Letters should be under 300 words, so that we can publish a wide range of farm opinion. The Editor reserves the right to reject or shorten any letter. Substantial cuts in a letter are generally indicated by ellipses (…). Publication of a letter does not imply endorsement by this newspaper.
CWB pays
To the Editor:
The anti-Canadian Wheat Board personalities will say anything that may bolster their cause. People like K. Lickiss (June 27) label the CWB as a monopoly. Monopolies, like a particular game, are based on accumulating more property so as to squeeze out others. If the CWB were a monopoly, companies like Cargill would have long been squeezed out. Unfortunately the Cargill types are squeezing out many.
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.
The CWB is a pooling grain-marketing broker. Some people refer to the CWB as a single-desk grain-marketing agency. If that were the absolute truth, the Board would be the only grain-marketing agency, when in fact the open market is allowed to have exclusive marketing rights for most grains. The few grains handled by the CWB are also handled by the open market.
Heavily bombarded by the anti-CWB rhetoric, I decided to sell some 1995-1996 barley on the open market. (Didn’t have any wheat.) Open-market price was $111.20 per tonne, which was considerably higher than the Board’s $93.32. All barley was delivered before mid-October.
CWB payments issued were: Oct. 27, $12 a tonne; Nov. 23, $12; Dec. 15, $26; April 16, $10; June 18, $15; for a total of $75 per tonne, coupled with the $93.32 initial payment for a total CWB price of $168.32 or $57.12 above the open market, and the Board’s pooling year is a long way from over.
Some publicity is directed toward higher U.S.A. prices. The anti-CWB types insist this is because of a private marketing system, but they neglect to mention the heavy EEP subsidy.
For social, economic and environmental efficiency, small private enterprises are the most efficient. When we compare large private-enterprise operations with large public enterprises, large private operations are seldom acceptable unless one considers speculation, abusing and neglecting people of modest means a virtue. If that were not so, then private medical care would provide broader and more intensive medical care than public medical care and at lower cost. Then let us not forget public auto insurance, etc.
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Bad moves
To the Editor:
For the last few years we have heard Alberta farmers calling for a Crow payment to the farmers instead of to the railways. A squeaky wheel sometimes gets greased and we sure did. The government paid us out in peanuts, as anyone shipping grain has soon found out.
One can’t help but wonder if all of the hullabaloo about the Wheat Board will have the same disastrous effect.
I also can’t help but wonder if the Reform Party are committing political suicide by so strongly supporting those who are against the Wheat Board.
For the good of the young farmers coming up, I hope we can maintain our present system of orderly marketing.
– J. E. Myren,
Ogema, Sask.
Salute supporters
To the Editor:
The headline in July 18 issue of Western Producer (CWB says it is doomed by panel report) got my Irish up! Then when I read the letters in the Open Forum in the same issue I felt a lot better. Hats off to those supporting the CWB. It may not be perfect, but what is? Without it, the farmers’ lot would be a lot worse.
– Ward Cooper,
Unity, Sask.
Study report
To the Editor:
Now that the Grain Marketing Panel have submitted their report, I think farmers should study it very carefully. Some of their suggestions are quite good, while others I believe would not be very acceptable. …
I think it would be very bad for western farmers if the Wheat Board was ended, so it’s time now for all those in favor of the Board to come out and promote it before it’s too late.
– Jack Wheeler,
Treherne, Man.
CWB most fair
To the Editor:
I am a retired farmer and old enough to remember what it was like before the Canadian Wheat Board was formed. My father was very hard up so had to sell his grain in the fall when the price was the very lowest, because the supply was greater than the demand.
Farmers that were not short of money could hold their grain until the next summer, when they would receive a much higher price than my father and other hard-up farmers received in the fall.
To me that was not fair.
The Canadian Wheat Board makes an initial payment and a final payment. No matter what time of the year the farmer sells his grain, he receives the average price for that crop year. What could be more fair?
To do away with the Canadian Wheat Board would be a move in the wrong direction. Speculators are hoping this would happen so they can make huge profits on grain, which would be no benefit to the grain grower. …
– Roy Johnson,
Sangudo, Alta.
Termite Ralph?
To the Editor:
Every letter in this Forum of July 18 was on the Wheat Board and I bet the editor has more of the same on his desk. Ralph Goodale, the minister, got some praise by supporters of single-desk selling and I wonder if it was deserving.
I liken Goodale’s involvement to the first bite of a termite on a new dwelling; nobody will ever notice, but in due time that dwelling will go down to decay. There is nothing in the panel report to strengthen the board in any way; rather almost every recommendation will weaken it.
Who knows if Goodale picked that panel carefully to get an answer that will set this board on the slippery road to extinction?
There are reports that some hearings were unfairly portrayed in favor of a few dissenters to orderly marketing.
Apparently the panel’s ears were pinned back so they could only hear the voices of dissent.
I think right-wing activists will get this board in due time, for orderly marketing is not in their cards!
– Ernest J. Weser,
Laird, Sask.
Say no
To the Editor:
Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale has given himself until Aug. 31 to decide if he wishes to go down in history as the man who destroyed the Canadian Wheat Board. That’s the bad news. The good news is that he has asked permit-book holders to help him arrive at a decision. This is an opportunity that must not be lost. Every CWB supporter must respond negatively to Mr. Goodale’s letter or the CWB will be seriously weakened and soon destroyed.
There will never be a better chance, or for that matter another chance, to save the Canadian Wheat Board. And it doesn’t even require a stamp.
– Bev Currie,
Swift Current, Sask.
Pay the fine
To the Editor:
Those farmers that are hauling grain into the U.S.A. market should be paying a big fine because they are breaking the law and indirectly taking money from other farmers and business from Canadian elevators. The CWB was set up to get the best price for farmers and the responsibility to sell all the farmers grain.
The U.S.A. customers can buy from the CWB and have the grain shipped to the end user and know they have a reliable deal. Why would they buy from a Canadian farmer unless they were getting the grain for less or they want to get rid of the CWB so they can buy at a lower price?
This has the effect of lowering the price for all farmers. The CWB final payment might be less than the U.S. price because they have to sell all the grain and may have to sell to some countries for less.
So if some farmers are getting more from the U.S., then they are cheating other farmers.
– Alex Olson,
Spy Hill, Sask.
Common CWB
To the Editor:
Open letter to Ralph Goodale: A joint meeting of the Catholic Rural Life Committee and the Inter-church Committee on Agriculture (made up of representatives from the Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic and United Churches) unanimously agreed that we express our concerns about the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
We believe that the federal government needs to be reminded that it must stop dismantling the things Canadians have in common, and in our opinion the recommendations made by the Western Grain Marketing Panel form a death sentence for the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is a great disappointment to see constant chipping away at the CWB powers. Those powers are necessary to give the best possible return to all farmers.
Recently re-reading the book by Dan Morgan, Merchants of Grain (1979), which very clearly states that the CWB is “the most powerful and prestigious” marketing board in the world, makes us wonder why people are trying to dismantle it.
It has given Canadian wheat farmers on average a premium of $18.90 a tonne over the free-market price, almost $400 million a year extra for the prairie economy. The assured quality and supply consistently provided by the CWB has guaranteed Canadian farmers the status they deserve as growers of the best wheat in the world.
In our view, the most significant change we see if the Panel’s recommendations are acted upon, is the change to the Canadian Wheat Board’s wheat mandate. Unlicensed varieties will be turned over to the private grain trade, potentially undermining the CWB’s ability to maintain the consistent high quality that has made Canada famous for its top-quality wheat.
While the CWB will still continue to be the sole buyer of other categories of wheat, farmers will be allowed to sell up to 25 percent at the spot price, determined by the Minneapolis Exchange, and then trade a form of futures as well.
This will undermine the universal Pool, which in our opinion is the CWB’s “raison d’etre.”
In short, under a dual market, with multiple agents, the premiums that have been attained over the years would cease to exist.
The recommendations for a board of directors with the majority elected by farmers may appear more responsive to farmers’ interests, but we frankly express our general satisfaction with the commitment of the commissioners in the past.
What particularly concerns us is the inclusion of trade representatives on the proposed board. That is a conflict of interest. After all, the concept of the Wheat Board is to work in the farmers’ interests, as a producer board.
Once again, we wonder what is happening to the idea of the common good, which once exemplified Canada. This seems to be rapidly changing to the American individualism of “me, I’m the one.”
We would also wish clarification on what effect the recommendations of the Panel would have on the government’s role with regards to the guaranteed initial payments, cash advances, and borrowing powers of the Wheat Board.
– Paul J. Brassard,
Catholic Rural Life Ministry
Co-ordinator, Regina, Sask.
Expand CWB
To the Editor:
I am one of the few Canadian aerospace engineers who is directly involved in agricultural production (grain, hay and livestock). My affiliation with the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute (CASI) gives me a slightly different perspective towards agricultural product marketing.
In 1995, the Canadian Space Agency launched RADARSAT, a new, highly sophisticated remote-sensing satellite with the capability of all-weather, day and night acquisition of images of the earth’s surface. This includes such things as crop monitoring and land-use monitoring.
With an orbit altitude of 793 to 821 km, and an orbit period of 101.5 minutes, this satellite obtains complete coverage of the whole earth surface (north of 80 degrees south latitude) every six days.
RADARSAT: an agricultural commodity speculator’s corporate profiteering dream come true. The RADARSAT data transmission rate of 105 Mb per second will overwhelm the typical “armchair expert” grain marketer’s typical 200-Mb personal computer in less than two seconds. One can conclude from this that the farmers are best suited in their traditional role as production expert, and that the Canadian Wheat Board should remain the marketing expert, on their behalf.
The CWB has a fundamental motivation to maximize the return to producers.
It has a solid foundation of global marketing experience, gained over many years.
It would seem logical and appropriate to conclude that this foundation could be used to advantage by expanding the operations of the CWB to include all grains, forage crops and livestock.
Thus the CWB would evolve into an international agency of agricultural diversification for Canada.
To curtail and undermine the operations of, and thus threaten the very existence of, our world-class CWB, as suggested by the Western Grain Marketing Panel, in order to satisfy the selfish aspirations of a few “freedom fighting law breakers” from the north side of 49th parallel who are mesmerized into chasing elusive spot markets on the south side, would most certainly be a serious contender for the “Blunder of the Century Award.”
– Roy J. Riddle,
Carstairs, Alta.
Pike frolics
To the Editor:
Re C. Pike’s letter July 11 “Open Forum” under the heading of “Not amused:”
In an attempt to publicly ridicule me, the writer has proven a point.
Throughout the duration of the debate surrounding the validity of the CWB, most of its supporters are much more concerned with its political impact here and abroad than its basic function which is to sell grain and provide producers with price levels that reflect world prices.
C. Pike’s letter of July 11 reflects the attitude of many Canadians. While it may be “cute” and “witty”, it is only a smokescreen as to what is really happening.
While the writer “frolics” on the pages of this paper, the Ottawa despots have both hands in his or her wallet, without his or her even aware of it!
– John J. Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Reject CWB panel
To the Editor:
Many times farmers have said, “I should have sold my crop now at a high price as opposed to having sold it before at what has become a low price.” This happens no matter what selling contract is used or how much over-priced marketing fees are paid.
This lament applies to open-marketed crops like canola, flax, rye, oats, and cattle. It is farm income by price lottery (supply and demand) – some farmers win and some farmers lose. These laments make note of lost farm income and money to the farm economy.
Such marketing laments do not represent freedom, justice or a caring society.
Farmers gained marketing strength when they insisted that Marketing Boards like the Canadian Wheat Board be established by the government. In order for all farmers to prosper in difficult markets, marketing boards have lawful rules of conduct like price pooling.
The CWB gives each farmer more bargaining power by single-desk selling, price pooling, and market access. These are the greatest freedoms and justice farmers can expect from any market.
If a higher export spot price is noticed by any farmer, a CWB buyback export permit is available to encourage the farmer to access the small volume market.
The export permit is not difficult to do, but it has the effect of ensuring that an individual sale is made only at a higher price than the pooled price. This rewards individual efforts to increase the overall value of the CWB pooled sales. Surely such a permit represents freedom and justice for all farmers.
The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and their offspring organization, Farmers for Justice, criticize the CWB permit and pooled prices as being against free sales and just prices. These organizations in effect advocate the destruction of the CWB when they call for dual marketing, choice, freedom and justice. It is clear to anyone who cares to examine the audited record of the CWB that these criticisms are unfounded.
Why do we keep hearing these criticisms? A minority of farmers do not trust the CWB. I suspect these farmers are being used by multinational grain companies who want the CWB destroyed so that these companies would profit at the expense of farmers.
A recent grain marketing review done for the Minister of Agriculture has made recommendations which are hostile to the fairness principles of the CWB. It suggests farmers should compete against each other for the same market.
The Minister of Agriculture must be made aware that such competition will depress farm incomes. The Minister must set aside this review panel’s recommendations.
Farmers also do not need to elect a board of directors to bureaucratically govern the CWB. How would a farmer know who to elect to operate the CWB?
Would someone who wishes to destroy the CWB’s fairness seek to be elected to the CWB? We must have competent trustworthy people running the CWB.
The CWB is presently accountable to the economy of Canada by its mandate. The CWB Commissioners need to be trustworthy and capable people. Few problems have been evident with any of the Commissioners. They carry out their job fully.
The minister must be aware of the negative effect on farmgate prices which the voluntary marketing recommendations will have. We have seen barley prices depressed in 1993 during dual marketing.
All farmers share in increased prices and markets since the CWB removes marketing laments.
The Minister must not be fooled by the grain marketing review report or the recommendations. The meat of the report shows strong support for the CWB.
Only the recommendations are flawed because of the personal values strongly held by some of the Minister’s panelists. These panelists have ignored hard evidence showing the success of the CWB.
The future of farming includes using the CWB to our best advantage to obtain high prices for all farmers.
The Minister must state his resolve to support the CWB by rejecting the review panel recommendations. He must listen to the evidence and sensibility of the majority of farmers who support the CWB.
– Ian L. Robson,
Deleau, Man.
Greed
To the Editor:
When greed is God – watch out! Some of those who will be trampled on and severely hurt will be children. The sale of wheat through a “central desk” and “price pooling” policy, as now set up by the Wheat Board, is the most fair to all.
If we are going to gather round the wheat-sale issue – like a bunch of vultures around a carcass – to see who can get the most by shoving and fighting for it, then we ought to be ashamed of ourselves and stop trying to grab, grab, grab.
Those who went through the “dirty thirties” depression know that there are much greater values to life than money.
There was a man who once said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
– John Gustaf Palmquist,
Regina, Sask.
Raise concerns
To the Editor:
The Western Grain Marketing Panel came out with its report last week. They are the nine westerners who Minister Goodale hand-picked to improve our grain marketing system.
Like most of its town-hall meetings, the report focused on the Canadian Wheat Board and the marketing of wheat and barley. But unlike what they heard at these town-hall meetings, the recommendations the WGMP came up with tend to move CWB farther away from orderly marketing and farmers closer to emptier pockets.
The panel chose to completely ignore the overwhelming support for single-desk selling and price pooling expressed at these meetings.
The panel also chose to ignore the positions of the farm groups to the Western Grain Marketing Panel held in Winnipeg in January. Five out of the seven farm groups represented expressed strong support for single-desk selling, price pooling and quality control.
Organizations such as the canola growers and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange were conspicuous by their absence. One can only conclude that they thought their ideas would not stand up to cross-examination and therefore were not willing to risk a public appearance.
To be fair, the report does support most of the legislative amendments requested by the board. There are, however, some major aspects to the report that are simply unacceptable.
The recommendations of the report “restructuring the governance” of the CWB raises some serious concerns.
They propose that the CWB should be governed by a board of directors of about 15 elected and appointed members and, while there should be a majority of farmers, there should be at least three representatives from the trade.
What company would share its marketing plan with competition and hope to be successful?
The recommendation to have a dual market for feed barley is a direct attack on farmer interests. Farmers have a monopoly now – why would they be willing to give it away?
Dual marketers don’t serve farmers – they fill the coffers of the grain trade.
And trying to keep malting barley under CWB jurisdiction under such a system to preserve the premium is a naive suggestion. How do you prevent barley from being purchased as feed and sold as malt? So there goes the premium, and so much for niche marketing.
The idea of allowing unlicensed varieties to move freely will contaminate our quality-control system faster than you can say “United States.”
This is especially ludicrous when we know first-hand the problems that the U.S. has with such a system.
This is precisely why the U.S. grain trade would like to see the CWB disappear – they can’t compete with us.
This is even more insulting when you read the findings of the recent report, “The Future Quality System for Canadian Wheat,” which again indicates that our future lies in a quality product and quality control.
Panel members admit they don’t know if their proposals will work, but in the same breath acknowledge that if we change our marketing system, it will be virtually irreversible because of the Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement.
Recommendations of the report, if followed, will effectively destroy the CWB as we know it, and yet the panel members don’t even suggest farmers should vote on the question. Now, isn’t that democratic!
I can understand, and almost respect, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association members on the panel for signing the report.
However, it is impossible to understand how those who claim to be CWB supporters could have signed on to this report.
I would urge farmers to contact their MPs and raise their concerns about this report.
I also urge farmers to respond to a letter which will be sent to them shortly by the Minister of Agriculture and look carefully at the questions which say – would you support something “assuming an effective system,” etc., etc. can be found to implement changes. These assumptions are simply not enough to make these drastic changes.
– Wilfred (Butch) Harder,
CWB Advisory Member,
Lowe Farm, Man.
Stay Canadian
To the Editor:
Mr. Goodale, I don’t want to become an American. It is mind-boggling how much media coverage that opponents to the Wheat Board are receiving. Farmers for “Just Us,” for example. However, to criticize this vocal, localized interest group only serves Cargill and other merchants of food who will be the only beneficiaries of the Board’s demise.
To reduce the current debate over the future of grain marketing to a border squabble is sad. Temporary benefits to border areas are a feeble excuse to tamper with a cost-effective tool for western producers.
Many countries and parts of former countries around the globe are struggling to protect their autonomy.
If the Agriculture Minister of Canada cripples the powers of the Wheat Board, he will be giving away our economic self-determination.
I like Americans as neighbors, but I don’t want to become one. I am proud to be Canadian. A large part of our identity is described in our economy.
As a critical part of our economy, the Wheat Board is executing a brilliant job marketing for western Canadians. If we lose the Board, as individual producers we would be tied directly to the U.S. economy, unequivocally and irrevocably.
Personally, I am completely satisfied to pool grains under the CWB, which maximizes a collective return. If it costs the CWB only 4.7 cents a bushel to market my grain, then I would love the CWB to market my canola, lentils, and oats.
The Americans want to see the end of our Wheat Board because it is so successful on our behalf. Conversely, how much profit is realized by Cargill when they purchase canola from cash-strapped producers in October for $7.50 a bushel?
Single-desk selling is a vital part of our economic identity and a critical pillar of stability upon which our rural communities depend.
I urge Mr. Goodale to ignore the Western Grain Marketing Panel’s suggestions and expand the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board to include other grains, oilseeds, and special crops. Please, Mr. Goodale, I don’t want to become an American.
– J. Ross Murray,
Young, Sask.
