Canfax numbers

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Rod wouldn't they also have to take into consideration the EXTRA expenses of processing the beef

2) here in Canada and the extra cost of upgrading plants so they can stay in the export business

3) If Canadian retailers don't better or at least match the US price will the Canadian retailers have enough beef to supply our domestic demand?

1) What extra expenses? SRM Removal? Tell you what, go talk to your local federally inspected butcher who kills and butchers and ask him what SRM removal costs. The packers have you guys convinced that new rules are costing them an arm and a leg. How can my local butcher kill, process and wrap beef for 37 cents/lb including all SRM removal and disposal (he's federally inspected and required to do it)? And at 37 cents/lb he's making a "helluva living". Those are his words, not mine. On a 600 lb carcass, thats $222. You mean to tell me that a packer, with all the automated machines and the massive kill capacity can't process for less than $222?

2) The upgrades would be amortized over several years, and the plants will continue gain benefit from them long after the BSE crisis is over. Sorry, not much added cost there on a per animal basis, especially since the upgrades would also help them process more efficiently.

3) Yes, undoubtedly. We have sufficient supplies to top up what the US needs while still easily managing to feed our own people.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod if you have a processor at 37 cents jump all over the retail beef end.

I am payin 53 cents, plus kill of $35, plus srm removal of $25 at one plant $100 at the other (I won't use), $12 pick up fee, $16 waste disposal fee plus extra charges for sasuages or patties.

I asked about getting the petite tender and ranch steak cut out, he said he would have to go get extra education to know how to do them, but that he wouldn't do any extra cutting for less than 75 cents a pound.

Now tell me again how costs are not an issue?

 

[Econ101]

Rod if you have a processor at 37 cents jump all over the retail beef end.

I am payin 53 cents, plus kill of $35, plus srm removal of $25 at one plant $100 at the other (I won't use), $12 pick up fee, $16 waste disposal fee plus extra charges for sasuages or patties.

I asked about getting the petite tender and ranch steak cut out, he said he would have to go get extra education to know how to do them, but that he wouldn't do any extra cutting for less than 75 cents a pound.

Now tell me again how costs are not an issue?

Ask MRJ to send someone up there from the checkoff to show him how to cut those out. He could be a star in Canada.

 

[Tam]

Rod you said when the Feds requested the books they were slammed shut but look what I read in the Standing Committees Final report.

SCOPE LIMITATION

The manner of proceeding with reporting to the Committee was established by the following resolution of the Committee:

That a letter be sent to Cargill Foods, Lakeside Packers Ltd., XL Foods Inc., Levinoff Meat Products Ltd. and Better Beef Limited, stating that this Committee is aware that certain information provided by the aforementioned companies, may contain sensitive business information, therefore the Clerk of the Committee is directed to not provide copies of the information received to Members of the Committee. The Clerk is directed to provide the information to the Office of the Law Clerk and such individual(s) that may be engaged by the Library of Parliament for the purpose of reviewing the information received and preparing a report to this Committee, such report to be prepared in such a fashion as to protect specific sensitive business information that may disclose the identity of any person or corporation providing such information.

We proceeded accordingly.

APPROACH

On April 5, 2005, the Clerk of the Committee informed the five companies of the Phase 2 on site review. To respond to the needs of the Committee, CAC followed up with each company and several times provided clarification of the type of information that was being sought. CAC prepared a review program to ensure that our work was performed in an organized and consistent manner.

Four of the five companies agreed to the on site visit and provided the information requested. The fifth company has provided the financial and slaughter information as well as responses to written questions, but did not agree to the on site visit. [/b]This impacts on the completeness of information in Section 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries.

The financial information was reconciled to year end financial reports for the years during the scope period for which the financial statements had been prepared for external audit.

Looks like all five did give up their books to the Feds.

 

[Econ101]

Rod you said when the Feds requested the books they were slammed shut but look what I read in the Standing Committees Final report.

SCOPE LIMITATION

The manner of proceeding with reporting to the Committee was established by the following resolution of the Committee:

That a letter be sent to Cargill Foods, Lakeside Packers Ltd., XL Foods Inc., Levinoff Meat Products Ltd. and Better Beef Limited, stating that this Committee is aware that certain information provided by the aforementioned companies, may contain sensitive business information, therefore the Clerk of the Committee is directed to not provide copies of the information received to Members of the Committee. The Clerk is directed to provide the information to the Office of the Law Clerk and such individual(s) that may be engaged by the Library of Parliament for the purpose of reviewing the information received and preparing a report to this Committee, such report to be prepared in such a fashion as to protect specific sensitive business information that may disclose the identity of any person or corporation providing such information.

We proceeded accordingly.

APPROACH

On April 5, 2005, the Clerk of the Committee informed the five companies of the Phase 2 on site review. To respond to the needs of the Committee, CAC followed up with each company and several times provided clarification of the type of information that was being sought. CAC prepared a review program to ensure that our work was performed in an organized and consistent manner.

Four of the five companies agreed to the on site visit and provided the information requested. The fifth company has provided the financial and slaughter information as well as responses to written questions, but did not agree to the on site visit. [/b]This impacts on the completeness of information in Section 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries.

The financial information was reconciled to year end financial reports for the years during the scope period for which the financial statements had been prepared for external audit.

Looks like all five did give up their books to the Feds.

I believe Rod's question was more along the lines of "Was it Enron accounting?"

 

[Jason]

As per usual if the facts don't support the view that packers are crooked the peanut gallery spouts off about bad accounting.

Bring some facts to contradict a position.

It is easier to create an illusion of corruption when nothing supports that stance.

 

[Mike]

Rod you said when the Feds requested the books they were slammed shut but look what I read in the Standing Committees Final report.

SCOPE LIMITATION

The manner of proceeding with reporting to the Committee was established by the following resolution of the Committee:

That a letter be sent to Cargill Foods, Lakeside Packers Ltd., XL Foods Inc., Levinoff Meat Products Ltd. and Better Beef Limited, stating that this Committee is aware that certain information provided by the aforementioned companies, may contain sensitive business information, therefore the Clerk of the Committee is directed to not provide copies of the information received to Members of the Committee. The Clerk is directed to provide the information to the Office of the Law Clerk and such individual(s) that may be engaged by the Library of Parliament for the purpose of reviewing the information received and preparing a report to this Committee, such report to be prepared in such a fashion as to protect specific sensitive business information that may disclose the identity of any person or corporation providing such information.

We proceeded accordingly.

APPROACH

On April 5, 2005, the Clerk of the Committee informed the five companies of the Phase 2 on site review. To respond to the needs of the Committee, CAC followed up with each company and several times provided clarification of the type of information that was being sought. CAC prepared a review program to ensure that our work was performed in an organized and consistent manner.

Four of the five companies agreed to the on site visit and provided the information requested. The fifth company has provided the financial and slaughter information as well as responses to written questions, but did not agree to the on site visit. [/b]This impacts on the completeness of information in Section 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries.

The financial information was reconciled to year end financial reports for the years during the scope period for which the financial statements had been prepared for external audit.

Looks like all five did give up their books to the Feds.

Why did they open their books? How long did it take to open the books?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

That the House of Commons find that Cargill Foods and Lakeside Packers remain in contempt of the House of Commons. If after a further delay to produce documents by May 20, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. (EDT), the said production of documents is not complied with, each of these companies shall pay a fine of $250,000.00 for each day, or part of a day, commencing at 12:01 AM May 21, 2004 (EDT) until they comply with the request stated in the Committee's letter of May 11, 2004. Such fines shall be payable to the Receiver General of Canada; and, they shall be considered a debt owing to Her Majesty in Right of Canada and may be enforced through any avenue of recourse available to Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

 

[Econ101]

Rod you said when the Feds requested the books they were slammed shut but look what I read in the Standing Committees Final report.

SCOPE LIMITATION

The manner of proceeding with reporting to the Committee was established by the following resolution of the Committee:

That a letter be sent to Cargill Foods, Lakeside Packers Ltd., XL Foods Inc., Levinoff Meat Products Ltd. and Better Beef Limited, stating that this Committee is aware that certain information provided by the aforementioned companies, may contain sensitive business information, therefore the Clerk of the Committee is directed to not provide copies of the information received to Members of the Committee. The Clerk is directed to provide the information to the Office of the Law Clerk and such individual(s) that may be engaged by the Library of Parliament for the purpose of reviewing the information received and preparing a report to this Committee, such report to be prepared in such a fashion as to protect specific sensitive business information that may disclose the identity of any person or corporation providing such information.

We proceeded accordingly.

APPROACH

On April 5, 2005, the Clerk of the Committee informed the five companies of the Phase 2 on site review. To respond to the needs of the Committee, CAC followed up with each company and several times provided clarification of the type of information that was being sought. CAC prepared a review program to ensure that our work was performed in an organized and consistent manner.

Four of the five companies agreed to the on site visit and provided the information requested. The fifth company has provided the financial and slaughter information as well as responses to written questions, but did not agree to the on site visit. [/b]This impacts on the completeness of information in Section 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries.

The financial information was reconciled to year end financial reports for the years during the scope period for which the financial statements had been prepared for external audit.

Looks like all five did give up their books to the Feds.

Why did they open their books? How long did it take to open the books?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

That the House of Commons find that Cargill Foods and Lakeside Packers remain in contempt of the House of Commons. If after a further delay to produce documents by May 20, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. (EDT), the said production of documents is not complied with, each of these companies shall pay a fine of $250,000.00 for each day, or part of a day, commencing at 12:01 AM May 21, 2004 (EDT) until they comply with the request stated in the Committee's letter of May 11, 2004. Such fines shall be payable to the Receiver General of Canada; and, they shall be considered a debt owing to Her Majesty in Right of Canada and may be enforced through any avenue of recourse available to Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

So much for spontaneous inspections. Kind of takes away the advantage of surprise.

Jason, once again, you are defending the packers. Do you get paid for this or is your help free? Why not work for producers instead?

Rod's point was still not addressed and once again we have a bunch of papers and a report that did not answer the questions asked--or did the questions get changed in the process along with the books?

Report: "Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries."

That is where spot checking, like a real audit does, would give credibility to the information given.

 

[Anonymous]

Many of these audits by every day accountants don't amount to much-- all they look for is if the dollars add up...You need to have forensic accountants with law enforcement powers that can not only add the numbers but see when the figures are questionable....I've seen auditors look at books for 20 years and find nothing-- but when the dung hits the fan and the forensic boys take over they find 20 years of fraud and theft......

These big corporations and companies have hundreds of ways of "hiding" or "moving" income....If SRM disposal is extremely expensive--My first question would be who owns the SRM disposal company...I'm not saying this was done-but if the SRM disposal company was a sub subdivision of a major multinational corporate entity you could definitely make big bucks overcharging on the SRM disposal while making the slaughter end lose money......

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I believe Rod's question was more along the lines of "Was it Enron accounting?"

Exactly Econ. What was needed was FULLY OPENED BOOKS that a genuine auditor could get his paws on. What we got were executive summaries prepared by a legal clerk.

And didn't you notice that one line:

"Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries. "

SUMMARIES! Do yourself a favor and read the actual study. It should be available at your provincial library. It was a joke, and was heavily slanted to numbers obtained from the Alberta packers as well as retail sales within Alberta. Although your web link states they used global prices, there was no evidence of it in the study. My MP also noticed similar issues with the study and will hopefully be able to re-introduce it and ask for a PROPER audit with FULL DISCLOSURE, not these garbage executive summaries OF OTHER SUMMARIES.

Rod[/b]

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod if you have a processor at 37 cents jump all over the retail beef end.

I am payin 53 cents, plus kill of $35, plus srm removal of $25 at one plant $100 at the other (I won't use), $12 pick up fee, $16 waste disposal fee plus extra charges for sasuages or patties.

I asked about getting the petite tender and ranch steak cut out, he said he would have to go get extra education to know how to do them, but that he wouldn't do any extra cutting for less than 75 cents a pound.

Now tell me again how costs are not an issue?

I don't have the time or energy to dedicate myself to farm gating large amounts of beef right now. Perhaps in a couple years, but if my local shops can do it for 37 cents, why are the packers having to spend more?

And I don't know why your guy has to charge you so much. Perhaps land rent in AB is crazy high? Perhaps maybe the packers should be looking at relocating so they can compete with small, less efficient guys.

Rod

 

[Tam]

Rod you said when the Feds requested the books they were slammed shut but look what I read in the Standing Committees Final report.


Looks like all five did give up their books to the Feds.

Why did they open their books? How long did it take to open the books?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

That the House of Commons find that Cargill Foods and Lakeside Packers remain in contempt of the House of Commons. If after a further delay to produce documents by May 20, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. (EDT), the said production of documents is not complied with, each of these companies shall pay a fine of $250,000.00 for each day, or part of a day, commencing at 12:01 AM May 21, 2004 (EDT) until they comply with the request stated in the Committee's letter of May 11, 2004. Such fines shall be payable to the Receiver General of Canada; and, they shall be considered a debt owing to Her Majesty in Right of Canada and may be enforced through any avenue of recourse available to Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

So much for spontaneous inspections. Kind of takes away the advantage of surprise.

Jason, once again, you are defending the packers. Do you get paid for this or is your help free? Why not work for producers instead?

Rod's point was still not addressed and once again we have a bunch of papers and a report that did not answer the questions asked--or did the questions get changed in the process along with the books?

Report: "Our work on site involved analysis of information submitted and a discussion of how the information was compiled as well as the general business model. We requested and reviewed supporting schedules and relevant information on costs and pricing. Where it would have been onerous to obtain supporting documentation, we relied on sales and purchase summaries."

That is where spot checking, like a real audit does, would give credibility to the information given.

Econ you are so full of it, Rod Said

But the packers weren't required to open their books to show sales to any other province but Alberta. When those books were requested by the FEDERAL government, they were slammed shut and, unfortunately, the courts kept them shut.

The report I posted said all five plants provided their financial and slaughter information to the Federal Standing Committee Clerk and it was turned over to the Office of the LAW CLERK. where they were examined and a report filed with the committee. That is a direct contradiction to RODS "When those books were requested by the FEDERAL government, they were slammed shut and, unfortunately, the courts kept them shut" comment. And Oldtimer since The House of Commons agriculture committee ordered a forensic audit of Canada's five largest packers I would have to wonder if it wasn't forensic boys in the Office of Law Clerks that did the audit and prepared the report. The fact that the Federal Government did recieve financials and slaughter information and did on site inspections is in direct contradiction to your comment Econ about the plants having the power to stop the Federal Audit altogether. Face it both you and Rod were wrong. :wink: And Econ as for Mike's assumption that it was only the fines that caused them to turn over their books that, I would have to say, is again a direct contradiction to the power you claim the packers have over our Government. As if they had the power you claim, the audit would not have taken place and they surely would not have been threatened with huge fines if they didn't comply. Econ, you claim an independent audit should be done so I ask you is a study on the Canadian slaughter industry done by two economic experts which happen to be professors at Texas A&M University Department of Agriculture Economics independent enough. As the INDEPENDENT COMPETITION BUREAU brought in two Texans to help in their investigation. Face it they turned over their books they were investigated three times BY Alberta , the Feds , and an Independent agency and they all said the same thing, No evident that supports any claims of wrong doing on the packers behalf. Sorry if that doesn't fit your bias but that is just the way it is. LIVE WITH IT.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod Said

But the packers weren't required to open their books to show sales to any other province but Alberta. When those books were requested by the FEDERAL government, they were slammed shut and, unfortunately, the courts kept them shut.

Tam, you appear to be unable to understand the difference between open books and SUMMARIES. The summaries that were provided to the competition bureau were prepared by LAW CLERKS, NOT AUDITORS! And in some cases, the summaries provided to the competition bureau weren't even based on actual paperwork, but rather based on OTHER SUMMARIES! The books were NOT opened to the actual auditors who may have had a chance of spotting irregularities.

The difference may seem small to someone who isn't familiar with audits, audit trails, financial summaries and paper trails, but its not small. You find yourself an accredited auditor and ask him if he'd be willing to work from financial summaries prepared by law clerks (not even financial clerks), especially if he was expected to find evidence of wrong doing. Unless the guy is a bumbling fool, you're going to get laughed out of his office. I've been through full blown, financial audits in RM offices. It takes 3 auditors up to a month, just for a little RM office. Yet somehow a multi-national corporation was auditted in what, 3 months? I'm sorry I don't recall how long it took, but it certainly wasn't a sufficient amount of time to properly inspect books.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Tam, I don't know about the threats that were posted about fining the packers not cooperating, but the fact that the packers were not cooperating is a little suspicious. If they took 9 months and then handed over their books, I wouldn't give them much credibility without a REAL audit, not one based solely on the items suggested in the article.

Yes, Rod, I did pick that paragraph up. Tam still hasn't answered the questions I posed except with this statement, "thats all you need to know".

Well doesn't that tie it all up in a nice little bow after the repackaging?

 

[Tam]

Rod Said

But the packers weren't required to open their books to show sales to any other province but Alberta. When those books were requested by the FEDERAL government, they were slammed shut and, unfortunately, the courts kept them shut.

Tam, you appear to be unable to understand the difference between open books and SUMMARIES. The summaries that were provided to the competition bureau were prepared by LAW CLERKS, NOT AUDITORS! And in some cases, the summaries provided to the competition bureau weren't even based on actual paperwork, but rather based on OTHER SUMMARIES! The books were NOT opened to the actual auditors who may have had a chance of spotting irregularities.

The difference may seem small to someone who isn't familiar with audits, audit trails, financial summaries and paper trails, but its not small. You find yourself an accredited auditor and ask him if he'd be willing to work from financial summaries prepared by law clerks (not even financial clerks), especially if he was expected to find evidence of wrong doing. Unless the guy is a bumbling fool, you're going to get laughed out of his office. I've been through full blown, financial audits in RM offices. It takes 3 auditors up to a month, just for a little RM office. Yet somehow a multi-national corporation was auditted in what, 3 months? I'm sorry I don't recall how long it took, but it certainly wasn't a sufficient amount of time to properly inspect books.

Rod

Rod what is the different between SLAMMED SHUT and Open Books. one you see NOTHING the other you can have someone that knows what they are looking at look at them and summarize what is in them so those that don't know can understand.
First you said the books were slammed shut when the Feds requested them and when I proved the plants did turn them over you say they only saw a summary. if they saw anything at all that proves the books were not SLAMMED SHUT ROD. Do you have any evident that refute the findings of the Alberta Government, the House of Commons Standing Committee or the Competiton Bureau? If you do why weren't you called to testify on behalf of all the producers in Canada. All you have is your opinions and claims and all three investigation reported that there was no evidence that supported your kinds of claims. They all must have seen enough to file a final report but maybe your evidence can get them to reopen the case.

 

[Tam]

Tam, I don't know about the threats that were posted about fining the packers not cooperating, but the fact that the packers were not cooperating is a little suspicious. If they took 9 months and then handed over their books, I wouldn't give them much credibility without a REAL audit, not one based solely on the items suggested in the article.

Yes, Rod, I did pick that paragraph up. Tam still hasn't answered the questions I posed except with this statement, "thats all you need to know".

Well doesn't that tie it all up in a nice little bow after the repackaging?

Maybe you should consider the rest as fluff Econ just like we are to consider knowing who you are as FLUFF. :wink:

By the way have you got the proof that proves that Tyson Officials are knife carrying crooks that somehow threatened the Japanese yet. See the problem with not answering direct questions Econ is the chances of you having yours answered are slim to none.

 

[Econ101]

Tam, I don't know about the threats that were posted about fining the packers not cooperating, but the fact that the packers were not cooperating is a little suspicious. If they took 9 months and then handed over their books, I wouldn't give them much credibility without a REAL audit, not one based solely on the items suggested in the article.

Yes, Rod, I did pick that paragraph up. Tam still hasn't answered the questions I posed except with this statement, "thats all you need to know".

Well doesn't that tie it all up in a nice little bow after the repackaging?

Maybe you should consider the rest as fluff Econ just like we are to consider knowing who you are as FLUFF. :wink:

By the way have you got the proof that proves that Tyson Officials are knife carrying crooks that somehow threatened the Japanese yet. See the problem with not answering direct questions Econ is the chances of you having yours answered are slim to none.

Are you and BMR married?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod what is the different between SLAMMED SHUT and Open Books. one you see NOTHING the other you can have someone that knows what they are looking at look at them and summarize what is in them so those that don't know can understand.

Ummmm, law clerks don't know whats in them or how to find funds. The real people who could actually find signs of wrong doings were not allowed to look at the real books. It was in the quotes you provided! The books were slammed shut and KEPT SHUT to the people who could actually do some good.

Do you have any evident that refute the findings of the Alberta Government, the House of Commons Standing Committee or the Competiton Bureau?

Tam, don't try and twist things around. I am nothing more than a producer with no inside information other than common sense, however it is my right when I see things like this to voice an opinion. Obviously, since my MP also sees some irregularities, I'm not the only one that sat up and said WTF?.

Did you also happen to notice, again in the quotes you provided, that the findings were qualified by the bureau and they specifically mentioned that summary documents had been used in certain areas? You get the feeling that someone in the bureau was trying to cover their butts? Audits of that nature aren't generally qualified like that.

So, riddle me this, since the packers are starving to death, just barely making it hand to mouth, where are they getting money for plant expansions, trucking companies, and overseas purchases? And don't say borrowing it, because its gotta be paid back. Did they happen to stumble upon a money tree growing under one of the smaller plants they bought?

Rod

 

[Tam]

Tam, I don't know about the threats that were posted about fining the packers not cooperating, but the fact that the packers were not cooperating is a little suspicious. If they took 9 months and then handed over their books, I wouldn't give them much credibility without a REAL audit, not one based solely on the items suggested in the article.

Yes, Rod, I did pick that paragraph up. Tam still hasn't answered the questions I posed except with this statement, "thats all you need to know".

Well doesn't that tie it all up in a nice little bow after the repackaging?

Maybe you should consider the rest as fluff Econ just like we are to consider knowing who you are as FLUFF. :wink:

By the way have you got the proof that proves that Tyson Officials are knife carrying crooks that somehow threatened the Japanese yet. See the problem with not answering direct questions Econ is the chances of you having yours answered are slim to none.

Are you and BMR married?

That is fluff and you don't need to know.

 

[Econ101]

Maybe you should consider the rest as fluff Econ just like we are to consider knowing who you are as FLUFF. :wink:

By the way have you got the proof that proves that Tyson Officials are knife carrying crooks that somehow threatened the Japanese yet. See the problem with not answering direct questions Econ is the chances of you having yours answered are slim to none.

Are you and BMR married?

That is fluff and you don't need to know.

Does BMR know?