Extract profit
May I add this thought to the debate over the Canadian Wheat Board. In spite of the best efforts of the board over the years, it has been impossible for them to extract from the export market enough profit to maintain our western grain farmers.
Thousands have closed down and there are still hundreds of farms for sale or rent.
There is only one reason why most of these farmers decided to give up. They could not continue operating at a loss. For the remaining farmers, it would indicate that this grain we export, at a loss, must be converted into products that will return a fair profit.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
We only hope that ethanol and biodiesel may be the start of renewal. There is no time to waste.
– James Finley,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Why the fear?
… I would even more emphatically urge the government to live up to the rules of the Wheat Board Act. Why are you so afraid of a producer plebiscite? The actions of the Conservative government are proving to be quite disgusting in their shabby treatment of the producers.
I’ve had a great deal of respect for (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl. But the government’s approach to the CWB issue would indicate that respect was unfortunately misplaced.
– George Burton,
Humboldt, Sask.
Farmers’ money
There has been much press about the government muzzling the wheat board. Now that doesn’t appear to be the whole truth.
Individuals on their own may promote single desk or whatever. What the government said was it was not in the wheat board’s mandate to take farmers’ money to promote the wheat board single desk position.
Well, thank goodness, someone finally told the wheat board that it is not their money. It is the farmers’ money. It is our final payment money. Way to go, Chuck Strahl, good job.
From a farmer’s prospective, there is lots wrong with the system from grading, transportation, the price, etc.
Over 90 percent of farmers support a system of banding together to receive the highest possible price for their grain. This could be the CWB but it is not happening. We are stuck with slow deliveries and a price that is below the cost of production.
I would like to see someone tell the wheat board to get off their butts and sell the wheat at a decent price or they could get fired.
This should be run as a business.
In Ottawa, there is much to do about Peter MacKay being accused of calling Belinda Stronach a dog. This is not right. This is wrong.
I would like to emphatically state that Belinda Stronach is not a dog. Dogs are loyal. Enough said.
– Victor Hult,
Waseca, Sask.
Lose money
We will lose money. It’s that simple. If we lose the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, grain producers will receive less.
Granted, some may get lucky from time to time and capture a good spot price, but overall the crop will sell for less.
A customer who wants to buy Canadian grain must pay the CWB’s price. If our monopoly is taken away, that customer will play the competing sellers one against another and buy that grain cheaper. That makes the buyer happy; the seller still gets a margin; the farmers get less.
Another point needs to be clearly understood: the critical issue is the single desk monopoly, not the future of the CWB.
That is not to be unappreciative of the excellent work the CWB does on our behalf, nor unsympathetic toward the men and women who do that work.
However, if the CWB has no monopoly, it becomes just another player in the marketplace, a marketplace that exists for reasons that have little to do with providing decent returns to farmers.
The CWB might distinguish itself by acting with our interests in mind, something sorely lacking since the loss of the producer co-operatives, but it would have to be a commercial grain trader much like all the others.
Sadly, debate of these issues is of no consequence if (prime minister Stephen) Harper and (agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl continue to deny our right to make our own decisions about our own agency in accordance with federal legislation and fundamental democracy.
– Jim Metherell,
Lashburn, Sask.
Steep price
The ability of primary producers to access the markets in the United States comes at a steep price.
Buy backs, fixed price contracts and daily price contracts all have an onerous fee attached to allow the pooled price option not to be at a large discount.
The Kansas City futures price, the Montana cash price and the Oregon port price all work back to over $5 Canadian for my operation in southern Alberta.
The back and forth letters from and to the CWB have not to date explained this.
The negative basis on winter wheat off of Kansas City is an operating cost the Canadian Wheat Board levies against producers of close to $1 a bushel.
This is not a basis in the true sense but a fee to not allow a producer who has removed production from the pooled price to truly capture the current price premium the spot price offers.
The deadlines to allow producers to opt out of the pooled prices are another disincentive, to designate wheat to a direct price contract only before harvest is a risk not required by pool account wheat.
To pay the CWB for the privilege to sell my wheat is not a true choice.
– Alex Russell,
Chair AWWPC,
Lethbridge, Alta.
Freedom cliché
One hears many proclamations about freedom of choice by critics of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act was brought into law in 1935 to provide wheat farmers with freedom from exploitation by unscrupulous grain merchants. It is my view that international grain merchants see the CWB as an obstacle and would like nothing better than to regain their freedom to maximize profits at the expense of Canadian farmers who, without the board, would once again be compelled to compete against one another in the marketing of grain.
Thanks to the powerful lobby of these international grain merchants, the board has gradually been stripped of many of the powers that enabled it to do a better job. Nevertheless, it is still doing a commendable job of obtaining the best possible price for the grain under its control.
It has been able to achieve this primarily because, as a single desk-selling agency, it has bargaining power, something individual farmers lack….
I’ve no doubt that international grain merchants enlist the help of phony farm organizations and unsuspecting farmers in their extensive media campaign to portray the CWB as a villain that robs farmers of their “freedom.”
Here, again, the strategy is to create the illusion that it is the farmers themselves who want to destroy the board.
While there are isolated cases where farmers living nearer to the U.S. border may benefit from direct sales to U.S. buyers from time to time, the majority of grain farmers in Western Canada support the wheat board because they know that power respects only power, and that the wheat board’s single desk marketing system gives them an important advantage when competing on the world grain market.
So my advice to members of Parliament is to stop and soberly consider before they condemn the CWB. They should not allow themselves to get caught up in the clichés about freedom, secrecy, choiceand all that misinformation being spewed out by those who would like to profit from farmers’ lack of bargaining power.
Without a guaranteed initial price, farmers could end up with a freight bill instead of a cheque when the bottom of the grain market falls out, as it occasionally does. The board protects farmers from surplus grain being dumped into Canada at fire sale prices and its regulatory powers ensure fair grade and dockage.
Parliamentarians should also be aware that once the board is dismantled, they won’t, under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, be able to have it reinstated.
– William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.
Grain prices
What are premiums? We have the Liberals, NDP, Keystone Agriculture Producers, National Farmers Union trying to get farmers less money, probably the biggest joke in North America.
The Canadian Wheat Board always talks about premiums. Here is what premiums are outside the CWB.
This summer when farmers were combining winter wheat, it was over $1 a bushel higher across the border: 65 bu. x $1 x 150 acres equals over $9,000 per quarter section.
A premium is when Charlie Mayer took oats away from the CWB and now farmers are getting a good return from oats straight off the combine. Thanks, Charlie.
A premium is when a few years ago wheat was $7 a bu. right after harvest. The CWB did nothing, I lost over $40,000 that year.
A premium is when barley is 50 cents to $1 higher across the border. The CWB is lower than the open market price nearly every year.
A premium is selling my wheat and barley and getting my money right away instead of a year later….
The CWB is once again blaming someone else like the railroad not hauling. Does that mean the CWB once again sold wheat at the lowest price?
We only got a couple of weeks for the fixed price. Then we have no control. Once again, we won’t be able to get the good prices.
– Gordon Falk,
Killarney, Man.
Hand it over
So let’s get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. If we are fighting on the principles of free enterprise and not to put more money in farmers’ pockets, let’s get rid of milk, egg, cheese, dairy boards and everything else that is regulated in agriculture. Let’s level the agriculture playing field entirely.
Of course, that won’t happen because these issues would be political suicide in the East. It is interesting to note that the Conservative government feels that they have a mandate from the people to provide dual marketing at the least and at the best eliminate the CWB in its entirety. It assumes that 60,000 farmers, all voting against the CWB of course in the last federal election, scattered across four provinces with a population of five million or more people have unanimously voiced their opinion to take away the single desk powers of a wheat board.
Let’s just hand it over to American firms such as Cargill, ConAgra, Louis Dreyfus and select others who compete to control world trade in this commodity. They will do a much better job and the government won’t have the financial millstone of the CWB around its neck.
It was interesting to note how share prices of elevator companies increased when the Conservatives won the election. Pure speculation based on getting rid of the CWB. Investors know that the grain companies will pocket the additional money, which is now being returned to the farmers by the CWB.
The Americans already own our softwood lumber, petroleum and meat packing industries. Why not let them own the grain industry too? Next, let’s start up a fresh water industry and then sell it off to the Americans in due time. In the end, we are merely a natural resource provider to the world’s largest economy.
Putting it more bluntly, we might as well be the 52nd state and if you can’t beat them you might as well join them…..
– Allan Fritzke,
Maple Creek, Sask.
Changed feeling
In light of recent events, I feel I must write expressing my disappointment over the way this government is out to dismantle the CWB. When Mr. Strahl was first appointed minister of agriculture, I thought it was like a breath of fresh air – a new minister with an open mind and no preconceived ideas. I’m sorry to say that I don’t feel that way any more.
How can this minister propose such major changes as taking away the single desk monopoly from the CWB, which would in fact destroy it, without consulting with those most directly affected, namely the producers?
What’s wrong with a plebiscite among all producers with a single simple question: “Do you want the CWB to retain its single desk monopoly, yes or no”? If the results are yes, no further action is required. If no, then and only then would the government begin the process of reforming or dismantling the CWB. ….
I’m also deeply offended by some of Mr. David Anderson’s remarks when he was speaking on the CWB Act amendments on June 19. No, Mr. Anderson, we are not all extreme, radical left-wingers as you stated. Some of us are even Conservatives, maybe a lot longer than yourself, who have been around for some time and believe that the CWB has over the years done a very credible job of marketing our grain and put money in our pockets. Without the single desk monopoly, this would not be possible,
Yes, there are a lot of problems in agriculture that need addressing and I would hope this government has something more concrete in mind than blaming all our woes on the CWB and destroying it.
Mr. Anderson’s statement, and I quote, “it is mainly because of the CWB and the system in Western Canada that western producers have been unable to maximize their returns” is the most ludicrous statement I think I’ve heard from a politician in a long time and almost defies logic. If this is this government’s answer to our farm problems, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought we were.
– D. Pankow,
Grande Prairie, Alta.
Big wheels
In the last federal election, did the people who live in urban areas vote Conservative to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board? Not likely, but that is what our minority government is telling us.
They said they were elected to give us farmers the freedom of choice. Oh, how touching. A party that advocated fairness, openness and above all the great practice of the democratic process. My, how things have changed.
They held a meeting in Saskatoon and only invited parties that opposed single desk selling. Hmm, does that sound like fairness? It sure doesn’t to me. Are they going to allow me as a producer to have a free vote on whether I want to have the CWB sell my grain? No. Does that sound like democracy in action? Hmm, not really. And to top it off they have put a restriction on the CWB from giving any information on how the benefits of single desk selling affect me as a producer, while allowing all parties opposed free reign on their advertising. Is that openness? …
As farmers we better do some thinking on who wants to get rid of the CWB and who is going to benefit from its demise. Are these multinational grain companies going to send any profit they make from selling our grain back to us? Hmm, I rather doubt it.
We also better think about what we want. If the CWB goes, under the free trade agreement, if any of these companies think they have lost money competing with the CWB, they can sue the Canadian government for their losses.
As a producer, you think you are a big wheel and can sell your grain on the open world market and come out on top. Just remember what dogs do to wheels.
– Gordon Taylor,
Landis, Sask.
CWB dismay
I am dismayed by the current government’s actions toward the Canadian Wheat Board.
“Let us never forget that the cultivation of the earth is the most important labour of man. Man may be civilized in some degree without great progress in manufactures and with little commerce with his distant neighbours. But without the cultivation of the earth, he is, in all countries, a savage. Until he gives up the chase and fixes himself in some place, and seeks a living from the earth, he is a roaming barbarian. When tillage begins, other arts follow. The farmers, therefore, are the founders of civilization.” – Daniel Webster
In my view the Canadian government and its citizens have lost an understanding of this basic axiom. Why are they catering to U.S. commercial interests? Are we not a sovereign nation adhering to our own laws?
Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act expressly forbids the minister to change the act without a prior referendum in support of such changes by the growers. The effort to introduce Bill C-300 is a deliberate action to circumvent the rule of democracy inherent in Section 47.1.
I consider this action disrespectful of Canadian farmers and democracy.
My family has produced cereals in the B.C. Peace River (region) since 1928. It is interesting to note that oats, which were under the CWB Act and were removed in order to enjoy the free market, were at their lowest price earlier this year. Other open market crops such as canola and peas are suffering Depression era pricing.
So what would change for wheat and barley if they are unilaterally legislated into the so-called free market arena?
It is my opinion that during the past 50 years there has been a strategy, deliberate or otherwise, to extract the wealth from the rural agricultural community and redirect into the urban commercial complex. It has been exceptionally successful. This sometimes is referred to as the Canadian cheap food policy. …
The Canadian farm economy is dying from a series of subtle government policy changes.
The Conservative party was given the mandate to govern Canada, but was not given the mandate to dismantle the CWB. I predict that if they are successful in emasculating the CWB, that the producer groups along the Canada/U.S. border will attempt to flood the U.S. with grain products. This action will result in a U.S. trade embargo …
The government needs to rejuvenate Canadian agriculture rather than emasculate it further. The strong Canadian economy has prospered at the expense of rural Canada. The current social and economic security enjoyed by all Canadians will eventually fade away if agriculture is allowed to wither on the vine.
– Arthur A. Hadland,
Baldonnel, B.C.
Gun logic
With the latest school shooting, we are once again hearing calls for stricter gun control and/or total gun bans. Let’s take a step back and all imagine we are in what the anti-firearms community believes to be a perfect world with no guns.
In the case of the Dawson school shooting, if no firearms were available, that still leaves us with Kimveer Gill, an individual bent on destruction and death, and one who carefully planned his deadly actions. Does anyone believe that if there were no guns Gill would have done nothing? I suggest this is highly unlikely.
In the United Kingdom after the Dunblane shooting, politicians there banned all handguns. Today, there are more handguns than ever. However, authorities have no idea where the handguns are.
Owning a handgun is now a status symbol on the streets. To add insult to injury, crime rates are going higher.
In spite of this, a lot of Canadians still think that we should all be disarmed. Imagine the heyday the criminals would have knowing that average citizens are defenseless and must wait for police to show up to defend them, assuming that they were able to contact the police in the first place. Maybe that is why crime is up in all jurisdictions that have gun bans.
Why is it that we as Canadians accept the fact without question that armoured truck guards can carry guns to protect our money, but the idea of carrying guns to protect human life is a non-starter? Obviously society puts more value on money than human life….
Let’s hope the politicians focus their attention on the root causes of crime and abnormal behaviour rather than an inanimate object, in this case, guns.
– Greg Illerbrun,
Firearms Chairman,
Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation,
Swift Current, Sask.
Grappling gorillas
After watching the proceedings around the ever contentious Canadian Wheat Board issues, I’m coming to the conclusion that agriculture related corporations’ concentrated control over primary producers has taken us very close to the point of no return, exacerbated by big government’s seeming inability to restrain the 800 pound gorilla that every producer is grappling with. …
Where I struggle a bit with my conscience in commenting on the wheat board issue is that I admit I’m not the most knowledgeable soul in terms of all the in’s and out’s of the wheat board, as I’m mainly in the beef end of agriculture. What does jump out at me loud and clear, however, is that the main thrust behind the “kill the wheat board” movement is the U.S., the European Union, and most damning of all, the multinational corporations that already are strangling profit margins for the primary producer.
Seems to me that the reason for the inception of the wheat board was because of the vagaries that large grain buying interests lorded over the producing farmers. Look no further than the concentrated control that three packers to this day hold over the Canadian beef industry and imagine how fast the grain industry will wake up to the realities of the “freedom of choice.”
We’ve sucked into the “bigger is better” line for 20 years now, and all we hear about is depressed prices in all farm commodities. Looks to me like the wheat board just may be the last bastion of protection this country’s grain farmers have. It behooves us to be damn careful what we wish for.
Anytime you think dealing on your own with a multinational corporation is desirable, you just bent over. And if the way both Canadian federal governments have dealt with BSE is any indication of what we can expect from changes to the wheat board, we probably don’t need to expect much in the way of improved farmgate profit as a result.
Apathy is taken as assent. Unless you make some noise, don’t cry after the fact, and don’t think that individual voices are not heard.
– Cam Ostercamp,
President,
Beef Initiative Group Canada,
Calgary, Alta.
Vote needed
Re: the proposed changes to the CWB, I believe that any major changes should be by a farmer plebiscite and not by politicians and bureaucrats.
All the changes we have seen in the last 10 or 15 years, such as rail and elevator rationalization, loss of the Crow Rate and the two price system for wheat were supposed to usher in a brave new world in which competing countries would end all price-distorting subsidies and farmers’ pockets would be filled as never before.
I’m still waiting. And the same groups that pushed for all these changes are now pushing for the elimination of the CWB.
Oh I know, they say they want a strong CWB and a dual market, but with no facilities I don’t believe the CWB could function.
This government has shown by its heavy-handed approach and biased meetings that what they really want is a weakened CWB that would simply fade away.
They say they have a mandate to change the CWB. They do not, as they were elected for many reasons, and this issue sure wasn’t the main one.
I have voted Conservative for most of my life. Next time will be different.
– Rudy Ammeter,
Headingley, Man.
Letter writing
As chairman of the board of the Alberta Barley Commission, I read an article by Adrian Ewins mentioning the commission on page 5 of the Sept. 28 edition of the Western Producer regarding a supposed offer to “write letters for groups against the CWB.”
The article is unfortunately short on accuracy and long on the kind of rhetoric that has surrounded this debate for the past 60 years. These are the facts.
The ABC regularly engages consultants to assist us with policy review, communications and policy papers. The e-mail the article is based on was an internal one from Charlton Communications to the ABC, Western Barley Growers Association and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association proposing the use of their firm for broad communications purposes. …
The article fails to mention that this e-mail was forwarded by one of ABC’s delegates without permission to a former Western Producer columnist who then sent it out to no-choice groups and publications. By the way, that delegate’s first name is not Graham Marsh as the article erroneously lists. The article didn’t even get that right.
This delegate finally communicated what he had done to our general manager Mike Leslie, long after the e-mail was forwarded by him and his identity had become common knowledge. His concern was that he thought this was a campaign by the government to manufacture artificial farmer support for issues. Mike clarified to him that politicians from all parties have been telling us that if we wish our farmer’s voices to be heard, we need to do so now.
In this busy harvest time of the year we had hoped to assist our farmers by engaging a professional to co-ordinate their letter writing, not write letters for them. Farmers could choose to write a letter or not. …
The attempts by the no-choice element of the marketing choice debate to make this rather innocuous internal e-mail into some big government conspiracy against the CWB is a good indication of how desperate they have become to find anything that would derail the move to restore to farmers on the Prairies the right to market their own grain.
This right has been available to producers in Eastern Canada for a number of years, after all. It is also a good indicator of why a plebiscite on this matter is useless, as it will solve absolutely nothing. Those of us who want a strong, voluntary CWB know we are in the majority of prairie farmers, but that majority does not matter. …
Prairie grain farmers who want to choose who markets their wheat and barley have been discriminated against since World War II when a voluntary CWB was changed by government to the monopoly CWB.
Only the monopoly claims it cannot continue to operate without total control. We pro-voluntary CWB supporters have much more faith in the CWB than that. We believe they can flourish with competition.
By the way, I wrote this letter myself, but I had it critiqued by other ABC board colleagues before it was sent. Gee, I guess I used professional assistance like we all do. I just consulted my colleagues this time, not my wife.
– Doug Robertson,
Chairman,
Alberta Barley Commission,
Carstairs, Alta.
