Round table
On July 27 in Saskatoon, I chaired a round table meeting with Canadian farmers regarding marketing choice for wheat and barley. The meeting was a timely, productive and valuable forum to outline options for western Canadian grain producers.
We were joined by (federal agriculture) minister (Chuck) Strahl and a wide cross-section of industry. Contrary to what has been reported by some, representatives from all four western provinces were invited, and, in fact, representatives from all four provinces attended the meeting.
I would also like to address the false implication made in the Western Producer’s Aug. 17 edition (Grain companies had ear at planning session). [NFU president Stewart Wells] suggests that because two groups attending the meeting Ð Grain Vision and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Ð include grain handling companies among their members, that minister Strahl has been disingenuous when saying grain handling companies were not invited.
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?
Membership in these groups include various stakeholders, including processors and producers, whose opinions and ideas are of great value to us as we move forward in developing a dual-marketing strategy. It makes good sense to hear from those with expertise, and it would make no sense to refuse to benefit from the knowledge of these organizations simply because some of their members are grain companies.
We are seeking a transparent discussion of how to move to a marketing choice environment. We listened to input from a range of participants at the July 27 round table, and we expect to hear from many others before the government makes decisions on how to proceed.
It is also worth noting that two Canadian Wheat Board directors also attended the meeting, as individual farmers, with the board’s approval.
The meeting was part of the Government of Canada’s campaign commitment to provide western Canadian wheat and barley producers with a choice of how they market their products.
We remain committed to this objective. At the same time we are committed to moving in a deliberate and transparent manner, mindful of other pressing issues affecting the grain sector.
Farmers have told us for years that they want to have the opportunity to make their own business decisions. Our overarching goal, in these discussions and in all of our agricultural-related initiatives, is to move forward in a way that is beneficial to the entire industry.
– David Anderson,
Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture
and
Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
Protect workers
As you know, in Alberta, farm workers are excluded by (the) government from virtually all workplace standards. They are even denied the right to be safe or careful at work.
As a direct result of these exemptions, my farm worker husband, Kevan, was killed at work this Father’s Day past.
Today, my children and I are destitute and we have been left to fend for ourselves.
So, with broken heart, on bended knee I’m begging you please, end these exemptions so perhaps no other family is forced to walk this path of despair we now tread.
– Lorna Chandler,
Black Diamond, Alta.
Shoe sizes
In answer to Nettie Wiebe’s column of Aug. 24, the overly large choice in the soap aisle is a problem no doubt. There is another larger problem that should be addressed first, however. Shoes.
How much time do people waste every year shopping for just the right shoes? Wouldn’t it be better if, like the Canadian Wheat Board, there were only one choice for style and colour of shoe? That way you could do your shoe shopping in mere seconds. No thought or effort at all.
Even think of the moments that you would save every day. You wouldn’t have to decide which shoes to wear. No thought or effort at all. They are all the same.
Let’s go one better. We could have a vote to see what size of shoes would be available. If more people want size nine, well that’s good enough for everyone. If your feet are too small, wear extra socks. If your feet are too big, you have the option of not wearing shoes. If your feet won’t conform to the shoes, then just stay out of the shoe market. Just like the CWB. If you can’t conform to their will, stay out of the wheat business.
Too many choices is less of a problem than no choices at all. Just because you don’t want to put the effort into marketing your own product doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be able to. Or is it that some of the CWB supporters are afraid their neighbour may sell his or her wheat for five cents a bushel more than them?
Maybe we could hire a few hundred shoe experts and NDPers to set the price of shoes so no one makes too much (or any) money on them. Don’t forget, profit is a dirty word, especially if someone has more than me.
– Doug Kutcher,
Findlater, Sask.
CWB views
I understand the present government is moving toward a dual marketing system for wheat and barley.
I wonder how the Canadian Wheat Board can operate with no assets and are borrowing money to operate? How can they compete with the big multinational grain companies? These big companies will break the CWB in one year as they will pay higher than world price for grain even if they lose money just to get rid of the CWB. Is this not correct?
So this is open market, not dual marketing.
If you would check on the operation of the CWB in the last year or so, you would realize they have given farmers the option to sell their grain on the open market and receive full payment for their grain.
This is dual grain marketing.
Your present proposal indicates the United States and these big grain companies want to dictate how we should do our grain business. They do this in our other industries such as oil and gas, forest products, etc.
Let’s be Canadian and not a colony of U.S.
If this does not convince you about dual marketing, then let democracy rule by having farmers vote on this issue. I hope you’re not scared farmers may not vote as you think.
If you let farmers vote on this issue it would clear the government of any election promises.
– Frank Gechter,
Medicine Hat, Alta.
Too poor
Re: “Farmers too poor to get aid”, WP, Aug. 17.
Michael Raine misquoted me in this article when he said I netted $16,000. I actually said I have the potential of netting $16,000 if I had 2001 prices.
As it is, I am not grossing $16,000. We talked a lot of numbers so I can understand his confusion. Both training components of the Farm Family Options program ask for a $10,000 gross income as does any other federal programs I have reviewed.
Why does this new program change things is the question. Is this a new policy for defining agriculture and how long will the other programs stay at the $10,000 gross figure?
It would appear that this government has decided to take advantage of the situation and make sure that our mom and pop operations go away.
Have they decided a minimum wage is suitable for a good share of the rest of the population but farmers must make more?
Canada has a long history of helping other countries achieve freedom and are active now in doing just that.
One must ask the question: why have the grassroots farmers become expendable? Do we vote to free others but lose at home?
– Sandra White,
Fairview, Alta.
Old equipment
The high-priced machinery today is a nightmare to pay for if you feel you should use it with all its easy handling characteristics and engines promoted to being so efficient every time a new line makes its debut, that by now they must be running on near fresh air.
But in all honesty, for the medium-sized grain farmer, a damned good late model Massey 760 or 860 in good shape will harvest a lot of grain effectively and efficiently, as mine do.
They were surely the most efficient and cost effective combine of their era, a 1980 MF 760 loaded for $60,000 when barley was $2 a bushel, wheat $3 and canola between $7 and $9. A comparable combine today, new with two headers, must be in excess of $250,000.
Where is the $8 per bu. barley, $12 per bu. wheat and $20 per bu. canola? I would have a firm guess it’s going in the wrong pockets, in fact pick-pocketed off us farmers for the profits of others.
For the time being, it is well worth considering a change in policy to downsize, find a good line of older good equipment and stay in business. You may, if you’re not that way inclined, need to take some welding and mechanic instruction but I am sure you stand a much better chance of staying in business putting food on the table with your own money than making monstrous payments, which can be nerve wracking.
Chuck Strahl, our federal agriculture minister, is issuing cheques shortly to low income farm families, which must be 75 percent of us, I don’t know.
Also a pamphlet encouraging us to really be more effective and efficient, to me a bloody insult much that Lyle Vanclief believed.
We are all now more efficient than we have ever been. To be more effective and efficient is impossible. My motto really is to farm smaller and smarter with efficient and effective older equipment that will do us an excellent job if put into shape by the farmer, not the dealer at $100 per hour….
Perhaps some family farms should consider, as we do, some smaller market garden produce line, which is possible with irrigation for a few acres. This could complement the farm and keep the farmer on the farm where he should be. These products we can sell at our price depending on our expertise in growing. Worth thinking of? You bet it is.
– Nick Parsons,
Farmington, B.C.
CGC info
Vicki Dutton’s letter to the editor (Open Forum, Aug. 17) expressed concerns about methods used to inform grain producers about grading and moisture content changes for red lentils.
Ms. Dutton’s comments about the information needs of grain producers are appreciated. It is important that the Canadian Grain Commission provide timely, concise and accessible information to producers about grain grading and quality issues.
Regarding the process that was taken, the moisture change was initiated as a result of a letter of recommendation sent by the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers on Feb. 24, 2006 with copies to the Canadian Special Crops Association, Pulse Canada, Alberta Pulse Growers and Manitoba Pulse Growers.
Background information was presented to the Western Standards Committees and sub-committees and, following their recommendation, the change was put forward for Aug. 1, 2006.
The CGC used several means to provide information about these changes through the media and the internet before they took effect on Aug. 1, including posting and distributing News release
newss on May 11 and Aug. 1 and posting information on the main page of our website at grainscanada.gc.ca.
The issue of conveying information was also raised at the spring meeting of the WSC. The CGC is working with the committee on how best to get information to the associations that the producer, marketing and handling members of the committee represent….
Beginning this fall, the CGC website will include highlights of the spring and fall meetings of the WSC.
The highlights will list the recommendations of the committee.
We regularly show grain producers visiting our display booth at farm shows how to use our website to get information and news about CGC programs. The website features an e-mail service so that users are notified when new material is added. Users can subscribe to these services by visiting our website.
As with all CGC issues, readers can also call our toll free information line, 800-853-6705, to receive further response to their questions.
– Chris Hamblin,
Chief Commissioner,
Canadian Grain Commission,
Winnipeg, Man.
Useful article
In regards to Aug. 17 issue, page 7 “Women want farm policy change,” this article is long overdue.
Farmers need fair trade not free trade, more power in the food chain, more financial stability and a food policy to produce safe healthy food.
As far as making the city people aware of what’s going on, it’s not going to happen unless the supply runs out in the stores or a big tax is put on the food or maybe the farmers go to the food banks in the cities and take all food away.
Maybe the agribusiness corporations should educate the city folks on what’s really going on at the farms, for example the amount of production farmers need, the fertilizer and chemicals that are used to grow this food and how healthy this food is and how good for the environment these policies are.
We need more articles like this. Keep up the good work.
– O. Yanishewski,
Spirit River, Alta.
Question stand
I am very concerned with the stand the Producer took in regard to the Wendy Holm article pertaining to the farm rally and government sponsored conference in Saskatoon July 27.
Chuck Strahl’s response to Wendy’s question,- was he prepared to eliminate single desk selling by the Canadian Wheat Board in opposition to the wishes of the CWB and western Canadian grain growers? The answer was yes, the election was the vote. Strahl is prepared to break the laws of Canada to implement his ideology.
Farmers need to know about his views, that they do not count, in the mind of this Conservative government.
The Producer by reacting to pressure from Strahl’s office and one or two of his farmer supporters have presented a bias.
Does this mean that the Producer will now only print the government stand on the CWB? What about freedom of speech?
Surely the Producer does not support censorship?
Wendy Holm is an agrologist, has worked with farmers and studied farm policy, therefore has a very good understanding of farm policy and the effect of same on farmers’ lives.
Her assessment is good information. Too bad if it exposes the ignorance of politicians.
– Jean Leahy,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Column gone
In a CBC interview, Western Producer editor Barb Glen stated the dismissal of freelance columnist Wendy Holm was justified because the paper’s credibility was at stake because of the actions of Holm, who identified herself as a columnist for the WP when she spoke in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board at the Saskatoon pro-board rally. Among a couple of others, Chuck Strahl’s office complained.
Apparently the people gunning for the wheat board do not concern themselves with the niceties of the distinction between the duties of a freelance columnist, someone paid to have and voice opinions, and those of an objective reporter employed by the paper.
One would expect better powers of differentiation from the WP editors.
No matter which side of this particular issue you come down on, you would have to agree if it is the Western Producer’s credibility the editors are concerned about, they should re-instate Wendy Holm as a columnist. That Western Producer management is willing to roll over when someone like Strahl and Co. phone is alarming and is likely to cast a big chill over the paper’s writing staff. This does not bode well for the future of balanced coverage.
– Doug Bone,
Elrose, Sask.
