CWB history
To the Editor:
I see F. V. Siemens, President of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, is using the pages of your paper to spread “false news” about the origins of the CWB. I had thought the old chestnut about the CWB monopoly being invoked through the War Measures Act was recognized as being so overly simplistic that only a few revisionists still believed it; but apparently not, given Siemens’s letter.
The facts are perfectly straight-forward: the CWB was formed as a voluntary dual marketing agency in 1935.
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.
CWB powers were greatly expanded in the 1940-41 crop year; however the context for this was financial, not military.
From 1935 to 1940 there was a sharply increasing world demand for wheat, outstripping increasing production levels. Farmers could sell to the open market or to the CWB.
The CWB offered an initial price and then farmers could choose where to market their product. It was no real choice. When the spot market price was higher than the CWB initial, most sales were “on the spot.”
A small number of those sales soon pushed the spot to below the CWB initial. The CWB was then left in the impossible position of selling the other 90 percent of the wheat crop into a depressed market. Effectively the CWB initial price had became the floor price for the world grain trade.
Since the Federal government was the financial backer of the CWB, the taxpayers of Canada were stuck with the bill. Losses over those six crop years were staggering: By the end of it all in 1940, the Canadian government had spent almost $131 million supporting the international grain trade.
In such tough times, this was a national tragedy. It was clear, even to an ardent free enterpriser like C. D. Howe, then the Minister of Industry, that a dual market could not work. As a result, the 1940-41 crop year saw the groundwork laid for the CWB monopoly.
This 1940-41 crop year also saw the closure of the important European and Asian markets due to the war.
At the same time, global grain production, due to better weather and improved farming techniques continued rising.
A rational marketplace would have pushed grain prices down, however they continued to rise well into 1943. CWB initial prices reflected this strange rise in global prices.
In 1939 Britain had closed the Liverpool Corn Exchange. In spite of market fundamentals of increasing production and declining demand, a speculative fever developed in wheat futures in the U. S. and Canada.
Upon investigation, the Government of Canada came to the conclusion that the private grain trade was attempting to hold the troops in the war areas to ransom for bread.
Under the War Measures Act in Canada, the commodity exchange was prevented from trading in grains.
In the U.S., the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply under J. K. Galbraith also imposed strict controls on the commodity exchanges including the grain exchange.
These events had very little to do with the CWB monopoly, the foundation of which had been established over two years earlier. In some ways it made the CWB’s job rather more difficult.
Mr. Siemens certainly has a right to his own opinions; he does not have a right to his own facts, however. The, in my opinion, rather self-serving attempt to rewrite history in his letter does not add to the quality of the information on the issues of grain marketing.
– Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
Reforms to CWB
To the Editor:
I read with interest your column in the Aug. 29 edition of the Producer.
I believe that the Farmers for Justice are no different than most other farmers; they just want to be in charge of their own destiny, when it comes to selling their wheat or barley.
The supporters of the CWB rightly state that if the CWB monopoly is removed it will mean the end of the CWB. However, I believe this is somewhat of a play on words; it would be the end of the CWB as it has existed until now, it need not mean the end of the CWB altogether.
Farmers, and in particular Farmers For Justice, want to point out to the powers that be, that they are quite capable of recognizing the benefits of pooled selling, and single- (or almost single) desk selling.
Most farmers want what is best for western agriculture, but they are sick and tired of the politicians telling them what is best for them.
I believe that the CWB has helped western agriculture, but not because it was created to do so. It has been almost an historical accident that it has “benefited” the farmer. The CWB was originally created to ensure a supply of Canadian wheat to Britian during WWII.
For the CWB supporters to stand up and say the purpose of the CWB is to help farmers, is therfore a half-truth, since that is one of its unexpected results, not it’s primary reason for being created.
Nevertheless we have this “thing” called the CWB, and nearly all farmers agree it can be an advantage. I think we need to reform the CWB, but slowly, starting with the way it is administered.
The farmers should be given, over time, total control, since if it is for their benefit, they should run it.
Also, it must be made voluntary, farmers are simply sick and tired of being told things are “good” for them.
Let a farmer opt out of the CWB for say one year or two years, and try it alone; most farmers are not stupid (otherwise they wouldn’t still be farming).
If the CWB really is a better deal for them they will use it, and not complain if it was their individual choice, rather than being lumped in with the “majority” of western farmers.
This has really boiled down to a “freedom of choice” issue, as it should in a free and democratic society. Hopefully, we shall soon see if the present federal minister of agriculture truly believes we live in a “free and democratic” society.
– Don Fuller,
Alida, Sask.
More statistics
To the Editor:
Another marketing year has passed and the time has come to assess how well our state controlled marketing system has performed.
To check the price we will receive in Canada, one need only to look up the latest Canadian Wheat Board expected pool return, which backed off for freight and elevation works out to about $257 per tonne or $5.73 per bushel in Wolseley, Sask. for No. 1 hard red spring wheat, which we are told is the highest quality wheat grown in the world. To check the price which our closest competition, the farmers in the United States received, takes a little more work. The USDA publishes monthly reports on the average farmgate prices of most agricultural commodities produced in the United States. For wheat, from August 1995 to July 1996, the average farmgate price for all wheat was $4.94 per bu., or about $6.77 per bu. Canadian, at current exchange rates.
Hmmm! Not too good considering we are comparing a top-quality Canadian product to an average U.S. product …
Now I would like to know why the CWB with its iron-clad monopoly, enforced by Revenue Canada through its Customs and Excise Department, is forcing farmers to accept a lower price for our wheat. Why is it that, despite their low per-bushel cost of marketing, their extensive market development and customer service, and no competition by other sellers of Canadian wheat, the Canadian Wheat Board cannot sell the best wheat in the world for a price which nets Canadian farmers at least as much as American farmers net for a lower quality product?
Where is the $13 per tonne price premium which the Wheat Board says it earns Canadian farmers for their grain?
Where is the $250 million premium that supporters of the Board say the CWB earns for western Canadian farmers?
Why is the government of Canada forcing Canadian farmers to take less for their grain than what they could earn under a dual-market system?
They keep the border closed and say American farmers would not let large volumes of Canadian wheat move south. But politicians and others who support the status quo have missed the whole point of changing the marketing system.
If they remove the CWB monopoly restrictions, there would be no need to truck wheat south. Canadian farmers would earn the same as American farmers, selling our wheat at our local elevators. The only difference between the price of wheat at North Battleford, Sask. and Minot, N.D. would be the cost of freight …
– Barrie Malo, Director, WCWGA, Wolseley, Sask.
Bad record
To the Editor:
An open letter to Mr. Paul Brassard of the Catholic Rural Life Ministry:
Let’s study for a moment Canada’s outstanding history of common good, starting with Indian reserves, conscription, confiscation of property and internment of Japanese Canadians, confiscation of firearms from German Canadians, refusal of Jewish immigrants in the 1930s and a lot more that I’m sure we can be proud of. …
They should do some more research starting with the number of farms that have disappeared since the Canadian Wheat Board was introduced and orderly marketing was established. If Mr. Brassard believes that the government or its agency does a better job of protecting peoples’ interests and anyone who wants an alternative or dual system is against the common good and is in favor of “American individualism” well, I for one am looking forward to his defence of the separate-school system and his arguments for alternatives to government-run institutions.
His reply, however well informed, will be biased by the fact that he holds a position with a multi-national religion with headquarters in a foreign country and therefore couldn’t have the best interests of Canadian children in mind.
– Murray McMillan,
Arcola, Sask.
Serves well
To the Editor:
… Having farmed in the Peace River area of B.C. for some 34 years and worked with farmers in Peace River, Alta., I can say the CWB has and is serving us well.
We have a good distance to ports and rely greatly on the equal delivery opportunities under the board and the pooling of prices, all of which has meant we are treated fairly.
I cannot understand how it is that these high-rolling right wingers are given the publicity and the sanction by the media to break the laws of the land. The group just-for-us fit this scenario. They have no regard for fellow farmers who do not live close to the U.S. border and obviously are blind.
How can they possibly think that the U.S.A. is our market other than on a short-term basis? The U.S. is our competitor and are very good at protecting their own interest. Can anyone think for a moment that U.S. farmers are going to sit quietly and watch Canadian farmers fill their market? Another question, where are the pools on this issue, sitting on the fence anticipating taking on the role of the CWB? I’ll guarantee they will not do it for four and one-half cents a bushel.
I have to wonder as well how far the federal government is willing to go in order to “grab” a few Reform votes and thus allow these schizophrenic reformers to destroy what Canadians have held dear. Reform policy would destroy the CWB, the Canadian grading system, health care, education and our social policy.
Jean ChrŽtien should ignore these self destructive “nuts” and get on with running the country for the good of the majority.
– J. Leahy,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Unity blocked
To the Editor:
While Canadians lament our government’s inability to cope with our present pandemonium, no attempts are being made to rectify the cause.
Buying unity with today’s lack of representation in the House of Commons is impossible. At present two provinces hold precedence over all other provinces. Until this inadequacy is rectified, there is no hope of harmonious unification.
Nor will our debt load be lifted until Canada’s administrators are reduced to a practical level.
Harboring a host of unnecessary individuals simply to create a glamorous prestige will eventually bankrupt Canada.
– H. W. Jackson,
Falher, Alta.
Help wanted
To the Editor:
Here we are as farmers in a revolution and a more technical way of agriculture. There is a good percentage of us looking for help, either all year around, summer help, and some looking for harvest help. Farmers now need experienced workers. Our operations have gotten very costly and we can’t afford mistakes of any kind.
With unemployment in Canada so high, we have no selection of help available. A lot of them are incapable or the young ones have left the province for other things.
This spring we made arrangements through an agency in Australia for an experienced harvest operator and trucker to come and help for harvest.
After arrangements were all made, we found out that we had to go to Canadian Employment and apply for someone for 60 days across Canada, then apply for a working visa, and then go through immigration.
By the time we get all the government rigmarole done we will be seeding next year’s crop.
If there are Canadians qualified for our work, we would hire them. We can hire overseas workers for short-term and long-hour jobs.
– Terry Fletcher,
Conquest, Sask.
Pesticide fees
To the Editor:
Further to an article published on Aug. 8: Ensuring the efficient and cost-effective regulation of pesticides in Canada is a goal shared by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and all its stakeholders ….
Achieving this goal is possible. But to do so, major changes to the system are necessary. For example, most stakeholders have agreed that cost recovery must be part of the new system.
Recently, concerns have been raised by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture about the process being followed by PMRA in seeking to establish cost recovery for the registration and sale of pest control products in Canada. The CFA has voiced particular concerns about the consultation process and about how PMRA will carry out its role as the federal agency responsible for all aspects of the regulation of pesticides.
The PMRA consultative process has been as intensive as that of any other comparable effort undertaken by government. At every stage, these consultations have been open to all interested parties, including representatives of the agricultural industry.
Since January of this year, the consultative process has been marked by several meetings of the Interim Canadian Pest Management Advisory Council (of which CFA executive secretary Sally Rutherford is an official member), wide distribution of the Discussion Paper and other documents, individual meetings with the CFA and other stakeholder groups, special seminars for companies on cost-recovery options, and the conducting of a comprehensive cost-recovery Business Impact Test involving 61 companies.
Over and above this extensive consultation, PMRA has initiated three other impact studies focusing on forestry, agriculture and other user groups.
As this record of consultation demonstrates, PMRA has made a major effort to listen to and work with its stakeholders. Moreover, the Agency is publicly committed to continuing this process of open consultation and information exchange.
When the Agency was created in April 1995, its budget stood at $26 million.
The projected budget for 1997 is $28 million, which will enable the Agency to eliminate its backlog of submissions, meet performance targets and fulfill all other government commitments for the regulation of pesticides.
To put it in perspective, the $16 million in user fees to be collected from an industry with $1.4 billion sales of pest-control products is $10 on an $800 purchase. The costs of the Canadian program are in line with those of the United States, when the currency exchange is factored and the workload handled in each country is compared.
The costs are also closely in line with those of the United Kingdom, which generates most of its cost-recovery resources through a levy on sales.
PMRA is a relatively young organization. It has had its share of growing pains.
However, in addition to taking on such major challenges as the design and implementation of a cost-recovery program, the Agency is making progress in cleaning up the backlog of applications for new pesticides, harmonizing its procedures with those of its international counterparts and with stakeholders, aggressively pursuing additional productivity improvements.
There should be no doubt or question as to PMRA’s primary focus or intentions. We will continue to co-operate closely with stakeholders to put in place an improved, more efficient and effective process for regulating pest control products in Canada while maintaining a high standard of protection for Canadians and their environment.
– Claire Franklin, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, PMRA,
Ottawa, Ont.
Keep quotas
To the Editor:
It seems every single thing helping the people of this province to become self-sufficient is under constant attack, thanks to NAFTA and the new global economy. Dependency is required, globalization wouldn’t work without it.
At least there is finally a move to enforce the dairy marketing board against illegal milk producers that have been operating in the Fraser Valley for several years. The subject of marketing boards fills me with all sorts of mixed feelings, both philosophical and practical. That was until I read B.C.’s new agri-food policies which state the province will no longer protect quota farmers against imports, and I heard the Fraser Institute reveal their campaign to do away with marketing boards altogether.
Then the philosophical started to give way to the practical. I decided I like the security of knowing my food is produced locally and not in some foreign country that could at any time decide to cut off our supply. Marketing boards assure the farmers a secure market, ours. As long as they are required to feed us first, at a reasonable cost, it sounds like a win-win situation for both of us.
Unfortunately the whole business of quotas being bought and sold for astronomical sums of money has created a burden to producers and hence consumers.
High quota pricing allows big producers to get bigger by buying up several licences; no one else can afford them.
I don’t like the idea of depending on one or two individuals for my entire food supply, and that seems to be the general direction for our food distribution as well as production.
Commercial fishing licences are also sold for ridiculous sums. The more they invest in the licence, the more fish they need to catch. And the more fish they need to catch, the more they need to invest in equipment to become more efficient to catch more fish. It’s no wonder those poor inefficient trollers are becoming extinct along with the resource.
But no one seems too concerned about fish habitat or people that rely on the fishery. There is a techno-fix – industrialization – aquaculture; no habitat required, no trollers required, just big bucks and government grants.
Sounds just like those agri-food policies, they aim to make all those poor inefficient small farmers extinct. They say we must rely on science, technology and training to become more competitive in the global marketplace. Technology like feeding cattle with pellets of chicken manure.
Strange isn’t it, that we are told by the United Nations and World Trade Organization that we need globalized markets to prevent war?
Seems to me their agenda is creating a whole lot of dependency (take a look at immigration, monetary system and trade policies), and dependency is a sure-fired way to start wars.
Let’s have a closed market system for our basic necessities, keep producing our own food and get out from under NAFTA and the globalized economy. We don’t need it; this country has enough food, water and resources.
Let’s keep the quota system, pay out the farmers for their licences and issue nonsalable quotas to ensure no foreign or large interests have control of our food supply. Let’s maintain our independence. But first we need to support the quota farmers and make sure the political will is there to defend them.
Should they lose the battle against illegal producers, good luck defending them against foreign markets.
Open markets would surely put us in a lot more doo-doo than eating biologically processed chicken manure.
– Janice J. Halldorson,
Parksville, B.C.
