I'm not a farmer so I have no personal stake in this isssue one way or another, other than not wanting to live in a quasi- stalinist state. To quote someone from somewhere "democracy isn't six people in a lifeboat voting to eat the seventh.

mbaron

I still run into many farmers, mostly older, who gripe about the end of the CROW. Almost invariably, a discussion that starts with the CWB switches to the subject of the CROW. In the minds of a lot of farmers, the two issues are interchangeable. On both scores, they see the policy-makers in Ottawa as dictatorial and threatening. If put to a vote, they will stick with the status-quo every time. If they could have voted on the CROW, they would have overwhelmingly chose to have kept it.

As Al Loyns pointed out in a recent talk, the CROW was less of a subsidy and more of a tax on value-added processing. It meant that Western Canada could do little else but grow raw materials and ship them out as fast as possible for someone else to process. The prairie grain shipping system was a central planner's worst nightmare, plagued by endless delays and rapidly decaying infrastructure. The damage to the prairie economy in terms of lost opportunities was incalculable.

Thanks to avowed socialists like Wayne Easter and countless closet socialist cohorts across the prairies, the CROW episode dragged on far longer than it should have. Unfortunately, it looks like they're set to do the same with the CWB.

I wonder what the results would be like if all western farmers that used to or were capable of producing wheat but didn't because of the CWB monopoly, were allowed to vote?

I remember the CROW debate very well. I was still in the farming buisness at that time. It's funny how the 7 billion that was on the table in the initial stages of the discussion dwindled to 1.3 billion by the time it was paid out. The NFU, the NDP, the CWB, the Sask Wheat Pool and every other left wing group was yelling and screaming that the CROW was non-negotiable, and that the sun wouldn't shine if the CROW was removed. That resistance to inevetable change cost each and every producer 80% of what was initially on the table. They should be real proud of what they accomplished for us. Not.

Funny, it's the same bunch standing in the way of what must happen to the CWB. How much will their stubbornness and foolishness cost the few remaining farmers?

mbaron. Absolutely agree. We should dismantle the CWB... (and Healthcare, and Sasktel, and Saskpower, and PetroCanada, and welfare, and Education, and Unions and most of the Civil service... and...)

Texas Canuck. I would also like to see that list, if only to go have a look at the farms that I should not model mine after. If you have already made a bad choice based on ideology, of what import to me is your next decision?? In fact the reasons why cereals should be included in an agronomically sustainable farm would make a good thesis topic.

The proof is in the farm gate returns, economists like Al Loyns and policy wonks like farmer Rolf Penner show time and again the board is costing us billions. Farmers just across the lines consistently get more for their wheat. Its not rocket science its simple math.

The Crow Rate Benefit had nothing to do with the CWB.

The CBC recieves about a $Billion per year from govt.

Prairie farmers were recieving close to a $Billion per year also, until the Crow Rate Susidy was canned in about 1996. Chretien did away with 'in-perpetuity' at the urging of some prairie farm groups.

The prairie provinces produce much, much more grain and oilseeds than Canada needs, so a huge percentage is exported. Before the crow, long distances to port rendered prairie grain farmers unviable.

But the CRB also allowed secondary industry to locate in Ont and Que. Where the votes are. Unlike the US, where the majority of processing/value-added is in the Midwest.

The CBCers are still enjoying their $billions. The prairie farmers lost their $billions and are waiting for the processing/jobs to be pryed away from Central Canada. It may happen in time. It would make a more viable ag industry if it did.

Until then the GRIP, AIDA, CFIP, CAIS begging will have to do. Do we really believe Otto could have delivered on $7,000,000,000 ?? from Trudeau ?

I am reposting this as the discussion yesterday degenerated into a harangue about who is or is not a patriotic Canadian.

I am a 68 yr old farmer who gave up hope that the CWB would ever be an asset to me or the industry. I have not grown either wheat or barley for 10 years now, and my only regret in that decision is that it took me so long to figure it out. I now grow only non-board grains, not only because of my philosophical view, but also because I make more money. I don't recall what year it was that oats were removed from the jurisdiction of the CWB, but it was done because oats was considered to be specialty niche crop not grown in enough volume to make any money for anybody. Once out from the clutches of the CWB oats is now my best moneymaker, and the oats related "value added" industry has flourished, not to mention the increase in oats export to the U.S.A.

I am able to make full use of futures and options markets with my grains, not like the restricted "choices" the CWB has offered to producers in the last couple of years in an effort to make it look like they are mellowing.

The CWB was conceived in order to keep grain prices low so as to assist GB to recover from the effects of WW2. They have been very successful in their mandate.

Please Mr. Strahl, bring on a dual market before I retire. I might even grow some wheat.

To Beever.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The main difference between you and me is that I'm still farming.

Len... Keep the faith... I admire you for hanging in there. I didn't do what you did, and I'm not farming. It distresses me to see the lengths that the anti-choice side go to protect the CWB monopoly. Shameful.

Len... In my last few years of production it was oats and canola that kept me going... not wheat or barley. Need I say more?

Previous, did someone say Al Lyons was a University Professor ?? An Ag-economist prof ?? small scale farmer ??

"Chretien did away with 'in-perpetuity' at the urging of some prairie farm groups."

He did not. It was never there. You were lied to.

"Do we really believe Otto could have delivered on $7,000,000,000 rom Trudeau ? "

The Hon. Jean Luc Pepin had allocated more than 7 billion - 5 years later. The Hon. Charlie Mayer bantered 7 billion in 1993 before going down with Kim Who..

Al Loyns is a retired Ag Economist. He taught ag economics at the University of Manitoba for many years.

Right on Larry... the left cost farmers over 5 billion dollars. What would that money have done to the farm economy at the time? It will be interesting someday to find out what the left has cost farmers through the CWB. The CROW will pale in comparison.

Should add that Al Loyns also continues to run a small farm.

I do not know about you, but I never believed much of what Quebec Liberals promissed. Especially Trudeau Liberals.

Ag Economist !!?? now that explains it.

Anyone here from Green Lake?

Wheat/barley does well on Green Lake. Jimmy Sinclair made his fortune on Green Lake; had a year-round operation, too.
...-
...-

Sask. government wants feds to stay out of wheat board elections
Canada.com - 1 hour ago
GREEN LAKE, Sask.— Saskatchewan’s government says the result of elections at the Canadian Wheat Board prove Ottawa should back off on changes to the organization. ----

Beev:

That was 7 billion in 1974 dollars
you received 1.3 in 1996 dollars

as i stated previously the tragedy is in the debate and what it has done to the prairies.

And yes i agree the CWB and CROW are separate issues; however, the policy debate is similar.

.. $$ seven billion in Quebec Liberal promises to prairie farmers is worth ...

vs 1.3B in hand. A bird in hand is worth .....

Larry, If I remember right, in the dying days of the conservative government, the 7Billion was on the table. My bro-in-law was involved politically at the time, and was aware of the discussion. Garf S. from the SWP, and ? from the NFU along with the NDP in this province raised such a ruckus that Charlie couldn't get it done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ralph Goodale come up with the 1.3 Billion figure after some very creative accounting and smokescreens?

Just over 50% of eligible farmers voted, and just over 50% of them voted for pro monopoly candidates. Rough calculation reveals that just over 25% of eligible voters favor the CWB monopoly. Quite a "landslide" eh? Of the 45 or so percent who didn't vote, how many won't vote on any question, and how many have given up on the CWB in frustration and feel that it's futile. The feeling of futility comes from the previous govt "loading the dice" in favor of continuing the monopoly. Now the present govt. is trying to do the same thing only in the opposite direction. Come on like minded farmers, now we have a fighting chance. Get out there and help yourselves.

You are correct on Goodale's 1.3 B. I did not write this piece to get into a CROW debate. It is there to serve what happens when you lose sight of the debate.

It becomes a debate on fear and rhetoric and in the end - no one is accountable. To wit: Where is Wayne Easter, Blakeny and Garf?

B.Hoax:

Otto was born and raised in Saskatchewan. Problem was he was like Panasonic - slightly ahead of his time.

I worked with him for 4 years in Winnipeg. He didnt become Dean of Law at U of S under the age of 30. (29 i think) with no vision. I don't want to get into a LIB debate either. My family still reminds me of LIFT, every chance they get....lol

I hear operation "lift" was known as "sunk". lol

I guess the whole point is the CWB may or may not cost framers $$. The crow, however, did put $Billions in his pocket. but, no doubt at some cost in lost value added. But who would of made the money on prairie vs eastern value added is the question.

One thing is for sure; the track record of Ag-Economists is VERY poor... talking from experience.

As Len points out only 1/2 of persons a ballot was sent to voted.

But he skews the numbers to say that those that didn't vote support dismantling the wheatboard. Using his logic you can also easily prove that 75% of people support and only the 25% against voted....

Like saying that the hundreds of thousands who didn't vote in the last federal election would have supported the conservatives and therefore the tories should have a majority.

The fact is they didn't vote, so you can't know what their views are. All you can tell is the information given to you. Quit making up scenarios that just don't exist.

First, Quebec Libs and now Law professors !!?? Deans, no less .. at universities !! lol .. just kidding...

Yup, B., more upLIFTing than anything WONDER could throw at u

SUNK = a similar device purchased at the dollar store...

end result = pendulous

ok now back to our regular programmed show....

and heressssssssssss KATE:

Question; at the same time that the Crow was canned, the delivery point against a WCE Canola futures contract was shifted from Van to Saskatoon. Why ?? No ocean going vessels in the 'Toon'. (flax; T-bay to Virden)

This had the effect of reducing the "apparent" 'basis' cost to the farmer by perhaps $30 per tonne. For the sake of argument; without the Crow, Van basis would have jumped from $30 to $60. Toon basis 'appears' to be $30 better, BUT the world price for Canola(WCE) is $30 less than Van. Same shit different pile, so why the co-incidental change ?? I have asked this question many times(even to ag-economists) and never an answer. Not even an unfavourable one.

When the change was made on September 28, 1995...moving the delivery point to Stoon versus Vancouver...i was Director of Operations at the WCE. The change had dick to do with the CROW.

It had everything to do with the collapse of the june 1994 canola contract. The green machine's crush plant was viewed to be the new price discovery mechanism ("wrong").

Convergence still sucks. Farmers know less today what the export price is of canola. The warrant and delivery system put in place should have made delivery against the futures easier. (didn't).

When the new contract was put in place in 1995, basis levels were thought to stay in a +15 to -20 range - none of the -50 BS that occured in 2003.

short answer is that the contract was to become more efficient and transparent - it didnt.

there have been changes since 1998 and i havent stayed close to them.

Does the contract work today? It works for the people using them.

Is it a price discovery mechanism that farmer's can use. NOT.

others will give you a better overview of the contract today - i'm not real happy being a part of the original contract.

Bottom line is you no longer know what the export price of seed is - kinda like the export price of wheat - and neither commodity supplies KY as a condition of trading/growing it.

Zap me an email if you want a longer version of the contract.

What is clear is that there *already is* a dual system operating inside the CWB, and the CWB created it, each time they gave permits for some producers to sell their barley, outside the CWB.

[See link provided below for Ag Committee meeting this Oct]

Some feed mills are already going directly to the producer...bypassing the CWB, with the CWB's knowledge, and blessing, one presumes.

Some producers seeking this opportunity, equal to their neighbor's, to sell their own similar product have been denied by the CWB.

The vote to retain single desk is a farce, when the granting of dual opportunity is already available. In law, does it not go to having set the precedence?

cmte.parl .gc .ca /Content/HOC/committee /391/agri/evidence/ev2446409/agriev23-e.htm#Int-1726703

"Ms. Carole Husband: There is already a dual marketing system in place. I gave you the number of people who already bypass pooling and board marketing. For instance, a feed mill can come to our farm, buy grain, take it back, make feed out of it, and export it with a Wheat Board licence. The Wheat Board could have chosen to tell the feed mill it couldn't buy directly from the farmer. The Wheat Board could have said, “I'm going to buy the grain from the farmer and then sell it to the feed mill.” Instead, the Wheat Board lets the feed mill bypass the board completely.

You need an export licence when you export, so a lot of feed mills right across the country are going out and buying grain directly, bypassing the board. Millions and millions of bushels are already bypassing the board, yet I understood in your comments that it would destroy the board. It hasn't. It's happening now. They totally bypass Wheat Board pooling and marketing.

When we went to the Wheat Board and said we wanted a permit they gave us one. We don't go through the pools. We don't go through their marketing. We get a licence just the same as Quebec does. When Quebec or Ontario want to get an export licence to sell their products, they have to apply to the board. They get a licence and they export.

I told you about my barley. I applied to the board, got my export licence, and went across the border. When Mr. Charles applied they said, “No, you can't have a licence. You must sell it to us.” So some people are getting licences and other people are not. That's what you call dual marketing, and it's happening right now. It's just that perhaps you're not aware of it."

Larry, thanks for adding a profession opinion here. I very much appreciate that as compared to the partisan rhetoric.

It's very interesting that this conversation is populated with numbers and verifiable facts.

Long live the blogosphere.

Cheers,
lance

1974 was an extremely important year for prairie farmers in another way. That was the year Raymond Sommerville beat the CWB in the Supreme Court. The CWB had charged Sommerville for feeding wheat he had grown in Saskatchewan to his cattle in Alberta without a CWB interprovincial licence. On the face of it, Sommerville was blatently in violation of the Act, but the CWB ruled that producer grain is agriculture and not trade and commerce and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the CWB.

So when did we get the off-board domestic feed grain market? You guessed it...1974. And even limited to within Canada, this freedom has been great for many prairie grain farmers.

All I know is that a Royal commission recommended that western farmers be paid thirteen billion dollars for the elimination of the Crow.The Sask Wheat pool and the farmers union said"its not enough".So the govt said "we will give you seven billion" and the Sask Wheat Pool and the farmers union said"its not enough".So then the govt said "we will give you one point three billion" and the farmers union and the Sask Wheat Pool said"thats more like it.We really showed those politicians how to negotiate".

The number that Jean Luc Pepin told me was 13 B.

Today, Wayne Easter is a hero - mug shots on the steps of Parliament.

Goodale gets MP of the year.

Who is accountable?

Only in Canada - where idiocy is rewarded with lifelong trips to the trough.

Who will be accountable when the WTO mothballs STE's?

LB, not that it matters, but I can honestly say I do not remember you being director of ops, doubt if I ever wondered who it was.

Why(who) "viewed" stoon, crush plant, as the new price discovery ?

Why did they not see it as wrong from the beginning ?

I remember a few collapses. Was the June 94 contract fiasco the one that would have bankrupt UGG ? so instead they forced liquidation ?? and many producers lost a bundle ??

"But he skews the numbers to say that those that didn't vote support dismantling the wheatboard."

Did I say that? Nope, don't think so. Just kinda wondered how non voters would have voted had they taken the trouble mail in a ballot. Guess they figured it wasn't worth 51 cents one way or the other.

Besides, I don't want the CWB dismantled. I just want to see farmers have a choice, and for those who want to have a selling agency with price pooling to have that as well.

Why(who) "viewed" stoon, crush plant, as the new price discovery ?

The committee struck to develop a new contract were made up of members who owned the WCE. The committee was facilitaed by Dr. Larry Martin.

Why did they not see it as wrong from the beginning?

Who were they designing a contract for? Farmers..don't think so.

Was the June 94 contract fiasco the one that would have bankrupt UGG ? so instead they forced liquidation ?? and many producers lost a bundle ??

I need files I have at work. UGG was a minor player thru Continental Grain. SWP was the major player.

Farmers should not have been in the cash month to begin with. The should not have lost bundles in the June 1994 contract. It did affect other contracts, I agree.

Here is a good piece written by one a student:

http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/course_pages/cid_185/darren.pdf

FYI: Colin Carter is from Davis and authour of Continental Barley Market.

SWP "donated" $250,000 to the WCE investigation into the June 1994 futures contract with no admission of guilt.

Send me an email in the morning - i'll keep you reading for a week.

There are 2 eligible voters at our place and when the voting packages arrived one was taped shut and the voting envelope was missing. We phoned, they called it tampering and replaced it, but makes you wonder how many of those there were.

Back when rapeseed was starting to become a major crop with good prices, there were farmers in our area that boasted that they would never grow that weed. They also said that they would never grow any grain that the CWB does not market. Nowadays, those same farmers are growing canola for cash flow to SUBSIDIZE the BS marketing lunatics that CWB employs. Most of these farmers do not realize it, but that is exactly what they doing. Subsidizing an inefficient, cumbersome, slow anachronism from the dark ages of grain marketing.

Were on SHERMANS PLANET and the QUADROTRIKIKELLIE is infested with TRIBBLES

All I wanna know is the CWB open to be audited by AG? Did it go through?

Len at 8:14 PM said,

I don't want the CWB dismantled. I just want to see farmers have a choice, and for those who want to have a selling agency with price pooling to have that as well.

That is the crux of the issue, and the reasonable middle ground that Larry W. has been talking about. On the extreme sides of the issue you have those who will not admit that there can be middle ground.

The left side uses the scare tactic that there will be no CWB if farmers are allowed to sell their own grain. They are right, the CWB will not exist as a forced monopoly, it will look and act differently. The far right wants the CWB completely destroyed They are wrong, as there is room in agriculture for a voluntary grain marketing organization.

Given the choice, farmers will chose the marketing option the best fits their farming style and marketing expertise. For some, pooling their grain (not only wheat, but other grains as well)with others will be the proper choice. Those farmers who choose to spend the time and effort to market their own product should be rewarded for their efforts.

Unfortunately this debate has again been hijacked, mainly by the NDP, NFU, and other left leaning organizations. Choice is a scary word to our left leaning friends because it means that they will loose control of something that they had no right to control in the first place.

It is truly unfortunate that this debate, especially in Ottawa, has descended again to the gutter level. But one only has to look at which parties have caused this to see where the real problem lies.

@mbaron:

Re: "democracy isn't six people in a lifeboat voting to eat the seventh"

While I agree with the sentiment about that situation being undesireable, the above quote is actually a very good summary of how democracy works and incidentally why the CWB deserves to be scrapped.

Rumour has it shredders are in transit, heading to CWB Headquarters. Can't verify...but....

So eastern paul, is that a yes? I can't wait for the bouncing bunny easter to hip hop around his desk tomorrow. I bet the sredders are humming and the bunny's bunnies are hopping if the AG is on her way. Makes my day if it is true.

People give your head a shake. A CWB II will not be anything more than a broker (sorry Larry). By having the only storefront for Canadian Grain being the CWB or its' agents, then the farmer has the ability to capture any premium that is available for the Canadian Brand of wheat, durum and barley.

If you have multiple sellers of Candian grain then any premium for the brand will either a) pad the bottom lines of Grain Companies or be bid away competing for the same sale.

You have to remember that in the USA they have free enterprise "American Style", where the government gives them a floor price. Canadian farmers so eager to enter this circus would would be flying the trapeze without a net. The Americans have a net, a safety harness and two senators per state ensuring it stays in place.

By the way I have shipped grain to the US via CWB permit and I ship special crops around the world to more than a dozen countries annually so I know alittle about international marketing.

So there is no middle ground.

What concrete proof do you have for:

1) By having the only storefront for Canadian Grain being the CWB or its' agents, then the farmer has the ability to capture any premium that is available for the Canadian Brand of wheat, durum and barley.

2) If you have multiple sellers of Candian grain then any premium for the brand will either a) pad the bottom lines of Grain Companies or be bid away competing for the same sale.
_______________________

I'm watching the Americans bid away their premium this morning on export wheat. Their DNS 14.0 is $1.16 a bushel higher than the CWB November PRO 1 CWRS 13.5 at Great Falls, MT. And they don't even clean to our standards.

Whats with that?

When you are shipping your special crops all around the world - is it your own grain or other farmers?

Lorne,

With respect, it really doesn't matter what the new CWB would look like. The premis behind the present CWB is simply wrong.

By forcing farmer A to pool his grain with yours, without his permission, is simply wrong. If farmers voluntarily want want to pool their resourses (ie. grain) to achieve a real or perceived advantage then have at it. But what gives you the right to compell farmer A to allow his grain to be pooled with yours, without his permission?

Saying that your price will be lower, or that you will lose perceived market premiums or whatever is not an acceptable answer. If farmer A sees no advantage in pooling his grain with yours, then you have no right to it.

Larry are you accounting for quality differences in the grain. Canadians have markets that our grain is well suited for and there are customers that prefer DNS 14.0. It is like saying the customer that buys yellow peas would substitute with greens.

Regarding the special crop marketing, I do market mine and other farmers special crops. But I am not posting today on behalf of my company. My point is that this exercise is not something your average farmer is going to attempt. There have been comments in the media about farmers marketing their product over the internet and so on. This implies that they can acheive premiums this way, which is of course ridiculous.

Let me ask you what proof do you have that if there is a premium for 1 CWRS 13.5 that a farmer will see any of it. My argument, and you have to agree, is that farmers have marketing clout through the CWB and once that is lost it can not be regained. I don't argue that the CWB is perfect in its' present form but it has come a long ways in the past ten years. I prefer to work for changes to timing of delivery etc. within the CWB rather than throwing what we have away.

On my farm we grow all crops and in fact in 2005-06 I grew 1% of the canola grow in crop district 7a. This year I saw the futures price of canola rise through the summer and all of the rise was eaten up by the basis. I had no control over that.

Currently I have enough grain bins for about 70% of my harvest. CWB grains move off the combine with no concern about price. If the CWB is dismantled I am going to become a grain bin dealer. All farmers will have to build more bins because you will have to store the grain to time your marketing. I know Larry will tell me to sell the grain and buy the paper but until we get a greater trading volume in the markets they are too thinly traded for my liking. If there was a more valid way to deliver against a futures contract we could bring alittle more reality to the markets.

When I look at the range of crops that I grow, and some years I grow as many as eight, there are few that have as little upside to them as wheat. This isn't the CWB's making, it is the reality of world markets which won't change no matter who markets them. If we can't brand our grain then it becomes generic, worth no more than the next competitor.

In the "World of Wonder" category, Jack Layton's pronouncement on the CWB elections, and Chuck Strahl's planned plebiscite on barley marketing: "I believe the wheat board elections show the Conservatives are arrogant and dictatorial.. and they should begin to trust farmers to make their own decisions." Except, apparently, the decision to sell their grain privately.

Beever

I hear this argument that all farmers who want "Marketing Choice" make that it is an abuse to their rights.

Lets look at this. What is it that farmers that want choice are looking for? Timing of delivery, control of cashflow, pricing? These are all valid points.
I think timing of delivery is the greatest valid beef anyone has with the wheat board. It is tough to manage cashflow with a large amount of board grains. I am an ex-banker and I can assure you that if you are a farmer today and you grow mainly cereals, ... you don't get it. You can not be crunching numbers or analyzing markets. I think the board is working on a project to swap delivery
periods to match up prferences.

That deals with timing of delivery and control of cashflow. The next is pricing. This one is precipitated by the look to the south. While there are some farmers within 200 kms of the border that may have a shot at delivering into that market, they are dreaming in technicolour if they think that option will be open in the longterm. I have trucked grain from west central Sask to the US in the early nineties via a CWB permit into the US market to arbitrage a situation that was taking place and freight bills at that time ran as high as $2.00 per bushel. Remember you can only load a super-b with 28 tonnes because of their bridges etc.

So to attract a better price you have to "receive" it from a grain company or sell it direct yourself. When is the last time you arranged an ocean vessel or freight insurance or completed a bill of lading for a foreign destination or dealt with letters of credit from a foreign customer?? Get real.

CPAC is right this moment carrying the debate in The House on this subject.

In fact Carol Skelton,MP from Saskatchewan suggested that the opposition members go to Small Dead Animals blog and search out the comments.

She made special mention of Larry Webber.

Lorne: "So to attract a better price you have to "receive" it from a grain company or sell it direct yourself. When is the last time you arranged an ocean vessel or freight insurance or completed a bill of lading for a foreign destination or dealt with letters of credit from a foreign customer?? Get real."

Um, there's an entire business devoted to exactly those tasks: freight/customs brokers. What makes you think that information tasks such as those, in an internet world, wouldn't pop up at competitive prices if farmers were free to make their own deals?

Hey Bean, if anyone can get me a Youtube style clip of that, I'd love to have it.

Lorne...

The reason you hear the argument all the time is because it is the basic argument.

Here is the simple question. Do I own my wheat? Or do I grow it "collectively" We have freedom of association in this country, and if I do not want to associate with my neighbour who grows wheat, or you, then why am I compelled to do so?

Don't say it is because I'll get more money if I do so, because that does not answer the basic question.

Even in the labour movement, I have the choice to use sell my skills in a "union shop" or a non-union shop. The choice is mine... not so with wheat.

Since CPAC viewers are no doubt reading this I would like to take this moment to reassure those viewers that there is no reason to have Sheila Fraser audit the Canadian Wheat Board and that rumours about the Australian Wheat Board, Claudia Rossett, and men wearing women's underwear are speculative and without basis in lingerie.

Lots and lots of bins !! That is what ever farmer should have. Be in control of your product. And do not advertise the size of your inventory. Keep them guessing. Nothing gives more pleasure than nailing the paper longs at the top with physical delivery, when all thought the bins were empty. The last few decades the Farmer has given up that tool by signing production contracts, DDs, basis contracts, ect, thereby tiping his hand even before he puts the seed in the ground !!

If you ever hear of a govmit plan to build storage and call it reserve, liquidate the farm and head for the hills. It would be a big bear hanging over the market, a la USDA.

LMAO... Gerry Ritz is complaining that people who made a marketing choice with feed barley are being locked into their choice. (feed can be sold off board too)

If you sign a contract with a company, in this case the CWB, for a cash advance you are forced to deliver there and that is wrong? Its like any other contract with any other company.... Except most of them won't give you money up front before you make delivery.

Even funnier now he is complaining that the US has a different grading system which results in the dumping charges.

I wonder if he knows that it is the CGC and not the CWB that determines rules for grading.

Beever

I suspect that you say you have choice in the labour
market you have choice because you know up front what type of shop you are signing up for.

Did you not know about the CWB when you started grain farming?

You have a choice to grow board grains or not, or work in a union shop or not.

Basdically my argument is have a vote winner takes all and get on with it.

Lorne:

Thanks for taking the time. There has to be a medium between throwing farmers in jail and the mess we are in today.

15% of the right and 15% of the left are getting all the airtime.

What is the solution? The left won't budge. The right won't budge and who gives damn about the farm? Really, who does?

Lorne...

With respect, the vote idea sounds good, until you try and determine who is eligeble to vote and what the question will be.

Pro CWB people want the vote to be a choice between the status quo CWB (monopoly) and the elimination of the CWB altogether.

Pro choice people want there to be two options (maybe 3), status quo monopoly, or a voluntary wheat board, and perhaps the elimination allogether.

I really don't see a vote on either question putting an end to the argument, although I think we would both agree that this endless debate achieves nothing.

I come back to my original question of do I produce grain collectively or do I own it. As for the labour market, none of us would like to live in a society where the government mandated that you could only have union shops for a given occupation. (except perhaps Jack Layton and Buzz)

"The left won't budge. The right won't budge and who gives damn about the farm? Really, who does?"

... the libs don't really care, the dippers don't really care, the cons don't really care. That leaves the Grain companies who don't care and the CWB who doesn't care.

Just the farmers you say? So lets run the farm like a business rather than an ideological pawn. What gets me the best return for the least work??

On my farm (for today) that is the CWB by a few bucks. not many. but I don't have to do the marketing work to get the price either. and that is expensive.

----
Lol, Anita Neville just used fear and smear on 400 jobs losses in Winnipeg.. which is almost a bit of a percent of the Winnipeg labour market. What if cargill can do it with 5 jobs?? (Then the CWB is inefficient maybe??)

Beever,. you mean like Healthcare?, Education?, Ag Canada? City Employers? etc.

I still don't understand the choice/CWB debate on how the CWB survives in a dual market.

There is no CWB in a dual market. It becomes a cargill, an ADM, a JRI, etc. It is free to choose any structure just as any other company.

But tell me how a pool structure would work without the monopoly and why hasn't it been done?

Tell me how a company with no port space and no bargaining chips gets grain to export markets??

Tell me how that company with no delivery points takes delivery of grain that it can no longer ship??

Larry

Here's one for you, the change of the crow has hurt everyone that grows grain and exports it. We were supposed to be met with many value added opportunities and the growth of the livestock sector. The livestock industries grew because feed became cheaper.

I see the rationale for the change and in fact I was a big proponent of it at the time, but lets say freight increased by $20 per tonne, it costs me $120,000 every year.

I see now the problem with trying to value add to every bushel is that it doesn't change the reality that we are still half way around the world from most of our market and there are lots of competing countries that don't need the wages we do to live. Therefore when they get their act together, Bam there goes our market.

In the world of high fuel costs it sucks to be this far from the market. Also our product is in transit much longer than our competitors, so lead time for buyers is so much greater.

I say these things so the average Joe Farmer doesn't have any illusions about the challenges of
marketing.

Larry

You are right that the media covers only the extremes. But farmers have to take the time to educate themselves and inform themselves. This does not mean go to the NFU or Wheat Growers website. If you gain some understanding about economic theory it gives you a basis to understand implications of policy change.

I am really ticked that they consult the neophytes at the Wheat Growers as experts in the field. I know some of those people and they are still wet behind the ears and know not of what they speak.

I have never voted anything else but Conservative, Reform and Alliance. I was even asked to run once federally. I am mostly p***ed off the way they are handling this. If there are changes to the CWB, I will live to farm another day or 20 years. But it doesn't mean I won't voice my opinion and have it heard.

Thanks for the sharing of opinions.

OK, here are my questions.
1) If the CWB is such a wonderful marketing tool for farmers, why are farmers east of Manitoba not beating down the door to get some of this?

2)If the CWB is such a wonderful marketing tool for farmers, why are farmers not fighting to get other crops like canola, mustard etc brought under the control of the wheat board?

I suspect the reality is just that western farmers have not had to market their wheat for so long that they really have no idea how to do it, and are scared that they will lose out. But that is what the DUAL market idea is all about. Those old dogs who are afraid to learn new tricks can hang on to the CWB. And it probably will improve the situation for those farmers as well, because the board will have to work harder to prove their worth.

And as far as this being Ottowa proclaiming their dictates from afar, remember that the MPs working hardest to keep the boards monopoly are from Ontario, Quebec, and the maritimes, where the CWB is the competition to their farmers. That says as much about the "value" of the single desk system as anything.

Barcs...

Medicine..If I'm a nurse or a doctor I can work in a multitude of places.. Education I can use my skills in a multitude of places, Ag Specialist. Engineer... same thing. All occupations are the same.

It's funny that the most profitable retailer in Sask happens to be a voluntary co-operative, that competes in the world of multi-nationals and global players by giving good value to those who choose to patronize it. People choose to buy from them, not because they have a monopoly, but rather because they give good value to their customers. Their return to the membership is not too bad either. If they did have a monopoly, would they be able to extract a premium price? I doubt it. The buyers would simply go elsewhere.

Canada is not the only country in the world that exports wheat. The new CWB will have to learn to live and prosper in a new set of circumstances, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they will ultimately do just fine.

"Medicine..If I'm a nurse or a doctor I can work in a multitude of places.. Education I can use my skills in a multitude of places, Ag Specialist ((I said Ag Canada)). Engineer... same thing. All occupations are the same." -------- Try working outside a union shop in one of those.... Not in Canada

How Beever?

The CWB has no deliver infrastructure (no elevators). They have no port space to ship out of.

They have few assets with which to buy or even finance such an infrastructure.

How to survive at all let alone prosper??

Barcs,

I have a sis-in-law that works as a nurse in a non-union environment and gets paid very well, I have another sys-in-law who has 2 education degrees and works in a non union environment, all in socialist Sask.

Correct, the CWB has no infrastructure, but neither did Dreyfus, until several years ago, who was one of the largest physical exporters of Canadian grain. I had the privelege of sharing a meal with the V.P. of Dreyfus about 7 years ago, just as they were starting to build in Western Canada who told me the story of their operations. Lack of facilities certainly never stopped them from exporting. BTW, they did it with an office staff of 11 persons.

Life will go on,when the CWB monopoly is gone. Farmers will plant, harvest and sell their grain, to whomever they want. That is true freedom, and that is what my Canada is about.

Beever

You say the new CWB will do just fine in the new set of circumstances, and yet you argue they are doing a crappy job now. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Lorne..

They will do just fine for those who choose to use them. Who knows, maybe they will be even better.

No one has answered the basic question of does a farmer own his wheat? Or does grow it "collectively" with all the other farmers large and small?

The inconsistancy in the argument if from those who say that their rights will be infringed upon if the monopoly is gone. There is no inherent right in this country to compusory "single desk marketing". I have no problems whatsoever with voluntary co-operatives and associations. But forced collectivism, is not my vision for this country. There is another term for it.

With all due respect:

The CWB has been able to study grain companies for the better part of what ...75 years?

If they do have support of 60% of the farm, that translates into an enormous amount of grain.

They need to think like a grain company - not a monopoly.

This system is so overbuilt, grain companies will be bidding on the CWB's volume of grain - just to survive! Someone could make a living selling knee pads of the front door at 423 Main.

Not only at port position but in the country. Look at the tendering process. Yes they need some capital - how much - 1.5 Billion - 3 billion - whats the number.

The Feds should give them the capital. The Gov't guarantee has a value. But farmers will keep debating the value of the CWB and get nothing for it - see the CROW.

Take the money and build a company that WILL work. Pouring cement sentinels in should be over. Capitalize on other companies mistakes.

Louis Dreyfus operated in this country for decades with no facilities as a previous poster suggested. Ditto A.C. Toepher.

Parrish has no facility in Vancouver and probably makes more money than the #1, 2 and 3 grain company combined.

So don't tell me they "can't". My three year old says " I can't" and I tell Hunter, why don't you just say "that you don't want to".

All the fear mongering about Cargill, ADM and multinationals is BS. They could care less. Wayne has been using that line since 1973 and its frikkin tired already.

Having been inside a grain company, I can tell you market share and profit are paramount to staying in business and your job.

Buying low and selling low won't keep you in the black or groceries very long. That's why i don't buy into the multiple sellers fear mongering.

To keep your market share you have to buy high and sell high when product is required. You would be amazed at what happens to sales people when their bonus is tied to profit.

There is another term for it.

BOHCA - Bend Over Here it Comes Again.

LOL...with sand or KY, Hayseed?

LOL...with sand or KY, Hayseed?

Whichever fetches you the lowest price from the CWB.

Larry

I am not fearmongering as I know businesses need to make a profit to survive and deserve a profit for services rendered. However if you were building a system from scratch and you were handed the mechanisms to put in a monopoly, I know any rationale businessperson would grab the opportunity and run.

I know what you're saying about selling high, but when you buy, you pay just enough. I do it all the time, as do everyone of the companies to which you broker grain. I know of no business that pays more than it has to for any input just to be good guys.

Again I don't blame anyone, I just think if you examine rationally both systems and say which works best for the farmer,... multiple sellers isn't the model.

I had a conversation with a friend today and he mentioned that the CWB offered documents as exhibits in its court battle with the government that supposedly show CWB benefit for the farmer. They might be interesting reading for both sides.

Larry, you know the grain business and how companies aggresively position themselves if they smell blood from a rival. It occurs to me that, they don't play Santa Claus with the customers very often.

You talked about nobody on either side of the debate really caring about farmers, that job gets left to each one us. CWB or not.

Here's the address for the CWB application against the government. I haven't read it yet. It would be good for both sides of this debate to read.

www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/judicial/index.jsp

In this arguement something is being ignored and that is the fact that our yields have been limited by the CWB's insistence of the type of wheat that we can grow.They insist that #1 northern must be our base as it was 60 years ago so that we can get a premium for our high quality wheat.What they seem to be ignoring is that a goodly portion of the world now eat non leavened bread.So it turns out that we get the right price in some specialty markets and sell at a discount in the non leavened world.

Market Place Discipline, Marketing Power, Fee Schedule, Industry Association, .. whatever you want to call it.

How sucessful with haggling are we with;
Dentists
Chemical Companies
Lawyers
Fert cos
Pharmacies
Rail cos
Surgeons
Milk
Turkeys (human kind also)
Fuel

Do I agree with "putting-on-the-squeeze" ?? not really. But if one wants to make $$$, best to be in the low # of sellers group.

Is it possible for thousands and thousands of G & O seed Farmers to exhibit market discipline ?? Never. Is your product the most esential item to Mankind ?? Absolutely. Nothing trumps it, not even health care.

That is why govmits of the world will never leave food production entirely to the market place. Even the USofA has the USDA, the biggest Bear in the market.

The CWB "could" have discipline, "if" it wanted to, and "if" the politicians ok-ed it, and "if" the citizens wanted higher food prices.

Otherwise, build lotsa bins and don't disclose your inventory #s.

" the CWB offered documents as exhibits in its court battle with the government that supposedly show CWB benefit"

It is the same drivel from the same people over and over again...sorry there is nothing new in there.

We will agree to disagree on multiple sellers.

Yesterday the difference in Great Falls, MT was $1.16 a bushel. The difference for FEED wheat in France was $1.12 a bushel. Take off transportation costs and you're still short.

Why is it I can go to Reuters and find what everyone else in the world is selling wheat for including Cargill, ADM, and the horrible Multi-nationals?

The US farmers is subsidized to the tune of $Billions$

The 'biggest-bear-in-the-market' USDA has a budget of $millions$.

The US taxpayer foots the bill to keep US farmers in the money.

Do we honestly think the US govmit will allow Canadian grain to freely flood across their border, and allow Kanucks to get rich ??

Can you say mad-cow scam ?? The US cattle farmer is now so well heeled he can withstand "fair" competition from us economically-beaten Canuk Cows for decades to come.

Not that I agree with the policy, not at all, but govmits of the World think food supplies are far too important an item to leave to the market place. The only country in the world that it might be, is the USof A. USDA is a player(skewer) in this market place ?? ah, think ??

Agriculture Canada, Manitoba Department of Agriculture, Sask Ag, ect have budgets of Millions$$. The govmit says they are there to provide a service to farmers. Oh ?? Do we see farmers there on a daily basis, asking how deep to seed and when they should market their grain ??

So why are they there then ?? IMO, to provide a 'window-on-the-industry'. So the politicos and civils can fine tune the economic health of food producers.

WGSF taken away. Worked TOO good. NISA, GRIP, AIDA, CIFP, CAIS, .. haven't got it right yet. Too rich, too poor, not enough inventory control, may need sight gauges on the bins.

Boy! It is not just Calgary or even downtown Calgary, must of this blog seems to seep out of one bar.

Hi all!


Bye