Confusing question
The (barley-marketing) question is now out and it is clear the Government only wants to confuse the voter by offering a fairy tale version of the question to dilute the results in their favour.
The government has decided the direction it is going by its own admittance and only wants to make it look like a producer choice by skewing the question.
My question to Mr. (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl is does he have the taxpayers’ vote to make up to western farmers the economic loss created by his intentions?
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
Every credible study has confirmed that loss of the CWB will come at a financial cost to western producers and this cost will be picked up by the Canadian taxpayer under current and future farm support programs. Does he have taxpayer support for this expenditure?
– Garry Brown,
North Battleford, Sask.
Global warming
The human race has innumerable concerns. One hardly knows where to start, in seeking people-friendly solutions for everyone on this planet.
What does the world’s diverse population consider to be the most obvious of problems? Is it war? The economy, oil, HIV-AIDS, crime, moral degradation, disease, sin, poverty, hunger or global warming?
You may want to add others or change the order in which they have been listed.
As a fairly comfortable octogenarian couple, trying to hold onto extra days from eternity, and still maintaining a reasonable retention of our mental faculties, we realize that we probably do not have an unlimited time future on this planet. But we do have very considerable concerns about the future basic well being of our children, our grandchildren and great grandchildren.
We know for certain that the planet’s glaciers are melting down at an increasingly rapid rate. Also, on average, climate temperature on Earth has risen almost one degree centigrade since the pre-industrial era.
Scientists and climatologists – at least those who do not have a vested interest – are generally in agreement that the increase in the planet’s average temperature is due to greatly increased greenhouse gases.
They estimate that it is quite likely that the continued unlimited worldwide use of fossil fuels and natural gas will raise the Earth’s average temperature by an additional 2 C within this century or sooner. It may well be too late then to rescue the kind of lifestyle that we have created for ourselves, and imagined that it would be forever so.
But there is still hope. Please read George Monbiot’s book, Heat with the subtitle, How to Stop the Earth from Burning. Monbiot wrote this book in 2005-06. He is the relatively young author of five previous serious books.
Heat is an exhaustive and detailed study of how highly industrialized nations are destroying the ozone layer.
Monbiot seeks and evaluates alternatives for present energy uses that would lessen damage to the skies above us.
He does strongly emphasize conservation. However, he candidly states that he has not been able to find any solution for the pollution to the biosphere caused by air travel and wonders why there is increased expansion of airports and highways.
– Leo Kurtenbach,
Cudworth, Sask.
Where to start
So what is wrong with western farmers having a monopoly on wheat and barley sales?
OPEC seems to think monopolies are OK, along with the railroads, grain companies and packers, etc.
Now (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl has fired (Canadian Wheat Board) president and CEO Adrian Measner.
The person who should have been fired is Chuck Strahl.
Why (prime minister) Stephen Harper would appoint a lumberjack from B.C. to an agricultural portfolio is beyond me. To my knowledge, the only thing he knows about agriculture or farming is what he’s learned from the David Andersons and Jolly-Nagels of this country.
This vocal minority who profess to be good community-minded people are always asking what’s in this for me, instead of saying what’s in this for us?
If Stephen Harper is so hell bent on doing away with monopolies he could start with the two railroads.
These are the two yoyos who shafted the Canadian taxpayers out of millions of dollars in hopper car repairs that never happened, without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Then he can take on the five or six grain companies that control most of the crops in Canada except for wheat and barley exports.
Then there are the packing houses. Three companies control 80 percent of meat packing in Canada. These are the good old boys that also fleeced the Canadian taxpayers of millions of dollars meant for ranchers and feedlot operators during the BSE crisis. When investigated by a parliamentary committee, we were told it was just good business practice.
If and when he gets all this done he can then hold a democratic vote of farmers in Western Canada to see if we want to retain our single desk monopoly on wheat and barley, which is required by law.
Anyone in the vocal minority who does not understand the word democratic please refer to the dictionary.
– Ray Richard,
Hudson Bay, Sask.
Time for change
If the CWB does an excellent job of marketing our grain, is accountable to us as producers and delivers a premium for our products, then I’m sure that it will survive in a dual marketing system. It seems hypocritical that there are laws preventing monopoly in other economic sectors while the government staunchly protects a grain monopoly. Currently the board has only to be accountable, efficient and competitive to satisfy who? If you’re not happy you can’t take your business elsewhere.
Change comes with time and progress and yes the CWB has changed over the years, but the time has come to allow prairie farmers the freedom that democracy affords its’ citizens.
– Shirley Hagstrom,
New Norway, Alta.
Farmer uproar
To the Editor:
As I write this letter Jan. 8, 2007, I find clear diesel at the pump 92.9 (cents per litre), crude oil is $51 a barrel.
Now at these prices somebody is making a huge amount of money. Before Christmas and New Years, pump prices took a big jump, crude has been declining steady, no fuel storage anywhere, yet pump prices stay high and hardly a complaint is heard.
If the (Canadian Wheat Board) was selling fuel at these prices, the whole country would be in an uproar.
Now the last few months, a lot of western Canadian farmers are in an uproar, some are pro and some are con CWB.
Seems like our government and probably some large multinationals and U.S. prodding have succeeded in dividing the farm community. Much easier to deal with one farmer than a well-organized group of farmers.
A very easy answer to this CWB problem is to run it like our safety net programs.
Stay in the CWB or have the opportunity to opt out. If you opt out, three years before you can opt back in.
You can’t have the best of both worlds, you are either in or out. This would make the board’s job easier knowing how many farmers it has to work with.
The Christmas bonus schmozzle is a joke. …
This is a good business policy, promotes good will and guarantees hard work. After all, a good employee helps fill the employer’s pocket.
I have just been through the Keystone Complex at Ag Days. My, oh my, there were commodity booths all over the place, ready to buy canola, flax, peas, oats, etc., but I couldn’t find one that would offer these services free. The money they would make selling my grain is top secret. Now if the CWB disappears we will need more commodity groups to sell our wheat…
With the CWB gone we will need a lot more semis to haul wheat to the U.S. This is tough on our roads. Reports are Europe is rebuilding rail lines again, so since we are 50 years behind Europe, we will be rebuilding ours in 2055. If the CWB is dismantled, we should dismantle the milk and egg marketing boards too. 2007 looks like a very interesting year for the farmers of Western Canada.
– Maurice Chevalier,
Swan Lake, Man.
OACC benefits
Mike Larsson’s opinion piece Nov 30, 2006, “Organics all about fear and rules” is critical of the organic movement’s alleged disconnect from the needs of the commercial farmer and the business side of organics.
Larsson is also critical of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC). The OACC helps to prioritize and co-ordinate organic research in most provinces at universities, and federal and provincial research stations. The OACC has conducted experiments on over 70 farms in the last five years. OACC also has a certified organic research site.
In the last five years, the OACC has developed 13 web-based courses offered through agricultural schools at Canadian universities for credit students or on a non-credit basis for those who choose that option. Research and education are the hallmarks of OACC’s contribution to increasing capacity for Canadian farmers to meet the growth of the organic market in Canada and the needs of all types of organic producers, whether large or small.
In 2002 the OACC commissioned the National Organic Strategic Plan. This plan was a visionary document and it was pointing in the direction many organic farmers and others in the sector were planning to go. Without the OACC, it is unlikely that such a document would have been written. …
Larsson is concerned by all the bureaucracy and government involvement in regulating the organic sector.
Organic has largely been successful because many consumers are concerned about their food supply and want to know more about how their food is produced and where it comes from.
I am not sure how it is possible to have this kind of food system without having some rules and some bureaucracy.
Since our major organic trading partners are all regulated by their governments, it is inevitable that we would have to move to government regulation or risk being shut out of our key international export markets.
Now we have the Organic Products Regulations and organic farmers will benefit from the increased confidence consumers and importers are expected to have in our products.
Over time, we should see an improvement in organic marketing and trade as we move to reciprocal agreements between national governments rather than the current hodgepodge of various national standards and regulations.
If you have comments, we would appreciate your input on how we can better serve the needs of organic agriculture.
For more information or to contact us please visit our website at www.oacc.ca.
– Ian Cushon,
Chair of Board,
Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada,
Oxbow, Sask.
Only export
As many of you know, the grain on the Prairies is priced according to the Pacific Northwest price minus the cost to get it there. The domestic processors like it this way as they can buy the grain locally through the (Canadian Wheat Board) at the PNW price.
I feel, if anything should change is that the CWB should be responsible only for wheat and barley sold for export, either off shore or across the border.
We, the producers would then deal directly with the local or domestic processors. Some of the domestically processed product will still be exported and would incur the freight for such. The product processed and consumed here would not incur the freight and that difference should be passed on to the producer. The key to the difference would be that the domestic mills and malt companies would buy directly from us, the farmer, and not from the CWB. Thus, we would become price setters and not price takers. We could even form a prairie grain marketing board. The price for domestically sold commodity such as bread and beer (notice I put bread first) would see a mild price increase, which would not break anybody’s bank.
I note that Ken Ritter’s Letter to the Editor (Jan. 18 WP) has disclosed how the marketing boards in Quebec have greatly increased the profit margin by being price setters. I was hoping that someone would respond to the question as to why Quebec is supporting the CWB.
Also in response to the World Trade Organization wanting to eliminate marketing boards and tariffs. These two tools are in place because of huge subsidies in our competing countries and if some foolishly think that these subsidies will disappear I would like to sell you my farm.
– Edwin Bronsch,
Tilley, Alta.
