U.S is happy with Wheatboard downfall

[Researcher87]

WINNIPEG — U.S. trade officials said yesterday they are encouraged by the Conservative government's plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on export sales.
The development came at the same time as Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl announced he would hold a plebiscite on the future of barley marketing early next year.
Mr. Strahl dismissed the statements made by U.S. officials.
"I've always said decisions about the Wheat Board should be made in Canada. I've not talked to anyone in the U.S. Trade Department about this at all, nor would I. They may be interested, but it's frankly none of their business."
Related to this article

Articles

• In Churchill, open market in wheat sparks fear
• Task force lays out transition plan

Latest Comments

• Start a conversation on this story

Follow this writer

• Add JOE FRIESEN to my e-mail alerts
  

Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, the senior trade adviser to President George W. Bush, emphasized that her office had not pressured the Canadian government to move to an open market, but was "encouraged by the direction of the discussions, including a recent advisory committee report."
"As the rest of the world looks at difficult reforms, cutting trade-distorting support and opening markets, Canada will have to step up to the plate on its sheltered sectors, such as the CWB privileges," Ms. Hamel said.
A task force report released Monday recommended ending the Wheat Board's monopoly within two years and creating a new farmer-owned grain company called Canadian Wheat Board II.
Jim Peterson, marketing director for the North Dakota Wheat Commission, said his group, which has launched trade challenges against the Wheat Board, is watching the Canadian debate with interest.
"The Wheat Board, as a government-guaranteed monopoly, we feel is an unfair advantage and a distortion to world markets," he said.
The issue has come to dominate political discussion in Western Canada. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have called on the government to allow farmers to vote on the board's future, while in Alberta yesterday, a group called Farmers for Justice rallied to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the jailing of 13 farmers who crossed the U.S. border to sell their grain independently.
Mr. Strahl told The Canadian Press yesterday that even MPs within his own party were calling for a vote.
Responding to that pressure, Mr. Strahl told a Commons committee yesterday that he would hold a plebiscite on whether to maintain the Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales some time in the new year.
"The report recommends legislation as the first step, but I'm recommending consultation. A plebiscite is a very important way of consulting," Mr. Strahl said in a statement.
He said he would develop a clear question that would be voted on by a broad base of producers, but did not say how voter eligibility would be determined.
Ken Ritter, the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, welcomed the government's decision.
"We've been calling for a plebiscite so I'm glad to see the minister has called one," Mr. Ritter said, adding that the government should hold a vote on wheat sales at the same time.
The Wheat Board's 2006 spring producer survey, a telephone poll of farmers, showed barley producers were closely divided on whether to keep the monopoly.
The same survey showed that 63 per cent of producers were in favour of maintaining the board's monopoly on wheat sales.
Mr. Ritter said the statements of the U.S. trade officials indicates that the proposed changes would benefit American interests.
"If they're encouraged, we should be discouraged, because they've always viewed the Wheat Board as a mechanism that gives Canadian farmers an advantage," he said. "If it's to their benefit, generally it's not to ours."
Wayne Easter, the Liberal agriculture critic, said it should come as no surprise that the United States is encouraged by the move to dismantle the Wheat Board monopoly.
"The U.S. has tried in 11 [trade] challenges to indicate the Wheat Board was violating trade laws because they were doing such a good job maximizing returns to producers," he aid.
"Now we have a government in Canada that is doing the U.S. bidding for them, and nobody will be happier about this direction than the U.S. grain trade."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061101.wxwheatboard01/BNStory/National/home

Me thinks this issue has othing to do with Canadians and their wants, especially western farmers and more to do with being happy with America.

 

[tay]

Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board






Downey is a classic prairie conservative, but says it’s a mistake to see the CWB as a socialist institution. “I knew a lot of staunchly conservative farmers who loved the Wheat Board,” he says. “A lot of farmers work very hard all day. They come home, they’re tired, and they don’t want to spend the evening trying to figure out how to sell their wheat. A lot of decent people like Andy McMechan had legitimate complaints about the Board, and when they protested, the Wheat Board overreacted and disgraced itself.


But a lot of decent farmers like what the Wheat Board was trying to do.”


Glenn Tait is one of them. He operates his great-grandfather’s homestead near Meota, Saskatchewan. Like many hard-pressed farmers, he is coping with the rising costs by working a spread of 2,300 acres with his father and brother-in-law. He says the dismantling of the CWB was presented to the general public as a gift to farmers, but in his opinion it wasn’t a gift the farmers—who owned the Board—actually wanted. “The Wheat Board ran many polls over the years, with a large majority of farmers supporting the old single-desk system.


The government spent two years spouting inflammatory rhetoric, and tried to prevent the CWB from holding a final plebiscite on the issue.”


But the CWB had a vote anyway:


Out of about 36,000 wheat farmers who voted, 62% were in favour of keeping the Board. The Harper forces dismissed the plebiscite results as unscientific, and argued that whether the poll was valid or not, an electoral majority doesn’t give one group the right to dictate to another (except perhaps in the House of Commons, where the Conservatives shut down debate aboutthe CWB’s future).


A group of farmers calling themselves Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board counterattacked by launching a $17-billion lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that by collapsing the CWB and expropriating more than 3,375 CWB railway cars, the Harper government not only interfered with the farmers’ ability to make a living but also seized property that was owned by the CWB’s farmer shareholders.




more




Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board - The Globe and Mail

 

[whitedog]

Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board






Downey is a classic prairie conservative, but says it’s a mistake to see the CWB as a socialist institution. “I knew a lot of staunchly conservative farmers who loved the Wheat Board,” he says. “A lot of farmers work very hard all day. They come home, they’re tired, and they don’t want to spend the evening trying to figure out how to sell their wheat. A lot of decent people like Andy McMechan had legitimate complaints about the Board, and when they protested, the Wheat Board overreacted and disgraced itself.


But a lot of decent farmers like what the Wheat Board was trying to do.”


Glenn Tait is one of them. He operates his great-grandfather’s homestead near Meota, Saskatchewan. Like many hard-pressed farmers, he is coping with the rising costs by working a spread of 2,300 acres with his father and brother-in-law. He says the dismantling of the CWB was presented to the general public as a gift to farmers, but in his opinion it wasn’t a gift the farmers—who owned the Board—actually wanted. “The Wheat Board ran many polls over the years, with a large majority of farmers supporting the old single-desk system.


The government spent two years spouting inflammatory rhetoric, and tried to prevent the CWB from holding a final plebiscite on the issue.”


But the CWB had a vote anyway:


Out of about 36,000 wheat farmers who voted, 62% were in favour of keeping the Board. The Harper forces dismissed the plebiscite results as unscientific, and argued that whether the poll was valid or not, an electoral majority doesn’t give one group the right to dictate to another (except perhaps in the House of Commons, where the Conservatives shut down debate aboutthe CWB’s future).


A group of farmers calling themselves Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board counterattacked by launching a $17-billion lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that by collapsing the CWB and expropriating more than 3,375 CWB railway cars, the Harper government not only interfered with the farmers’ ability to make a living but also seized property that was owned by the CWB’s farmer shareholders.




more




Why so many farmers miss the Wheat Board - The Globe and Mail

I'm not a wheat farmer, so I have no op on whether it should exist or not, but, I find it hilarious that our southern neighbours should have an opon the matter, being the most protectionist country in the world. It wasn't that long ago that their congress was calling for only made in america with respect to their economic bailout package. And lets not forget the softwood lumber nonsense.

If the wheat board is not good for farmers, I suspect that farmers are in the best position to know it. Let them vote, and lets have a round of democracy - the kind that doesn't matter whether it suits everyone - just the majority (of wheat farmers).

 

[taxslave]

There is nothing stopping the farmers from creating their own marketing board. just don't expect it to be part of the government.

 

[petros]

CWB still exists and is building terminals.

 

[Dixie Cup]

CWB still exists and is building terminals.

Yes but farmers now have a choice as to whether or not to belong. That's all that any of them wanted (well, most anyway).

 

[petros]

Yes but farmers now have a choice as to whether or not to belong. That's all that any of them wanted (well, most anyway).

If asked again, we'd be right back under the same system. CWB gave piddly assed ON farmers a huge break at the sacrifice of western flour mills where prairie producers could sell their wheat locally. The Feds then billed producers for the creation of the Crown Grain Car Corp to move prairie wheat to mills in ON.

ON grain production tanked ages ago with the CWB and the subsequent Grain Car Corp. highly profitable for the producers with with the ability to not have to hope and pray they can find a market without being screwed on logistics. CWB did huge lump sales on behalf of the Fed International trade people.

They Feds stole our grain cars, drove small farms out of business and gobbled them up them up using CPP funds and are now direct competitors with all Canadian grain producers coast to coast.

Who do you think gets first dibs on the grain cars when it is time to get the product to port? The Fed farms or the independent nproducer?

 

[Walter]

We need more pipelines so the rails can move more grain.

 

[Nuggler]

They Feds stole our grain cars, drove small farms out of business and gobbled them up them up using CPP funds and are now direct competitors with all Canadian grain producers coast to coast."

Hence the bullsh!t from Harpo that we can't afford the CPP.8O

eh

 

[taxslave]

Screw the rail cars lets build a grain pipeline to Vancouver. When it is not being utilized it can carry oil or gas to help with expenses.

 

[tay]

Foreign multinational could assume control without reimbursing Canadian farmers, taxpayers






A privatized CWB was supposed to add a strong Canadian competitor to the market. But could a future partner carve up and sell it?

Nothing appears to prevent that.


Goodale remembers the monopoly as a major complaint in Canada-U.S. trade negotiations.


"The government gave it away," he says. "For heaven's sake, get some value back from the Americans.


"They're just giggling."




They called it "Marketing Freedom Day": Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in a Saskatchewan field and vowed that Prairie grain farmers would "never, never again" suffer at the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board.


What the politicians weren't saying in 2012, when the monopoly that controlled where farmers could sell their product sank into the horizon, was that the liberation wouldn't stop there.


Farmers and Canadian taxpayers will soon be completely free of the wheat board's assets — but not with a conventional sale.


Under a sort of reverse-nationalization plan now taking shape behind closed doors, a private-sector investor will assume control without reimbursing the federal treasury for assets Canadians paid for, or at least indirectly financed.


Little is known about the board's current financial health, because Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz exercises power given to him in 2011 to withhold information "detrimental to commercial interests."


2011's Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act gave a revamped wheat board — purged of farmer-elected directors and now run by a board of Harper government appointees — until 2016 to come up with a privatization plan and until 2017 to implement it. Otherwise, it will be dissolved.




more




Canadian Wheat Board prepares for corporate takeover - Politics - CBC News

 

[petros]

Suffer at the hands of the wheatboard?

Yeah right!

Some are still waiting to be paid from the crop of 2013.

We even had to bankroll Steve's big plan by taking out lines of credit or credit cards.

Many producers lost their farms/homes that had been in their families for 110 years.

Ritz is still getting the shaft from CN/CP. If it was a good idea he wouldn't have to threaten private companies with fines.

They want to get paid too.

 

[tay]

Bruce Johnstone notes (link is external) that the Cons' corporate giveaway of what's left of the Canadian Wheat Board is happening despite a glaring lack of answers to major questions, while Mia Rabson offers (link is external) a eulogy for the CWB. And the National Farmers' Union points out (link is external) that labeling what's left as "Canadian" is a matter of spin and wishful thinking.










When announcing the sale of the former Canadian Wheat Board to a U.S.-Saudi joint venture, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz couldn’t resist getting one parting shot in at supporters of orderly marketing.


No longer would Canadian farmers go to jail for selling their own grain, Ritz said. The only problem is, like many of the other statements Ritz made on Wednesday in Winnipeg, it’s not entirely true.


In fact, Canadian farmers (a few of them anyway) went to jail for refusing to pay fines for breaking the Canadian Wheat Board Act. So their crime was not only flouting the law of the land, but also the judicial system that enforces the law.


As the “final step in marketing freedom,” Ritz said the sale of 50.1 per cent of the CWB to G3 Global Grain Group for an investment of $250 million will lead to “increased competition in the Canadian grain market and significant Canadian ownership through the farmers trust.’’


Does selling the CWB (albeit stripped of its ‘single desk’ marketing power and most of its staff) to Bunge Canada, a subsidiary of the U.S. conglomerate Bunge Ltd., and SALIC Canada, a unit of Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Co., increase competition in the grain sector?




more


Johnstone: CWB deal is more questions than answers

 

[petros]

You need to be a huge grain producer to get any benefit of self marketing.

 

[MHz]

There is nothing stopping the farmers from creating their own marketing board. just don't expect it to be part of the government.

So just how that work in these two cases?

Everybody is growing Monsanto seed and they would control what crops are grown rather than farmers choosing what they grow. The part that stood out in the article was it was to include barley at a 'later date' but that would also be able to be applied to all crops with the exception of orhanic hay and that is for cows and horses, at best.

Organic seeds are the rule but no exports to anyplace for any number of reasons for NA so no use growing 50M tonnes of we only us 10M tonnes as a local consumption. Same with barley, only so much beer and so on. with all the products a farmer can grow. Money would take a back seat to usability I would change crops so that fiber was grown as that is used in clothing and manufacturing Cereal crops and flax and hemp would take the same area only we are feeding and clothing ourselves rather than the clothes coming from another location and us shipping them some food. We can't grow cotton but we can grow flax and hemp. The combs sizes would decide that the strands of fiber are for, rolling papers or canvas.

Question???? Since each hemp leaf has a number items that could be rolled into mini cigar once it is at that stage. Would it be a viable use of that part of the plant rather than getting it rot in the field (which isn't a bad thing).

You need to be a huge grain producer to get any benefit of self marketing.

You also need a demand for it. If the cotton ststes start growing it and the EU is supplying it's own the why become huge when the locals are your customers. The first 4 miles around Regina is for crops and the next 4 miles are for fibers, after that whatever the community demands are. that is what is grown. The reason would be lack of sturdy bridges over the rivers as 'trade' would be better in the winter and in the summer it would be 'foot traffic' and drive from there.
Shooting the other side would be stupid as the only time you could defend it is also in the winter.

 

[petros]

Everybody is growing Monsanto seed

Bullsh-t!!!!

So just how that work in these two cases?

Everybody is growing Monsanto seed and they would control what crops are grown rather than farmers choosing what they grow. The part that stood out in the article was it was to include barley at a 'later date' but that would also be able to be applied to all crops with the exception of orhanic hay and that is for cows and horses, at best.

Organic seeds are the rule but no exports to anyplace for any number of reasons for NA so no use growing 50M tonnes of we only us 10M tonnes as a local consumption. Same with barley, only so much beer and so on. with all the products a farmer can grow. Money would take a back seat to usability I would change crops so that fiber was grown as that is used in clothing and manufacturing Cereal crops and flax and hemp would take the same area only we are feeding and clothing ourselves rather than the clothes coming from another location and us shipping them some food. We can't grow cotton but we can grow flax and hemp. The combs sizes would decide that the strands of fiber are for, rolling papers or canvas.

Question???? Since each hemp leaf has a number items that could be rolled into mini cigar once it is at that stage. Would it be a viable use of that part of the plant rather than getting it rot in the field (which isn't a bad thing).


You also need a demand for it. If the cotton ststes start growing it and the EU is supplying it's own the why become huge when the locals are your customers. The first 4 miles around Regina is for crops and the next 4 miles are for fibers, after that whatever the community demands are. that is what is grown. The reason would be lack of sturdy bridges over the rivers as 'trade' would be better in the winter and in the summer it would be 'foot traffic' and drive from there.
Shooting the other side would be stupid as the only time you could defend it is also in the winter.

What is grown locally should be milled and eaten locally? It was that way until GofC forced mills to be closed and moved to Ontario so the tiny hobby farms there could compete with western farmers by adding value.

 

[personal touch]

funny thing,the courts ruled a few years ago for advancements of decisons of the Canadian Wheat Board ,a "plebicite" is recomended,this was at the start of the course of change,all of sudden fatcats are talking "plebicite" at the end of the process,talk about controlling and navigatingthe process,fatcats have their way once again.
the USA may be happy,but not all Canadian farmers are happy.

While the courts reccomended a plebicite,my MP was solicitating me for the abortion issue,this is called Conservative spin.

 

[petros]

The overwhelming abundance and affordability of food is what keeps "the west" from collapse. The cultivars are incredible and soil sciences in tune. You can bury seed in dirt or you can bury it in soil. Guess who wins?

Man is on the precipice of of turning ever sq km of of dirt into viable soil. We'll be exporting to Mars within two decades.

 

[personal touch]

The overwhelming abundance and affordability of food is what keeps "the west" from collapse. The cultivars are incredible and soil sciences in tune. You can bury seed in dirt or you can bury it in soil. Guess who wins?

Man is on the precipice of of turning ever sq km of of dirt into viable soil. We'll be exporting to Mars within two decades.

Bravo for the Saskatchewan farmer!Bravo!

 

[tay]

Ottawa closes sale of Canadian Wheat Board, name changes to G3 Canada Ltd






The federal government has closed the book on what was once called the Canadian Wheat Board.


Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz says Ottawa has finalized the sale of the agency that marketed grain for western Canadian farmers since 1935 to G3 Global Grain Group.


G3 says the board, known recently as CWB, will be combined with Bunge Canada to form a new company called G3 Canada Ltd.




"The commercialization of the CWB has been part of the government's broader modernization of Canada's grain sector to stimulate investment and create jobs and economic growth for farmers and Canadians," Ritz said in a release Friday.


"We have a new entity created from this combination, and so G3, going forward will be our brand," Gerrand said. "This is a Canadian company run by Canadians who are interested in building a long-term relationship with the grower."


Prairie farmers going as far back as 1935 used to sell their wheat and barley to the board, which in turn exported it to foreign markets.


Despite several lawsuits and vocal opposition from some farmers, the federal government went ahead three years ago with a long-standing promise to abolish the board's monopoly.


A group called Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board hasn't given up the fight.


Lawyer Anders Bruun said Friday the group is to be in Federal Court in Ottawa this fall in a bid to have a class-action lawsuit against the federal government certified.


The group contends that Ottawa mismanaged about $720 million that should have been paid to grain farmers from the 2011-2012 crop year.
Bruun said changing the wheat board's name to G3 Canada won't affect the lawsuit.


"The liabilities of a corporate entity carry forward," he said. "G3 doesn't just get the assets; they get the liabilities."


Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board believes the sale is short-sighted and will benefit the Saudis at the expense of
producers, Bruun said.


"The objective of the Saudis will be to get grain as cheaply as they can from Prairie farmers," he said.






Ottawa closes sale of Canadian Wheat Board, name changes to G3 Canada Ltd - Saskatchewan - CBC News