Need vote
To the Editor:
In the May 2 Western Producer, Garry Fairbairn of The Western Producer and Bob Roehle of the CWB both report that the monopoly of the CWB is supported by a majority of farmers.
But how do they know what the majority of western grain farmers want, when the majority has never been asked?
In fact, in Alberta, the only jurisdiction where farmers were actually asked and farmers voted on the issue, two-thirds were not in favor of the Wheat Board monopoly.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
So how do they know that the majority of farmers favor the monopoly held by the CWB?
So far, we have had an appointed-by-Ottawa panel go across western Canada to see what is best for farmers. They’ve asked the maltsters, the bakers, the economists, the shippers, the accredited exporters and everyone and anyone who makes a nickel off of the grain the farmers grow, about the future of the CWB monopoly. The results are predictable.
At best, it’s been a patronizing, condescending review because in fact the only people that should ever have a say in this debate are the farmers. After all, isn’t it the farmers’ grain, and the farmers’ bread and butter that’s at stake here, and isn’t the CWB the farmers’ marketing board?
Besides, farmers deciding the future of their own marketing boards isn’t all that revolutionary! In Australia the farmers democratically run their marketing board. It is farmer-elected and farmer-controlled. Even in Canada (eastern Canada, of course), we have democratic marketing boards. Unlike the federally appointed western board, the Ontario Wheat Board is and has been a producer-run marketing board since its inception. In Ontario it’s the farmers that vote and decide.
Indeed in Ontario on the issue of monopoly versus open marketing of barley into the U.S., growers have voted twice on the issue and twice they have rejected open marketing. The democratic vote of Ontario growers has supported their producer board’s monopoly.
The very obvious difference here is that in eastern Canada farmers decide and in western Canada the federal government controls.This blatant made-in-Ottawa double standard discriminates against the equal recognition of democratic rights of farmers in all regions of Canada.
Is democratic choice in Canadian grain marketing only granted to farmers in eastern Canada?
The only report the panel needs to present is the very simple principle of democratic rights; it is time for the western farmers to be equal to their eastern counterparts and to decide for themselves. It is time for the federal government to grant us the same respect and self control that eastern farmers have always been privilege to.
When we have democratic control, then farmers and only farmers can decide what “the majority” want to do about marketing their grain in western Canada. A revolutionary concept? Not at all! Just the final recognition of democratic rights that is long overdue to western grain farmers. And, not to mention, a little accountability.
– Vicki Dutton,
Paynton, Sask.
Brother bear
To the Editor:
Re “Baiting the Bear” May 2: When we lived in Prince Albert, one of our thrills was anticipating the sighting of a bear (or any wild creature) on drives into and through the northern forests. We had a visitor from Australia who was so thrilled to see a bear in the wild. …
I cannot credit my eyes to read/see the article “Baiting the Bear” in The Western Producer. In my day, chaps left the wildlife alone; now it is being exploited to a distressing degree.
Was Grey Owl right when he said “Almost always he (the white man) extorts far beyond his own needs, destroying without thought for the future – the parasite supreme of all the earth.” Chief Dan George called the bear his brother. “Of all creatures he is closest to man. Yet it seems there is little place for him now.”
Bears are my heritage, too, and that of my children’s children.
Also the burrowing owls, the tiger lily, the golden lady’s slipper, spruce forests. I despise despoilers of nature and the sick activities described in this article.
– Tanyss Peddie,
Camrose, Alta.
Global Pool
To the Editor:
We see much criticism of the sale of Pool shares on the exchange. I remember another co-operative moving much in the same direction many years ago and it is now not considered a co-operative. I believe, however, that the gap between the individual membership and the commercial section of the Pool started to widen several years ago when the Pool started to centralize their operations.
I attended a meeting several years ago where the speaker said that the Pool had improved their financial position through centralization. I asked if anyone had any figure on how much it cost the farmer because of this. There was no answer.
The Pool shifted much of their costs onto the farmer for the transportation of grain to market. Longer hauls mean more labor, more and better hauling equipment and, of course, more fuel.
And now the impact of heavier and longer distance transportation is taking its toll on the roads. Much of the cost is going to be assessed to the farmer.
This transfer of costs to individuals by companies and governments seems to be a growing trend today and it’s just a matter of time till the individual will no longer be able to pay.
While many of us are critical of the route the Pool is taking, it seems that is the way business is done today and if they don’t follow the same direction they will cease to exist anyway. …
Only the future will tell and hindsight is so much more definite than foresight.
– J. R. Knelsen,
Moose Jaw, Sask.
CWB act
To the Editor:
The pro-CWB bias in Mr. Fairbairn’s editorials seems to get in the way of the facts.
He says (May 9) “it owes its legitimacy to farmer support and to its goal of serving farmers’ interests – not government interests.”
The truth of the matter is quite the opposite.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act states that “the Board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada” and it “may exercise its powers under this Act only as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.”
There is no mention of a “goal of serving farmers’ interests”.
The Federal Court of Canada in the Riske case said that although it was “regrettable,” producers “under the compulsory terms of the Act have no recourse” because “the responsibility of the Board is not to any individual producer but rather to the Minister under the Act and finally to Parliament.”
