Misleading ads
To the Editor:
On Sept. 26, the CBC Morningside broadcast featured Nettie Wiebe of the National Farmers’ Union and Tim Harvie of the Alberta Barley Commission in a discussion about grain marketing. Also aired at the same time was a radio advertisement sponsored by Alberta Agriculture Minister Walter Paszkowski and carried on the Alberta radio network.
The estimated cost of the ad was $67,000 and it stated that farmers want choices in grain marketing. Farmers should understand that they already have choices except in the exporting of wheat and barley into the world market.
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.
Mr. Harvie and Mr. Paszkowski state that farmers should have the option of dual marketing into export, thereby enjoying the best of both worlds. However, the concept of “dual marketing” translates to an open market. It is not a viable option if we are to maintain an effective single-desk selling agency.
Open marketing is unfair and inequitable, pitting farmer against farmer in their efforts to outdo one another in price discovery and delivery opportunity into the marketplace.
These farmers who sell on the open market are not marketers; they are price takers who sell their grain to a broker or elevator company who in turn markets the grain.
The strength of the Canadian Wheat Board consists of three main pillars: market power through single-desk selling; risk management through price pooling; and financial strength through partnership with the Canadian government.
Earlier this year three respected and independent economists reported that prairie farmers benefited an average of $13.35 per tonne over 14 years as a result of CWB marketing.
Alberta’s recent plebiscite on grain marketing was almost identical in nature to the sovereignty referendum held in Quebec.
Each government chose to word a question in such a way as to obtain results which would support a policy that had been previously adopted by the government.
In turn, each government chose to call the process “freedom.” Mr. Harvie and Mr. Paszkowski consider farmers who refuse to follow their philosophy dumb, but I say, at least we are not stupid!
– Fred Harrison,
Melville, Sask.
Not a flyer
To the Editor:
Sask Tel: Please quit playing these silly games with me.
If you feel I am paying too much, just charge me less and be done with it. What would a man like me who spent a few hundred hours flying backwards as an air gunner want with flying points?
Better you could qualify me for undertaker points or better yet hemorrhoid ointment points.
All I can see you are accomplishing is that you are creating another bureaucracy to look after silly flyer points.
– Ben Gerwing,
Lake Lenore, Sask.
Alberta plans
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to Ken Larsen’s Letter to the Editor, “Cheap grain?”, that appeared in the Aug. 29 edition of your newspaper.
I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with Mr. Larsen and two other representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board rally.
I found we have many things in common and share the same desire to increase the value of agricultural products at the farm gate.
As I have said many times before, the goals Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has set for agriculture in this province include doubling the value of primary production from $5.8 billion to $10 billion and quadrupling value added shipments to $20 billion over the next decade.
From the perspective of farmers, these two goals include maximizing the return to the farm enterprise. Increases in value-added processing mean greater local demand for products and better prices.
One just has to look at the returns achieved on canola and feed barley to understand this.
These examples illustrate that a functioning marketplace is the farmers’ protection against any attempt by a local processor to offer prices below world market price.
What surprises me is Mr. Larsen’s account of the substance of our meeting.
I indicated to the group that a pasta manufacturer had complained to me that he could purchase Canadian durum wheat in Italy, process, package and ship it to Alberta, for less than he could buy the wheat in this province.
The question I have for Mr. Larsen is, how does this example indicate the CWB is getting a premium for farmers by selling at “fire-sale” prices in Italy?
Perhaps a full and transparent disclosure by the CWB, of where these alleged price premiums go, would settle this question.
I also indicated to the group that the agriculture and food business is changing, and that as an industry we all have to become as efficient and productive as we can.
Efficiencies are best driven by the availability, to the farmer, of options and choices at the farm gate.
I advised the group that bulk commodity trade has dropped six percent in the last decade, while at the same time, trade in processed products has increased by a substantial 96 percent.
Since the results of the producers’ plebiscite in 1995, where 66 percent of barley producers and 62 percent of wheat producers voted for freedom and flexibility in marketing, I have maintained that Alberta producers want the option of taking part in the evolving marketplace for agriculture.
The CWB has an important role to play, and I want to reiterate that I support a voluntary CWB. If given the choice, many producers like Mr. Larsen would continue to sell exclusively to the CWB, if they feel they are getting the best possible price.
I fully support Mr. Larsen’s ability to sell to the marketing agency of his choice.
Why does he wish to deny this same option to other producers?
In his letter, Mr. Larsen comments on the “Grain Marketing Handbook” and the fact that fees would be paid if brokers undertake to export grain.
Mr. Larsen already pays fees for having the CWB export grain. They are called handling and transportation deductions, and they are excessive.
In their report on single-desk selling, professors Colin Carter and Al Loyns conclusively demonstrated the extra costs of having the CWB as a compulsory single-desk marketer.
We need to ask ourselves, does an institution like the CWB exist to serve the producer, or are the producers there to serve the institution?
As Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, I will continue to work toward obtaining the policy and regulatory environment that will allow farmers to obtain the highest, fairest return possible at the farm gate.
– Walter Paszkowski,
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,
Grande Prairie, Alta.
Milk prices
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to two articles in recent issues (Aug. 8, page 62, and Aug. 15, page 57), both articles on recent increases to milk prices.
Firstly, let it be clear that the subsidies on all agricultural products have never been farmers’ subsidies, but consumer subsidies, to allow consumers to buy cheap food in keeping with successive Canadian governments’ cheap-food policies.
Mr. Matte is quoted as saying “I also question whether with the soft economy, it (milk) really can absorb increases so much higher than inflation.”
Of course Mr. Matte didn’t mention feed-grain price increases of 50 to 100 percent, fertilizer increases of 30 to 40 percent, or the loss of the Crow Rate. All are direct milk production cost increases, a little more than the rate of inflation I think!
Another of Mr. Matte’s quotes was that “processors and farmers have conflicting goals.” He is of course quite right; processors wish to maintain or increase their profits while farmers who work 12 to 16 hours a day while raising their families are fighting to survive and farm another year.
Mr. Matte is implying that farmers are the reason for higher milk and food prices.
Let him look at the huge profits of the food processors, retailers, fertilizer companies and banks to find who are the real reasons behind high food prices.
Would Mr. Matte’s processers sell their products at below the cost of production? Would John Deere or Ford sell their tractors below their costs? Of course not, so why should farmers sell their products at below their costs?
The enemy, Mr. Matte, is not within. Look south of the 49th. If the radicals there get their way, all production and processing of milk, eggs, poultry and hogs will take place below the 49th. This is not a fairy tale; groups are already working towards its realization.
Only by all agricultural groups working together can we make sure our farming and processing industries stay strong and stay in Canada.
– Merv Coles,
Nelson, B.C.
Romanow’s right
To the Editor:
My father died in the fall of 1922. I had just finished my grade eight and was starting grade nine. I was only 17 years old then. My schooling ended and I started to do the farm work on my mother’s farm.
During those years, I have been on the Wheat Pool Committee for 50 years and have taken the Western Producer from the time it was first printed.
I am writing this letter because I have just heard Premier Romanow on TV make a very strong statement in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. I compliment him on his saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is the only way to sell our grain.
I certainly agree with him when he says that we should never let the Canadian Wheat Board lose control of the selling of all our grain. I say it should also include wheat, barley, oats and canola. If we ever let this two-market system exist, we will have lost the Canadian Wheat Board completely. …
The young farmers did not have to go through these tough times we had before we had the Pool Elevators. The people of Saskatchewan know why we had to co-operate.
As individuals we had no power in the marketplace but as a group we had the power to control the price to some degree.
When I see the great amount of letters we have sent to the Open Forum over the years (I keep them all), it is easy to see what a great help the Western Producer has been in letting the farmers and other readers of this great paper see the true reason why this paper, that is printed in the heart of Saskatchewan, became the most important means of communicating with each other …
The farmers in the northwest part of Saskatchewan are paying the highest price of any place in Canada. If the price of shipping was the same (like a postage stamp), we would all be paying the same price for freight on all grain. The railroads would get the same amount of money but the farmers in the northwest part of this province would be paying only half what they now pay.
By doing this, I think we would not see so many of our rail lines being abandoned and causing too heavy a load on the highways. The people in the province have to pay for the cost of highways. This is wrong as the people have to actually subsidize the railroads. The cheapest place to ship grain is on the railroad, where it belongs. By doing this, we can stop the overload on our highways and also save a lot of lives that are lost on our highways every year.
– Oliver H. Humphreys,
North Battleford, Sask.
Defend rights
To the Editor:
Being an anglophone in Quebec, I’m tired of watching our Federal government sit back in apathy and watch the PQists erode our rights.
Not to mention Daniel Johnson who’s supposed to represent us anglophones and those opposing the PQists! Seems he’s done nothing at all to oppose the PQ, or else has aided and abetted the PQ in their causes!
Why is it that Canada can send people to Haiti to make sure there’s no election fraud there, but when the Quebec government perpetrates an election fraud as they did in the last referendum, everyone in the federal government sits on their thumbs and does nothing about it?
Why is it we send people to China to make sure that their human rights are respected, when the feds allow the PQists to continue to erode the Anglophone rights here in Quebec? Do we not count?
Why can’t Bouchard and his gang be tried for treason and sedition? If any of the schemes he pulled were pulled by someone in the U.S. to separate a territory of theirs from their country do you think they’d sit back and watch apathetically the way our Canadian government does?
… Are we willing to just sit back and watch Bouchard and his cronies destroy this country while we do nothing? …
Do you want to become Americans and be taken over by them? If not, now’s the time to act! Not later, after it’s over and done with and too late!
Now is the time to force the government to comply with our wishes and make them do something to stop the PQists from ruining our country!
All Canadians from coast to coast have to get involved in this, if we’re going to save our country from self-destruction, since our elected leaders have chosen to ignore it, hoping it’ll go away!
I can assure you that it won’t! I’ve lived here most of my life and for the last quarter-century since Bill 22 was enacted, the only thing that went away was more and more anglo rights along with jobs as a result of all the major companies moving their head offices out of this province, due to the oppression here! So please do something keep this country together!
– Frances Fontaine,
Ile Perrot, Que.
Pick a price
To the Editor:
I see some disturbing trends in the Canadian Wheat Board debate which has been raging across the Prairies.
First, as for marketing: I cannot understand why I cannot just as ably market my wheat or barley in the same way I market my canola or lentils.
That is – simply pick the price and the buyer I want.
As for farmers who may have a market advantage by being closer to the U.S. markets, who cares! All power to them!
If I can’t make a profit with my wheat up here at Lloydminster, I can grow something else, and if that’s not possible, I can seed the land back to grass.
Isn’t that the way a normal market should work?
As for those farmers who are so keen on forcing others to pool their wheat and barley prices, I suggest they could also pool their livestock prices and maybe the hourly wages of their off-farm jobs.
As for those older adamant CWB-supporting farmers who made it good in the ’50s and ’60s when you could throw wheat on the ground and make a profit, maybe they should pool their savings with the younger struggling farmers.
Look, if farmers want wheat boards, pools or co-ops, great, get out and support them. But, don’t make them compulsory, and keep government out of them. While we’re on this one, to protect ourselves nationally, patronize your own local producers and businesses.
Can you believe it? We now have the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments taking opposite sides, using taxpayers’ dollars to fight this issue. The disagreement is also producing a polarization between farmers which will be irreconcilable.
We seem hell-bent in this country on forcing collective (socialist) concepts on one another, smothering ourselves in regulations.
An argument can be made that the compulsory social programs of health and education are in the public good (albeit the jury is still out on the sustainability of these in the long term) but selling grain is not a life-and-death or moral issue.
If the majority is willing to be totalitarian and coercive on a minor issue such as the selling of wheat and barley, does it not follow that they could also be accepting of a government’s increasing authoritarian intrusion? This is happening today with our federal government. …
The bottom line is freedom and liberty in this CWB debate (certainly not only American concepts). Freedom to trade with whom we see fit. We are responsible for our destinies.
– Reg Hoegl,
Lloydminster, Sask.
Carrot lies
To the Editor:
This letter is in regard to the Sept. 10 Western Producer cover story about a “Carrot with a cause” being banned from Alberta schools.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals say all they want is equal time with meat industry propagandists to share their views with children.
The meat industry gives the facts when making a presentation; PETA presents lies, misconceptions and threats – calling parents who let their children eat meat “child abusers.”
Have any of their group ever toured a “factory farm?” If they had, they would find that these animals are treated well. Thousands of dollars are spent per herd for feed, mineral supplements, vaccination drugs, veterinary care, shelters for winter and pastures to graze in the summer.
Calving time is a 24-hour-per-day job for approximately 65-80 days, as the cows need to be carefully watched while giving birth as assistance is often required.
If “Chris P. Carrot,” Violet Kelly and Bevin Bileski had their way and the meat industry became defunct, who do they suppose would care for these animals? Do they believe the government or some other agency should create parks to accommodate free range for the animals? Or maybe PETA would like to buy all the animals and make pets out of them? …
Leave the poor cows alone! All they want is to be fed and watered all year long – a task the rancher will always fulfill.
PETA and groups like them rant and rave and spread propaganda throughout the country, calling meat-eaters child abusers and animal killers, then go home and eat their vegetarian diet -probably never giving a second thought to the poor migrant workers who pick the vegetables for slave wages and have to live in tents while they cross the country during harvest time, never having a place for their children to call home. That is the true abuse here.
My message to “Chris P. Carrot” – clean up your own backyard before you complain about others!
– Clifford Christopherson,
Leoville, Sask.
Manitoba port
To the Editor:
In your article about Manitoba Pool, I disagree with Garnet Lee when he says Manitoba is furthest from a port in the world.
You have the closest port -Churchill – in all of Canada, and are not making use of it.
All you have to do is grow the kind of grain they wish to ship out of there, and use it.
– James Spencer,
Mervin, Sask.
Manitoba fence
To the Editor:
… There are numerous studies to show that the Canadian Wheat Board alone is responsible for larger return to producers and for Canada’s good reputation as an exporter of quality grain. Both these results cannot be separated from the Wheat Board’s function as a single-desk seller.
Here in Manitoba, both myself and NDP Leader Gary Doer urged the Filmon Government to join with the Saskatchewan Government against the Alberta position. In response to our questions in the Legislature, both Premier Filmon and Agriculture Minister Harry Enns refused to do so, preferring to sit on the fence. …
The Filmon Government stated that it supports the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel even though the Minister of Agriculture’s own briefing notes show that this will weaken the board’s ability to achieve greater premiums for producers and to guarantee quality product for export.
The only justification for the Government’s position is that they want to move to an open-marketing system for wheat to harmonize the Canadian and U.S. systems of grain marketing.
In the U.S., it is the grain companies and the railways which call the tune and reap the profits, not the producers.
The Conservatives … support the free-market approach of the American grain industry. The Manitoba NDP is prepared to fight this backwards view and ensure that the producers are the beneficiaries of any changes.
– Rosann Wowchuk,
NDP Agriculture Critic,
Winnipeg, Man.
