill C-18 which unilaterally dismantles the Canadian Wheat Board
This call goes out to any citizen of Canada. It is no longer restricted to farmers, as we are all perceived to be in danger from the Harper regime, and this is just their opening move.
People should send in letters to the National Farmer's Union
[ nfu@nfu.ca ] for forwarding and to Senator Robert Peterson
{ peterr@SEN.PARL.GC.CA } on the CWB issue or - even better - phone up their local MPs.
[ http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/
MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E ]
...................
Meeting on the Unilateral Dismantling of the CWB by the Government of Canada (Bill C-18)
The official opposition within the House of Commons has decided that it would be wise to hold unofficial ‘hearings’ on the proposed unilateral d ismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board as represented by Bill C-18. Hearings, I might add, that opposition members such as Malcolm Allen {Federal Official Opposition Agriculture critic} and Niki Ashton {MP for Churchill} paid for out of their own pockets. It was felt that the issue was so important that the thrust of the new act should be placed before grain farmers so that they might have a chance to comment on it before it becomes law.
Consequently, on Wednesday, November 9th, those two parliamentarians hosted a meeting on the subject in Saskatoon. About two hundred people showed up for the ‘hearing’ and their views were loud and clear. I will try to enumerate them in no particular order. Because of their urgency and importance, most of these points were frequently repeated during the meeting by various speakers:
1) It’s against the law for the Parliament of Canada to unilaterally dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this very issue in 1996 “CWB versus Attorney General Canada re: barley regulations”. This act to unilaterally abolish the CWB forms the backbone of a watershed moment in Canadian democracy: do we remain as a nation ruled under law or do we selectively dispense with the law for ideological reasons? The latter course of action leads to dictatorship. In this case, a dictatorship made up of a narrowly defined ‘reform’ movement elected by only 37% of the voters in Canada, aided by the financial muscle and the technocratic personnel on loan to the Harper Government from the four largest grain handling companies in Canada. ‘On loan’ is a deliberate phrase, as they clearly expect a huge return on their ‘loans’ – and, unfortunately for the rest of us, they appear to be getting it with the hasty passage of Bill C-18.
2) The procedures being used are unparliamentary and, because of that, undemocratic. The bill to unilaterally dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board has not been given to the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons for scrutiny but to the newly formed Legislative Committee for Technical Review. As such, only the technical aspects of the bill can be addressed, and not the substantive issues within it. To wit, for example, no official hearings can be carried out to help shape the bill.
3) First and second reading of the bill in the House has been deliberately slight and indecently hasty. This is shoddy treatment of the 77,000 wheat, durham and barley farmers of Western Canada; not to mention the Ports of Churchill, Thunder Bay, Prince Rupert and Vancouver; nor to mention the extensive Board offices and warehouses in Winnipeg employing over 400 people. The Mayor of Churchill has been told casually on a street corner that the last shipment of grain just cleared his port that day and that the Canadian Government would subsidize the winding down of the Port with up to $ 5,000,000 of taxpayer money. This sort of unparliamentary behaviour is bizarre and unprecedented, let alone highly disrespectful. It is also an indirect subsidy to the grain handling companies. They are not on the hook for any of the economic costs associated with this massive shift in the Canadian grain trade.
4) The bill is being rushed through without proper deliberation. In its earlier stages, there was to be an entity set up to wind down the Canadian Wheat Board over a five year period. Even this time frame would have been a hasty and costly dismantling of the CWB given that the CWB makes numerous large contracts spanning ten or more years in duration. Be that as it may, the contractual penalties would have been high but manageable.
5) Now, at the ‘hearings”, it has been learned that there is to be an immediate dismantling of the Board. Contract penalties have skyrocketed as a result, and are estimated by KPMG to be in the region of $600,000,000 dollars. These funds will come directly out of farmer’s pockets, were it to be done this way. This is harsh, and some at the meeting were heard to mutter that it was ‘down right theft’.
6) According to the President of the Canadian Farmer’s Union, the cap setting aside contingency funds has just been raised yet again. That immediately captures more of Producers’ money for transfer to the temporary transition entity which will be confusingly known as something like the “Canadian Wheat Board 2011”. It will NOT be paid out to them for grain received in the current crop year. On this new entity’s board, the directors will all be appointed by Government and the Chairman will serve at the pleasure of the Crown (Agriculture and Finance being mentioned in this regard). That means that this money, along with the sale of port facilities, hopper cars and other assets will be used to pay down the debts occurring during the winding up of the CWB. As mentioned above, those debts will be astronomically high the faster this process occurs. To those at the meeting this simply meant that the speed of unilaterally dismantling the CWB will be gauged by the total money available and that there will not be a penny left for farmers in this last crop year nor a dividend from the sale of asset. To many this amounted to a highly unacceptable ‘systematic looting of the Board’.
7) Dismantling the Board will once again thrust all farmers back into a ‘David and Goliath’ situation. Payment for grain will not occur immediately upon delivery to a terminal such as Cargill will operate. It will take up to a couple of months for the cheque to be prepared and sent out. Meanwhile, often, other aspects of the company will intervene to question the grade of wheat delivered. Farmers will be caught in a cash squeeze: take a lower grade and payment now or fight it with the company for the prior agreed grade price. Wicked.
8) Another situation the grain trade businesses use is the long duration ‘locked in’ contract with those who use grain products year over year. Farmers will not be able to sell directly to a pasta mill or an oat processing business because they will already have a contract to receive their grain from a company such as Cargill. Farmers will end up having to take much lower prices from Cargill or face costly shipping to remote ports for export. As a result, it is wrong to say or think that prairie farmers will be free to sell to whomever they want. The real world simply does not operate that way. Farmers will be poorer under the new economic freedom proposed than before and as a result, so will we all. This is foolhardy and less than clever.
9) Lastly, much has been made of the fact that American farmers do not use or need a CWB type entity to market their grain. Good for them, but that observation must be offset by the fact that they receive large subsidies from the US Congress to keep them viable whereas Canadian wheat and barley producers have not had to be paid a nickel in subsidies. Our farm economy is about to become highly vulnerable. A lamentable situation, the more so as it’s our very own Government that is doing this to them. Beware, your cherished democratic institution may well be next on the Harper list if it is in any way profitable or happens to stand for honourable Canadian values such as truth, decency, integrity or just plain good common sense.
Dr. Jim Pulfer
715 McPherson Avenue
Saskatoon, SK
S7N 0X9
tel/fax 306-343-1732
email: jimpulfer@shaw.ca
Re: Official Opposition 'hearings' regarding Bill C-18 which unilaterally dismantles the Canadian Wheat Board
From: Jim Pulfer
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Official Opposition 'hearings' regarding Bill C-18 which unilaterally dismantles the Canadian Wheat Board
This call goes out to any citizen of Canada. It is no longer restricted to farmers, as we are all perceived to be in danger from the Harper regime, and this is just their opening move.
People should send in letters to the National Farmer's Union
[ nfu@nfu.ca ] for forwarding and to Senator Robert Peterson
{ peterr@SEN.PARL.GC.CA } on the CWB issue or - even better - phone up their local MPs.
[ http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/
MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E ]
...................
Meeting on the Unilateral Dismantling of the CWB by the Government of Canada (Bill C-18)
The official opposition within the House of Commons has decided that it would be wise to hold unofficial ‘hearings’ on the proposed unilateral d ismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board as represented by Bill C-18. Hearings, I might add, that opposition members such as Malcolm Allen {Federal Official Opposition Agriculture critic} and Niki Ashton {MP for Churchill} paid for out of their own pockets. It was felt that the issue was so important that the thrust of the new act should be placed before grain farmers so that they might have a chance to comment on it before it becomes law.
Consequently, on Wednesday, November 9th, those two parliamentarians hosted a meeting on the subject in Saskatoon. About two hundred people showed up for the ‘hearing’ and their views were loud and clear. I will try to enumerate them in no particular order. Because of their urgency and importance, most of these points were frequently repeated during the meeting by various speakers:
1) It’s against the law for the Parliament of Canada to unilaterally dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this very issue in 1996 “CWB versus Attorney General Canada re: barley regulations”. This act to unilaterally abolish the CWB forms the backbone of a watershed moment in Canadian democracy: do we remain as a nation ruled under law or do we selectively dispense with the law for ideological reasons? The latter course of action leads to dictatorship. In this case, a dictatorship made up of a narrowly defined ‘reform’ movement elected by only 37% of the voters in Canada, aided by the financial muscle and the technocratic personnel on loan to the Harper Government from the four largest grain handling companies in Canada. ‘On loan’ is a deliberate phrase, as they clearly expect a huge return on their ‘loans’ – and, unfortunately for the rest of us, they appear to be getting it with the hasty passage of Bill C-18.
2) The procedures being used are unparliamentary and, because of that, undemocratic. The bill to unilaterally dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board has not been given to the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons for scrutiny but to the newly formed Legislative Committee for Technical Review. As such, only the technical aspects of the bill can be addressed, and not the substantive issues within it. To wit, for example, no official hearings can be carried out to help shape the bill.
3) First and second reading of the bill in the House has been deliberately slight and indecently hasty. This is shoddy treatment of the 77,000 wheat, durham and barley farmers of Western Canada; not to mention the Ports of Churchill, Thunder Bay, Prince Rupert and Vancouver; nor to mention the extensive Board offices and warehouses in Winnipeg employing over 400 people. The Mayor of Churchill has been told casually on a street corner that the last shipment of grain just cleared his port that day and that the Canadian Government would subsidize the winding down of the Port with up to $ 5,000,000 of taxpayer money. This sort of unparliamentary behaviour is bizarre and unprecedented, let alone highly disrespectful. It is also an indirect subsidy to the grain handling companies. They are not on the hook for any of the economic costs associated with this massive shift in the Canadian grain trade.
4) The bill is being rushed through without proper deliberation. In its earlier stages, there was to be an entity set up to wind down the Canadian Wheat Board over a five year period. Even this time frame would have been a hasty and costly dismantling of the CWB given that the CWB makes numerous large contracts spanning ten or more years in duration. Be that as it may, the contractual penalties would have been high but manageable.
5) Now, at the ‘hearings”, it has been learned that there is to be an immediate dismantling of the Board. Contract penalties have skyrocketed as a result, and are estimated by KPMG to be in the region of $600,000,000 dollars. These funds will come directly out of farmer’s pockets, were it to be done this way. This is harsh, and some at the meeting were heard to mutter that it was ‘down right theft’.
6) According to the President of the Canadian Farmer’s Union, the cap setting aside contingency funds has just been raised yet again. That immediately captures more of Producers’ money for transfer to the temporary transition entity which will be confusingly known as something like the “Canadian Wheat Board 2011”. It will NOT be paid out to them for grain received in the current crop year. On this new entity’s board, the directors will all be appointed by Government and the Chairman will serve at the pleasure of the Crown (Agriculture and Finance being mentioned in this regard). That means that this money, along with the sale of port facilities, hopper cars and other assets will be used to pay down the debts occurring during the winding up of the CWB. As mentioned above, those debts will be astronomically high the faster this process occurs. To those at the meeting this simply meant that the speed of unilaterally dismantling the CWB will be gauged by the total money available and that there will not be a penny left for farmers in this last crop year nor a dividend from the sale of asset. To many this amounted to a highly unacceptable ‘systematic looting of the Board’.
7) Dismantling the Board will once again thrust all farmers back into a ‘David and Goliath’ situation. Payment for grain will not occur immediately upon delivery to a terminal such as Cargill will operate. It will take up to a couple of months for the cheque to be prepared and sent out. Meanwhile, often, other aspects of the company will intervene to question the grade of wheat delivered. Farmers will be caught in a cash squeeze: take a lower grade and payment now or fight it with the company for the prior agreed grade price. Wicked.
8) Another situation the grain trade businesses use is the long duration ‘locked in’ contract with those who use grain products year over year. Farmers will not be able to sell directly to a pasta mill or an oat processing business because they will already have a contract to receive their grain from a company such as Cargill. Farmers will end up having to take much lower prices from Cargill or face costly shipping to remote ports for export. As a result, it is wrong to say or think that prairie farmers will be free to sell to whomever they want. The real world simply does not operate that way. Farmers will be poorer under the new economic freedom proposed than before and as a result, so will we all. This is foolhardy and less than clever.
9) Lastly, much has been made of the fact that American farmers do not use or need a CWB type entity to market their grain. Good for them, but that observation must be offset by the fact that they receive large subsidies from the US Congress to keep them viable whereas Canadian wheat and barley producers have not had to be paid a nickel in subsidies. Our farm economy is about to become highly vulnerable. A lamentable situation, the more so as it’s our very own Government that is doing this to them. Beware, your cherished democratic institution may well be next on the Harper list if it is in any way profitable or happens to stand for honourable Canadian values such as truth, decency, integrity or just plain good common sense.
Dr. Jim Pulfer
715 McPherson Avenue
Saskatoon, SK
S7N 0X9
tel/fax 306-343-1732
email: jimpulfer@shaw.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
50 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest