Ritz and his government controled grain company is helping themselves to the contingency fund.

[samhill]

Is there any possibilty that the CWB is exposed
in the MF Global cesspool?

[charliep]

As a reminder, the contingency fund was meant to be a backstop for producer payment options against adverse moves - not a way for the CWB board of directors to pay for steamroller campaigns or transfer wealth from farmers who used the producer payment to the overall pooling system. The way the contingency fund has been built up is to add $20 to $30/tonne protection into fixed price contract basis levels.

It is not the CWB pooling systems money. If the CWB werewilling to take on the risk of backstopping payment options with the overall pooling system, then you might have an arguement but that has not been the decision of the board of directors/the CWB starting with the repaying of the 2007/08 deficit in 2008/09 and carrying on to the rebuilding of the account to the current day.

Lots and lots of questions should be asked about the operations of the contingency fund and the decisions that have been made around it. The CWB has an extremely high cost way of managing risk paid for by the individuals using producer payment options with no competition. Makes my blood boil.

[Hopperbin]

Integrity what else do you suppose should happen to the contingency fund?
should the money go to the pool accounts to distort the pool? Perhaps if the cwb is having such a windfall on the ppos should they not give farmers a fairer price? Like use up the contingency fund before the government gets it LOL. Why give your enemy a good egg when all you got is rotten ones?

[charliep]

[URL="http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/producer/historical/pdf/2011-12/2011-12fpcbpccharts.pdf"]charts 13 to 36[/URL]

<a href="http://www.cwb.ca/db/contracts/ppo/ppo_prices.nsf/fixed_price/2011_index.html">November FPC</a>

[chuckChuck]

So what is the difference in the Federal Government or the Alberta government or the CWB spending money to put forth a political position? If it is okay for governments of the day to spit out "propoganda" at taxpayers expense, why is not okay for the CWB to spend money defending the single desk?

[LWeber]

http://cwb.ca/public/en/hot/legal/judicial/pdf/directive_exp.pdf

http://cwb.ca/public/en/hot/legal/judicial/

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application from the CWB for leave to appeal a ruling on the Government of Canada's advocacy directive. No reasons were provided. As a result, the directive - initially issued in October 2006 - remains in force. It prevents the CWB from spending money "advocating retention of the CWB's monopoly powers".

[charliep]

chuckChuck

You are likely right although the definition of propaganda and providing facts
might differ. Both have to be accountable to their electorate/stakeholders. One is
a political organization and the other is a business.

You have never commented on the purpose of the contingency and what it should
it should be used for. Can you help me understand the purpose and safeguards in
the current Producer Payment Option (not overall pooling system) contingency
fund? If we have a common understanding here, the remainder of the discussion
on this issue will be easy. I think it is appropriate to be transferred into the new
organization to look after risk/need for a rainy day fund to look after forward
contracting alternatives financial backstopping. Do you disagree?

It is not the CWB or the pooling systems money. It belongs to the farmers who
have used the programs in the past and could use them in the future. Do you
disagree?

[charliep]

You are right in highlighting by the way Larry. Doesn't seem to have made much difference.

[AllisWD45]

Chuck. The point is that very soon we will know
exactly what you spent the money on, Face it your
term is almost over so be smart and move on. There
will definitely be an august 2 2012 it will come right
after august 1st

[charliep]

Note the following that would cause me concern.

From the release -"In explaining its first hike to the contingency fund limit last
week, Ottawa said it had to raise the ceiling to $100-million because a
forecasted surplus from “non-pool activities” would make the account “surpass
its current limit of $60-million.” The government argued it might be “distorting
pool returns” if it returned contingency-fund surpluses to accounts ultimately
rebated to producers."

Is this an admission that basis levels are being kept artificially wide to top up the
contingency. Any thing above $60 million would have been deposited in the
pooling accounts and used to pay for expenses including the steamrolling
campaign. Anyone PPO programs (record sign up this year) should be
concerned.

Definition of "non pooling activities". Does this mean the CWB is cash trading
outside the pooling system and taking profits/losses on activities?