End farm war
To the Editor:
These Grain Wars must end. Now. They are causing dissension among neighbors, disrupting families, marriage breakdown, divorce, and children are suffering.
Farmers are being counseled to break the law by the likes of Jim Pallister, Warren Jolly, several Reform MPs, Conservative MLAs, … Walter Paszkowski, Tim Harvie, Dan Cutforth, the list goes on and on.
In fairness to the Hon. Walter Paszkowski, I must say that he recently made a statement to the effect that he did not condone breaking the law.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
The British North America Act 1987, or Canadian Constitution is the foundation of our country. Section 91, Chapter 6, is the list of powers granted to the Federal Government.
Not the first but the second of 29 powers is The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
The Provincial Government was granted 16 powers, none of which give the province the right to export goods to a foreign country without a Federal Government export permit. These powers cannot be changed at the present time because an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution has not been agreed upon.
The Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board are regulatory agencies for the grain trade.
It is a misconception that the CWB needs to be responsible to farmers.
The CWB’s responsibility starts with the sale of grain to domestic and foreign buyers.
These buyers are being wooed by every grain producing country in the world. This is an unequaled example of competition.
Another misconception is that Free Trade is for each and every one of us.
Recently a southern Alberta MLA was heard to say on the radio, and I quote, “All farmers want is the right to participate in Free Trade just as everyone else is doing.”
Simply put, Free Trade is an agreement between governments to reduce or eliminate tariffs on goods being imported into their countries.
Farmers cannot change the Canadian Constitution by breaking the law.
Mr. Paszkowski, you may usurp the powers of the Federal Government at your peril.
Farmers and politicians alike must obey the laws of the land, those who choose to do otherwise will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
– Tom Breen,
Del Bonita, Alta.
Bad news
To the Editor:
It is with reluctance that I am renewing my subscription to the Western Producer. Although I have no stake in the grain trade in this country, I felt that your coverage of the CWB war was completely biased and not within acceptable standards of journalism that I expect.
Your stand was patently pro-CWB. My assessment has come from no one other than myself. All the information I received regarding the issue came from your publication. All conclusions I came to were derived from your publication. It has led me to the point where I understood both sides of the debate, initially. Then with the notion that feed barley may be removed from CWB jurisdiction, I felt pushed – pushed by you to take action against this while Mr. Goodale deliberated on the panel’s report.
After all this, the two conclusions I have arrived at are that
1) I understand both sides of the CWB debate, and 2) your journalism is untrustworthy.
Your journalistic insistence to go beyond revealing the issues on both sides of the CWB debate produced my second conclusion. I subscribed to your publication for the first time one year ago as a trial.
Unfortunately, all you have proved is that you have a good “classified” section and good market reports.
Content is questionable.
I’ll try you once more for one year. If I see more of the same, I’m out.
– Wayne E. Sissons,
Alix, Alta.
Reality check
To the Editor:
The anti-CWB “freedom fighters” have been out in full force, and wow was I ever glad to see Norman Bakers’ “What freedom really means” in a recent edition of the Leader-Post.
His statement of “A free society is where individual rights are dominant, where individuals have the right of self determination and the freedom to exercise their individual rights through freedom of choice” just sent my heart soaring.
Now, I can exercise my freedom to drive the wrong way on a one way street, drive well over the speed limit, and ignore all stop signs and red lights should I choose to do so.
I no longer have to wear a seat belt or pay income tax.
I have the right to keep my children out of school and best of all, I can use all the “illegal” drugs I wish -after all, I have the “freedom of choice” right?
Reality check, “freedom fighters:” Individual freedom ends when it adversely affects others, and farmers who choose to “cherry pick” prime U.S. markets for wheat and barley are driving down world prices and therefore, the price all farmers receive for their wheat/barley also drops. So much for the myth of freedom.
– Joyce Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask.
UGG omissions
To the Editor:
In a recent commentary “Wrong question about the wheat board, Mr. Minister” (Globe and Mail, Nov. 18) Mr. Ted Allen, president of the UGG makes a dubious case for a dual market option in the upcoming plebiscite on barley marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Allen wrongly states that: “Farmers wishing to export their own wheat and barley are prohibited from doing so.” On the contrary, all farmers who wish to export wheat and barley are entitled to complete a “producer direct sale” by obtaining an export permit and licence from the CWB, purchasing their grain from CWB pool accounts and selling into any market they choose to at any price they can get.
Secondly, Mr. Allen leaves out some crucial information in his promotion of dual marketing. If Mr. Allen would care to read history from sources other than the Prairie Centre, he would know that dual marketing was tried by the federal government and the CWB during the late 1930s and early ’40s and was a grand failure.
Thirdly, Mr. Allen suggests that the CWB be voluntary. In effect what Mr. Allen is suggesting is that the CWB become just another grain company offering voluntary pooling in an open market.
As well, Mr. Allen conveniently left out the fact that because of its monopoly, the CWB makes farmers more money. In a recent study by three prominent agricultural economists Kraft, Furtan, and Tyrchniewicz entitled “A Performance Evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board”, it was found in the period 1980-94 the CWB received premiums on wheat sales of $13.35 to $27.84 per tonne at port position.
They also went on to say that these premiums would disappear in a dual market with multiple sellers.
While disputed by two economists hired by the Alberta government, five other economists at the University of Saskatchewan publicly supported the performance evaluation. If you are counting, I score eight to two in favor of the CWB.
Considering that Mr. Allen and the UGG would likely benefit at the expense of farmers in an open market (dual market), I think farmers can hardly rely on his self-serving arguments for a dual market, let alone his opinion on the plebiscite question. Yes Mr. Minister, contrary to Mr. Allen, this farmer thinks you are asking the right question.
– Ian Cushon,
Oxbow, Sask.
CWB board
To the Editor:
The issue of a different type of structure for the Canadian Wheat Board seems to be the least controversial recommendation of the Marketing Panel as to the makeup of that new structure which deserves a lot more dialogue.
First of all, an 11 to 15 member Board of Directors to me is more of a convention than a Board. Farmers are demanding an accounting, and a Board that large cannot meet that requirement. It is too easy for people on a Board that size to seemingly agree on issues at a Board meeting but then fail to take responsibility for the results of the decisions made, and then turn the blame on someone else.
A maximum of seven to nine members on a Board has proven to be an effective size. Further, the reaching of a decision must be by consensus rather than by the majority vote process. It might take a little more time to make the necessary decisions, but the consensus approach produces better decisions and more responsibility being taken by each Board member.
I see no reason for members of the “trade” to be represented on the Board or you will surely have the concept of a “farmer” directed Board lost in the effort. Nor do I agree with the Panel that two federal government members are required or desired on the Board. For the same reason, which is accepting responsibility is one of the major problems of the present Canadian Wheat Board in that it takes such a long time to obtain authority to increase, initiate or modify interim payments.
I see the absolute need of a Federal government member on the Board to represent the general public’s interest so long as the Federal Treasury guarantees the funding of the initial payments and credit sales to some countries.
This arrangement means a saving to the Canadian Wheat Board in interest costs of an amount equal to the total operating costs of the Board so is a great financial advantage to the producers.
The elected members need to be supported by a type of delegate structure. Elected members would be representing far too large an area and I am afraid (from past and present experience) that it would be too easy for moneyed interests such as the private grain companies and one or two Provincial Governments to easily influence the election process.
I would suggest expanding the Advisory Board (probably double the present number) and allow that group to elect the delegate structure. In that way, especially as many of us farmers see the need for you to appoint the first interim Board, members of the Advisory Board would be in a position to get to know the individual members of the Board through this process.
The other advantage of the delegate body would be in serving as a liaison role between the Board members and the farmers they represent – a much needed two-way street.
During the period of the Interim Appointed Board, it would be possible to establish such policies as possible recall, length of a service term on the Board and other items of major concern could be fleshed out.
– Stan Bell,
Carstairs, Alta.
