In a hurry
In all the discussion about farm policy, there is one idea that seems to be ignored. A one liner that a previous generation of farmers used to hear was “Conservatives are just Liberals in a hurry.”
If you have not heard it, I guess the campaign managers have done a pretty good job of burying this observation. It might be the logical explanation for many things that are going on.
A farm organization has designed a program for own-use chemicals for its members. All farmers, not just the members, have benefited from this reduction of input costs. As soon as the new administration was installed, we heard that the regulations were going to be changed, to the benefit of the chemical companies.
Read Also
Invigor Gold variety viewed as threat to condiment mustard
Invigor Gold, the canola-quality mustard developed by BASF, is on a collision course with Canada’s condiment mustard industry. It’s difficult to see how the two can co-exist.
On the selling side, the Canadian Wheat Board puts about $800 million every year into the farmers’ pockets. It is no secret that the federal administration wants to take this away. By introducing the dual market, the grain companies and railways can siphon this off.
From this, I suggest we can conclude that the old saying about how the two old line political parties looked after their corporate friends, the Conservatives more so than the Liberals, seems to be holding true today.
If I were to send this letter to a small town local paper, I could add a comment about the effect this will have on the farmers in its trading area.
In Saskatchewan, one political party likes to consider itself especially concerned about rural communities. Because of the disastrous effect doing away with single desk marketing will have, its leader, MLAs and adherents are likely doing their best to stop the federal Conservative party from having its way.
– Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
Not cure-all
It seems (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl is determined to bring the wheat board and farmers into the 21st century. They are not coming without kicking and screaming, which happens because most of us don’t like change.
I don’t think an open market is going to cure all of the problems in agriculture.
All of the smart people I know have no answers.
The extreme left or right has never wanted to debate dual markets. The spin doctors from the left have a hot pen. They have gone from $300 million to $800 million that the wheat board puts in our pockets each year over an open market. I do not believe this.
The United States basically sets the world prices. My farm cannot cash flow with such low initial prices. I cannot wait 15 months for all my money.
People feel they need the wheat board to manage their money for them. I do not.
It now seems we all have a different version of what democracy means. I associate it with private freedom. My bottom line is, nobody gets a vote on to whom or where I sell my wheat.
– Brian Kiss,
Shaunavon, Sask.
Market choice
I am with you, John Hamon of Gravelbourg, Sask. (Open Forum, Oct. 12.) Your letter said it all.
I am so tired of articles and letters to the editor opposing any plans of the federal government to make changes to the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board and in particular to eliminate the dreaded single desk system, which has been foisted on we western grain farmers for far too long.
In today’s issues, I read that the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have jumped on the bandwagon and are offering support and advice to the coalition of the five farm and rural associations who are demanding the federal government give all farmers the right to vote on any proposed changes to the CWB.
I’m pretty sure all of the above are hoping for such a vote to result in the status quo. Incidentally, I wonder just how many western grain farmers are members of the five associations?
We western grain farmers are independent business men and women. We decide what grain to grow, all at our own expense and taking all the risks involved. Then surely we should be allowed to decide to whom, and for how much, we sell our harvested crops.
We are not suggesting the dismantling of the CWB. There are obviously a great many farmers who choose to operate under the umbrella of the board, and for those who choose to be told when, where, how much and for what price to sell your grain, that’s your choice. So please let us who would choose to do our own marketing be free to make that choice, unencumbered by the bureaucracy of the CWB.
Just for the record, my husband and I are not operating a grain farm of thousands of acres. We have just three quarter sections. All we are asking for is the right to choose our markets.
– Ann D. Smith,
Didsbury, Alta.
Clarify purpose
As minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like to clarify the purpose of the direction the government recently gave to the board, which requires it to refrain from spending funds to advocate for the single desk.
The purpose of this action is to ensure that the CWB focuses on its main job, which is marketing farmers’ grain. Nothing in the order prevents a director, including directors who do or do not support the board’s monopoly, from speaking their mind publicly.
The CWB is an institution responsible to Parliament, established by federal legislation and assisted by federal funds. It should not be spending to advocate positions contrary to federal policy.
In the past there has been little debate about marketing choice because the board’s monopoly dominated the field, using farmers’ money – against the will of many who believe in greater marketing freedom – to advocate its continuation as the sole buyer of wheat and barley in Western Canada.
Our action simply places board directors on a level playing field with farmers who have long wished to have a voice for marketing choice.
I’m glad to see that our directive to the board has encouraged public comment rather than stifling it. As I have said many times, I welcome a public debate about the future of a strong and viable wheat board for farmers who prefer it, and marketing choice for those who don’t.
– Chuck Strahl,
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
Worker protection
As my sister and I watched from the gallery of the (Alberta) legislature on Aug. 29, Mike Cardinal, minister of human resources and employment, was asked what was being done to protect our farm workers.
He stated that “Alberta agriculture, food and rural development, and Alberta human resources and employment will continue to work together in this area and monitor the situation very closely and, of course, make the necessary changes to improve the system as required.”
Him not going into details or explaining this response brought a feeling of uneasiness and when we left the legislature building that day, we were completely unaware that the review has already taken place and he (Mike Cardinal) ordered it changed to exclude farms and ranches.
He also rejected the unanimous recommendation of his committee to include agriculture in the Occupational Health and Safety code.
How many more farm workers will have to die before we see change? And does Mike Cardinal even care about Alberta’s farm workers?
Also, when he stated that he was “reviewing workplace safety standards for farm and ranch workers,” while being fully aware that he had already closed the review, he was lying to Albertans.
How many other times has he lied to us? What will happen now that he lied?
All that we want is change. Farm workers are not second-class citizens. They deserve the rights that the rest of us have.
– Patricia Williams,
Calgary, Alta.
Let farmers decide
On the front page of the Sept. 7 Western Producer, (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl, as quoted by (CWB chair) Ken Ritter, reiterated quite firmly that the government in his judgment has a mandate for change and that’s what they plan to do.
May I point out that you (Strahl) and the Conservative party being elected in the last election had little to do with getting rid of the single desk selling of the CWB but more to do with getting rid of the Liberal government. After watching the Conservatives picking and choosing what election promises they plan to carry out, many farmers are beginning to wonder if the electors made a bad choice with the Conservatives.
If you, Mr. Strahl, feel you have a mandate from the farmers – and farmers should be the only ones able to give it – to get rid of the single desk selling of the CWB, why not have your so-called mandate reaffirmed by a plebiscite of the farmers?
No matter what flowery phraseology you use, and holding closed meetings with stacked invitees, do the honourable thing and hold a plebiscite. Then true democracy can work.
The only problem that might prevent this from happening is the loud boisterous critics of the CWB and the large international grain companies, who want to destroy the CWB, might object. You and your Conservative government seem to listen to them more than to the farmer producer.
Any changes made of such a radical nature should only be made by farmers themselves, not the grain merchants or other business interests. Would anybody in their wildest speculation think that these grain corporations are sticking up for the farmers? Not so. It’s their bottom line profit and if they can get more without the single desk selling, so be it.
Any changes made should only be made if they will return more money to the farmers, not to multinational corporations and industry.
Of all the studies done analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the single desk position, can you, Mr. Strahl, reference just one that doesn’t show a huge financial benefit under the single desk for producers? Again I emphasize, let the farmers decide.
Being minister of agriculture, you have a sacred trust to do the best for the majority of farmers, not for a selected group whose selfish interests would betray the rest of us….
– Burnell Bennett,
Taber, Alta.
Winter wheat woe
The Canadian Wheat Board continues to deny a price advantage to American producers selling winter wheat, yet even with wheat prices coming down, Montana producers are receiving in their pocket upon delivery close to $1 per bushel more than their counterparts in Alberta. If you don’t believe me, do a search on the internet for Montana grain prices. The United States Department of Agriculture gives pricing ranges for different areas of Montana. Since their pricing is on one percent increments, I have chosen to compare 12 percent protein American winter wheat against 12 percent number one CWRW select in Canada.
Using Great Falls information for Sept. 13, the range was $4.15 to $4.34 with the middle point at $4.24. Using a currency calculator also on the internet with the Canadian dollar at $.896 US, it translates into $4.73 Cdn.
I will now compare No. 1 CWRW select 12 percent winter wheat assuming a four-cent premium over 11.5 percent protein. With the last PRO at $182 per tonne in store Vancouver, we then deduct about $48 to $50 per tonne for freight, elevation and handling, for a net to an Alberta producer of $132 to $134 per tonne. In bushels that is $3.59 to $3.64 and you would add four cents for protein premiums to get to 12 percent.
If I take the fixed price contract for Sept. 13, the value is $161.52 for No. 1 CWRW. You would add $10 for select and four cents for protein, which ends up after deductions net to producer in Alberta $3.45 to $3.56.
If we are to take the daily price contract (Sept. 13) using the calculator on the CWB website we end up with a net to producers of $3.59, to which we add 27 cents for select premium plus an additional four cents for protein for a value of $3.90. The best pricing option the CWB has to offer is still 81 cents per bushel lower than what American producers are receiving.
In response to comments made by Ward Weisensel of the CWB in the Sept.14 issue of the Western Producer, we are not trying to compare non select CWRW to American winter wheat although ironically some of those wheats are grown in the U.S. and accepted as milling quality. . …
I don’t understand how Montana producers, who are held hostage by the multinationals and Burlington Northern, are receiving substantially more than Alberta producers whose CWB is claiming to extract premiums from the marketplace.
Maybe if winter wheat was priced closer to its true value it would not be the minor crop it currently is.
– Craig Shaw,
Director, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission,
Lacombe, Alta.
Tory mantra?
Re: “Single deskers urged not to run,” (WP, Sept. 28.)
I find this a very dictatorial statement, running parallel to the Conservative mantra since they gained a minority position governing our country.
The Conservatives won a minority position on the strength of the Canadian population wanting to get rid of the Liberal dynasty, not on the policy of getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We are told by Mr. Nielson that we are supposed to agree with what the boss says or get out and get a different job. This will most definitely happen if the Canadian Wheat Board is lost. We will all be competing with each other, trying to sell our produce to four or five large multinationals who will either buy elsewhere or wait until we are desperate to sell to pay bills, and most farms will be lost to large corporations.
We did not vote the Conservatives to power to kill the wheat board monopoly, but if that is what their policy is, then we can do as big corporations do. At the next board meeting, the election, remove the CEO.
Even a good CEO seeks advice from his suppliers (farmers) and to do this a prairie wide producer vote needs to be held.
I have not renewed my Conservative membership. If this were to happen on a large scale the Conservative minority would lose their prairie support.
– Bernie von Tettenborn,
Round Hill, Alta.
Philosophies
I read with interest the debate over the Canadian Wheat Board.
I think this debate illustrates perfectly the fundamental differences between socialists and conservatives. Socialists believe absolutely everyone should do exactly as the socialists direct. Conservatives want the choice to do what they feel is best for themselves. Conservatives don’t care if socialists go set up some utopian co-op central selling desk. All conservatives want is freedom to choose if they want to participate.
This is a major difference in the philosophies. Compliance vs. the right to determine one’s own destiny. How could anyone choose the former?
– Dan Lindgren,
Grand Forks, N.D.
Pricing options
The Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission (WP, Sept. 28) asks for a “better explanation” of CWB marketing of winter wheat than that which I provided in the Sept. 14 WP.
In that letter, I stated that it was untrue that winter wheat returns are consistently higher in the U.S. than Canada. That very point appears to be in contention, with the AWWPC at least, and I’m not sure that letters back and forth can convince them otherwise. However, for argument’s sake, let’s say the AWWPC is correct and at a point in time winter wheat values in the U.S. are higher than in Canada.
The CWB specifically developed the Daily Price Contract program for farmers that want to market their grain directly to the United States. Under this program, farmers sign up prior to Aug. 1 and then have the option of taking any spot price posted over the next 12 months, based off the U.S. market, followed by delivery to the CWB. Or farmers can offset their DPC contract with a Producer Direct Sale contract less a small spread, which provides them the right to market their winter wheat to any buyer at any price in the U.S. market.
If producers missed out on the DPC and its Aug. 1 sign-up deadline, the PDS is available for direct marketing into the United States at any time.
In summary, if farmers find a better deal for winter or other wheats, the CWB does not stand in the way. To the contrary, we’ve put in place programs which allow farmers to capture the positive spread….
– Ward Weisensel,
Chief Operating Officer, CWB,
Winnipeg, Man.
Broken promises
As opposition grows to having Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the Canadian government rhetoric is heating up to justify the troops’ presence.
The usual answers are being given. To ensure democratic principles are upheld, freedom of speech and the right to vote are some that are used. Even the head of state of Afghanistan has commented that the Canadian troops are not only fighting for Afghanistan, but for the free world.
With these statements one would think democratic principles abound in Canada…
The ironic part is that the federal government is not willing to let Canadian farmers democratically decide what type of a Canadian Wheat Board farmers want.
The upcoming farmer director election is purposely being derailed by federal government talk of committees to plot the new open market direction. The federal government is not even willing to look at differing options for the CWB, like the Australian Wheat Board or the Alberta continental model being proposed.
Nor are they allowing the committees to view differing options. No, they are only allowing the open market system. Now what kind of a democratic government is that?
Some staunch federal government supporters reply it was a promise to eliminate the CWB, therefore farmers don’t need a vote. Well if I remember, there was a promise from the previous federal government to sell the hopper cars to farmers. That promise wasn’t kept by this federal government. There was the election promise to cancel the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program and that promise wasn’t kept. And there was the promise to remove renewable resources from equalization calculations and that promise wasn’t kept. So again, I wonder what the reason for killing the CWB is and who will benefit?
– Eric Sagan,
Melville, Sask.
Changed times
I am writing as a former member of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers through the 1980s and early ’90s.
At that time grain handling and oil seed crushing was dominated by farmer-owned companies. These companies have all transformed today to the point where none are farmer controlled.
The CWB is the last institution we have left that is controlled by an elected farmer board of directors. While it is not perfect, it has come a long way in accommodating farmer concerns.
Many producer pricing options are currently available and more will be developed.
The U.S. opposition to the CWB must mean that it is an irritant to them. If the CWB is gone, who will fight their trade barriers?
Any changes made to the single desk selling method of the CWB must be made by farmers not by a government that is in a frantic frenzy to destroy something that took 75 years to fine tune.
– John Boerchers,
Laurier, Man.
