CWB Surrogates

Commodity Marketing


CWB Surrogates

Oct 21, 2006 | 15:37 1 It's amazing what a curious mind can discover, if you know where to look.

The following is a submission by the Save the CWB Coalition that has been made publicly available. What was interesting was when I clicked on File then Properties then Summary, I discovered the document originated from the computer of a JNWhitley from the Canadian Wheat Board. I then clicked on Statistics and discover it was created Oct4.2006 and was last saved by Yvonne Rideout KAP's general manager. So the CWB wrote the submission and sent it to KAP, who then turn around and present it to Minister Strahl as their own work. These people are beyond reprehensible.

Farm Organizations Presentation for Minister Strahl, AAFC

A Producer Plebiscite

October 2006

Introduction & Need for a Plebiscite

It has become apparent, throughout western Canada, that the majority of grain farmers want to be a part of any decisions on significant changes to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). The federal government has stated that they have the directive to change the CWBs marketing mandate. We disagree with this decision as the CWB Act clearly provides farmers the authority to determine the CWBs marketing mandate and requires the Government to hold a plebiscite. Section 47.1 of the Act states: The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless (a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and (b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister (1998,c.17,s.25). Therefore, we wish to work with government to ensure that the best interests of grain farmers are taken into consideration.

It is imperative that any plebiscite that is presented to western Canadian producers offer a clear question on marketing. We, as farm organizations representing western Canada, have designed a question that meets that criterion and moreover, is neutral as not to mislead the discussion or decision of grain producers. This approach ensures that the majority of producers are represented in the process and are provided a voice in the future of the western Canadian wheat and barley marketing system.

The Question

It is essential that a plebiscite focuses on a question that asks producers to select between realistic choices. The question must avoid misleading phrases that suggest that farmers could make the CWB voluntary and still have the same benefits, features and programs that the organization is able to provide today.

Our organizations are suggesting the following wording for a plebiscite (with voters checking one option for each):

I wish to maintain the ability to market all wheat, with the continuing exception of feed wheat sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.

I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system.

I wish to maintain the ability to market all barley, both malting/food, with the continuing exception of feed barley sold domestically, through the CWB single desk system.

I wish to remove the single desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all barley through an open market system.
Voter Eligibility

Eligibility for voting should be as per the CWB Act:

1. Voter eligibility will be determined by the same criteria as that used in the CWB Director elections. Therefore, the voter list will be based on the 2005-2006 list of Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders.

2. Eligible voters will be entitled to one vote only. There shall be no weighted ballot based on the amount of grain sold through the CWB, farm size or acreage seeded/harvested.

3. Eligible voters are those producers defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act as follows: Producer includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein. All prairie producers in the CWB designated area who have grown wheat and/or barley at least once in the past two to five years are eligible to vote.

4. All producers who do not hold a valid CWB permit book are eligible to vote upon signing a legally-binding affidavit declaring they meet the eligibility criteria as outlined above. Statutory declaration forms shall be made available during the plebiscite period.

Respectfully Submitted

Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan
Keystone Agricultural Producers
Wild Rose Agricultural Producers
National Farmers Union

The other is a news release from the Real Voice for Choice (don't you just love the irony of the name) What's interesting is the numbers they cite are identical to those #'s in the CWB submission to the Task Force. Doing the same File/Properties/Summary I discover The Real Voice media release was generated on Joan Martyns computer C Joan Martyn is listed on the Government of Saskatchewans directory as the Office Administrator, Saskatoon Business Center, Agriculture and Food, Agri-Business Development Branch , Agriculture Business Services. But the info was plagiarized from the CWBs task force presentation.

NEWS RELEASE October 18th, 2006

East Selkirk, MB; Real Voice for Choice today released a detailed breakdown of the financial benefits realized by western Canadian farmers as a result of the single desk marketing structure of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Each year, producers have an opportunity to realize a financial gain of between $525 and $645 million. If the future of the CWB is jeopardized, producers will be the losers.

Based on independent technical analyses, the financial benefits which are directly attributable to the CWBs single desk marketing structure are estimated to be:
in millions of Canadian dollars
Value of CWB single desk marketing $297 to $417
Tendering, railway and terminal agreements $38
Net interest earnings $66
Approach to managing delivery system $115
Terminal blending $7 to $10
Farmer access to producer cars $6
Total annual benefits from Single Desk Marketing $525 to $645

In 1997, the CWB won a legal challenge against the CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB received $15 million compensation for damages. CN also reached a commercial settlement with the CWB. The compensation was never released publicly as a condition of the settlement.

Other benefits which producers enjoy from single desk marketing through the CWB include: annual price pooling as a risk management tool; producer payment options which allow producers to withdraw from the annual price pool account and spot price in market rallies; an Early Payment Option (EPO) which allows a producer to lock in 80, 90 or 100 percent of the Pool Return Outlook (PRO) while staying in the pool to benefit from potential market improvements. These options available to farmers through the CWB exceed those available in an open market.

Who will work for farmers in the future? The economic impact of giving up dollars which are extracted from the world marketplace will be impossible to replace. If changes are made to the CWB, farmers should be the people to decide the future through a plebiscite on a clear question.

Real Voice for Choice is a grassroots non-partisan producer group representing support for the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) single desk marketing structure. Real Voice for Choice is primarily funded by producers for producers.

Here's what the CWB presented;

Summary of annual CWB benefits and services
Annual net benefit

Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for wheat
$146 - $255 million

Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for barley
$59 million

Value of CWB single desk marketing approach for durum
$92 - $103 million

Tendering and railway and terminal handling agreements
$38.1 million

Net interest earnings
$66.2 million

Approach to managing delivery system access
$115 million

Terminal blending
$7 - $10 million

Farmer access to producer cars
$6 million

$530 - $655 million

In addition, the following must be considered:

The CWB won a 1997 legal challenge against CPR for failing to provide farmers adequate rail service. The CWB and CPR settled on a $15 million compensation for damages. On the same claim, the CWB reached a commercial settlement with CN outside the courts. The amount of compensation was never released publicly.

Now, I wonder what Wayne Easter, and Jack Layton think of all this. Or are they to busy throwing stones at glass houses to notice? Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2006 | 15:54 2 Then this;

October 20, 2006

Open letter to Jeff Nielsen, Western Barley Growers Association

A recent press release from the Western Barley Growers Association has falsely accused Prairie farm organizations of taking their position from the Canadian Wheat Board. We are extremely disappointed that you have taken a document that was intended to stimulate meaningful discussion, and cast doubt on its authenticity.

Keystone Agricultural Producers, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and the National Farmers Union are all disappointed in your press release as well as the accusations that were directed towards the integrity of each of our respective organizations. This document was researched and developed entirely by the farm organizations listed, to ensure that it remained factual and neutral on the plebiscite question before it was presented to Minister Strahl on October 17.

Our farm groups represent thousands of farmers across Western Canada, and we can rely on our shared knowledge and expertise to write our own documents. The appropriate research was done and we worked together to develop a well-rounded document that was sourced from a variety of publicly available sources, including the CWB. This document took a lot of cooperation from the groups involved and a total of 18 edits before it was finalized.

It is indeed unfortunate that an organization like the WBGA, whose contribution to the discussion and debate on the current mandate of the CWB may be important, could not pick up the phone and discuss their concern. By leaping to conclusions, you take the focus off of the governments requirements to follow the laws of Canada and call for a producer plebiscite.


David Rolfe, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP)

Bill Dobson, President, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (WRAP)

Ken McBride, President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS)

Stewart Wells, President, National Farmers Union


Is it even possible to take these people seriously. Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2006 | 20:03 4 I am thinking a better name would be the same as those slimy little black wiggly things that swim around until they spot something or someone that they can suck the blood and life force out of just to survive, and then reproduce.

I better not type the word so I can't be accused of name calling. Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2006 | 10:29 5 AS, thankyou for doing the work and posting this. Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2006 | 15:37 6 If the farm groups in coalition to save the cwb and the new group are dishonest and deceptive about their close relationship to the cwb, can we all assume the opinions and the data they are presenting is also dishonest and deceptive?

I also have heard that Minister Strahl is clearly aware of this plan of deception by the cwb and has seen the evidence first hand as well.

So if these guys want a plebicite then maybe the question should to choose between the new revamped voluntary cwb or no cwb at all.

I'll accept a plebicite that asks that question. That's clear isn't it? Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2006 | 21:08 7 That pretty well sums it all up, about the referendum anyway. But can you get Minister Strahl to agree, a failure would mean all his buddies would be very upset and might not vote for him? Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 00:31 8 Huh!

My plebicite question would be to choose one of the following;

A) New Voluntary CWB operating in competion within an open market.

B) An open market without the particapation of a new Voluntary CWB.

only those choices.

Agstar77, your ok with using that question to poll farmers in order to move forward legislativly?

Just checking! Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 07:59 9 You make me laugh!! Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 08:24 10 There won't be a question, a vote, a plebicite. It is just that simple. The decision has already been made. Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 08:39 11 With The disrespect this new gov't has for democracy a question like that would not surprise me or- maybe they will talk to Lucien Bouchard and his boys -they were great at coming up with conviluted confusing questions
such as in the last Quebec referendum.

I grow 11 different crops on my farm,
one of which is marketed thru CWB, the other 10 are the same marketing system
we have had since the time of christ - the open market-
wouldn,t it be great to have green lentils under a marketing board -
We would definitely have some market power then.
Uh Oh I hear Tom going to get his Pulpit Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 08:55 12 So why wouldn't a different type of wheat board market green lentils? Would it be compulsory or volunteery? Many communities in Saskatchewan have invested in pulse processing. What would their relationship be with the CWB? Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 09:50 13 Private & community run pulse proccesors would be no different from companies that now handle cwb grains. Oh maybe one difference, the cheques would always clear! Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 09:51 14 Ahh but see Charlie, with the open market the CWB could do all that and more if they did a good job, farmers would go there. Isn't that how business is supposed to work. Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 12:04 15 Adam Smith,

A couple of questions:

Where could one find this document on the internet?

Have you sent the link to Chuck Strahl so he could see what these clowns are up to? Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 13:11 16 liberty, all I can say is that they're out there in the ether of cyberspace.

No, I personlly never forwarded the documents to the ministers office because the CWB surragates already did that. They just weren't bright enough to remove the cwb's fingerprints. Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2006 | 13:48 17 ric

So a value the CWB brings to wheat/barley and could provide other grains is ensuring financial integrity of farmer deliveries/payments? It might also look after some of the financial, pricing, delivery and logistics risk for pulse companies. Reply With Quote