Buyback a flaw
In his Dec. 25 Open Forum letter, Ken Larsen’s pro-monopoly claims are based upon a false premise that invalidates his entire position. He states that farmers, such as organic, “who want to sell outside the CWB are free to do so.”
I assume that he sincerely does not understand that doing a buyback means selling to the Canadian Wheat Board. Buybacks are not some form of tax the CWB is authorized by legislation to collect from a non-board sale, but rather are two legal changes of ownership. Exportation of grain after a buyback is the exporting of grain purchased from the CWB. This is not outside the CWB.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
But understanding the true nature of the buybacks means much more than no marketing choice for prairie farmers.
It also leads to the realization that the monopoly is not mandated by the legislation and that the CWB is acting beyond its authority under the act by arbitrarily denying export licences, and thus creating a monopoly over prairie farmers. Nor does it end with licensing discrimination against western farmers. The CWB is actually breaching the CWB Act by illegally forcing prairie farmers to pay the costs of licensing, which the act requires to be paid by the federal government.
The CWB remains silent on these charges. As one of the CWB’s most vociferous zealots, perhaps Ken Larsen would like to address these issues for them.
– John Husband,
Wawota, Sask.
Loyal to pork
I am writing this letter on behalf of Rocky Mountain Pork in response to the letter titled “Loyalty to whom?” in the Dec. 25 issue.
Considering the fact that all of us at Rocky Mountain Pork are personally 100 percent financially invested in the Canadian hog industry, in terms of hog production and breeding stock production and sales, we are completely sympathetic and understanding of the recent past and current turmoil in the Canadian hog industry.
Since its inception, Rocky Mountain Pork has prided itself on delivering Alberta’s hog producers supply and marketing contracts that go a long way in reducing the risk to the pork producer in terms of supply, marketing and price volatility. If we are going to continue to have a vibrant and rewarding hog industry in Canada, we understand that the status quo is unacceptable to all parties involved in hog production.
So in response to the gentleman’s inquiry, loyalty to whom, we would like to reply that we are completely devoted and loyal to the Alberta pork producer and the future well-being of the Canadian pork industry.
For anybody that wants to discuss our involvement (loyalty?) in the pork industry, we look forward to your calls. Our offices are located in Lacombe, Alta., phone number 403-782-7273.
– Rod Weenink,
Director, Rocky Mountain Pork,
Lacombe, Alta.
Resource use
National Farmers Union secretary Darren Qualman says he is against turning food into fuel.
Farmers with pigs and cows are turning the feed grain into fuel, but are not capturing the ethanol gas and using it as fuel.
In Europe they use the gas from biomass toilets to heat their homes. Charlottetown, P.E.I., heats their city with their sewage. A farmer could heat his home and probably run his tractor on ethanol. … Let’s use it properly instead of listening to foreign professors who are not interested in our welfare.
Mr. Cal Funk thinks he should have 3,000 sows in one barn. In six months that is 36,000 pigs in one place. That is environmentally ridiculous. When the Red River decides to romp around outside its banks, how much sewage is he going to dump on the citizens of Winnipeg?
That many pigs in the system, that suddenly, will keep the prices from rising. It is too easy to get into pigs quickly, is one reason for such large swings in the market….
– J. Johnston,
Rocky Mountain House, Alta.
Christmas boxes
I could not resist writing in to heartily disagree with Verna Thompson’s article regarding the Christmas shoeboxes being sent all over the world to needy children.
Are you saying, Verna, that we should not give a food hamper containing a turkey, cranberries, etc., at Christmas time to the poor neighbour next door because we cannot keep this up every day of the year?
I suggest to you, if you are so troubled about this, that you adopt a whole family in a poor country and then supply them with the necessities of life for the whole year, and the rest of us will continue to make thousands of children happy for a day, week or longer.
Toys given in these boxes will often be the only toy a child will ever own, and can last a long time, as can towels, washcloths and combs. It would be interesting to see what kind of giving you do to the less fortunate.
– Vi Teichroeb,
Esterhazy, Sask.
Responsible use
Manitoba Pork Council joins Manitobans in commending Premier (Gary) Doer on the creation of the new Department of Water Stewardship under the leadership of Steve Ashton.
However, we must take issue with a number of the claims made by Ms. (Cheryl) Ellchuk in her recent letter (Hog votes, Open Forum, Dec. 4.)
Livestock farming in general, and hog farming in particular, are among the most strictly regulated and most watched industries in the province. The use of water in Manitoba is strictly regulated under the Water Rights Act and anyone proposing to withdraw over 25,000 litres per day for agricultural purposes needs a licence from the Water Branch, now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Stewardship.
Hog farmers are committed to using no more water than is required in their operations, and many are already using a variety of water reduction strategies. Studies funded by Manitoba hog farmers at the Prairie Swine Centre and the University of Manitoba continue to look at methods for more efficient in-barn water use.
The Environment Act and its regulations are quite clear and specific in defining acceptable methods of storage, application and use of manure on agricultural lands. We value manure as a fertilizer and can ill afford to be reckless in its handling and use.
If anyone sees or is aware of conditions where livestock manure has been improperly applied, they should contact the nearest office of Manitoba Conservation as soon as possible.
Agriculture is important to all Manitobans. Let’s move ahead to resolve issues using sound science and good old-fashioned common sense.
– Marcel Hacault,
Chair, Manitoba Pork Council,
Winnipeg, Man.
Security system
Special crop processors and the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers want producers to administer and fund a security system for the industry even though, at the present time, producers don’t pay any direct premiums or administration costs.
My gas heating business is required to comply with licences, codes of practices, inspection and bonding. There are penalties for non-compliance.
What if my gas business worked like the special crops industry? I would quote a total price to change my customer’s furnace but my customer must personally check that I have a licence and that I am solvent or have adequate insurance.
Even then, I find this system onerous so I tell my customer that he should take over and just buy insurance in case I blow him up. I helpfully suggest that he might round up his neighbours to administer the insurance program. You never know when I might blow them up.
Instead, let the Canadian Grain Commission administer an industry-based pooled insurance program providing 100 percent security. Processors would pay relatively lower rates into a pool sized to cover the industry risk rate. All companies, even the big ones, would have to pay in. It would be a requirement of licensing and the CGC would have the teeth to enforce it.
The industry may pass some costs to farmers but better practices and a better reputation, along with complete security, are goals the special crop processing industry, assisted by the CGC, should achieve primarily on their own.
– Bruce Hopkins,
Conquest, Sask.
