Bill to die on
(At a July 27 news conference held by federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl, columnist Wendy Holm,) as any good journalist would, asked tough questions including the one that must be asked of the government: Are they going to change the Wheat Board Act without holding a plebiscite?
This would contravene the act as it states in section 47.1 that a plebiscite is required to change the act.
The government’s answer was that they had campaigned on dual marketing and that was good enough.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
This thinking is wrong on several levels. 1. A majority of voters are non-farmers and the act does not affect them directly. 2. Voters voted on several issues such as gun control, gay rights. 3. Very simply, an election is not a plebiscite of farmers….
The question that now has to be asked is why the Conservatives are so adamant on having a dual marketing system when studies done by the three prairie provincial governments, independent studies including ones done by economists in our universities, are saying this action would cost farmers money, some state $55 per tonne.
At the July 27 NFU meeting, Bill Woods of West Central Road and Rail, Don Kinzie of Hudson Bay Route Association, Ken Eshpeter of Battle River Producer Car Group, Everett Tannis of Alberta Soft Wheat Producers Commission and Paul Stow of Mission Terminal Inc. all stated dual marketing would be very detrimental to their operations and to farmers. These are all independent organizations.
I feel that this is the bill that farmers die on.
We didn’t die when the Crow Rate was abolished. We didn’t die when they deregulated the railroad. Small towns did and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool due to having to change elevator handling systems.
We didn’t die when the free trade agreement was put in place. (There was) more trade but less for primary producers.
We didn’t die but all of these actions to make us more competitive in the world marketplace have had the opposite effect.
Railway, grain, chemical, fuel and seed companies charge all the market will bear, sending our cost of production up to the point that we can’t compete.
So, even if the government supports farmers with subsidies, in the end it will only help the bottom line of corporations as they raise the price of inputs. Some form of regulation needs to be in place because there is no competition.
MP Gerry Ritz has introduced Bill C-300, a motion in the House (of Commons) that would allow farmers to sell grain directly to producer-owned value-added processors. This sounds innocuous enough, even helpful, but if this motion passes in the fall sitting of the House, large grain handlers like Cargill and ADM could easily claim discrimination under the law and demand the United States apply a tariff on Canadian wheat until the CWB buy-back is eliminated totally and the market is open.
Step one of the quick destruction of the CWB would be complete. Farmers need to understand these difficult issues and explore options. …
– Len Long
Lloydminster, Sask.
Marketing failure
It’s time that the Canadian Wheat Board step up to the plate and be accountable for its marketing program of winter wheat. The Aug. 3 issue of the Western Producer on page 13 reports the following comments from Lawrence Klusa of the CWB. “The board acknowledged that the price comparison on winter wheat is not as favourable, due to the fact that millers on both sides of the border generally prefer U.S. to Canadian winter wheat.”
The CWB needs to step up and prove this statement. It is interesting that the variety Falcon, which does not make the select program in Canada, is grown in the U.S. and considered a high quality milling wheat. It is also interesting that Ontario markets lots of its winter wheat into the U.S. with no difficulties.
It needs to be pointed out that the CWB’s own milling trials comparing U.S. and Canadian select varieties showed that the Canadian varieties were at least equal to the U.S. varieties. It could be argued that Canadian select winter wheats are a much more consistent product than U.S. winter wheat because in the U.S. there is no segregation between numerous varieties grown over many climate conditions.
The reality of the situation is that for years Canadian winter wheat producers have watched their American counterparts across the border receive on average about $1 to $1.25 per bushel more for comparable winter wheat.
It’s time for the CWB to quit hiding under the guise that Montana or North Dakota winter wheat is in fact better than Canadian winter wheat.
It is also time for the CWB to start doing a better job of marketing and promoting our winter wheat and maybe targeting some higher value markets.
It should not be surprising that many winter wheat producers are supporters of a dual market. The CWB has failed and continues to fail in marketing Canadian winter wheat.
– Craig Shaw,
Director, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission,
Lacombe, Alta.
Won’t pull hearse
In his opinion in the Aug. 3 Western Producer, Paul Orsak says that the federal Conservatives have told us that the debate about the Canadian Wheat Board is over.
He says that we can now move past the argument state and start the reforms that will allow marketing choice in Western Canada.
That’s very presumptuous for someone who didn’t actually win the argument and speaks from the minority position.
I’m sure that the debate is over in his mind because he appears to refuse to consider the evidence supporting the pro-board side. He labels it “bought economic studies.” I wonder if he has an opinion on who paid our top national number cruncher, the auditor general, to produce a favourable report on the monopoly benefits of the CWB?
In Mr. Orsak’s commercial utopia, foreign customers are eagerly waiting for the opportunity to pay us all more for our product if only that pesky wheat board would get out of the way.
In the real world our customers continually give the board top marks for consistency of good quality and service but are annoyed that the monopoly seller forces them to pay more than they otherwise would to get our wonderful wheat.
They would love to find other sellers who might undercut the CWB premium price. Also, players like Cargill and ADM are eager to be able to squeeze profit out of both ends of the deal as they do elsewhere in the world.
I believe there are two general types of producers that want to end the monopoly. One type accepts that we will make less money in total without the board but agree to pay that price to be free of regulation. I understand and have sympathy for this group, but they are clearly outvoted.
The other type, the larger fraction, operates under the false assumption that competition will increase the value of wheat.
These people forget that those who would compete to buy our grain also compete to sell it. All they would have to pay the producer would be the remainder, after costs and profit, of what they received by offering the lowest price in the marketplace. Economists calculate this to be nearly $10 per ton less than we get with the board.
At the end of his column Mr. Orsak urges us to again forget the arguments and join “the process that will ultimately result in a new wheat and barley marketing structure.” Why should we help pull the hearse to our own funeral?
A monopoly works because it is entire and complete, like a balloon. If there is a way to avoid the monopoly, if there is a hole in the balloon, it becomes not just a different kind of balloon but a bag, and a bag just can’t do what a balloon is supposed to.
Any tinkering with the monopoly status will make … the balloon smaller, weaker and destined to pop.
No, Mr. Orsak, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. We must choose one or the other. Most of us solidly and consistently choose monopoly.
– Glenn Tait,
Meota, Sask.
Poor example
I must respond to Paul Orsak’s claim that imposing dual marketing on the three prairie hog boards is an economic example showing that (Canadian) Wheat Board dual marketing will be successful since he says no great price decline followed.
He ignores the economic fact that the hog boards were three competing institutions, so of course there was no price decline due to a lost monopoly. There was no monopoly. They were three competing sellers to the same international markets, each cutting prices to make sales.
They could have been as effective as the wheat board, which is a monopoly exporter.
In the early 1970s, all of the negotiations and legal work was done for the creation of a joint export board.
Each of the (hog) boards had agreed and signed their intentions; the provincial agricultural ministers had signed the necessary authorizations.
All that was required was the signatures of each of the board chairmen on the document creating the monopoly seller.
They never signed. Their reasons for refusing were many and varied and are anyway now in the past. The fact is their inaction back then imposed “choice” on prairie hog producers who never did have a fully effective export marketer that could maximize price to the hog producer.
No wonder Mr. Orsak cannot see much negative impact from the “choice” decisions imposed on the hog marketing boards later.
I am not as familiar with the Ontario wheat marketing situation but Mr. Orsak should probably give a little more thought to the effect that record low corn prices have had on increased wheat acreage in Ontario.
That would be a better economic explanation for the increase in wheat acreage that he attributes to dual marketing.
– Victor F. Althouse,
Kelvington, Sask.
Hog concerns
In the June 15 Western Producer, John Beckham described hog factories as repulsive odour producers. On July 20, Bevra Fee sidestepped the issue by stating some city air is more toxic than hog manure. People with health knowledge know olfactory elements don’t measure toxic odours since some deadly gasses like carbon monoxide aren’t readily sensed by the olfactory nerve cells.
Hog factories threaten health more than any other intensive livestock operation. Hog ILO operators commonly wear masks. I have never heard of anyone wearing a mask when working in other ILOs.
My contact with hog and cattle ILOs convinced me that being near a cattle feedlot is much like passing a perfume counter compared to that of a hog factory.
Hogs housed under a roof and wall surrounded except for an opening in one wall in a fenced area are healthier. They don’t emit a strong odour. The meat smells and tastes better than that produced in a hog factory …
Real farmers neglect to study and expose the nature of such industries. Furthermore, labour unions go on strike demanding higher wages in hopes to improve their situation while more can be done by seeking to solve social and economic problems. …
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Poor program
I was appalled by your recent editorial “Options program seems to meet need” (WP, Aug. 10.) You really failed to do your homework on this one.
The Conservatives have successfully pulled the wool over your eyes and others too with the words in their program title, “Canadian Farm Families.” It sounds so good, giving the connotation of a program that puts the financial needs of smaller family farms first.
Could this be a real improvement and maybe even a turn-around after years of Liberal programs that went nowhere and helped few?
But, look more carefully. The other criteria you mention in your editorial expose the true nature, intent and direction of this program. To qualify for assistance, you must be an active farmer who had gross farm sales of eligible farm commodities (livestock and crops) of not less than $50,000 in the 2005 tax year.
Your newspaper in a previous article stated $50,000 gross farm revenues. That was misleading. The Options program only counts farm sales of eligible commodities as farm income.
So what farmers qualify to apply for assistance from this program? Farmers who are in the direst of straits? Those with lowest incomes? Individuals with income less than $15,000 or families with income less than $25,000?
Those farmers who need the help most? Not necessarily.
Rather, this program automatically excludes all smaller farmers and all beginner farmers because the gross farm sales of most of these categories of farmers across Canada will fail to reach $50,000 annually. In short, the majority of farmers who probably need the help most will fail to qualify for the program. Brilliant.
I’m not waving a flag for the Liberals, but if you compare the qualifying criteria of $10,000 gross farm sales for their recent Canadian Agricultural Skills Service and Canadian Farm Business Advisory Services programs, you can see a definite shift with the Conservatives’ Options program.
Why has (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl and his advisors set an eligibility standard that will serve to starve the small farmers and also fail to help any small beginning farmers?
By contrast, just look at the guide for their Options program. It gives pages of advice and ample maneuvering room for corporations and shareholders in corporations to meet the qualifying criteria for eligibility….
Meanwhile, the next time you write an editorial, I suggest you do your homework first, lest perchance some not-too-smart farmer who gets pushed off the farm comes looking for a job with your fine newspaper.
– Leonard Rauser,
Andrew, Alta.
Keep our success
In the long history of growing and marketing wheat in Western Canada, we have had the Grain Growers Association, the Prairie producer pools and the Crow’s Nest Freight Rate. All are gone. Instead of local grain elevators close to the farms, we have inland terminals that may be 30, 50, 100 miles or more from the producers.
But we do have the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. Marketing grades of wheat are in place and there is an annual base price per bushel plus participating payments according to co-operatives’ sales of grain. Standards for export are firmly applied.
For over 100 years we have striven to have orderly marketing in which the producer is protected as to price and grade and the purchaser, worldwide, is protected for quality. Gone are the days of drastic price variation and different grades from one loading point to another. Losses by the board, which are few, are covered by the government of Canada.
What we have achieved in the last century must not be cast asunder either as to marketing or grading. The success of the wheat board must continue to be protected in the interests of agriculture, the producers and the Canadian economy. The single desk sale is essential.
– William A. Dempsey,
Carberry, Man.
