DOCSLIB.ORG

Canadian Wheat Board Alliance P.O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ALLIANCE P.O. Box 125, Hussar, Alberta, T0J 1S0 www.cwba.ca Submission to Standing Committee on Finance Pre-Budget Consultations in advance of 2017 Budget October 3, 2016 Thank you for your invitation to contribute to the work of the committee. The CWBA is a voluntary prairie-wide organization of grain farmers who recognize the value of collective marketing, the independent and impartial quality assurance provided by the Canadian Grain Commission, and the importance of public interest plant breeding. Prairie farmers export approximately 70% of their annual production into the global market. In the absence of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board, access to that global market is now controlled by four giant grain companies known as “the ABCD” group (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus). Glencore Inc. is the next largest international company. Canada has two comparatively small grain companies of note: J.I. Richardson and Parish & Heimbecker Inc. Transportation to ports accessing the global grain market is provided by two foreign owned railways. Consequently prairie farmers face several competitive disadvantages. • Our average distance to port is 1,524 km over mountain ranges, while Australians have an average distance of only 280 km largely downhill to port – this is very similar to the other major grain producers in Argentina and the Ukraine. • Prairie farmers no longer have direct access to end use customers. • Prairie farmers have lost their competitive advantage of supplying quality assured grain • Individual prairie farmers have no market power to deal with either the railway or grain company oligarchies. Most farmers also feel that the Wheat Board and its assets were unjustly seized from them. To clear the air, a full audit of that seizure needs to be undertaken as soon as possible. In the interim we would call on the Minister of Agriculture to release the un-redacted audit of the final year of operation of the CWB which the former Minister withheld from Parliament. Your committee asked: “What federal actions would assist Canada’s businesses – in all regions and sectors – meet their expansion, innovation and prosperity goals, and thereby contribute to economic growth in the country?” We would answer this way: With the end of the single-desk CWB prairie farmers lost the beneficial ownership of their wheat and barley from the farm gate to the end-use customer. In an August 2015 paper Dr. Richard Gray, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan, explained farmer losses in 2013/14 and 2014/15 crop years: "The resulting increase in export basis is reflected in a lower price paid to producers and reduced farm revenues. A conservative basis impact of $5.05 billion, in addition to the $1.43 billion price differential for Canadian wheat relative to US wheat in Portland, means that the minimum total value of loss to producers is approximately $6.5 billion dollars.” This has meant the transfer of one third or more of the end-use value of wheat and barley from Canadian farmers into the pockets of the international grain trade. In addition the price premiums provided by the CWB for protein levels greater than the low American standard have also been lost amounting to as much as $173 dollars per acre (Gray/CWBA). http://www.cwbafacts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CWB-loss-impact-Mar-2016-FINAL-1.pdf CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ALLIANCE P.O. Box 125, Hussar, Alberta, T0J 1S0 www.cwba.ca 1) We would recommend the Federal Budget give priority to funding a single-desk marketing agency for prairie grains. Historically this type of organization has been shown by many trade challenges to maximise returns to prairie farmers and consequently to their communities. 2) Restore full funding to the Canadian Grain Commission to reclaim Canada’s quality advantage. This would provide customers, whether they are the customers of the giant grain companies now marketing prairie grain, or any future marketing board, with objective and impartial quality assurance. 3) Reduce the costs of inspection and handling by re-instating Kernel Visual Distinguishability (KVD) so buyers can see that they are getting good Canadian quality. This places the responsibility for quality control where it belongs with the Canadian Grain Commission. It also provides an objective measure in regard to varietal evaluation, segregation, and control. 4) The amalgamation of seed and agro-chemical companies creates a clear conflict of interest that must be eliminated if we are to continue our long tradition of producing the highest quality wheat, barley and other grains that are expected by our international and domestic customers. Therefore we would recommend that all funding of new seed variety development be undertaken as a partnership between prairie producers through the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) and a fully funded Agriculture and Agri-food Canada with all patent rights being held in trust by the Crown for the sole benefit of prairie farmers. 5) The continuation of the Maximum Revenue Entitlement (MRE) for the two railways is critical to prairie agriculture. The MRE must include any expansion of interswitching distances. 6) Given the implementation of our recommendation number one we would further recommend that the Federal government nationalize the railway and grain facilities at the port of Churchill to allow prairie farmers in the Churchill catchment area to once again capitalize on its financial advantages for that region. Canada’s ability to provide quality-assurance guarantees and after-sales support to our former high-end customers is now gone. Market development, transportation efficiency, and coordination of grain to market have been lost in the chaos created by the oligarchy of grain companies mishandling the high value and high quality prairie wheat and barley crops. These negative economic consequences felt by farmers result in considerably less money being available to finance continued economic growth on the prairies. This money is also removed from Canada’s net foreign exchange earnings. To preserve export wheat production on the prairies some mechanism allowing prairie farmers to retain the beneficial ownership of their grain from the farm gate to the end use customer is needed. A market friendly solution would be to create a single desk marketing agency for all prairie grains. You also ask: “What federal measures would ensure that urban, rural and remote communities throughout Canada enable residents to make their desired contribution to the country’s economic growth and businesses to expand, prosper and serve domestic and international customers in order to contribute to growth?” CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ALLIANCE P.O. Box 125, Hussar, Alberta, T0J 1S0 www.cwba.ca Prairie grain farmers have actual physical product that must be moved to export position. Grain marketing, handling, and transportation logistics are central to this – producers cannot e-mail their product to port or customers. The railways are already regulated to limit their income from the prairie grain crop. The CWB successfully used its market power to arrange timely and cost efficient use of the private rail and grain handling systems already in place. In the absence of the single-desk CWB we have an intelligence and organizational problem. We are now seeing a rapid overbuilding of the prairie grain handling system with new facilities adding costs to the overall system – costs which will be downloaded to farmers. Again, a single-desk marketer for prairie grain is a more cost-efficient alternative which would work in the interests of prairie grain farmers as opposed to the current trend that works to the advantage of grain companies and their shareholders. It would also serve to make the port of Churchill and its rail line economic once again. Aside from a single-desk marketing agency, there are no market solutions to the current problems of grain marketing and handling that do not cost prairie farmers more money. To keep our historic economic niche supplying international customers we need to resume providing a reliable supply of quality assured grains. We cannot afford to discount customer requirements as has happened with canola. Our competitive disadvantages are already great and they must be offset with regulatory advantages only Ottawa can provide - foremost of which must be a single-desk marketing agency for prairie grains. Agricultural sustainability on the prairies and the sustainability of our communities are absolutely dependent on producers retaining the beneficial ownership of their grain from farm gate to end-use customer. Thank you for allowing the CWBA to contribute to the work of the Standing Committee on Finance Respectfully submitted – October 3, 2016 On behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance .
Recommended publications
  • Canadian Wheat

    Canadian Wheat

    Canadian Wheat By: J. E. Dexter1, K.R. Preston1 and N. J. Woodbeck2 Chapter 6: Future of flour a compendium of flour improvement, 2006, pg - 43-62 Edited by Lutz Popper, Wermer Schafer and Walter Freund. Agrimedia, Bergen. Dunne, Germany. 1 Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Research Laboratory, 1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3G8, Canada 2 Canadian Grain Commission, Industry Services, 900-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3G8, Canada Introduction The vast majority of Canadian wheat is produced in western Canada (Manitoba and provinces to the west). A high proportion of western Canadian wheat is exported, and it is marketed in a highly regulated fashion. As soon as western Canadian wheat is delivered by producers to a grain elevator the wheat becomes the property of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a single desk seller for western Canadian wheat. Approval for registration into any of the eight classes of wheat in western Canada is based on merit according to disease resistance, agronomic performance and processing quality. Wheat is also produced in eastern Canada, primarily in southern Ontario. Eastern Canadian wheat is also registered on the basis of merit, although processing quality models are not quite as strictly defined as for western Canada. There is no single desk seller for eastern Canadian wheat. Eastern Canadian wheat is marketed by private trading companies and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. Approximately 50% of eastern Canadian wheat disappears domestically. The Canadian Grain Commission (CGC), a Department within Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada (AAFC), oversees quality assurance of Canadian grains, oilseeds, pulses and special crops.
  • The Canadian Wheat Board, Warburtons, and the Creative

    The Canadian Wheat Board, Warburtons, and the Creative

    The Canadian Wheat Board and the creative re- constitution of the Canada-UK wheat trade: wheat and bread in food regime history by André J. R. Magnan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Sociology University of Toronto © Copyright by André Magnan 2010. Abstract Title: The Canadian Wheat Board and the creative re-constitution of the Canada-UK wheat trade: wheat and bread in food regime history Author: André J. R. Magnan Submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Sociology University of Toronto, 2010. This dissertation traces the historical transformation of the Canada-UK commodity chain for wheat-bread as a lens on processes of local and global change in agrofood relations. During the 1990s, the Canadian Wheat Board (Canada‟s monopoly wheat seller) and Warburtons, a British bakery, pioneered an innovative identity- preserved sourcing relationship that ties contracted prairie farmers to consumers of premium bread in the UK. Emblematic of the increasing importance of quality claims, traceability, and private standards in the reorganization of agrifood supply chains, I argue that the changes of the 1990s cannot be understood outside of historical legacies giving shape to unique institutions for regulating agrofood relations on the Canadian prairies and in the UK food sector. I trace the rise, fall, and re-invention of the Canada-UK commodity chain across successive food regimes, examining the changing significance of wheat- bread, inter-state relations between Canada, the UK, and the US, and public and private forms of agrofood regulation over time.
  • Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market Choice in GM Wheat

    Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market Choice in GM Wheat

    Let the Market Decide? Canadian Farmers Fight the Logic of Market Choice in GM Wheat Emily Eaton1 University of Regina: Department of Geography Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2 [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the controversy that surrounded Monsanto’s attempt to commercialize genetically engineered Roundup Ready (RR) wheat in Canada in the early 2000s. Specifically, the paper interrogates the argument made by RR wheat proponents that the fate of RR wheat should be decided in the marketplace according to individual choice. To counter the common-sense notion of the right of consumers and producers to market choice, anti-RR wheat activists, led by agricultural producers, advanced notions of collective action. They argued that markets offered a very narrow set of choices and that once introduced into agricultural systems, RR wheat threatened already existing agronomic practices and export markets. The paper argues that the “let the markets decide” approach denies the common positionality of farmers as producers of food and forecloses a politics of production. Similarly, in the realm of consumption, agency beyond individual self-interest is rendered unthinkable. Keywords: market choice, subjectivity, neoliberalism, genetic modification 1 Creative Commons licence: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works Canadian farmers fight the logic of market choice in GM wheat 108 Introduction [T]here’s a lot of debate on how much benefit local farmers have had ... in using [GM] Canola for example. Saskatchewan farmers, well they’ve readily adopted that technology right? And they have the choice. They don’t have to pay for that seed, they don’t have to use that technology, but they are.
  • Reciprocal Access in US/Canadian Grain Trade Background Issues for the US Grain Trade

    Reciprocal Access in US/Canadian Grain Trade Background Issues for the US Grain Trade

    AE 98001 January 1998 Reciprocal Access in U.S./Canadian Grain Trade Background Issues for the U.S. Grain Trade* William W. Wilson and Bruce L. Dahl ** *Special paper prepared at the request of the USDA/FAS for discussion. **Professor and Research Scientist, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo. Acknowledgments Constructive comments on this and earlier drafts were received from our colleagues, Demcey Johnson, Won Koo, George Flaskerud, Graham Parsons, Organization for Western European Cooperation (OWEC), and Frank Gomme (USDA). However, errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. NOTICE: The analyses and views reported in this paper are those of the author. They are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Agricultural Economics or by North Dakota State University. North Dakota State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Information on other titles in this series may be obtained from: Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, ND 58105. Telephone: 701-231-7441, Fax: 701-231-7400, or e-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 1998 by William W. Wilson and Bruce L. Dahl. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to review past trade relations in the grains sector between the United States and Canada and to document trade barriers and the potential for the evolution of reciprocal trade.
  • IMPROVING BAKING QUALITY and LOCAL MARKETS for WHEAT GROWN in WESTERN WASHINGTON by KAREN M. HILLS a Dissertation Submitted In

    IMPROVING BAKING QUALITY and LOCAL MARKETS for WHEAT GROWN in WESTERN WASHINGTON by KAREN M. HILLS a Dissertation Submitted In

    IMPROVING BAKING QUALITY AND LOCAL MARKETS FOR WHEAT GROWN IN WESTERN WASHINGTON By KAREN M. HILLS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Crop and Soil Sciences DECEMBER 2012 © Copyright by KAREN M. HILLS, 2012 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by KAREN M. HILLS, 2012 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of KAREN M. HILLS find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ______________________________________ Stephen S. Jones, Ph.D., Chair ______________________________________ Jessica R. Goldberger, Ph.D. ______________________________________ Carol A. Miles, Ph.D. ______________________________________ Andrew T. Corbin, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing of this dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many people. First and foremost, I’d like to thank my advisor, Dr. Stephen Jones, for seeing promise in me and guiding me toward what has been an interesting subject matter. During the three years I have spent at WSU Mount Vernon, he has not only been a great mentor, but has given me plenty of opportunities to build my strengths in public speaking, event organizing and leadership, and has encouraged me to take on projects that helped me to develop professionally. I would also like to offer heartfelt appreciation to my committee members: Dr. Jessica Goldberger, for her willingness to mentor me in the implementation and interpretation of my survey of commercial bakers, Dr. Andrew Corbin, for his career and research advice, and Dr. Carol Miles, for always challenging me to be a better researcher.
  • The Attack on the Canadian Wheat Board: Seven Reasons Non-Farmers Should Care

    The Attack on the Canadian Wheat Board: Seven Reasons Non-Farmers Should Care

    The Attack on the Canadian Wheat Board: Seven Reasons Non-Farmers Should Care ... and Act Saving the Canadian Wheat Board matters to you. Losing the CWB will affect the food you serve to your family, your community’s economy, and Canada’s democracy. On October 18th, Prime Minister Harper introduced legislation, Bill C-18, to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. The majority of farmers oppose the Prime Minister’s plan—farmers have repeatedly voted for a strong, effective CWB. Farmers are organizing and protesting. But to save our democratically controlled marketing agency, farm families need your help, and the help of the organizations with which you work. The loss of the CWB will hurt every Canadian family. Here are seven reasons why non-farmer Canadian citizens should act to help protect the Wheat Board: 1. Privatization and loss of economic control Few sectors of the Canadian economy are 100% owned and controlled by Canadians. But one is: our multi-billion-dollar western wheat and barley marketing system. If the Harper government destroys the CWB, it will turn over to transnational corporations (most of them foreign) a critical sector of our economy that is now owned and controlled by Canadian citizens. What C-18 takes away from farmers and other Canadians, it gives to grain giants such as Cargill. 2. Genetically modified food In 2000, Monsanto moved to introduce genetically modified (GM) wheat. Farm organizations, environmental groups, and citizens’ organizations banded together to stop Monsanto and keep GM wheat out of Canadian fields and foods. United, we succeeded. The CWB was a crucial ally.
  • An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board's Single

    An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board's Single

    An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board’s Single Desk Authority and Rail Deregulation in Western Canada by Janelle Wallace A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2011 by Janelle Wallace Abstract Wheat is the most common cereal crop grown by farmers in Western Canada and is mainly used for export. The marketing structure for wheat in Western Canada is unique. The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), a statutory marketing board, is mandated to sell all wheat grown by farmers for human consumption in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River region of British Columbia. Using historical price and basis data, this research attempts to quantify the economics of the current marketing structure for wheat in Western Canada. Simulations are developed to determine the economic profits and risk that could have been realized in an open market considering scenarios for three potential changes in the grain handling and transportation system (GHTS) and four alternative marketing strategies. Each are evaluated using a utility-based risk model to ascertain the most preferred marketing environment in terms of expected profit and risk. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Fabio Mattos (Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba), for all your guidance during this research and for always making time for me. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Jared Carlberg (Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba), for encouraging me to pursue my education further and guiding me through the graduate studies program.
  • The Wheat Value Chain in Kazakhstan

    The Wheat Value Chain in Kazakhstan

    The Wheat Value Chain in Kazakhstan OCTOBER 2017 Global Value Chains Center Author Attribution National Analytical Center, Center for Microeconomics Aibek Baisakalov, Anastassiya Iskaliyeva, Sholpan Seidek, Vitaliy Molochanovkiy Duke University Global Value Chains Center Ghada Ahmed, Danny Hamrick, Sona Nahapetyan This research is prepared on behalf of the partnership between the National Analytical Center (NAC) at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan and Duke University Global Value Chains Center (GVCC) at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA. The partnership aims at fostering collaboration in value chain research to advance Kazakhstan’s economic performance and participation in Global Value Chains (GVCs). Acknowledgements NAC and Duke GVCC would like to thank all of the interviewees and reviewers who gave generously of their time and expertise. Nazarbayev University, National Analytical Center (NAC) NAC supports improving the competitiveness of the national economy by providing analytical research and advisory support to the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan within the framework aimed at developing and implementing national policy programs. The center cooperates with other research centers at Nazarbayev University. NAC also collaborates with nongovernmental organizations, the business community and international agencies through the joint implementation of research projects and programs. National Analytical Center Duke University, Global Value Chains Center (Duke GVCC) The Duke University GVCC undertakes client-sponsored research that addresses economic and social development issues for governments, foundations and international organizations. We do this principally by utilizing the global value chain (GVC) framework, created by founding director Gary Gereffi and supplemented by other analytical tools. As a university-based research center, Duke GVCC addresses clients’ real-world questions with transparency and rigor.
  • 1. SECTION 1: PROFILE, INDUSTRY EXPORT GOAL, and CONTRIBUTIONS 1.1 Applicant Profile

    1. SECTION 1: PROFILE, INDUSTRY EXPORT GOAL, and CONTRIBUTIONS 1.1 Applicant Profile

    1. SECTION 1: PROFILE, INDUSTRY EXPORT GOAL, AND CONTRIBUTIONS 1.1 Applicant Profile 1.1.1 Participant Profile Description: The North American Export Grain Association, Inc. (NAEGA) was chartered in 1912 and incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in the state of New York in 1920. NAEGA (www.naega.org) consists of private and publicly owned companies and farmer-owned cooperatives that are involved in and provide services to the bulk grain and oilseed exporting industry. NAEGA works to promote and sustain the development of the export grain trade from the United States, and to represent the grain and oilseed exporter interests with foreign buyers, governments and other segments of the US grain industry. NAEGA serves as a conduit for trade inquiries; interacts with foreign buyers; educates foreign buyers on US grain purchase specifications; provides for, through the industry standard NAEGA 2 F.O.B. contract and other vehicles, uniform commercial practices and dispute resolution; advises governments on agriculture and trade policy; distributes information; works to prevent and resolve trade disrupting actions including those tied to regulation by governments; and provides a forum for communication on matters of vital concern to the US agricultural product export industry. With a strong understanding of risk and markets in a very competitive international environment, NAEGA staff and resources are dedicated to providing the highest possible value in programming and communication through “Working Together to make Trade Work” in coordination with NAEGA members and partners world-wide. The unique collaboration that is NAEGA does not focus on a particular commodity or product but does focus on the common aspects of the US and global logistics systems for trade of GRNOS agricultural products.
  • Removing the CWB As a Single Desk Grain Marketer: Assessing the Initial Effects on the Canada–US Feed Barley Market Thesis Supervisor: Dr

    Removing the CWB As a Single Desk Grain Marketer: Assessing the Initial Effects on the Canada–US Feed Barley Market Thesis Supervisor: Dr

    REMOVING THE CWB AS A SINGLE DESK GRAIN MARKETER: ASSESSING THE INITIAL EFFECTS ON THE CANADA–US FEED BARLEY MARKET A Thesis Submitted to The College of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science In the Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan by Haoyu Li © Copyright Haoyu Li, November 2013. All Rights Reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Science degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Library of the University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copy or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Bioresource Policy, Business and Economics University of Saskatchewan 3D34–51 Campus Dr.
  • Benefits and Costs of a Voluntary Wheat Board for the Province of Alberta

    Benefits and Costs of a Voluntary Wheat Board for the Province of Alberta

    Benefits and Costs of a Voluntary Wheat Board for the Province of Alberta Prepared By: Larry Martin Holly Mayer Jerry Bouma March 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 4 2.0 THE WESTERN CANADIAN WHEAT MARKETING SYSTEM AND ITS EVOLUTION ................................................... 6 2.1 Evolution of the Market Environment ...................... 6 2.2 Origin and History of CWB .............................. 9 2.3 Examples of Change In Other Areas ..................... 11 2.4 Producer Attitudes Toward the Canadian Wheat Board ...... 15 2.5 Feedback From Market Participants ...................... 16 3.0 VALUE ADDED PERFORMANCE IN CANADA AND THE U.S. ........... 21 3.1 Value Adding in the Grains Based and Vegetable Oil Industries of Canada and the U.S. ................................. 21 3.2 Value Added in Other Crops and Jurisdictions ............. 25 3.3 The Cost of Foregone Value Added Investment ............ 29 3.4 The Potential for Growth in Value Added .................. 31 3.5 Projections of Value Added ............................ 33 3.6 Employment Implications .............................. 34 4.0 FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING NET BENEFITS .................. 36 4.1 Benefits of the CWB .................................. 36 4.2 Costs of the CWB .................................... 39 4.2.1 Past Costs .................................... 39 4.2.2 Current Costs .................................. 41 4.3 Methods For
  • Changing Canadian Grain Policies: Implications for Montana’S Grain Industry

    Changing Canadian Grain Policies: Implications for Montana’S Grain Industry

    Changing Canadian Grain Policies: Implications for Montana’s Grain Industry Linda M. Young, Agricultural Policy Coordinator Montana State University–Bozeman Policy Issues Paper No. 1 September 1996 Reprinted January 1999 Summary Changing Canadian Grains Policies: Implications for Montana’s Grain Industry Linda M. Young In Canada many changes have been made, and more are pending, to their grain transportation policies. This package of policy changes has two offsetting impacts on freight rates for Canadian grain producers. The removal of transportation subsidies on grain for export offshore has roughly doubled the cost of transporting grain for the Canadian producer. In addition, the change in pooling points will increase freight rates even more for producers in the eastern part of the prairies. Whether federally owned grain hopper cars are sold to the railways, or to an association of Canadian producers, the cost of the sale is likely to be born by producers through increased freight rates over a number of years. In addition, Canadian producers will bear the cost of investing in new cars, a cost that was previously born by the government. The combined impact of all of these changes is to more than double freight rates for producers in the western part of the Prairies, with larger freight rate increases for eastern Prairie producers. A number of other policy changes including rail line abandonment and car allocation procedures, and the privatization of CN railway, are likely to increase the responsiveness and efficiency of the rail system, and to reduce freight costs over the medium to long run. Changes in the elevator system, port privatization and the construction of high throughput country and terminal elevators are likely to increase the efficiency of the grain handling system.