CWB voter rules
I am responding to Barry Wilson’s article “Tories urged to fix CWB voter rules” in the April 15 WP.Unfortunately, Wilson repeats the misleading sentence, “The government has embraced a proposal made by a review commissioned under the previous Liberal government that the CWB voters list be limited to farmers who have delivered at least 40 tonnes of eligible crop in the past two years.” This sentence is incorrect. It is not the actual recommendation from the panel.The real recommendation says, “Change eligible voters to include only actual producers who have delivered 40 tonnes or more to the Canadian Wheat Board in any one of the last two crop years.” This is a very different recommendation because it means the election review panel intended that the voters list be those people that actually sold grain through the CWB. In this one aspect, that the voters be people that actually are using the CWB to market grain, the panel got it right. Only canola growers can vote in canola growers’ elections, only pulse growers can vote in pulse growers elections and so on. Why should farmers who don’t market CWB grains through the CWB, and therefore don’t pay any of the election costs, be eligible to vote? This must be the starting point of any discussion about changing criteria.A second problem arises with the government’s and other anti-CWB groups’ enthusiasm to disenfranchise landlords. The current CWB Act and Regulations recognize there are two types of producers : landlord producers and actual producers. In most cases, the landlord producers will be retired or scaled-down farmers that still rely on the income from their own grain that is produced on their land. These people deserve a say in who governs the CWB, and it is not correct for Richard Phillips of the Grain Growers of Canada (an organization with long-standing anti-CWB roots) to say that these landlords “have no real stake in farming.” In the event that the renter decides not to rent the land and simply walks away, the landlord producer is still holding that land and still needs the income from the grain produced.The landlord producers and the actual producers, both large and small, are paying every cent of the director election costs and every cent of the money it takes to run the governance structure of the CWB. All of these people have a legitimate financial interest in both the marketing of their grain and the paying of the election costs, and they have a legitimate democratic interest in the operation of the CWB.…Stewart Wells,Swift Current, Sask.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Straw value
All this short sighted talk of using straw (cellulose) for ethanol should send a soil scientist’s blood pressure to dangerously high levels.The crop residue is not a waste product. It has obvious nutrient value and an important organic matter component which increases soil tilth, water retention, erosion protection and an environment for micro-organisms. Where are the voices of the soil scientists?Frank Orosz,Creston, B.C.
Beef prices
I am writing about how cattle prices are the same price since 1989 but the commission price has risen charged by auction market facilities for selling livestock owners’ livestock. I have cattle prices of cattle sold in Dec. 14, 1989, 21 years ago from a local livestock facility. Charolais steer calves weighing 422 pounds sold for 94 and half cents per lb. A Holstein heifer 735 lb. sold for 78 cents per lb., four Angus cows weighing total 4,630 lb.. sold for $660 each, a 1,130 lb. cow sold for 37 cents per lb., four stock cows weighing 6,310 lb. sold for $700.10 each.In 2010, cattle have been selling below some of these prices, some about the same. I have seen in advertisements the price of all farm inputs has risen drastically – fuel, new machinery, everything farmers have to buy to farm. Grain prices are still very much the same since 1989. Farmers need cattle and grain subsidies. Farmers cannot afford to operate at a loss every year while companies are making big profits off the farmers. I think it’s time for farmers to take action now, with a general strike nationwide. Stop all food imports, sending a stern message to governments.Greg Hemming,Esterhazy, Sask.
CWB good value
This letter is in response to the letter titled “CWB too expensive”, by David Anderson, MP, (Open Forum, April 22.)Mr. Anderson claims that the cost of marketing our grain through the CWB has been rising. CWB reports, which are available to the public, indicate a cost of 14 to 16 cents per bushel of barley or wheat. Where did Mr. Anderson get his 25 cents per bu. from? The farmers’ cost to market the grain through the CWB is very small when compared to the losses that will occur by marketing that same grain on the open market. With the open market system, Australian farmers are now receiving prices more than 71 cents per bu. of wheat below U.S. open market prices. For the first six months to a year after deregulation of the Australia Wheat Board, discounts were $50 to $60 per tonne below U.S. prices. Prior to the removal of Australia’s single desk, some Australian wheat had been sold as high as $99 per tonne above U.S. open market prices. The 14 to 16 cents per bu. it costs us to market our grain through the CWB is a very good investment, when compared to a minimum loss of 71 cents per bushel through open marketing.The minimum damage by open market exports of Canadian wheat or barley is likely to be far worse in Canada than Australia. Both Canada and the U.S. are exporters of wheat and feed grains. Instead of removing these subsidies, the U.S. wants to increase their subsidies on grain used in the ethanol industry. This could have a devastating effect on unsubsidized Canadian grain prices. …The above are the losses farmers need to know about by selling our wheat or barley through open markets, not the 14 to 16 cents per bu. it costs farmers to have the CWB market our grain for higher than open market prices.Most of the information in the above letter is from news articles in the June 11, 2009, and March 10, 2010, Western Producer.The federal Conservative government has silenced more than 50,000 western farmers’ representation (the CWB) about the proposed World Trade Organization agreement. Are you as a farmer OK with that fact? Why? …Haven’t we lost enough already by remaining silent?Fred G. Willis,Saltcoats, Sask.
