KURTENBACH: Harper, Ritz, and the CWB
http://forum.stopthehogs.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=5
Sent for publishing on June 18, 2011
To the Editor,
A majority of the producers of wheat and barley in the Canadian Wheat Board [CWB] area, and probably many other Canadians, may be puzzled why our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and his trusty CWB minister, Gerry Ritz, are so gung- ho to render the CWB meaningless.
Now, with thanks to the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, affinity between Harper and American political conservatism has been revealed in a fairly long excerpted statement by former U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins. He suggested Harper would be useful in advancing the U.S. agenda for Canada. and that giving him a “success story”, like the softwood lumber deal would “shore up” Harper’s ability to stay in office without appearing to “sell out to the Americans.”
Wilkens also stated that, “Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who, along with many members of his caucus, has an ideological and cultural affinity for America.”
On another issue, Wilkins stated, “Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force;” and also added, “keeping Canada in the game [my underline] in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; . . .” Why would we Canadians want to align ourselves to the greatest military power on Earth, which seems to believe that bombs and bullets are the way to make the kind of peace they want? And would use Canada to do so.
It is now easier to understand why Harper’s Conservatives are determined to gut the CWB and turn over producer control of wheat and barley to American multinational grain traders. The loss of this distinctly Canadian organization, the CWB, with its international reputation for grain sales, will be a serious loss for all Canadians. There will be job losses for CWB employees and other related businesses. The extra earnings that the CWB has garnered for producers of wheat and barley for many years will be siphoned off to foreign corporate shareholders, out of the Canadian economy. We all know that the first duty of corporations is to get the highest return possible for its shareholders.
Leo Kurtenbach,
Saskatoon, SK
= = = = = = =
Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.
By Lee Berthiaume Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM
A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings. [ . . . ]
= = = = = = =
CWB petition
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
From: NFU Office
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: CWB petition
The Government of Manitoba has begun a campaign to oppose the federal government’s plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk. The campaign includes a petition that supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB.
The petition preamble reads as follows:
Whereas the federal government’s unilateral move to end the current Canadian Wheat Board would jeopardize returns to farmers, over 2,000 Manitoba jobs, an internationally recognized head office in Winnipeg, and the Port of Churchill, I support the right of farmers to decide the future of their grain marketing agency.
Here’s the link to the petition:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
Please pass this message on. It is important that as many people sign the petition as possible.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wipf
NFU Executive Director
= = = = = = = = =
NFU SUPPORTS MANITOBA GOVERNMENT’S STAND ON CWB
http://www.nfu.ca/press_releases/2011/06-15.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 15th, 2011
SaskatoonThe National Farmers Union (NFU) is expressing its support for the Manitoba Government’s campaign against the federal government’s plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) single desk. On Monday morning, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger launched the campaign at the CWB’s head office in Winnipeg by stating that a farmer plebiscite is necessary before any changes to the CWB are considered. “The NFU supports the stand that the Government of Manitoba is taking against the federal government’s plans to remove the CWB’s single desk. The NFU calls on the federal government to hold a plebiscite on the matter where western wheat and barley farmers can vote on the issue as reasonably laid out in the CWB Act,” stated Boehm. , Sask. –
During the press conference, Selinger also drew attention to the economic benefits that the CWB generates for all Manitobans, including the fact that the CWB posted $5.2 billion in revenues last year and that over 2000 jobs in Manitoba are directly or indirectly linked to the CWB’s operations. “This is a very serious issue for the entire Province of Manitoba, as well as all Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers, and beyond. The CWB puts $1.5 billion extra into farmers’ pockets each and every year. If the single desk is removed, this wealth will be going straight into the pockets of the big grain companies and railroads,” stated NFU President Terry Boehm.
“The CWB generates these benefits at very low cost to the farmer. Estimates peg the total cost of the CWB’s operations at just 9 cents per bushel. By the way, those 9 cents are recovered by the CWB in foreign exchange transactions and favourable borrowing terms that this large entity is able to obtain for farmers. There’s no question that the CWB is extremely efficient. A lot of talented people work there who are able to devote themselves entirely to finding the best prices for our grain. The CWB has played a very large role in making Canada a powerhouse in the global wheat and barley markets,” stated NFU Region 5 Coordinator Ian Robson.
The CWB also plays a very significant role in transportation and grain handling, which enables it to ensure overall efficiency of the grain transportation system and advocate for the interests of farmers. This is crucial because Prairie grain farmers are further from tide water than any global competitor, and railway charges are a grain farmer’s highest cost. Given that the CWB directs grain movement from country elevators to ports it can ensure that producer cars and short line railways are utilized, and that the two big railway companies, CP and CN, are challenged when they have provided poor service or imposed unfair costs on farmers.
“The CWB has been active in pushing for a costing review. It’s clear that the railways are overcharging farmers for shipping their grain, to the tune of $200 million per year. How are farmers going to effectively challenge the railways without the CWB?” stated NFU Board Member Doug Scott.
“The federal government is completely ignoring the fact that the CWB belongs to farmers. We pay for it, and we make the decisions about its operations and the future of the single desk. The federal government is being highly undemocratic by trying to run roughshod over the rights of farmers like this,” said NFU Region 6 Coordinator Ed Sagan.
“We encourage all farmers and citizens to fill out the on-line petition prepared by the Government of Manitoba, which supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB,” stated Boehm. – 30 –
The on-line petition is located at:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html
For further information, please contact:
Terry Boehm NFU President (306) 255-2880
Ian Robson NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Coordinator (204) 858-2479
Edward Sagan NFU Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Coordinator (306) 728-3760
Doug Scott NFU Region 7 (Alberta) Board Member (780) 358-2376
Kevin Wipf NFU Executive Director (306) 652-9465
= = = = = = = = =
Wheat board’s going… now what?
Monopoly did much more for farmers than just sell their grain for them
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/wheat-boards-going-now-what-121432864.html
By: Laura Rance
The allure of the U.S. market has perhaps been the biggest driver in the campaign to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.
But unless they tread lightly, it could be one of the first markets Canadian farmers lose after the federal Conservatives make good on their election promise.
Southern Prairie farmers have fumed for years over the difference between U.S. spot market prices and the CWB pool prices, which are an average of sales made to customers in 70 or so countries throughout the year.
As things are now, farmers can’t legally haul to a U.S. elevator. They must sell their wheat through the board, which does the marketing direct to U.S. processors as it does with customers elsewhere. Farmers have the option of buying their grain back from the pool and then selling into the United States, but most find doing the paperwork too bothersome.
U.S. exports, currently at two million tonnes for wheat and durum and 600,000 tonnes for malting barley, are about one-tenth of Canada’s total sales. Not surprisingly, spot prices on a given day are often higher than average prices from all sales to all customers over a year.
Many farmers think that if freed of the pooling system, they could simply sell everything to the United States. In an open market, they would be free to try.
Here’s the catch. Long lines of Canadian grain trucks at northern U.S. grain elevators will be about as welcome as a snowstorm in May — especially if those deliveries plug up the pipeline or have an effect on prices, either real or perceived. Just ask softwood lumber, cattle and hog producers. A trade backlash that makes crossing the border prohibitively expensive is almost inevitable.
The Canadian Wheat Board has spent nearly $18 million fighting 14 trade cases with the United States since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, which supposedly secured Canadian access. Under a voluntary CWB, the task of taking on U.S. trade law will fall to commodity groups and taxpayers through federal and provincial governments.
The unfortunate reality about the so-called “Canadian Wheat Board debate” is that virtually all of the rhetoric has centred on the merits of the single desk. The often-bitter arguments have waffled between the economics, whether farmers do better by pooling their grain and sharing the average proceeds, and the philosophical, whether private entrepreneurs should be forced to market collectively.
Very little discussion has taken place over the board’s other roles and who will step into them once the board no longer represents all wheat, durum and barley growers. Many assume a voluntary board will continue to carry out the same market development, research and customer-service functions, but with little consideration as to how it would do that, or why.
Farmers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, are the biggest private-sector investors in wheat and barley research in Canada. They pay a checkoff on sales that raises about $6 million annually for varietal development through the Western Grains Research Foundation.
That will change, perhaps even disappear, under a voluntary board. Why would remaining board supporters continue to shoulder the costs of research that also benefits their competition in an open market?
The Canadian Wheat Board is one of the founders and major clients of the Canadian International Grains Institute (CIGI), which offers technical support and training to Canada’s customers. Other commodities and other countries have market development agencies too, such as the largely government-funded U.S. Wheat Associates. But while it travels the world cheerleading for U.S. wheat, it has no direct relationship with customers.
The Canadian approach for wheat, durum and barley is customer specific and unparalleled. It has played a key role in branding Canadian wheat as the best in the world. And it’s cheap, costing about half of one per cent of the CWB’s total sales.
If CIGI, which is financed through matching contributions from industry and government, loses the CWB’s contribution, it loses 60 per cent of its funding. Who fills the gap and how?
– – – SNIP – – –
The debate over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board ended May 2. Farmers will be freed from single-desk selling. But ending the monopoly is the easy part. It’s what comes afterwards that gets complicated.
Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator. She can be reached at 792–4382 or by email: laura AT fbcpublishing.com.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 7, 2011 B6
= = = = = = = =
WikiLeaks : US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2011/06/wikileaks-us-bid-to-shore-up-harper.html
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
An embassy cable written by US Ambassador David Wilkins the day the Cons were first elected in 2006
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
suggests Harper would be useful in advancing the US agenda for Canada and that giving him ” a success story” like the softwood lumber deal would “shore up” his ability to stay in office without appearing to “sell out to the Americans”.
It’s pretty well a quid pro quo blueprint for every Canada-US initiative Harper has dutifully followed ever since.
Excerpted :
The election of a new government, after thirteen years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing U.S. interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe.
Significantly, the socially liberal core values of the opposition are more in line with most Canadians than the minority Conservatives, weakening their mandate even further. Given a relatively weak mandate and tenuous hold on power, Harper will move deliberately but cautiously to get a few successes under his belt before doing anything even remotely bold.
Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America. But as he has done already with many of his core social and fiscal values, he will simply have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as “selling out to the Americans” to a skeptical Canadian public. I know Harper will be warm and cordial in his dealings with the U.S., but he also has to demonstrate that he has the ability to advance Canada’s interests with Washington, and he may feel compelled to step back from gestures that could be construed as a close embrace.
That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government. I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.
Another area where the new government will seek engagement will undoubtedly be border security. Finding a few high-profile SPP-type deliverables to improve cross border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials. Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts.
Enhanced info sharing on Canadians, the shiprider program, the imported war on drugs.
On other issues, Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force; we have little to contribute to this debate and should stay out of it. He has also suggested that the missile defense decision could be re-examined.
With regards to our transformational agenda, there will be numerous opportunities for engagement. However, I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas — keeping Canada in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.
And right about now I’m guessing you’re remembering some of Harper’s more bizarre outbursts on Iran, his caginess about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and Canada’s new “leadership role in Haiti” where DFAIT is buying up property to house an infusion of Canadian officials.
Back to Wilkins’ cable :
“We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.
I look forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda.”
Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, enhanced information sharing, war on drugs, joint maritime operations, security perimeter … There’s also a section on Canada “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.”
Has Canada done anything independent of this cable under Harper?
David Emerson, who crossed the floor to the Cons to implement the soft wood lumber deal a week after he was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver, is mentioned in a second Wilkins cable just after the deal was signed with USTR Ambassador Susan Schwab eight months later.
Here they are quoted discussing International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a US law which proscribes Canadian dual nationals from some countries from work on the arms deals that comprise 40% of Canadian defense procurement from the US, and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:
“It would be better, she continued, if we could look at issues as if there were a common border surrounding Canada and the U.S., rather than as an issue caused by the Canadian-U.S. border. Emerson agreed. He said that policies such as the WHTI are a “running sore” in the bilateral relationship and are inconsistent with policies to integrate the Canadian and U.S. economies to the maximum extent possible.”
So, again, Steve, we ask: How’s that US security perimeter deal with Barry coming along?
= = = = = = = =
Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011
Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.
By Lee Berthiaume Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM
A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings.
In addition, the document shows that even before it was elected, American officials were planning on how they could use a Harper government to advance their own agenda on law enforcement, border security and co-operation in the hemisphere. The cable lays out a number of potential policies and areas of co-operation—most of which have since come to pass.
The document from the US Embassy in Ottawa is dated Jan. 23, 2006, hours before Paul Martin’s Liberals were defeated by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, giving the latter their first minority government.
“The election of a new government, after 13 years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing US interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe,” reads the cable from then-US ambassador David Wilkins.
It does go to pains to note the weak position the Harper government would be in, not just because of its minority status, but also because most Canadians were more socially liberal than the Conservative government.
In addition, “relations with the US will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. The new prime minister would “have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as ‘selling out to the Americans’ to a skeptical Canadian public.”
“That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.”
Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.
However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.
A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion. The Bloc Québécois ended up supporting it to avoid an election, and the BC government also eventually signed on after a number of amendments.
Looked forward to helping ‘connect the dots’ for Harper
While resolving the softwood lumber dispute may not have provided the success story US and Canadian officials had been hoping for, many of the other items identified by Mr. Wilkins as being on the US “agenda” continued moving ahead.
The ambassador said the new Harper government would seek engagement on border security, and he recommended “finding a few high-profile [Security and Prosperity Partnership]-type deliverables to improve cross-border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials.”
Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts,” Mr. Wilkins concluded.
At the SPP meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, leaders agreed to a number of initiatives, such as the creation of a powerful advisory group composed of the continent’s largest businesses, a cross-border emergency and disaster management agreement, and a commitment to improving security at the border without making trade more difficult. Then in May 2006, Congress approved an 18-month delay in implementation of visa requirements for cross-border land and sea travellers.
While the significance of each of these possible “deliverables” is debatable, it is clear that many of the other areas identified as US priorities were nonetheless acted upon. Canada and the US have since significantly increased information sharing in a variety of ways. They have also made joint maritime operations a common activity on the border, starting with the Great Lakes and Operation Shiprider, and they have worked more closely on fighting drug trafficking, both along the border and in the hemisphere. This has included tougher laws and sentences for drug offenders.
Not all of the issues of interest to American officials were bilateral. Mr. Wilkins, who at one point said he was looking forward to “forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda,” wrote that there were a number of other areas where the US could lead Canada.
“I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.”
Some of the priority areas identified by the ambassador included working to keep Canada “in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.”
One of the government’s first decisions was to extend the Afghan mission to 2008, while it has taken lead role in censuring Iran on the international stage and, in summer 2006, made Canada the second largest donor to Haiti.
Again, the degree to which the decisions, particularly on Afghanistan and Iran were influenced by US officials is unclear, as many of them fell squarely in line with the Harper government’s views and priorities. However, Mr. Wilkins also suggested getting Canada to begin “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.”
In 2007, the Harper government made the Americas one of its first international priorities, a major and surprising shift in Canadian foreign policy after decades of work in Africa. Among the positions adopted included cooler relations with the Venezuela and even Cuba, and stalwart economic, development and political support for Colombia—all of which reflect US policies.
While there have long been indications of behind-the-scenes Canadian-American co-ordination when it came to the hemisphere, this is the first indication that the US may have been responsible for the Conservative government making Latin America and the Caribbean a priority.
lee@embassymag.ca
