In Canadian politics, it seems some days that if somebody you hear about doesn’t work for somebody you know, they’re married to him.
At the pro-CWB Winnipeg Free Press, their favourite pollster (and brother-in-law of former Manitoba Liberal Leader Paul Edwards) sounds the alarm on the barley plebiscite wording;
Scott MacKay, president of Probe Research said the language the Conservatives are using for the three options on the barley vote are not only inconsistent but also far from neutral.
In particular, MacKay said he finds it strange that the second option for farmers — the vision for the CWB favoured by Strahl — is described in the first person unlike the other two.
MacKay said the wording of that option (I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer) makes it more personal and a potentially warmer option.
Because only pollsters understand that – despite immersion in decades of pro and con arguments, despite the natural human desire to act in their own self-interest – grain producers possess the attention span of chickens, rendering opinions informed through direct personal experience in investment, risk, cultivation, and marketing of their own grain uniquely vulnerable to “diabolical” intellectual subversion through what is known in the industry as the “Question Asked in the First Person.”
“Intellectual dishonesty” is also the topic for this Kevin Hursh lecture. His recent client list* includes the Canadian Wheat Board;
According to Chuck Strahl, farmers can have their cake and eat it too. The barley plebiscite is designed to make the number 2 option seem the most appealing. It states, “I would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.” Strahl obviously thinks a majority of farmers will choose this option on the ballet. He says the board will be there for farmers. Those who say this is the end of the board are fear mongering, says Strahl. What the Agriculture Minister doesn’t seem to realize is that economics rules. Whether you’re a board supporter or not, you sell your product where you think the return will be the greatest. Without elevators or port facilities, the Canadian Wheat Board will not be in a good position to offer the best return. Open markets have many advantages. Especially in barley, an open market may be a good alternative. But it’s misleading to pretend that the Wheat Board option will remain viable in that sort of marketing system. Chuck Strahl can say that the Wheat Board will be there for farmers, but why would farmers deal with the Wheat Board if it can’t provide competitive returns? A barley plebiscite is a good idea, but the results are going to be badly skewed by the intellectually dishonest approach to the questions..
“Why would farmers deal with the Wheat Board if it can’t provide competitive returns?” Indeed! It’s an argument that dovetails convincingly into the critic warnings of “demise of the wheat board in the face of stiff competition from private grain companies”.
Which brings me to this week’s Last Laugh Award, presented to Agricore United;
In the midst of the plebiscite on the CWB’s monopoly regarding barley sales,
Agricore posted prices they would pay for feed barley . . . if they could buy it from farmers.On Thursday, Agricore’s spot feed barley price was C$233.70 ($198) a tonne, basis Vancouver, 23 percent higher than the Canadian Wheat Board’s projected pool return of C$190 a tonne, basis Vancouver.*
Naturally, the CWB fought back . . . not by raising their prices, but with a media reply.
…can’t use the excuse that it had made lower priced sales earlier in the year – there are two pooling periods for feed barley, with the B Pool running from February 1 to July 31. It can’t say that the bottom is likely to fall out of the feed market. According to the CWB’s PRO announcement from Thursday, “Global feed grain prices are expected to receive support from the U.S. corn market well into 2007, with U.S. corn ending stocks expected to be at the lowest level since 1995-96.” If that is the case, why the huge disparity between sales that can be made now, today, at this moment, and the price it says it can deliver to farmers? Why not attract grain to the B Pool to meet this demand? A cynic might say that the Board just wants to make sure that its feed price stays below its malt price. The Board does not want to admit that it hasn’t done the best job of marketing farmers barley. But we already know that; the evidence is plain as day.
The board has cultivated its image as a protector of Canadian farmers. If this is protection, being ‘sheltered’ from high prices, then count me out.
Through all of this, the CWB board of directors has managed to remain below the fray, and conduct themselves with the professional maturity of teenage girls – “Strahl orders wheat board to pay its new CEO”.
Both Truth About Marketing Choice and Designated Area focus on the CWB debate, and are worth bookmarking, as is the pro-choice Barley Vote 2007 website.
BEND OVER you pro wheat board farmers you always have. Tune your radios to KMON in Great Falls for a week and listen to the American prices for grain and cattle. Then if your to stupid to shove the wheat board up wayne easterbunnys ass you deserve to live and farm in those communist states of Sask and Manitoba. At least us farmers in Alberta can augment our money losing farming operations with outside oil work and other things, your Stalins that lead your provinces don’t allow that.
Of course there is no mention of the Manitoba government refusing to allow farmers vote for a two tier system on their non binding plebiscite
Some one apparently doesn’t want to consort with “the teenage girls”.
________________________
The Canadian Wheat Board says it will pay its new chief executive officer just as soon as the federal government enters discussions on what the president’s salary should be, says a Manitoba farm leader. “I think (Agriculture Minister Chuck) Strahl has led people to believe we’re unwilling to pay our CEO, which is not true,” said Bill Toews, one of two farmer-elected board members from Manitoba. New wheat board CEO Greg Arason has not been paid in five weeks, ever since Mr. Strahl fired Adrian Measner and appointed Arason without consulting the board. The farmer-elected board says it is waiting for the Minister to consult with it on the CEO’s salary, as the board claims Mr. Strahl must do under CWB legislation (Bill Redekop WFP A1, Ctz A5, EJ A5, CH A4).
Another brillant CWB post Kate. Keep’em coming.
Bill Toews is just classic isn’t he.
“I think (Agriculture Minister Chuck) Strahl has led people to believe we’re unwilling to pay our CEO, which is not true,” said Bill Toews.
Its hard to believe this guy is a farmer let alone that he taught University courses.
Hey Bill here are the facts, you haven’t been paying him, and he hasn’t been given the proper signing authority to do his job. And it is because of adolescent boneheads like you who are to blinded by their NFU statist ideology to even notice their own contradictions.
I bet you blame Strahl when you forget to put seed in your drill as well.
No bumper crop
Edmonton Sun – 27 Jan 2007
By DARCY HENTON, LEGISLATURE BUREAU. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are going to lose farm votes on the Prairies over their ideologically driven assault on the Canadian Wheat Board, says fired Wheat Board boss Adrian Measner.
…-
Adrian Who?
dishonest, strategic; potatoe, potatoe; semantics based on normative commitments. the fact is the gov’t is offering three choices on this plebiscite, two of which support their stated policy. moreover, one of these choices is not feasible. i would have to say that it is strategically dishonest ;-). not to mention that they’re allowing peple to vote who don’t sell barley through the CWB…but that’s another matter altogether.
They’re not voting on “stated policy”.
They’re voting on whether independent barley growers are to be given the same freedom to sell their product that growers in the rest of Canada have enjoyed for years – and what role the CWB should continue to play.
To anyone but a collectivist ideologue, the real world offers more than two choices.
Oddly, I keep hearing that the CWB cannot “survive without its monopoly”.. from it’s supporters.
If that isn’t an argument for locking the doors on the place, I don’t know what is.
Kate and all.
Are you aware the Quebec wheat growers voted to establish a marketing board similar to the CWB?
I cannot fathom why some farmers do not want to take the last step and vote to be truly independent of the Socialist/Communist CWB. Doing so makes sound financial and economic sense. And, there seems to be more profit in choosing where, how and when to sell your product.
Today, farming is a business and must be treated a such.
But, again, one would not want choice if you lack farming ability, if your knowledge and technology is not current, if you are a marginal or incompetent producer, and if you enjoy always having the nanny state available to financially rescue you. On second thought, if this describes you, I strongly recommend you sell the farm and get a new career.
“And, there seems to be more profit in choosing where, how and when to sell your product.”
Yes. Freedom “to sell.”
Do you differentiate between “selling” and “marketing”?
I tell you Kate, you should start a comic strip called ‘As the Communist Wheat Board Turns’.
These are the SAME directors that took five minutes to casually give out a $1000 bonus for stress, aren’t they?
It seems that the directors are the ones suffering from stupidity stress.
It’s funny that some people still don’t realize that the Berlin Wall (the symbol of USSR repression in Europe) came down in 1990. And here in Western Canada, some ill-informed people are still fighting to keep our symbol of repression of individual freedoms, the CWB alive.
Amazing.
Joe,
I do not differentiate between selling and marketing. If you are going to “market” your product, obviously your goal is to “sell” it as well. Semantics doesn’t change the fact that farmers want to reap as much profit from their product as possible. Only hard-core Socialist economic systems would restrict someone to a single buyer (CWB).
I’ve always wondered exactly what the WFP’s stake in this state wheat marketing monoply is? I mean, no daily in Canada throws out such a constant spew of crypto-commie rationale in defending this abomination to north American free market competition.
I smell an Asper in the woodpile! 😉
Further to Kate’s comment
” Oddly, I keep hearing that the CWB cannot “survive without its monopoly”.. from it’s supporters.”
These are also the same people who claim that the board has the overwhelming support of the majority of farmers in western Canada. Remember the directors elections, the Manitoba vote, etc. yet there is no way they’d be able to compete on the open market. That support would instantly vanish, evaporate, -poof- in a cloud of blue-green smoke.
How these people make it out of the house in the morning without stumbling over their own contradictions is beyond me.
When Oats was removed from CWB monopoly farmers started growing oats and oat processing plants opened up on the prairies. I hope this doesn’t happen with Barley as jobs will be lost in the east and Mexicans will start buying barley flour for their lunches.
Kevin Hursh said:
“Chuck Strahl can say that the Wheat Board will be there for farmers, but why would farmers deal with the Wheat Board if it can’t provide competitive returns?”
It can’t and doesn’t. That’s why I stopped growing wheat and barley years ago. If and when these two crops are liberated from the clutches of the CWB it will probably become desirable to grow them again
Len Pryor
‘Kate and all.
Are you aware the Quebec wheat growers voted to establish a marketing board similar to the CWB?’
Joe give the whole story. The Quebec farmers never voted on anything. Dion is spouting off about how Quebec farmers support he Wheat Board. Of course they are….they can sell their wheat, oats and barley to whom ever the hell they want and get the best price. Keeping the western farmers locked up in this socialist state and out of the free market allows the Quebec and Ontario farmers to rake in the coin.
Remember this…..nothing has changed
An “Act of Parliament”?
According to reliable sources, grain farmers in the Province of Quebec who export grain have been permitted by the Government of Canada to export their grain in contravention of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Customs Act, and the Regulation Respecting the Reporting of Exported Goods without any sanctions like those being imposed in western Canada.
The decision by Ontario to begin issuing their own export licenses for wheat and barley grown in that province was no doubt prompted by the non-enforcement of the Customs Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act in Quebec.
A recent request for information under the Access to Information Act revealed that there were no sanctions for any infractions of any act with respect to the export of wheat or barley at any of the border crossings in Quebec or Ontario.
Not so in the rest of Canada. In a report to Howard Migie (AAFC) from Jon Dyck dated June 26, 1997 which included a report by Clyde Bond, DOJ (Crown Prosecutor), “Clyde noted that in Manitoba 62 people have been charged with offences related to the illegal export of grain, while in Saskatchewan, 123 individuals have been charged in eight separate incidents. In Alberta, a total of 30 individuals had been charged in two separate incidents.” It sure makes on wonder that in one part of Canada one can be jailed while in another part individuals go “scott free” for the same activity.
A summary of the civil actions being taken by Customs and Revenue Canada at this point has also been report by Mike Hadley of Revenue Canada. According to Hadley,
“of the 211 cases currently under appeal, approximately 170 involve criminal charges under the Customs Act of exporting without a license (s5) and failure to make a report in writing (s3). The s5 charge of exporting without a license is, as a result of the Sawatsky decision, no longer valid. This is problematic because the s3 (failure to report in writing) actions were added as an afterthought and have in many cases not been pursued i.e.. the defendants have not been given an opportunity to respond to these charges.
Additionally, warning letters by Customs had not specifically referred to a requirement to report in writing. Consequently, there is now some question as to whether the s3 charge will stand up to a court challenged. The difficulty with the s3 charge is that exactly what constitutes a report in writing has never been Gazetted or specified.”
Even though the Crown describes their position as “problematic” they continue to pursue the charges. At the same meeting, Cathy Pitfield, speaking on behalf of the CWB, “indicated that it’s position (CWB) was that the integrity of the grain marketing system must be maintained and the the laws in question must be upheld.” Minister Goodale was to mouth those same sentiments a few days later that set in motion the continuance of persecution against farmers in the west. Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board like the grain Handlers Union, Railway Unions, the National Farmers Union, the Western Producer and the Saskatchewan Wheat Board were ecstatic. Western grain farmers were now bound to the road to serfdom.
One of the defendants charged in Manitoba received the following interpretation from Revenue Canada representative N.L. Woram. In his letter Woram declares, “The Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations requires that exporters of wheat and barley obtain an export license from the Canadian Wheat Board before such grain may be exported from Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board regulations requires that the export permit be provided to Customs prior to the export of grain. For Customs purposes the requirement to obtain an export license and provide it to Customs means that wheat and barley is controlled by an Act of Parliament.”
No one in the west would wish our draconian system on our brothers and sisters in eastern Canada. However, if an “Act of Parliament” means that laws are applied equally across the country, then the west should accept no less than the equality bestowed on Ontario and Quebec.
Ken Dillen
September 16, 2005
Kate, you are doing a tremendous service to Western Canada with these posts. Come on farmers, we’ve got a chance to break free from chains of the single desk. Let’s vote for choice!
Good to see you on this Kate.
I do not differentiate between selling and marketing.
>>>There is a difference
If you are going to “market” your product, obviously your goal is to “sell” it as well.
>>>Cargill et.al. buy and then they market.
Semantics doesn’t change the fact that farmers want to reap as much profit from their product as possible.
>>>And studies conclusions are barley growers obtain more income through marketing by the wheatboard.
http://www.kis.usask.ca/index.html#Adapting_to_New_Environments
Only hard-core Socialist economic systems would restrict someone to a single buyer (CWB).
>>>The CWB does not buy – it markets in many countries. How many buyers would there be for the farmers to sell to should they be at able to do so?
…what we need is a convoy of grain trucks, farm tractors and combines to head to Ottawa as well a dozen or so manure trucks circling the Winnipeg CWB office.
Do I need to say what happens next?
…
Dang, seems someone already beat us to it:
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/about/myths/
Myth:
The Canadian Wheat Board discounts wheat and barley prices on the world market.
Fact:
The CWB has no interest in selling grain for low values. Its mandate is to market quality products and services to maximize returns to farmers.
Myth:
The Canadian Wheat Board discounts wheat and barley prices on the world market.
If this is indeed a myth, then why does Albania state that they buy Canadian wheat cheaper than they can buy it any where else?
Fact:
The CWB has no interest in selling grain for low values. Its mandate is to market quality products and services to maximize returns to farmers.
If this is indeed fact, then how is it a farmer operating 300 miles north of the US border can jump through all the hoops the CWB/Federal Government can drean up, haul the stuff to Montana, and still get a better price?
Len Pryor
The CWB has no interest in selling grain for low values.
With, or without, kickbacks?
If you are a semi-retired farmer who no longer grows grains but still owns the land and rents the land on a share crop system you will have a permit book. The farmer growing the grain will also have a permit book. In effect, two votes on the same unit of production.
it doesn’t take much to out do the board in the barley market. i sold my barley on my own for 2.90 a bushel ( i had to haul it 12 miles at the end of october) the .37 cents a bushel for the initial price just wasn’t an option. the board isn’t about a premium price for the farmers, it’s just about jobs in winnipeg.
bring on the vote chuck
i sold my barley on my own for 2.90 a bushel ( i had to haul it 12 miles at the end of october) the .37 cents a bushel for the initial price just wasn’t an option.
>>>Did you sell your barley for feed or food?
Did anyone read the article in the Star Phoenix on Saturday? “China wants Canada Wheat Board to stay.” The Ndp finally have an ally in support for the Wheat Board. It’s a brutal communist dictatorship. Mark Wartman “Clearly we have heard that echoed from a number of sources here that they just don’t want to see an American-style open market.” gee most commies don’t. New Election
slogan for the Ndp. “Vote for us, China would.” story is posted on Canada.com
joe my barley went for feed…no sample was submitted for food or malt….no money no option
Joe H.
You should have dutifully sold your barley to the CWB for the initial price and borrowed from the bank the extrs to feed your family and pay your bills for the next year and a half.
You are lucky you can sell your barley locally with out being charged and your truck impounded.
By the way can you sell by the bushel? I thought we were metric!
Mr. Hursh would have us believe that the CWB makes more money for famers, well at least the farmers that work for the cwb and all the consultants that the cwb hires. kevin is a communications consultant who also farms, he usually has a great deal to say on what he expects the markets to do, fortunately we have poor memories and he uses language that leaves a lot of wiggle room, just like weather forecasters, stick your finger in the air kevin and see which way the wind is blowing, freedom smells good.
BOHCA
Scott said: “When Oats was removed from CWB monopoly farmers started growing oats and oat processing plants opened up on the prairies. I hope this doesn’t happen with Barley as jobs will be lost in the east and Mexicans will start buying barley flour for their lunches”
>>>And Chinese and Russians will have to take over subsidizing their Canadian wheat purchases with their own taxpayer’s money. the CWB has trained foreign customers or is cheaper to by raw price subsidized Canadian grain that unsubsidized grain products from Canada. Central economic palnning has determined there will be no value-added wheat processing industry in the wheat growing belt…even Canada’s biggest malters are in the east.
Seriously, there hasn’t been a Liberal or PC economic move in the past 4 decades that didn’t play into this centraized economic control and globalist idea of regional specialization instead of competition. Corporate globalism and global communism have common ground in these marketing monopolies government subsidized commodity sales and borderless specialized trade zones.
With all the political currency down south being spent on North American union, common currency, NAFTA trade corridors(terminating in Winnipeg) and coddling cheap illegal immigrant labor, You gotta know the CWB plays a vital role in controlling the production and price of exportable Canadian cerial grains.
To go back to the topic this all started – the 3-way vote – its interesting that the CWB chose a 3-way question when they polled farmers back in May 2006 (using the dreaded “D word” – dual) but they don’t want one now. That’s because their own poll showed about half the farmers polled said they wanted the “dual” option. Leave out that option for farmers to vote on and you effectively disenfranchise about half the barley farmers out there.
“Intellectually dishonest”? What does this make the CWB who knows that half the farmers out there want that option?
The CWB is obviously a bureaucracy that needs to be reigned in.
Still after the vote is held I predict there will be yet more bitching and moaning from all sides!
Fix the problems!