Shouldn't the CWB go to jail?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

I have been looking into CWB spreads in the CWRS grades… and I cannot make any sense of them… I am wondering if you can?

I did CWRS and CPS PPO on July 24th, 2002, and now am stuck with feed wheat to fill it…

My CWB contract was at $235.38/t for #1CWRS 13.5 protein, wheat.

Now the CWB insists the grade spreads are fair, and must be used in calculating my price, so let us have a look… at what the CWB gets for my wheat, and what it costs them.

#1CWRS 13.5 initial $250.20/t (base grade) subtract Canada Feed Initial $128.50
Equal to a feed discount on my contract of $121.70/t.

My Contract price $235.38, minus feed wheat discount of $121.70/t equals $113.68/t payment, minus freight, handling, cleaning, $43.50/t equals $70.18/t net to me.

Now what does the CWB get for this grain?

If I were to buy this same grain, straight back from the CWB, and use it in my own Human Consumption value adding operation… I would be required to pay the CWB…. By the CWB formula for this wheat, $187/t, even if I were to buy this wheat back, for a non-human consumption use (Such as for energy production) I would be charged by the CWB Formula, $170/t… In Edmonton.

I get paid $70/t… and the CWB makes about $10/t on the March Minni. 03 futures profit on my contract… say we are charitable and give this back to the CWB for cost of doing the contract…THE CWB still makes $100/t on my contract.

The need to import corn proves there is a market for my wheat domestically.

Now, lets have a look if I was psychic, and knew the future… and cherry picked the high of the 2002 market. The March 03 Minni. CWB quoted high on October 1st 2002 was, $298.24/t. The feed discount that day was $57.11, leaving a net price of $241.13/t. We must add the Basis of $12.21/t as of July 24th, 2002, then Subtract the #1 base grade from feed grade of $121.70/t… equaling…$131.64/t.

Now we need to subtract the Port handling and transportation costs to get back to Edmonton… of $43.50/t… and we receive $88.14/t. Meanwhile the CWB has put in it’s pocket the March 03 futures difference of, $298.24… minus February 14th 2003 CWB quoted March 03 price of $212.97/t…

…equals a futures profit of $85.27/t… meanwhile I get paid $88.14/t… a total cost to the CWB for my feed wheat, 61pounds/bu, 14% protein… of $2.87/t.
HOW ON EARTH CAN THE CWB CLAIM THESE ARE FAIR “PREMIUM” PRICES WE “DESIGNATED AREA” FARMERS ARE BEING PAID, when the CWB can easily turn around and sell this same wheat for $170/t? Shouldn’t someone be going to jail for this… isn’t it fraud?

Since Chairman Ritter and Adrian Measner say, these are fair and equitable priceing options... and supposed to be responsible for this activity... and they full well know the consequences of decieving and fraudulent behaviour, of those they are responsible to lead... shouldn't they go to JAIL?

[parsley]

Damn right they should go to jail, tom4CWB. These guys have been claiming you have to do a buyback to get an export license. You don't.

Next thing they'll be claiming you have to bring them three white goats to get a license, or maybe a week in a condo in Hawaii to get a license.

They have to be accountable for what they are telling farmers. Jail is fine with me.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

YOU ARE BACK!

Good to hear from you!

The crazy part is, even on the front of the Jerusalem paper... the CWB being responsible for putting their own Western Canadian farmers in Jail... ...made front page news...

The CWB is now a detriment to western Canadian farmers wheat and barley prices... as distrust world wide has come from this CWB monopoly, that doesn't even exist... that is responsible for jailing farmers.

The Monopoly appears to assure only one thing now... the lowest grain price is the law of Ministers Goodale, and Vanclief...

The true legacy for them and Prime Minister Jean Chretien...

Known as the Ministers who threw a CWB farmer Director in jail for 23 days for donating a sack of wheat to a 4-H club in Montana!

Are these guys smart... or What?

[charliep]

I don't understand the process either.

What were the terms of the contract? Were these terms explained at the time of sign up?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

THe terms of the contract are that the CWB can do anything it wants on the grade spreads... at time of setting the futures, and on the initial price spreads it creates throughout the year...

It stinks that the CWB is spending our money... mega media time and with our money... along with producer "accountability meetings" promoting a scam close to the level of Quebec Telemarketing schemes...

I think I will call fraud busters...

[wilagro]

I don't know why you guys don't run for election as CWB directors. THEN you could run it the way you want it to run.

[dnach]

Send the whole works to jail, the time has past for the CWB years ago. The whole CWB mantality has stimed econmic growth in western Canada , especialy Sask, for years. The idea that it is economically feasable to ship grain half way around the world to people who can hardly pay attention let alone pay a decent price for our high quality wheat is hardly justifiable.
We need to process the majority of our grain and cattle at home, the cost of freight , handling and elevation are getting out of control and the efficiencies are horrible with grain handling unions. And they will not get better in years to come. Too many other countries aound the world, ie FSU and Brazil, can produce and ship grain cheaper and will continue to 'eat' away at our exports anyway.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

I have run for election in district 1, in 1998, and lost by only a few %... Then against Chairman Ritter in 2000, in District 4... Hence my name... Tom 4 CWB! Of Course I was not at all well known in district 4, but to become Chairman Ritter's subject... I moved here to Killam in 2001.

The CWB Election system is so badly flawed... and undemocratic for those who actually grow wheat commercially for a living...

THis is much like the SWP board of Directors... who it took bankruptcy to force democratic respect for the property of those who had had invested so much... without any say... finally those with much invested got 4 Directors...

I don't think the CWB is actually interested in having a democratic system that respects the property of those who are forced to use the CWB for actual commercial marketing services...

as the proof of this by the CWB at least yet is to the contrary...

the outlaw system at the CWB prevented;

My family and my self from voting in the 2002 election... when clearly the CWB Act required them to allow us to vote...

THe CWB allowed multiple votes... yet the CWB Act prohibits this...

The CWB Prohibits CWB Directors from using Producer Pricing Options themselves... more proof that the CWB PPO options are neither commercial, reliable... or above manipulation...

ALL of the above issues point to a CWB that is neither sustainable... nor an institution that is worthy of surviving in a free and democratic country... Maybe? Can the CWB change? Is the CWB even interested in Changing?

[parsley]

wilagrow,

It is important to realize that an Act of Parliament governs what the CWB Directors are allowed to do. At the present time, the CWB Directors are governing according to their their personal wants instead of what is legally allowable acording to the CWB Act. Many Agri-villers want the present Board to govern wthin the boundaries of the Act.

The Wheat Board presently tells farmers that the Act itself requires farmers to do a buyback in order to get an export license. This is simply not true. I presume you want the present B of D to continue governing by way of lies.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

I was reading CWB Director Bonnie D. DuPont at; http://www.enbridge.com/about/commentary.html
I found her speaches, after scrolling down past the Enbridge’s CEO's speaches…

Ms. DuPont’s “Risk Management at Enbridge: A Case Study”, she presented to the Conference Board of Canada –Toronto, Ontario October 10, 2002 shows great insight and wisdom in risk management....


AS FAR as CWB risk mitigation… PPO contracts are perfect… they absolutely maximize the CWB Monopolies opportunity to PILLAGE as much from me through PPO contracts as what is technically possible through a monopoly…

But what about MS. DUPONT’S moral responsibility to me, her subject?

Ms. DuPont says in this document:

“In the midst of ethics’ “perfect storm”, with turbulence patterns converging from Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Dynegy, WorldCom, and the rest, and with new corporate governance laws, regulations and standards being put in place, CEOs, Boards of Directors and corporate leaders are being required to re-examine business ethics, governance practices, and accountabilities.”

Ms. DuPont is right on… she continues;

“The Statement on Business Conduct commits Enbridge employees to:
•conducting the company’s business in accordance with the laws
wherever we operate,
•dealing honestly and fairly with all stakeholders,
•ensuring employees are treated fairly and that human rights are
respected, and
•conducting our business safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.

In the post-Enron world, we felt it appropriate to revisit and reaffirm our core corporate values, which include: integrity, accountability, innovation and flexibility, value creation, and social responsibility.”

We also adopted the “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights”, which deal with responsible corporate action in “zones of conflict” and are very relevant to our business involvement in Colombia. These principles are internationally recognized, and Enbridge was the first Canadian company to adopt them.”


Parsley;

...it sure looks to me like the CWB is operating in “zones of conflict” and since Ms. DuPont...is a CWB director… She has an obligation to stop The CWB from PILLAGEING "designated area" wheat and barley growers!

What will she do?

[parsley]

Obviously, she is ignoring the legislation that governs her and her Board. Does she ignore the legislation because:

1.She is instructed to do so by her Minister? or

2. Her personal political philosophy demands that she supports a monopolist position? or

3. She cannot understand the legislation?

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

Looks to me like probably some of all three...

There is so much to learn... and by the time appointed directors spend enough time... and put in the effort needed to understand what is happening... if they really care about the "designated area" farmer more than political position and money... they soon find themselves back on the outside... either because of the negative liability created in holding the director's position... or because Minister Goodale refuses to reappoint them... cause they found out the real problems at the CWB... and opened their mouth once too often...

Enbridge had better be prepared for BAD PRESS from their relationship with the CWB... either that or ...stand for truth and justice... and take liberal political retribution...

No wonder Minister Goodale didn't get anyone from the business community... that knows the grain business... who is respected and honest... to fill the vacant CWB Director's position...

[parsley]

Bonnie DuPont claims a core element of a company's corporate governance sucess is, as she says, "communication and transparency, with shareholders..."


I would assume that farmers are at least considered as "shareholders" in the CWB.

In the first posting in this thread, as a farmer, Tom4CWB, you are asking, "HOW ON EARTH CAN THE CWB CLAIM THESE ARE FAIR “PREMIUM” PRICES WE “DESIGNATED AREA” FARMERS ARE BEING PAID, when the CWB can easily turn around and sell this same wheat for $170/t?

Isn't lack of transparency the very element you are complaining is lacking in the CWB?

Lots of forumed talk from DuPont, but it is just that...talk.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

I must respect MS. DuPont... as the presentations on Risk Management she made are logical, sensible, and clearly work ant Enbridge.

Now what about Risk management at the CWB?

My assesment is that the CWB PPO risk strategy is developed to "Maximise Pool Returns" while taking maximum advantage of "designated area" wheat growers who try to use PPO's.

Risk created in these contracts cannot be found in any other grain contract in western Canadian agriculture today...

THE CWB IS COLLECTING THE GAINS ON THE DROP IN THE FUTURES, AND THEN RESELLING THE PPO BACK INTO THE POOL ACCOUNT, AT A GAIN TO THE LOCKED IN FIXED PRICE CONTRACT VALUE.

THIS CWB ACTION in using, PPO contracts,

...is at the expense of PPO contract holders...

...and has been the general experence in each year these PPO contracts have been operated by the CWB...

It would be very helpful if the CWB would explain why they will not admit real risks exist in PPO contracts, and help their own farmers mitigate these risks...
... instead CWB staff in charge of these programs have been...

...telling me;

"If you don't like the risk the CWB PPO contracts create..., deliver to the CWB Pool Accounts..."

CWB actions such as the above statement indicates... are abusive, arrogant, and an invitation to civil unrest.

NOW CWB RADIO and MEDIA P. R. on PPO contracts further insults the intelegence of those farmers who simply need minimum price contracts and real cash prices... avalible to contract to the CWB... on October 31st instead of July 31st...

What an exercise in frustration...

The GOOD WILL for the CWB is running low and thin... since the CWB treats we farmers in such pittyful disregard with the PPO contracts... how exactly are we to expect anything but a simular disregard with CWB management of the pooling accounts?

[parsley]

Ms DuPont's pulls out some jewels from the "Statement on Business Conduct" that Enbridge employees are committed to by "conducting the company's business in accordance with the laws whenever we operate". But it is certainly not a principle that is being applied by this same Board member at the CWB.

Why is it applied to Enbridge but not to the CWB by DuPont?

As you intimate, the CWB management of the pooling accounts is less than in accordance with CWB legislation or their Code of Conduct.

Farmers must have Directors that examine their business ethics, their governamce practices and be accountable.

What will make Directors like DuPont respond to these requirements?

Parsley