I was mildly amused by the comments made by Pat Durnin of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (Western Producer, Nov. 9) that the timing of the increases in the initial payments is suspect due to the plebiscite in Alberta. It’s so ironic that just a few weeks ago his counterparts in other provinces were criticizing that the initials were too low and an increase should be made.
While it is true that the initials’ increases are earlier than usual, remember that we are in a rising market and a sellers’ market for the first time in years. It is the mandate of the CWB to put as much money in producers pockets, as soon as possible.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
It should also be noted that the same issue states that a member of the Advisory Committee to the CWB, Dan Cutforth, was on the steering committee to draw up the plebiscite question. Mr. Durnin has also been making the same statements publicly.
I wish to point out that while it’s true that Mr. Cutforth was a member of the plebiscite committee, he was there as a paid representative of the Alberta Grain Commission of which he is a commissioner. He was not there in the capacity of representing the CWB Advisory Committee. At no time was the Advisory Committee to the CWB asked to participate on the plebiscite committee.
– Robert Ponto,
CWB Advisory Member,
Galahad, Alta.
U.S. gets more?
To the Editor:
CWB Commissioner Richard Klassen, in a press report, stated that Canadian farmers are better off marketing their grain collectively through the CWB to the U.S.
One must conclude then that Mr. Klassen truly believes Canadian farmers are much better off with $2 less per bushel for their hard earned grain production.
– Lawson Jones,
Webster, N.D.
ABC ads
To the Editor:
I take great exception with the Alberta Barley Commission recently using producers’ money to buy television ads supporting the “yes” vote in the upcoming plebiscite. … The fact that the question itself was developed by a group who were for the most part known to be anti-Wheat Board, adds to the duplicity associated with the issue.
There may well be over one half of Alberta barley growers who do not support a yes vote, which may lead to the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board.
When the Alberta government legislated the checkoff to the Alberta Barley Commission, through the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, the money was designated for research and market development of barley. This is an obvious misuse of producers’ checkoff dollars.
– E.A. Holt,
Bashaw, Alta.
Unjust farmers
To the Editor:
I read with horror the “tip sheet” circulated by the Farmers for Justice on how to run the border with their wheat and barley and not get caught. Shame on those farmers and truckers who are blatantly breaking the law and claiming they are heroes. What’s next? A tip sheet on “how to abuse your spouse and get away with it”? Or how about “how to smuggle drugs into schools”?
As a farmer, a parent and a Canadian, I find it shameful and deplorable that they are blatantly defying democratic laws and counseling other farmers to do the same. I am reminded of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All animals are equal and some are more equal than others.” Farmers for Justice baloney! Their name should be Farmers for Just Us.
– J. Robidoux,
Haywood, Man.
Want choice
To the Editor:
I received my information in the mail the other day from Alberta Agriculture regarding the upcoming plebiscite vote on wheat and barley in a few weeks. Having just been through a “Neverendrum” I could do nothing about, it was nice to see there is still something I can vote on that makes a difference to my farm livelihood.
I was less impressed to hear on the news that even though grain companies and CWB officials promised to let the farmers decide this for themselves, Art Macklin and the CWB Advisory Committee think we are too stupid and uninformed to make the right decision. Give me a break, Art.
Maybe I’m just grumpy because I’m tired of politicians and others who say they represent my best interests telling me what is good for me. Farmers like me have looked to these people to solve our problems for us for too long. Surprise – the problems are still here.
Why? Because they can’t fix what they don’t understand. Farmers live with the problems, and it’s up to us to do something this time. Maybe I am stupid, because I don’t understand some of these myths they keep telling us, for instance: “If we vote in favor of having the freedom to choose who markets our wheat and barley, this will kill the Wheat Board.”
How? I could still sell to the CWB if I wanted to, I just would have a choice. This doesn’t make the Board weaker – it has only so many customers who will pay a high price for the grain it holds. Any excess grain left after it satisfies them gets sold at a lower and lower price.
The more grain in the pool, the lower the averaged price to everyone in the pool.
“If the CWB is voluntary, farmers will be competing with their neighbors when they sell their grain.” My goodness, how terrible. Right now that happens with every other grain except export wheat and barley. …
“The CWB can’t compete without being mandatory.” If this is so, it’s a far cry from the organization they keep telling us is so great. Competition is the only way to find out how great it really is. The Board proved it could compete with the best of them during the Continental Barley Market, when they sold double the amount of barley in 40 days that they’d sold in each of the previous five years. Competition made them better then, and it would again.
These kinds of scare tactics and lies reminds me a lot of the Neverendrum we just finished in a couple other ways.
First, a small number of people were deciding the future of a larger number who had no say in the matter, but would pay the final bill. Second, when facts convinced the voters they were better off with Canada, the PQ gained support by using emotional appeals and buckets of BS to carry the day, just as the Advisory Committee is.
Fifty-two years ago no one gave farmers a choice whether they had a voluntary CWB or not. This time I do, and no politician or self-interested group like the Advisory Committee is going to make that decision for me. It’s my grain, and I want more markets, not less. It would be nice if over 90 percent of the farmers in Alberta got out to vote. I’m convinced that if they don’t a small number of “Advisors” will decide our future for us. Do I support the Wheat Board? You bet, but make mine voluntary.
-Doug Robertson,
Carstairs, Alta.
Alberta minister
To the Editor:
It is really hard to believe that the Minister of Agriculture in Alberta would tell the Canadian Wheat Board and grain companies to stay out of the discussions regarding the province of Alberta’s November plebiscite concerning the future of the CWB. Is he saying that only members of the Barley Growers Commission or the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, who have been generously supported by the government of Alberta in the past, should have a say before producers vote? This would certainly be seen as a most undemocratic approach.
Surely Mr. Paszkowski must know that the most recent elections to the CWB Advisory Committee indicated increased support for the CWB by a majority of producers.
If the government of Alberta wishes to adhere to a democratic process to resolve such an important question as the survival of the CWB, it is critical that every aspect of the issue for or against the CWB by those directly involved should be heard and considered by producers before they pass judgement. Not having the CWB defend its policies and actions could be compared to a situation where an accused person or entity in a court of law is being denied the opportunity for self-defence.
We know that the transnational grain companies would dearly love to regress to the playing field of 60 to 70 years ago, when farm families had no collective or co-operative voice.
For example, in Australia in 1992, producers were faced by similar pressures by the TN’s, who even went as far as promising producers a reduction in handling charges of 20 to 30 percent in exchange for dumping the Australian Wheat Board.
However, in the end, the government of Australia decided to have the AWB maintain its monopoly for producers till 1999.
-Leo F. Kurtenback,
Cudworth, Sask.
Boycott CTF
To the Editor:
Ben Hudye and the 12-member group called Farmers for Justice (Oct. 26) are little more than rebels who would not hesitate to sabotage orderly marketing for their own narrow gains. Most live near the U.S. border and are in a position to cash in on a quick up-front payment rather than wait for CWB pooling for just as good a price at year’s end that all farmers can share in co-operatively.
It appears Mr. Hudye is no average working farmer, but is more of a “wheeler-dealer” out to make a fast buck, as witnessed by his mentioning the farmer with the 385,000 bushels to deal off to him. …
They are launching a court challenge against the CWB and are being supported by a few splinter groups like WCWGA etc. and also the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Now what business does the CTF have in supporting this group? The CTF (of which I am a member at present) was formed to be a watchdog and critic of wasteful government programs and spending.
Is it now perceived that the CWB is wasting taxpayers’ money and needs to be challenged on the matter?
No, that’s not the reason. What has happened is the CTF has been infiltrated by a small self-interest group who are using it as a tool for their own selfish interests.
I therefore urge all thinking farmers who are CTF members to immediately write or fax in and cancel their memberships in an organization that is no longer working in our best interests.
– T. A. Madison,
North Battleford, Sask.
Grain exports
To the Editor:
I am a young producer who farms near Gainsborough, Sask., just a few miles from the North Dakota border. Two border crossings are within 15 minutes of my wheat, durum and canola crops. Have I seized the great American opportunity? No.
Do I recognize the rights of others to seize the opportunity? Yes. But only if they operate legally, without damaging our industry. Unfortunately, these people are doing more harm to us than we can imagine.
I vehemently disagree with anyone who believes in the “right” to market grain in another country. While I agree that the right to market grain domestically is an entirely different matter, the minute you cross the border (by truck, rail, phone or fax) you can’t assume you are a citizen there with guaranteed rights. If you deal with Mexico, the U.S., or Japan, international trade protocol must take precedence. Remember, you are basically an ambassador for Canada. Your behavior must be dictated by official trade laws approved by each country.
I do agree that your grain is your product, but you don’t have the right to sell it globally without considering the rules. You also have to realize that your actions will affect others.
It is not up to the Alberta Barley Commission, Western Barley Growers, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers, Western Canadian Wheat Growers, the Alberta government, UGG, Cargill or Farmers for Justice to decide how international trade is conducted. Governments do that.
What if a “freedom fighter” sold unsafe or inferior grain to an international customer? What if someone sold a restricted product into another country under the guise of making a grain transaction? And what if a hauler proves to be unreliable? Well, everyone suffers. All it takes is a few bad deals and our international credibility is sacrificed. Politicians and farmers will be battling even more on both sides of the border, as if we need that. And don’t think that a few slip-ups won’t shut an international border to all of us. And all because of a few short-sighted individuals. So let me ask you “free traders” this: You seem to like “rights,” but what gives you the right to give all Canadian farmers a bad name?
Americans are tired of seeing our license plates at their elevators and the political fallout is increasing. The quickest way to close the U.S. market is to flood it with illegal grain. The U.S. will do whatever it takes to limit our presence; let’s not provide extra excuses for it to do so. …
I don’t want to compete against my neighbor, because I’ll just end up joining forces with him to regain control of our industry anyway. I am fed up with a small minority hijacking our industry with boneheaded court actions, attention-grabbing lawbreaking and ridiculous rhetoric. These people are offensive to the vast majority of farmers and they must be stopped.
– Mark Henry,
Regina, Sask.
Alberta motives
To the Editor:
The upcoming plebiscite in Alberta provokes some interesting thoughts as to the real intentions of Walter Paszkowski and the special interests of the anti-CWB lobby.
Let’s start with Paz.
Insisting that the CWB advisory elections last year didn’t prove that Alberta farmers support a strong CWB, Paz led the push for a plebiscite.
He does this under the guise of democracy and best interests for farmers while in the context of a government that is so very keen on saving money at every turn. So what happens? A plebiscite costing likely millions of dollars is under way which is only faintly (at best) democratic, while there are hundreds of farmers in northeast Alberta who are on the verge of bankruptcy from the worst drought in years! I see Paz and company have the best interests of farmers at heart.
Paz also has the gall to warn the CWB and grain companies to stay out of the fray while himself pleading chastity!
If there are concerns as to who will influence the vote, let’s not forget the role of the Alberta Department of Agriculture, which was front and centre when the ambiguous, erroneous, and downright sloppy questions in this plebiscite were brewed up.
Let’s also not forget that the ministry of agriculture has, in the past, provided millions of dollars to the coffers of those commissions and farm groups that are openly anti-CWB, and has allowed the undemocratic checkoffs that currently fund these groups to exist. With their hands jammed deep in farmers’ pockets, who can say that these lobbies really represent the grassroots wishes of the majority of farmers as they use their money against them?
And what of the anti-CWB lobby, anyway? They claim to just love that CWB “right to death.” Indeed. I’m sure that most of them really do believe that individual farmers of marketing groups with computers, modems, and “connections” are more effective marketers of grain than the CWB.
John Stuart Mill said it best: “As often as a study is cultivated by narrow minds, they will draw from it narrow conclusions.” Still, the rhetoric persists, now under the guise of “freedom.” …
Never does it occur to these anti-CWB types that farmers might want the freedom to have their oats, canola or rye marketed through the CWB.
(These “freedom” advocates never speak of freedom in this way – only when it means eroding CWB power).
The bare facts are that the CWB has some of the most sophisticated marketing abilities found anywhere. It is the envy of other countries including farmers in the U.S.A.. The CWB is not a “buyer” of farmers’ grain as the plebiscite questions suggest, but is an aggressive marketer of western Canadian grain with the specific mandate of maximizing returns to farmers. This is not the mandate of any grain company or marketing-brokering agency. The CWB has market intelligence that is second to none, and services our markets post-sales with technical expertise (i.e. baking, milling technology specialists).
Grain companies, no matter how big, don’t do this, and it is a sheer impossibility for individual farmers or marketing groups to do while they twist in the winds of the open market.
The special-interest groups that make up the anti-CWB lobby have a true gift for compressing the largest number of words into the smallest amount of thought. The wolf in sheep’s clothing anti-CWB rhetoric says vote yes, but the commonsense facts say a no vote is a safer vote in a mixed-up plebiscite like this.
-Cory R. Ollikka,
Waskatenau, Alta.
Lucien Paszgarry?
To the Editor:
Regarding your opinion (Nov. 9) on the subject “Two referendums, many similarities.”
You seem to draw the conclusion that the separatists in Quebec and the Alberta government are somehow wrong to use their positions of influence to their advantage in extracting the result they want from their particular referendum. I tend to agree with you that they should try to be more unbiased.
Certainly, people in relatively high-profile positions should stop using those positions to push their personal views upon us. As the editor of the Western Producer, I suggest you try and follow your own advice. I would suggest that you have been using this same strategy for as long as I have read the Producer.
Garry, Walter, Lucien – what’s the difference?
– Dan Lindgren,
Calgary, Alta.
