CWB response
In response to Jim Pallister’s Nov. 3 letter: When it comes to the World Trade Organization, Jim Pallister should be careful what he wishes for.
Canadian farmers have already made huge concessions without seeing any meaningful movement from the United States and European Union that would diminish their own grossly bloated farm support. At the same time, Canadian Wheat Board financial guarantees will be signed away should a deal be reached.
Still, our competitors are gunning for more. The most recent WTO proposals from the U.S. and EU call for an end to the single desk. Meanwhile, both proposals would not reduce their own trade distorting subsidies by meaningful amounts.
Read Also
First digital services tax; is supply management next?
If Donald Trump doubles down on his trade threats and targets supply management, Canada will find itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
The U.S. has the CWB in its crosshairs, despite the fact that international panels have ruled the CWB is not trade distorting.
Former EU trade negotiator Franz Fischler has admitted in conversation that other countries see the CWB as a threat because it provides too much value for farmers – $13 to $15 Cdn a tonne.
Should Americans, a nation that is one of our greatest competitors, dictate our marketing system? We think not.
That’s a choice that belongs in the hands of western Canadian farmers.
As we approach the upcoming crucial round of WTO negotiations, I would urge Mr. Pallister and all other prairie farmers to turn away from the endless domestic policy debates that divide us and ensure that the Canadian government effectively advocates for all our interests.
– Ken Ritter,
Chair, Canadian Wheat Board,
Winnipeg, Man.
Rust never sleeps
In his column (Sept. 29), Barry Wilson reported that the Harvard Business School will study the death of the great grain handling co-operatives.
I doubt they will get the whole picture. They should also ask who killed the pools.
The well-documented role of the Alberta government and its creation, the Alberta Grain Commission, in helping to finance and organize groups like the wheat and barley growers associations is well known, as is their creation of commodity check-off groups that further divided and weakened the farm voice.
Along with many others, I observed a few well organized anti-co-operative activists storming Pool and other meetings. They created dissension and sabotaged the democratic structures of the pools.
Over time this produced divided boards of directors. These weak boards effectively surrendered their responsibilities to the management bureaucrats of the Pools.
It is a tribute to the clear thinking of a majority of the current CWB directors and to CWB management that a similar fate has not befallen this organization, at least not yet.
However, like rust, these neo-conservative destroyers never sleep. With the pools gone, their only targets now are the CWB and the remaining supply management boards.
– Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
Crop research
Historically, the federal government has financed plant breeding and research. This worked very well for grain producers and the citizens of our country.
During the last decade, the federal government has been gradually withholding funding plant breeding. The development of new varieties is now almost solely in the hands of a mere handful of transnational ag corporations.
Their patent fees and seed prices are way out of line in comparison with the price that world markets will pay for our grain, adding greatly to the financial burden of already hard-pressed, cash-strapped grain producers.
To add insult to injury, we now must pay patent fees to seed growers associations on grain varieties that were researched and developed with taxpayers money and to a lesser degree by checkoffs from grain producers.
Who gave the universities the right to sell patent rights to seed associations on grain varieties that, yes, were developed by the universities but funded by taxpayers’ and grain producers’ money?
For the sake of information and clarification of the issue I hereby present the costs and income associated with growing canola on my farm during 2005.
Costs on a per acre basis: seed from Monsanto $20; patent fees $15; fertilizer Agricore United $46.50; Roundup Monsanto $8.50; fuel and oil $16.50; repairs, local repair shop and implement agency $12; land taxes $4.70; for a total of $123.20.
To this point no allowance has been made for interest on borrowed money, depreciation on machinery, crop insurance, hail insurance or wage for the operator.
My canola yielded 24 bushels an acre, graded No. 1, just slightly below average. I am not eligible for crop insurance. On Oct. 7, canola priced out at $5.10 per bu. so 24 times $5.10 equals $122.40.
Next year, fuel and fertilizer costs will be considerably higher due to the huge increase in the price of crude oil and natural gas.
It is quite obvious that I can no longer afford to grow canola at $5 per bu. or for that matter any cereal crop unless I find a way to greatly reduce my seed fertilizer and fuel costs.
We practice continuous cropping. I am considering returning to a two-year rotation including summer fallowing. To do this, an affordable glyphosate product is an absolute necessity.
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
Cast a vote
Hello, fellow Canadians. We see it coming. Another election. You aren’t going to blindly go to the polls and vote, “because that’s what you always vote,” are you? If you are, I blame you for the wreck of this country.
Do you know what the people you vote for, stand for? Maybe … you’re against abortion and same sex marriages. Are they? Is their party? You want two-tier medical care, you want more funds for police and armed forces, maybe all the members of Parliament living on your kind of salary and pension plan.
Do the people you vote for agree with you?
Canadians have to find out the facts. All these parties have mutated, amalgamated and had mutinies. You absolutely can’t go on past history. It doesn’t apply anymore. Time and issues have marched on.
Don’t rely on the news. Remember, some factions are funded by the current government. If the government could make or break your company, would you say anything against them?
Make a list of issues and values. Phone the people who want your vote. Make them earn their chance to represent you. Listen carefully to their honeyed words. How do they compare? The most favourable comparison would indicate the right way to vote….
This is voting (for) “who will do the most for all of Canada.”
The minorities are voting. The majority needs to vote too. The politicians need to be held up to scrutiny and examined. They need to be accountable and (be) someone you can trust and believe in. Make your opinions known.
Wake up, Canada. You have a right to vote. You have a responsibility to vote. Let’s make Canada ours again.
– S. Gaudet,
St. Louis, Sask.
Need better price
One item I would like to see (in the Western Producer) is where grain products are used, how much is used per bushel, for example one bu. of malt barley gives 330 bottles of beer.
At the cost of one bottle of beer at $2.04, why does the domestic market pay so poor a price for malt barley? Current price of malt barley is poor compared to the returns at the liquor store or cold beer store.
If young farmers are to be encouraged to take over farming, prices are going to have to be a lot better, or get ready for wild game to run at large as no one will care.
The prices of all grains are poor and if this situation does not change, you will see more and more production land seeded down to hay. The current price of hay bales is also low, and only if you have cattle will you have cheap feed. …
We used to sing, “O give me a home where the buffalo roam, where the deer and antelope play.” This is going to be the next step as that meat is priced no better than beef.
In the past eight to 10 years I have seen so much good land seeded to hay as the costs keep going up and the returns go down.
There are 54 loaves of bread in one bushel of wheat. What are you paying for one loaf of bread?
If the Canadian consumer does not want to voice a concern about what happens between the farm-gate and them at the store, there will be fewer farmers on the land in the future and Canada could become an import country for all food items …
We are doing a great job in scaring the young farmers of tomorrow off the land and into the cities. (In the) future, towns and villages are going to be ghost towns and villages.
– A. J. Kimmig,
Watrous, Sask.
Soft path
Saskatchewan Agrivision’s 2005 water meeting was held in North Battleford on Nov. 4, complete with its bureaucrats and colourful PowerPoint presentations.
There wasn’t one presentation from environmental groups, First Nations, health or education workers, young people, or retired folks – all equal stakeholders in this province.
And, of the 200 in attendance, how many were local folks who wished to attend but were refused admission at the door?
When will they learn about the proposed $700 million High Gate Dam just 10 miles west of North Battleford?
In her presentation about this project, Joan Corneil, spokesperson for the North Saskatchewan River Water Resource Committee, indicated that they are ready to request funds to rejuvenate the 1972 Saskatchewan-Nelson Basin Study.
The original study, listing 23 diversion projects and 55 dam projects, was shelved because of the enormous opposition from the public. What’s going to be different about a new study?
Furthermore, how and in what year did Agrivision come up with a figure of $700 million for the High Gate Dam? The estimated cost for the Meridian Dam on the South Saskatchewan River a few years ago was $3.5 to $5 billion, (according to) figures from Golder & Assoc., an engineering firm out of Calgary, hired by the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to do the pre-feasibility study.
In the past, the ‘hard path’ approach, with its dams and diversions and canals, brought financial benefits to some people, expanded generation of hydro power and irrigated agriculture, and moderated the risks of devastating floods and droughts.
But the costs are great: they displace hundreds of people, flood and erode thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat, threaten species of flora and fauna, and cost enormous amounts of money.
More than 300 big dams across North America have been decommissioned. They are unsustainable and the environmental damages far outweigh the benefits.
Today, the idea that “a growing economy needs expanding water supplies” is old news.
Today, presented with global warming and decreasing glaciers and snowmelt, the growing demands for water must be met with the more sustainable ‘soft path’ approach – managing water demand, not seeking to increase water supply.
Options for such an approach abound: dryland farming suited to the area such as rain-fed crops, drip irrigation and water harvesting, different forms of sanitation such as composting, low-flow faucets, toilets and appliances, and drought-resistant landscapes, to name just a few. An approach that is sustainable, cheaper, can be implemented more quickly, and has much less environmental damage.
Today, the challenge is sustainable development, not more of the same. How long will it take for that message to get through to our decision-makers?
– Elaine Hughes,
Archerwill, Sask.
Meat rejected
After watching the documentary on CBC Oct. 27, Frankensteer, I will not be buying any meat in the grocery store unless it is labelled stating the animals/poultry have not been fed any animal byproducts or injected with growth hormones, antibiotics, etc., plus the E. coli from manure contamination.
This program should be a wake-up call for all consumers. If we won’t buy these awful products, the producers and feedlots will have to stop these unhealthy practices.
We are fortunate to have a supply of organic bison and we will be finding an organic grower of beef and poultry and pork. …
Turning herbivores into carnivores is totally wrong. I grew up on a farm and our animals were not fed other animals or injected with drugs.
I would like to see this film Frankensteer shown in every high school in Canada. These are the consumers of the future.
Maybe they can insure our feed is safe for their children. It certainly isn’t fit to eat now.
– Elaine Sloan,
Morinville, Alta.
