Is the CWB trustworthy?

[parsley]

bbrindle,

You posed 6 questions! Yes, the CWB can generally do as they please, - as long as they are not instructed otherwise by the Governor in Council (Cabinet).

There is however, one very important point that needs to be emphasized: The directions and regulations of the Governor in Council given to the CWB CANNOT go beyond the authority authorized by the Act.

This is very relevant to bbrindle's third question - "3. Could the CWB provide export licenses with no buy-back process to a farmer who wanted one?" Since there are already numerous examples where the CWB already does this, the obvious answer is - Yes they can and do.

However, more importantly,at the same time, the CWB refuse to grant licences to farmers. The relevant question is - does the Act authorize this CWB control over farmer held grain? The answer is no. The CWB has simply bluffed this one over us for more than 50 years. And got away with it!

The CWB has held their monopoly for all these years simply by refusing to grant licences to prairie farmers. Thus, the only practical choice farmers have is to "voluntarily" choose to sell to the Board. (remember....the buy-back is still selling to the Board).

The requirement of a licence and their refusal to grant it, forcing sales to the CWB, amounts to expropriation without adequate compensation. (its somewhat like an offer you can't refuse).

But only an Act can authorize expropriation. The Governor in Council cannot expropriate without statutory authority. Certainly, 10 elected farmer and 5 appointed directors cannot choose to arbitrarily expropriate prairie farmers' grain. There is nothing in the CWB Act authorizing expropriation of farmer's grain.

So the answer to the question - can the CWB arbitrarily refuse licences to prairie farmers?
Yes, but only as long as we sit back and let them do a number on us.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

YOU ARE BACK, GOOD TO SEE YOU!!!

I think the practical side of CWB policy changes to operations involves the federal government to a great extent, contrary to thalpenny's pleadings.

Bottom line is that the CWB never wants to be in the position that Sir Goodale must discipline them publically, and any good civil servant would insist things never got that far out of control.

Since the CEO is appointed by Sir Goodale, and the CWB staff are essentially federal government employees, who are they ultimately responsible to, could it be those responsible to insuring legislation is maintained that continues their respective jobs?

This is not the CWB's staff's fault, I am not blaming them, it is simply a fact.

If Ottawa says no export licenses, none will be issued.

If Ottawa says start issuing export licenses to "designated area" grain producers tommorow, that is what would happen.

Feed grains for export through feed mills and seed wheat and barley are two situations that highlite Ottawa's command and control structure over the CWB.

The Fixed Price Contracts and other FLEX pricing options obviously had Ottawa's approval, and consultation with Ottawa was extensive in their development! After all Ottawa is resposible for the financing, trade implications, and outcome of these programs.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune!

[parsley]

Good MorningTom4CWB..... you say this:
"If Ottawa says no export licenses, none will be issued. "

You've missed the point! The point is that the Act does not provide Ottawa with the authority to issue those marching orders to the Board. Do you understand what I am saying?

The Supreme Court of Canada says, "Statuates are not to be construed as taking away or authorizing the taking away of the property rights of the subject, unless their language makes their intention abundantly clear."

Farmer held grain has not been expropriated by Parliament.
Parsley

[chaffmeister]

Hey folks:

Please allow me to wade in on this one.

Thalpenny suggests that there is no direct linkage between the fed govt and the directors of the CWB. After parsley's well informed response (as always), I'm afraid all I can offer is an anecdote.

A couple of years ago I was working with a group of farmers who were trying to get some CWB policy changes made. When I talked directly to a number of the directors, I was told that the decision we were seeking would have to be made by Ralph Goodale. When I asked Ralph Goodale the same question, he responded, "The board of directors makes that decision."

Who's right?

I can accept that this is just one small episode and that I could very well have been getting the official brush off or it was the CWB version of dodge-ball. I admit, it was not an "official request", more an unofficial inquiry. But I am certainly left wondering, how does anything get done when Goodale is expecting the board to handle thorny issues and the board is waiting to get instructions from Goodale?

Also - about the board of directors. I am told that one of the appointed directors refused to discuss or vote on a number of issues because they were, in his estimation, "farm issues" and he did not feel qualified to vote on them. Why was he appointed to be there? When there are non-farm issues to be addressed, hiring outside consultants may have been a better approach. And this would not be unusual as the CWB often hires consultants to tackle issues.

One more thing - I agree with thalpenny regarding the PRO. At least some of what whe says. Clearly it does fluctuate over the year. Most years the PRO will climb slightly over its lifetime (until it becomes an EPR). However, this year the CWB has been conspicuous by its bullishness. Others have been less bullish or even bearish for some time - we were perhaps equally conspicuous on the "bear" side of that argument. Not to say that we were right and they were wrong, only to say that there were others out there that saw it quite differently. The CWB is only as good as its people. And there are many good ones over there, please trust me, I know many of them. But they are only human and they don't have a crystal ball.

No one could predict the events of Sept 11th. Remember, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-13% of global wheat trade goes into the middle east region. In the face of increasing unstability over there and now "war premiums" being added to ocean freight rates, it is increasingly difficult to be bullish wheat prices - even if you are the CWB.

About futures markets being a predictive tool (as stated by thalpenny). I've heard this before and I always have a problem with it. The futures market does not predict. It can tell you right now what something is worth RIGHT NOW for delivery in the future.

If you look at a futures market which has a nearby month (say, Nov)at $250 and a deffered month (say, May) at $290 and decide to wait until May to sell because the market is "predicting" $290 for May, there is a pretty good chance that you will lose. There is nothing in the market to say that that price will still be there in May. The futures market is not predicting $290 will be the price in May, it is saying that TODAY you can lock in $290 for May delivery. Quite different. I guess I'm hoping that the CWB is not using the futures market to predict the PRO.

Chaffmeister

[ianben]

Hi Chaffmiester
Nice to hear from you!!
How is that son of yours? Letting you sleep now I hope.

Is any government going to allow total freedom in such a sensitive product as food?

Any industry in fact which has large economic consequences for the country has or will ask for government intervention.
Airline companies through-out the world are seeking government help to combat the fallout from the 11th Sept.

Why then do Canadian farmers expect the CWB not to be government influenced.

Would the freedoms advocated on this site make any difference to the global price?

As Rockpile said in another thread "We need to raise the bar for everyone" but how?

Regards Ian

[parsley]

Chaffmeister, in your anecdote, you are describing how the Minister and the CWB communicates with farmers. As you are aware, the Auditor General is taking a look at the CWB. One of the areas he is examining is Communications. What does the CWB tell farmers? Here is an actual example with transcript quotes:

The CWB told organic farmers that the CWB legislation did not allow organic farmers out of the monopoly. These farmers didn't believe what the CWB was telling them because in reality, export licenses are being handed out almost as freely as Canadian passports are. So the farmers went to the Standing Committee of Agriculture on 7 June, 2001. The issue was raised by Committee M.P. Garry Brietkreuz (page 32)

"Mr. Ritter, under the present legislation, you didn't answer the key question - can the present act, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, grant licences to organic producers without forcing them to go through the buyback program? Under the present legislation can the wheat board grant licences?"

Ken Ritter:

"Mr. Chairman, through you, I haven't got a black and white answer to that. That's subject to legal interpretation. We believe the buyback is required...."

"....what I said is, it's a questionable legal argument whether it does or doesn't require it. The information that we have as directors is that it probably does require that." [require the buyback]

Ritter also says:
"................. could the CWB have granted a no-cost export licence? Probably we could have. There's a legal question to that, whether it is in law possible or not...."

So, Mr. Ritter answer to farmers is: maybe
Maybe not...
don't know.

This is how the CWB communicates with farmers

One other observation about thalpenny's comment, "Farmers ultimately control the direction of the organization ". halpenny, of course , has every right to his personal political opinion. And Agrivillers, in order to avoid reader confusion, should be well aware that thalpenny's personal philosophy could very well differ from the CWB Act, and his communication, therefore, should not be assumed as fact .

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

The thorny issue of who controls the CWB is at the very base of CWB problems.

Chaffmiester has it right, the CWB is sheilded in a management flack jacket, typical of any government long overdue for housecleaning.

Plausable deniability and someone else has to approve that change, (by the way we don't have time to go through all those hoops) are civil servants favorite reasons why nothing should change.

If we operated our farms with these same management structures, nothing would be left ot them in short order.

I am not saying that all CWB decisions are bad, or that sometimes that moving at the speed of a glacier is all bad!

I would rather look at the mountains, enjoy the wildlife, and enjoy life, rather than being held back by tons of CWB ice that are meant to weigh on my mind, and cool my heals.

The fact is that Ralphie G. is responsible for the CWB, of that there can be no question. What he does with these responsibilities is known in the depths of the Ottawa civil service, and I know many people are kept busy watching this glacier melt each day!