something to think about

[rbrunel]

For those of you who may still have an open mind. The group of farm organizations who worked together to form a set of questions for producers to think about while discussing the CWB in the on going saga. The paper is posted on several websites, www.kap.mb.ca it is on the right side of the page in the new@KAP section This paper is meant to provoke thought for both pro choice and pro board thinkers. Although I know some think that these groups are out in left feild. At the end of the day, wherever you sit on this issue we will all need to come together and work this out in the redesigning of our industry. As this is what I think this will bring about. So if you have an open mind read it and maybe we could have some productive debate and discussion on this issues as we will all be affected good, bad or otherwise.(this will be a matter of opinion)
hope to hear some interesting thoughts from both sides.

[Southpaw]

You are certainly correct about KAP being in "Left" field. They have gone so far left in the last couple of years that I would imagine they are losing membership bigtime. As for a plebisite, why should you or anyone else have a say in how I sell my grain.

[AdamSmith]

Southpaw, I heard from a very reliable source that KAP has lost over 500 members in the last few months because of their staunch pro cwb stance.

[rbrunel]

That is news to me....I am active in the organization and i have not heard a thing.

[silverback]

What sort of debate do you want to hear?

All I want to do is be able to grow what I want and sell it to whoever I want.

How much more can I debate.

You stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours.

Don't force me to accept what you think is a good idea.

You go ahead and ship to the board if you want, I will go out and decide who will buy my product.

If I fail, then it is my fault.

Don't confiscate my product to mix with yours.

Simple.

[rbrunel]

Ok, so the market is open, is there a need for continued funding to things like CIGI, etc, who is going to replace the CWB in working on trade disputes. other sectors have groups that do this. These are the things that I am interested in debating. Since know one is really interested in talking about open market/single desk. whether you like it or not, these sort of things will need to be looked at.

[rbrunel]

cont'd
Get rid of the KVD? (I hope so) what who sets the grading criterea, testing program, do we move to a mcvet type, maybe be have 20 new varieties every year like canola, one not much better then the last. I think these things will change if/when the cwb looses it monopoly. THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DISCUSS> Do they not interest you. Do you not think they will change. Do you not think we as farmers should have a say in where they go?

[silverback]

Do you think that the CWB has been solving trade disputes in the past?

Really?

In my opinion it is the Federal Government who is ultimately responsible for handling trade issues between countries.

If the beaurocracy of the CWB was cut in half, I am guessing that we could use that cash to look after the things you are talking about and still be money ahead.

[wmoebis]

I agree rbrunel. I would like to hear from the seed growers, the CGC the railways, all the grain companies, shortline rail and producer car loading groups. What about our domestic and export markets the guys that matter the most in our sales. How would they operate in a dual/open system?

I would like to hear from the federal gov't who realy settled the trade disputes. Maybe someone can tell us where we can read all this info.

We know what the two sides of producers think, now lets hear what the rest of the industry think.

I agree with you silverback but it isn't only the CWB that it top heavy it is every gov't agency and every grain company. If not in personel definatly in wages. We pay some awful big wages to CEO,s etc. of all the companies that work on our behalf.

[mustardman]

rbrunel

good points you raised, and haven't looked at kap article but yes there are a lot of issues arising from this whole decision to go open market if thats where we are heading.
Right now a plant orders 13% 1cwad from the board they can be assured of its milling qulity (probably 90% Avonlea)
Varietal release program makes sure any new wheat variety released has characteristics that exceed previous
varieties unlike canola where there is not such a standard.
There are alot of issues that need looked at and I'm quite sure the group that reported back to Mr. Strahl the other day didn't have the time to deal with them.
You can't simply axe the board ,go open and things will carry on. There could be big consequences and meanwhile our customers are not wanting to commit to long term agreements as they are not sure if the board will be there to deal with in future.

[TOM4CWB]

rbrunel;

Getting past the forest... but ignoring the trees on the way through... is not a smart move...

Hitting a mother tree at 100km while looking in another direction is not a smart thing to do.

This job must be broken into small chunks that can be done... a peice at a time.

First of all a full democratic election system must be imposed upon the NEW CWB CORP... with at the very least ONE physical person... one vote. Sadly we haven't even got this yet in our present CWB!

Next up is marketing... a change to allow a choice through a small but effective pressure relief system. We had this before 1993.

So my next stage is to issue export licenses, like we do in Ontario; to growers shipping in Containers or trucks. We must allow innovation to lead this sector to maturity... this, with the CWB's HELP... could make our marketing PIE bigger... not shrink it like CWB managers now envision.

With OUT these two steps being taken... the CWB is dead in the water. This transition can be done in a co-operative spirit... will we have the intelegence to manage change and do this?

Will we have the intellegence to implement the rest of the Western Grain Marketing Pannel Report Recomendations?

[Braveheart]

rbrunel, some of the things your're concerned about would easily adapt in an open market. For example, if a plant (or mill) phoned up and ordered a shipment of durum (your example) the specs required would be stated in the contract. The company supplying would take every quality assurance measure they could to ensure the shipment met the specs required. To not do so would cause loss of future business, reputation, or legal recourse. Normal commerce works this way.

The questions you pose are good ones however. The entire Can grain industry could change for the better without CWB domination. We currently have too many grades and segregations of wheat and barley, all created by and for the wheat board's sales "style". As a farmer I've always been concerned that this could and I'm sure does lead to over-delivering (on quality) to some customers. But, all these segregations also have a negative effect on terminal space at port, and railcar cycle times. This all leads to inefficient use of assets and trickles down to affect farmgate returns.

The commercial aspect of the open market vs. the command and control of the CWB in grain transportation and logistics management has been debated in the recent past and would certainly need to be dealt with again. The last round of Estey/Kroeger did little in the end to create any efficiencies because the CWB retained too large a role and a true commercial system was not allowed. Accountability is still nonexistent without lengthy and often unproductive lack of service complaint tribunals.

[northfarmer]

...on the issue of trade disputes, both dealing with interprovincial and international, we have elected govts and taxes we pay, it is not the CWB's responsibility and and should not be funded out of my grain sales, period!!!!

...you can look to the grading and transportation of non board commodities, even high volume ones like canola, there are grading standards, well known by growers and backed by the current CGC standards...etc.etc...we get canola cars in a much more predictable and reliable fashion than we get shiping for board wheat...no need to spread fear of change on these issues.....

...I personally think the current canola vartiety registration system to have its flaws but it seems to work better than the system we have in place for wheat and barley, to say the new varieties have not outperformed those of the past is ridiculous...plus it is not our money invested and lost on non performing varieties that are brought to the market by the privately owned breeding firms, and who is still growing ebony and bounty?we have many breeders doing lots of reaserch and trying to compete in a competitive market place for the deamnd of growers for variety options and improvements...

....reform of the CWB and marketing choice for designated areas is the start.....next the CGC, CIGI and others should and will get their turn if we are too improive the future for primary producers....

[chaffmeister]

rbrunel:

I looked at the questions document on the KAP website as you suggested. I applaud the effort to get farmers to ask appropriate questions and think critically about the issues. Although there are some very good questions, I feel some miss the mark somewhat and appear biased. I'll take a stab at a few......

Question: "When you market your crops throughout the crop year, will you be able to obtain premium prices from an open market?"

What is meant by 'premium' prices? Better than average? Better than someone else? Better than the 'market'? The question sounds like it assumes the CWB single desk gets premiums.

I think a better question is "Has the CWB been getting premiums?" Don't take the CWB's word on it - there is so much evidence out there that contradicts the CWB, force them to prove it.

Question: "Companies with market power retain more of the profits in a value chain relative to those who have little or no market power. As an individual marketer, does your farm have the market power to get a fair share of grain industry profits?"

I think a better question is "Has the CWB been successful in getting a fair share of grain industry profits?" And when answering, don't make the assumption that since it has single desk power, it MUST be. Trust me - it's not that simple. Ask the right questions - make them prove it.

Question: "Revenues from tendering and despatch are currently shared by all farmers. In an open market, how will farmers ensure they are receiving their fair share of supply chain efficiencies?"

Tendering "revenues" simply gets CWB costs closer to non-CWB levels. In an open market, the cost of handling wheat would be less than it is today. That's what competition does.

Question: "How will current value-added activities and growth be impacted by a move to the open market?"

You'd see a lot more. Trust me.

Question: "Given that the commercial elevator system can only hold 10% of the crop at any one time, what would your delivery opportunities be in an open market?"

Better than it is today - no contract calls restricting deliveries.

Question: "How would basis levels be affected if the CWB were no longer using contract calls to allocate access to the handling system?"

Basis would change the way its meant to - to attract grain when needed and to ration demand when its not.

Question: "Given that farmer-owned facilities do not themselves own port terminals, combined with the need to finance all inventories at commercial rates; can smaller companies remain viable in an open market?"

Why ask farmers this question? Ask Bill Parrish or Andrew Paterson. How do you think it works with non-CWB grains...

Question: "If Canadian grain truck movements to the U.S. increase in an open market, will there be more trade disputes with the U.S.?"

No. The US has an issue with the CWB - not Canadian wheat. Once the Canadian and US markets arbitrage freely, no more wheat will go south than is necessary - but you'll see US-equivalent prices domestically.

Question: "What’s the difference between the proposed new marketing entity and a commercial grain company?"

The new marketing entity won't (initially) operate facilities. It should see itself as a negotiating body representing farmers, not as a grain company.

Question: "Why would competitors move the proposed new marketing entity’s grain if they could move their own?"

To make money. They have serious excess capacity and grain handling is a high fixed cost / volume business. The more the merrier.

Question: "Often, there are comparisons made with the marketing systems in Ontario and Australia. Is this a relevant comparison?"

Yes.

[chaffmeister]

correction:
I wrote "Basis would change the way its meant to - to attract grain when needed and to ration demand when its not."

This should have said ...ration SUPPLY when its not.