Letters to the editor

CWB best

The upcoming vote by Alberta producers to sell barley or wheat outside the Wheat Board is very important.

A yes vote is not in the best interest of most Alberta farmers, and the Alberta government, who is promoting dual marketing, is not making the consequences of a yes vote fully known. The main supporters of dual marketing are farmers and small grain companies with the ability to sell into the northern U.S. market.

Admittedly, prices are higher there when there is a shortage of local product. However, the only Canadians who can take advantage of these situations are individuals or companies with large-scale hauling ability close to the U.S. border. Farmers north of a line passing through Calgary will essentially be shut out.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

With the current system, the Wheat Board will fill these needs when they occur and all farmers benefit in the final payments. The current source of discontent with the Wheat Board is the return for barley in the 1994-95 crop year. The Board has essentially admitted it did a poor job in this case. However, I would urge all producers to look at the return from selling open market or through the Board for feed wheat or barley over the last 10 years. Analysis will show that over the long haul we are better off with the Board.

-Kenneth Skoworodko,

Sherwood Park, Alta.

Defends vote

To the Editor:

Mr. Macklin’s letter of Oct. 19 was unfairly critical of the forthcoming wheat and barley marketing plebiscite and of the membership of the Steering Committee. To suggest that the majority of the committee members do not agree with what he feels is the best marketing system, the single desk, and is therefore unrepresentative of Alberta wheat and barley farmers, is simply wrong.

The Committee is made up of the Alberta wheat and barley groups along with the general farm organization, Unifarm, and the Alberta Grain Commission. Most importantly, every member is a wheat and barley farmer.

For leaving out the national general farm organization NFU, the grain company Alberta Pool, and the CWB advisory committee, established for the purpose of assisting the Wheat Board, Minister Paszkowski should be unapologetic. Mr. Macklin’s attempt to single out (with the exception of Unifarm) the organizations represented on the Steering Committee as supported by and dependent on government funding and legislation is ill conceived.

In fact Unifarm has received significant annual payments in the past. As well, Alberta Pool has been the recipient of government loan guarantees and its financial structure is supported by special legislation. Hmm – I recall a saying about stones and glass houses.

Rather than characterizing the committee or the process as undemocratic or the questions as misleading, Mr. Macklin needs to show some faith in farmers’ common sense.

His time would best be spent encouraging all farmers to take advantage of this rare opportunity and to come out and vote. If he thinks that the use of the word “freedom” in the question creates a bias then that is unfortunate because freedom really is a very important part of the whole marketing issue.

He can even continue with the specious argument that a single-desk system equates to market power. We will continue to advocate marketing choices which include the Canadian Wheat Board and believe that a competitive system would lead to a more efficient, responsive and accountable Board. That’s the great thing about democracy and it should not be demeaned.

Farmers have labored under the present imposed marketing system for more than 50 years and it is time that they determine what system they want.

The issue of wheat and barley marketing has been discussed and debated and studied by farmers and farm organizations for years and years. It has simmered and stewed and it is now close to erupting.

That is precisely why the Alberta legislature responded and unanimously approved Mr. Hierath’s motion which called for the plebiscite. It is also why the committee acted to bring some form of closure to the issue by asking farmers in a clear and unequivocal fashion just what system they feel is best for them. I have great faith in our farmers’ ability to make an informed and rational decision on such an important issue without any more procrastination or delay.

Applause, not criticism is in order for Alberta Agriculture’s decision not to sponsor a series of forums on the plebiscite across Alberta. It is absolutely offensive to cast farmers as ignorant, uninformed and reliant on government in order to access the information required to be able to make any valid decisions on issues affecting their livelihood. Society is changing and farmers with it. The chapter on omnipotent government and its paternalism is coming to a close.

I would encourage farmers to attend the meetings which many of their organizations will be holding during the next few weeks and then make sure that they participate by voting.

-Wayne A. Kriz, President, Western Barley Growers,

Chairman, Steering Committee on Wheat and Barley Marketing, Rimbey, Alta.

CWB helps

To the Editor:

Ten years ago, in 1985, Canada’s major competitor in world grain trade, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, launched what would be a devastating blow to hundreds of farm families across the prairies.

International grain giants who buy and sell on margin extracted handsome profits from the U.S. Treasury, working the Export Enhancement Program to their maximum benefit.

The CWB, without government bribes, along with a badly scarred farm community, weathered the assault. Today, October 1995, largely due to worldwide shortages, grain prices have seen a dramatic turnaround. The USDA has called a temporary truce in the grain trade war although political pressure against the CWB has escalated.

Sadly, although denied by him, Alberta’s Agriculture Minister, Walter Paszkowski, continues the charge against the effectiveness of single-desk selling.

Through government legislation over past years, Alberta Agriculture has spawned numerous commodity groups to foster its ideology. Mr. Paszkowski now claims to be responding to the broad interests of grain farmers by calling a plebiscite on CWB marketing.

The recent announcement of a vote is a “spinoff” from the propaganda these commodity groups, the Barley Growers, the Wheat Growers and the Soft Wheat Growers have promoted. None of these groups have had the legitimacy of a farm vote.

Informed farmers, aside from the above-mentioned groups, understand that the CWB is not a buyer of export grain.

It is and has been since its inception a seller of grain with mandate to maximize the returns to all producers equally.

Based on grades, the final returns to the producers reflect the best possible price the Board can extract at that time in the market. There are no government bribes, as with the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, no favorites played between farmers, no gimmicks – just quality, equity and integrity.

Pound for pound, grade for grade, the farmer receives full value regardless of who he is, where he farms or at what time of the year he markets his grain.

Mr. Paszkowski, under the guise of “freedom,” would have farmers assist in unraveling the obvious strengths of single-desk selling.

Well, the foxes are still out there! The grain traders, the processors, and the USDA would like nothing better than for thousands of Canadian farmers individually beating down the price they will take for their grain.

A resounding no in the November plebiscite will send a message to Alberta Agriculture, its minister and his grain-broker friends, that they keep their sticky fingers out of the farmer’s pocket!

-K. Norman Dyck,

DeBolt, Alta.

Alberta freedom

To the Editor:

It should be widely known by now that Alberta agriculture is holding a plebiscite among producers in Alberta regarding the marketing of wheat and barley. The questions being asked are: “Are you in favor of having the freedom to sell your wheat to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets?”

Or as in the case of barley, “are you in favor of having the freedom to sell your barley to any buyer, including the Canadian Wheat Board, into domestic and export markets?”

As a producer, have you given some thought to how this might affect your farm? Certainly the word “freedom” strikes a chord as you read the question and it does say “including the Canadian Wheat Board” so this obviously isn’t going to be changing much of anything.

But if we take another look at what the questions say we start to see another picture. If we can sell to any buyer that means that the pooling system of the Wheat Board is changed drastically!

The basic system of pooling cannot work if everyone is not delivering to the board (or contributing to the pool) and if we don’t have a pooling system for our products then the Board is not able to sell into the world markets knowing what it has and what the quality is for that crop year. Note, the Board is a selling agent, not a buying agent, for western Canadian grain.

The reason why we can actually sell our grain on the world market at top prices is because we have pooled our commodity and we know what we have. Most of the grain for that particular crop year is ready for market and those in a buying position can be informed by the board what is available.

This differs from other countries where grain companies within that country buy the product and then attempt to market what they have. In that system the grain company must assume a profit in order to exist, but the CWB is not a company and does not profit from selling our grain. In fact, the producer benefits. This is what is meant by single-desk selling.

This term has in the past been misinterpreted by some to mean a buying monopoly, which it is not. In the world grain trade, Canada is a small player and we must use all that is available and fair to market our grain to the rest of the world.

The other factor that must be mentioned with regards to pooling is that we can be assured of the quality control that is vitally important to our customers and our reputation abroad. The board over the years has been very vigilant in taking care that our customers are buying quality wheat and the variety that they want. So I am asking you to think carefully about what you are voting for and even though the Alberta government is shouting that this is not a vote against the board, think about what is being said in the questions. …

Those who are so short-sighted as to believe that only the U.S. market (across the Alberta border) is important to our lives have not taken the time to discover what the CWB really does. The effectiveness of this marketing tool can be judged by the years that it has survived, the changes it has made in order to remain effective, and possibly by the anxiety it causes some American spokespeople who don’t understand its mandate or at least who pretend not to.

Finally, I’d like to make a point about grain prices and what happens in a situation when world prices are on the rise and no one knows where they may peak. If you sell off-board this year you are going to get one cheque and if the price increases in the meantime you will have made your final sale and will not be able to collect the higher price.

If you sell on-board you will be paid an initial payment and if the price increases during the winter you will also collect the further increase in your final payment from the board.

Since wheat prices have not increased in the recent past we tend to forget that this is a major benefit that arises from the pooling system. No other grain marketing system can provide producers with such an advantage in price benefits. …

-Yvonne Sinkevich,

NFU Board Member,

Wanham, Alta.

Mum’s the word

To the Editor:

Re “Anti-board forces keeping mum on strategies” by Mary MacArthur (Western Producer, Oct. 19). I read the Producer each week for various reasons, but most of all as a source of worthy and current ag-related news information. While most people have learned to be wary of the media for the accuracy of their reporting, the above-mentioned article is beyond reproach. Frankly, the article was sloppy and irresponsible.

First of all, it should be quite simple to refer to the farm organizations by their correct names. The Western Barley Growers Association has been around for 18 years, the Alberta Barley Commission for over four years, and the Canadian Barley Commission referred to has never existed at all. The personal interview conducted with both groups by Ms. MacArthur in advance of this article should have made that clear.

Secondly, Ms. MacArthur’s description of the ABC’s mandate may have been more accurate had she actually asked for it, instead of her “wild guess” approach.

The ABC’s mandate, among other things, has always included policy development on behalf of Alberta barley producers.

Thirdly, the “anti-board forces” she refers to would more aptly be named the “anti-monopoly forces.” While some Alberta farmers have no use for the present CWB, many more simply want increased marketing choices for their wheat and barley, including a CWB without its mandatory compliance. That is the goal our coalition of farm groups is trying to achieve.

Lastly, the headline of the article implies that there is something sinister about not revealing our fall plebiscite campaign. If your paper believes in balanced and objective news reporting, then where is the headline that reads “Board-supporters reveal their campaign strategy.” The story on the same page by reporter Barbara Duckworth was exemplary in its balance and accurate content.

There is no undercurrent to our objective of representing the interests of the majority of Alberta farmers, who are quite able to think for themselves. For the first time in history, they are being given the chance to express their individual opinion on the marketing system for wheat and barley.

-Tim Harvie, Chairman, Alberta Barley Commission, Cochrane, Alta.

Keep CWB

To the Editor:

Several years ago a representative of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers (WCWG) tried to sell me a membership.

I told him I was a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board and I should be selling memberships in the National Farmers Union. He replied “We are also supporters of the CWB.” Now how could he have made such a statement?

They are continuously critical of the CWB and trumpet for dual marketing, Farmers for Justice, etc.

Certainly there are times when a few self-centered individuals can make more money hauling their grain across the border (thanks to the U.S. Export Enhancement Program) and leave the rest of us holding the bag.

The CWB sets up workshops for millers around the globe on how to use our Canadian grain, thus building up markets.

When you develop an important market you cannot always extract the highest price. That is why we have price pooling.

In January 1993 the Hon. Charlie Mayer was invited to a rally of 13,000 in Saskatoon in support of the CWB.

I am sure that the Hon. Ralph Goodale is quite aware that Charlie Mayer was given the boot for his views.

The free market can work well as long as there are no surpluses, but where would we be without regulations giving all producers equality of opportunity in grain delivery?

If we would lose the CWB, which would be inevitable with the loss of single-desk selling, would there still be cash advances?

The biggest winners in the loss of the CWB would be the transnational trading companies who are accountable to no one.

-J.W. Zunti,

Luseland, Sask.