CFIA lesson
I cannot resist a reply to Barb Duckworth’s article on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, “Take advantage of BSE lesson: CFIA” (WP, Oct. 4.)
Perhaps Mr. (Brian) Evans should take a lesson himself from the past four years. His comments are nothing more than CFIA’s attempt to deflect well-deserved criticism for their steadfast refusal to engage in serious discussion of BSE testing for market access for over four years.
I was invited to Ottawa in July 2007 to attend a panel discussion at the University of Ottawa struck by the federal government to lay down an integrated risk management strategy for BSE and CJD in Canada.
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 were shown a 28-country case study for BSE, with the exception of Canada and the United States, and it was demonstrated that all of the countries in that study quickly adopted voluntary testing as part of their solution to BSE.
The U.S. cannot produce enough beef to feed themselves, therefore, the U.S. packing industry can well afford to ignore the cost to implement voluntary BSE testing.
Canada, on the other hand, must export 60 percent of its production, a fact that makes us weak sellers.
The CFIA, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and Alberta Beef Producers have done nothing in the past four years to mitigate the impact of any of the hurdles this industry faces, nor have they in any way taken measures to change the way Canada does business in this industry.
I can build a solid case for BSE testing to be a major part of the solution for all of the problems this industry faces, and we face many more today than we did in May of 2003.
I am not stating this out of hindsight. We forced the testing discussion forward every year since and including 2004, only to have industry leadership and CFIA kill it. They are all painted into the same dismal corner now and we have an industry that, because of its lack of courage to stand up and defend itself, has changed virtually nothing and is now several times more vulnerable than in May 2003. …
No one from any leadership organization had the courage to challenge the obvious inadequacies of Rule 2 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it two weeks past. In fact, CCA was on the six o’clock news rejoicing. Rule 2 is nothing more than an instrument of USDA that will guarantee the continuance of the live over 30 month captive market in Canada, while greatly expanding the processors over 30 month beef market.
If the object is to increase value for the producer who pays the checkoff to fund CCA on down, they have failed once again. If voluntary BSE testing had been promoted by industry and CFIA three years ago, I wager all of our beef industry problems could look much different today. This discussion will not go away.
– Cam Ostercamp,
President,
Beef Initiative Group Canada,
Blackie, Alta.
Funny antics
I can’t help but be amused by the antics being used by the international petroleum industry and their lackeys in their effort to convince ordinary Albertans and the provincial government that two and two makes five.
If one were to believe their exhortations, the Royalty Review Panel simply plucked their figures out of thin air rather than having used the industry’s own figures to build its case.
The industry’s silent reaction to the charge that they have been shortchanging Albertans to the tune of billions of dollars during the past few years is deafening.
The most hilarious threat made by Big Oil is that they will move to Saskatchewan. One of the main reasons the industry has been boycotting Saskatchewan during the past few decades is that, unlike Alberta, the people there have been electing governments that were not prepared to give away their natural resources for a pittance.
Their strategy has paid off. Now that oil and gas are in short supply throughout the world, their resources are much more valuable.
I also hope that the Alaskan experience is not lost with our provincial government, and that premier (Ed) Stelmach remembers the arithmetic lessons of his youth.
– William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.
Good news
I’m amazed at how many people can find fault in the federal government and their handling of the Canadian Wheat Board and its related issues.
In recent months, local and major newspapers and other media forms were inundated with negative publicity against Chuck Strahl, then minister of agriculture. David Anderson, parliamentary secretary to the CWB, was not spared.
Ultimately, the proposed changes to the board were the will of the majority of grain producers who voted Conservative in the last election. I live in the federal riding of Grasslands. David Anderson is our MP.
Yet when the office of Mr. Anderson assisted Mustard Capital Inc., a new mustard processing plant that has recently started up in our community, very little was reported in the mainstream media.
MCI has received, to date, $226,000 through a federal development grant, along with a $35,000 grant from REDA, a local economic development entity that is partly funded by the province of Saskatchewan.
Negotiations for additional grants are ongoing with local governments. Ultimately however, the majority of the capital was and will be raised by shareholders.
When Services Canada recently opened a full service federal government office in the same community, not a word was reported by media. Yet the office provides bilingual assistance with most federal programs, including agricultural concerns. ÂÂ
In a world where the average citizen is showered with negative news every moment of the day, good news would be a welcomed break. I might add that news, good or bad, should also be accurate. And I, and many more, do plan on voting for David Anderson in the next federal election.
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Other businesses
Exxon, EnCana, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and so on have all expressed their opinions to the Alberta government about any change in (oil) royalty assessment and I find their comments unbelievable and embarrassing.
Let’s look at this from a different industry’s perspective. First of all I applaud premier (Ed) Stelmach for his courage in forming a highly educated review panel to decide if royalty assessment in Alberta is an issue that should be considered. Oil, gas and tar sands development in the province of Alberta is the economic engine of all of Canada at present. It is so significant that when one considers the regular commerce of oil and gas sales, coupled with investor dollars flowing into energy developments such as the tar sands, it has the ability to strengthen our Canadian dollar and place other export dependent industries in peril.
It is also so significant that the bank of Canada is at a crossroads, as they want to raise interest rates to slow the energy economy down, while knowing full well that those raises in interest rates will kill manufacturing and agriculture, especially value-added agricultural interests.
Why would we have such an inflow of dollars into the Canadian economy? We have stable governments and we have a business climate in our energy sector that investors are thrilled about.
Investors can achieve high returns on investment because Alberta charges low royalty assessment. Sounds great, that’s why Exxon and EnCana are threatening and fear mongering the Alberta government. …
My problem is different from the majority of Albertans. My problem is that the playing field that the rest of Alberta industry operates on is at a different level than those who operate in the oil and gas industries.
How can I say that? Well, at present the province of Alberta subsidizes the development of its oil sands and gas industries. The developers of those industries pay less than competitive royalty assessments; at least that’s what the royalty review found.
Since they have low royalties to pay, they in turn have more money for labour, for utilities, for borrowing charges, for development, etc.
Since I am in an industry that is labour intensive, I find that I am being placed in a position where I can’t compete and where my industry is not sustainable.
Since Exxon and EnCana can issue threats and buy half page ads to promote their idealism, I have also got a statement. If the Alberta government does not change its royalty assessment, I will bet that in the value-added agriculture industry, that in one year we will lose our only pork processor in the province as well as several finishing barns, we will lose a major beef packer, as well as several beef feedlots. This in turn will decimate Alberta’s cow-calf industry.
Investors for value-added industry in this province will stay clear. We will become a net importer of beef, pork and poultry, probably all from the U.S.
I am a capitalist and I realize that every investor couples risk with return on investment. Most reasonable Albertans are not out to kill oil sands development, but I see $80 oil, I see $6.58 billion profits. I see an uncompetitive agricultural industry, paying $20 an hour for workers and then having them leave for $35 an hour in Fort McMurray.
Premier Stelmach, I admire your comments that we need to find a balance. If oil prices falter – say below $40 a barrel, then royalty assessments may have a different level of assessment and so on for natural gas. In all likelihood after reassessment of royalties, the economy of Alberta probably will slow down. This by the way would be the breath that we all need to take. …
Premier Stelmach, there are more than oil people in this province. Please remember we are part of Alberta too.
– Rick Paskal,
Iron Springs, Alta.
Illusory prices
Market Watch columnist D’Arce McMillan (Record prices don’t settle CWB debate, Oct. 4) should take note that the average western Canadian farmer is getting more for his grain than the average American farmer. The September PRO contains record numbers for durum and is up substantially over August.
Spot prices are somewhat illusory. It’s impossible for everyone to sell at the highest price, and it’s impossible to know when the market is peaking. In a rising market, people are prone to sell once the price seems favourable, with no way of knowing if the price will still look good down the road.
That is exactly what is happening in the U.S. So the scenario of a producer selling 100 percent of his durum at the peak of the market is just not realistic. In fact, the prices McMillan quotes were not the peak, because the spot market has risen again since then. That is one of the advantages of pooling: the CWB is still selling into that higher-priced market.
To use durum as an example, U.S. producers have locked in most of their crop at just $7 a bushel. Anecdotally, it is thought that two thirds of the crop is committed at this price – and this was a historically high price and it likely made economic sense for farmers to lock this in. …
An average U.S. producer has sold most of his crop at $7. If he does capture the $13.10 spot price that McMillan quotes on his unsold third, he’s averaging about $9 per bushel. That’s less than what he’d get from the September PRO, which is between $11.89 and $12.14 a bu. for all No. 1 CWAD. After deductions, in Saskatchewan, a prairie farmer is getting a return of $10.42 to $10.67 per bu.
For those who want greater pricing flexibility, the CWB has developed a number of Producer Payment Options….. The CWB’s farmer-controlled board of directors is committed to increasing choice for farmers while retaining the proven strength of the single desk.
– Ken Ritter,
Chair, CWB board of directors,
Kindersley, Sask.
