MOOSE JAW, Sask. (Staff) – As corporate borders disappear, political borders become harder to control, says a Canadian Wheat Board official.
Harvey Brooks, the board’s director of corporate policy, said the integration of the North American food processing industry has been a major factor in the increased southerly flow of wheat and barley.
For American-owned multinationals operating in Canada , the 49th parallel is nothing more than a line on the map, he told a conference on the future of prairie agriculture.
“When those firms manage their logistics, they do it without regard for the Canadian-U.S. border,” said Brooks.
Read Also
Anaerobic digestion seen as possible emissions solution
Cattle manure is one of the feedstocks that can be used in anaerobic digestion systems.
The Canadian milling industry is at least 70 percent owned by U.S companies, he said, while there are major U.S. investments in malting companies and other agri-businesses.
Besides Brooks, panelists discussing grain trade irritants between Canada and the U.S. included representatives from growers associations on both sides of the border, along with Canada’s largest grain handling company, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
They spent most of their time treading old ground, hashing over familiar trade problems.
Brooks said after the discussion it was too bad no one was there to speak for the customer.
“I think it would be better if we had some U.S. processors up here, and Canadian processors, to talk a little about what their needs are, whether they can get the product they want in the U.S., whether the system is working from the U.S. customer’s perspective,” he said.
Getting down to business
Once each panel speaker delivered their formal niceties during opening comments, the old tensions and disagreements soon surfaced.
Judy Olson, past president of the U.S. National Association of Wheat Growers, said while the two countries have actually made progress in addressing some grain trade irritants, the two big ones – the American Export Enhancement Program wheat subsidies and the Canadian Wheat Board – will be extremely difficult to deal with, even with the assistance of the Canada-U.S. joint commission.
“I don’t see that being resolved very quickly and that doesn’t put farmers on either side of the border in a very good position,” she said.
Olson equated the export subsidies paid out under the EEP with the wheat board’s practice of selling grain into different markets at different prices. The only difference is the EEP prices are public, while the CWB’s are secret.
“It’s a different mechanism, but the purpose of the mechanism is the same,” she said.
That brought a sharp rejoinder from Brooks, who said the board only lowers its prices to stay competitive in markets that have been distorted by EEP and European subsidies. And he said when the board does so, the money comes directly out of the pockets of western Canadian farmers, while their U.S. counterparts are shielded from the market by price support programs.
Mark Rasmussen of the Montana Grain Growers Association said he can’t understand why Canadian grain farmers would voluntarily give up control over selling their product to a “faceless bureaucracy.”
“Marketing is the last, best chance I have to make up for the all the things that went wrong during the year,” he said.
Brooks said Rasmussen isn’t really marketing his grain, he’s just pricing it. Marketing as practiced by the wheat board involves a lot more.
