Too much logic?
Stephen Harper and Chuck Strahl clearly do not understand, or do not want to understand the systems in place in Ontario and Quebec as they relate to grain marketing and other commodities.
Wheat in Ontario is not a big crop and is grown due to the need to have crop rotation with corn and soybeans. They do export some wheat to the U.S., but not internationally and it is not hard red spring.
Quebec feeds the majority of their grain. They do not have a single desk-selling agency for wheat. They also have single desk for maple syrup and rabbits. There may be others as well.
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?
Quebec has every right to be concerned about Strahl’s attack and devious methods to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. Quebec is a strong supporter of supply management programs, which offer farmers a voice in selling their products and some stability.
With this government’s attitude of not listening to farmers, using common sense and democratic views, we should all be worried.
I do not understand the “wedding” with groups such as the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, (which) was a defunct organization a few years past (and) not supported by farmers financially, so relied on multinational grain companies to bail them out and provide the purpose and ideology to exist.
It is obvious the grain companies want the job of the CWB, I would suggest more for their pocketbook than the farmers. Farmers will be beholden to the companies with no voice.
Farmers have elected a majority of pro-board candidates for a number of years…
Too much logic for Harper and Strahl, who if successful may not be around to witness the repercussions.
– J. Leahy,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Wants choice
I decided to write this letter to show that there are farmers that do want the wheat board monopoly removed. Some of us are sick and tired of being stuck under a communistic approach to grain selling and as a friend of mine said, if there was a plebiscite put forth and the vote was 47 percent against and 53 percent for the board, would the board stay because the majority won or go because there are almost half that want it removed? Should that not be taken into account?
I read letters in open forum of people spouting that the board puts $800 million extra a year into farmers’ pockets. How can this be proven? We have had no other opportunity to sell grain for decades than through the board. There is no way on earth to find out how the price of grain would be affected without the board’s monopoly.
Notice I keep referring to the board’s monopoly. As a farmer I will sell to the highest priced buyer, and in an open market if that buyer is the board, they will get my grain. I just want choice and the opportunity to be able to market my own grain, to be able to cash in on a rising market like we have right now, and to preprice in a falling market to reserve my price.
This talk of multinationals bidding the price down is made by people that have no common sense. Would they actually sell to the lower priced option?
An open market works by countries and companies bidding against each other to get our grain and we sell to the highest price.
Look at oats since they have been off the board. It turned it into a cash crop. Before, when it was on the board, it was worthless. Imagine being able to call your favourite elevator company and ask what today’s No. 1, 13.5 percent protein HRS wheat price is and you have the option of selling them all your crop and delivering it all at once and getting all your money straight up front.
Wow. I can hardly wait for the new millennium’s marketing choices.
On a note to (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl, keep working for those of us that want choice.
On a note to (Saskatchewan agriculture minister) Mark Wartman, before you decide to support a monopoly market, maybe look at your rural vote and realize you are acting for the urban communities that voted your government into power.
– Nevin Morrow,
Kelvington, Sask.
Take charge
As one of the first and one of the few remaining active marketing clubs in the Prairies, we would like to highlight some of the concerns surrounding Canadian Wheat Board single desk selling.
Many articles over the past few months have played on the fear of the unknown if we were to enter into a dual market for our wheat and barley. Ironically, these fears of the unknown mirror the past Saskatchewan election with the threat of losing universal health care.
There is a lot of talk around the issue that the federal government is not being democratic in its plans for change within the CWB. How can the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments and organizations such as Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan be playing the democracy angle, when I do not remember any vote in our RM with APAS representation on the opposition to a dual market within the CWB.
If a voluntary CWB fails, its demise will fall squarely on the lap of the chief executive officer, CWB staff and the board of directors.
We realize that with a dual market in place there will be significant changes, and many of these changes come with apprehension and fear.
What are these changes? Fewer railroads, less elevators and a move to more livestock feeding and processing of cereals, legumes and oilseeds into higher value products. This will require the CWB to be open and not focus on foreign markets and niche Canadian markets but to be another marketing tool available to western Canadian farmers. …
There have been some significant changes to the CWB, but progress has been too slow. The dinosaurs adapted too slow.
We have carried the financial risk from owning the machinery and land, planting the seed and associated inputs, dealing with the weather and are then legislated to a single desk-marketing agency to sell our products. Feed barley CWB initial in Foam Lake, Sask., is 14 cents per bushel vs. an open market price of $2.52 per bu. If you operated your own small business, would you think this is a system that brings profits to your business?
The naysayers will tell you that the alternative is large multinationals taking all of the profit. The multinational is offering $2.52 per bu., not 14 cents.
It’s about time that we take charge of our own business, be progressive and not scared of change. The future in agriculture brings less reliance on a single desk seller, grain companies purchasing grain for export and railroads dictating freight rates.
The new era for agriculture will see construction of canola, ethanol, biodiesel, oat, flax and livestock operations with producer, not CWB, involvement.
– Glenn Helgason, P. Ag.
President
Foam Lake Marketing Club,
Foam Lake, Sask.
Producer cars
I ship all of my wheat through producer cars because it improves my bottom line and it’s good for my community.
Nearly 10 years ago, 100 farmers in our area decided to load the first ever unit train of wheat via producer cars. The grain companies, with the help of the railroads, had been starving our line for some time. Our plans encountered a brick wall when the railroad refused service.
Without the combined help of our marketer, the Canadian Wheat Board, and our producer car enforcer, the Canadian Grain Commission, we would not have been able to counter the market power of the railroad/grain company juggernaut.
The train came and more followed, increasing every year to over 2,000 rail cars per year on our branch line.
One hundred years ago, the railroad refused service for the first ever producer car and showed the same hostility towards us in 1997. Nothing had changed in 100 years. History does repeat itself.
I can think of many provable commercial reasons why the CWB without the single desk cannot survive. Without the CWB, the producer car is in trouble. Without the producer car, branch lines, short lines and small rural communities are in trouble, not to mention the producers themselves. With the CWB gone, it will be a dream come true for railroads and grain companies.
– Bill Woods,
Isham, Sask.
CWB and $$
… In 2004 I bought some fertilizer ahead of time because the word was out that the price was going to go up a bunch. Then the spring of 2005 I bought seed, fuel, chemical, hired help (I’m a widow trying to hold on to the family farm) to help me put in the crop, which is another problem as anyone that wants to work is already working, bought hail insurance, repairs, and all the other incidentals that it takes to farm.
I grew barley, which an elevator agent came around and took a sample and later said oh yes, it is malt quality, so if you sign a malt barley contract you will get more money for your barley. This was Oct. 8, 2005.
Well, they weren’t calling for the barley and I needed to pay my bills as everyone else wants their money now. So I took out a CWB cash advance.
Well, they didn’t call for this barley till July 2006, and by then of course the germination was not the same as it was in October 2005 so now it isn’t malt quality anymore.
I also opted for the early payment, hoping to pay more bills, but apparently that runs out at the end of July like the crop year, but the CWB wants their money now.
So far I have received 36 cents per bushel for my 15,000 bu., which by the way is the total sum of $411.09 that I have received for this barley that I spent all this money and time growing, and the CWB has got $6,011.82 and now charging me interest on the rest, but they want $1.30 back and they don’t intend on paying me the rest of my money until December 2006, which is almost 2007.
So they already have my grain and money but they want more. Then you wonder why we would want the CWB anywhere in our lives. What good are they, except to put us under. They get paid their wages every week, and really could give a rat’s ass about what happens to us. …
The CWB, that is supposed to be helping me, wants my money before they will pay me what they owe me, and are now charging me interest on money they owe me.
Now tell me what other business would stand for this?…
– Nadine Jones,
Shell Lake, Sask.
Mirror, mirror
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest grain marketer of them all….
The past several years have felt like a fairy tale to me. With all the banter by the Canadian Wheat Board about being unjustly treated by the Conservative government, it is high time that the CWB be put in front of a mirror. The CWB seems to conveniently forget its doings unto others in this time of its dire crisis.
Where to start?
Well, let’s define democratic in CWB terms. As an organic farmer, my industry has placed numerous appeals upon the CWB board of directors to allow us no cost buybacks to move our grain out of Canada. For those who may be confused about what I am talking about, allow me to clarify.
In order for me to move grain outside of the three chosen prairie provinces, I must first sell it to the CWB and then turn around and buy it back at a higher price; both the sale and purchase prices are arbitrarily set by the CWB….
As organic producers who niche market less than 0.08 percent of the grains under the CWB, we requested the right to bypass this ransom and market without touching the holy grail of their powers. Repeatedly, we have been denied, even when the Organic Specialty Products Group proved the majority support of prairie organic grain producers.
Recently, the CWB decided to monopolize the organic market. As a test, they hand-picked a select group of Saskatchewan farmers to pool their grain, which the CWB will market exclusively for them.
Sounds harmless, unless you are an ambitious free enterprising organic grain grower. These chosen few will have their profits pooled and paid out of the closed CWB vault, and the public will never know what the grains are sold for.
As a gambling farmer, there is a sure bet on who shows a top price. It is obvious here.
For years the CWB has been compiling the names and addresses of all of my and everyone else’s grain buyers, as they were required on my buyback licences. I wonder how they will ever find markets for all that organic grain?
How else are you going to convince everyone that they should let the CWB be the sole marketer of organic grains? Conveniently, the CWB sets what it costs me to get my grain out of the country and then markets its own pooled grain to the same buyers. That is not “the fox in the hen house.” That is the fox running the drive-through window at KFC.
The CWB has long preached the benefits of a monopoly; we all share equally and no one makes any more money than you. How does pitting a small select group of organic producers against individual organic producers fit under this mantra? I don’t recall organic producers having a vote on the CWB being involved in marketing our grain.
Can someone please tell me where in this entire mess one can find a hint of democracy? …
– Steven Snider,
New Norway, Alta.
Oligopolies
The federal government keeps the marketing of wheat a hot topic. Those who are negative about the Canadian Wheat Board often use the word monopoly.
As farmers, we deal with near monopolies or oligopolies all the time. Fifty years ago, a business economics professor I knew listed the advantages of these forms of business structures.
A modern chief executive officer realizes that the closer his company can get to a monopoly situation, the better his company is at becoming a price setter rather than a price taker. Once competition is weeded out, a company can set prices. It is going to make sure the price is right. …
Marketing power is the name of the game. I have read that companies stated they had to amalgamate to match the power of companies they deal with.
As farmers, we see fewer fertilizer companies, fewer chemical companies and these are buying up seed companies. We see fewer outlets and implement dealers are becoming regional. …
Because farmers see the control business has over them, one can understand why farmers tend to be against monopolies or oligopolies. If they had the market power that monopolies, or second best, that oligopolies do have, I suspect their attitude would change.
The Canadian Wheat Board is just a small player when compared to the multinational grain companies. On the world scene it has to match prices of grain grown elsewhere. By being a single desk, it does seem to be in a step in the right direction.
If we consider the amalgamation of companies where they aim to be a single desk seller as being businesslike or smart, then I guess that anyone wanting to go in the opposite direction, that is, to do away with the single desk, would have to be considered not businesslike, or stupid.
– Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
Utmost priority
Matters in hand regarding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board are of utmost importance to western Canadian farmers.
Farmers need to meet their would-be local directors with their views at localized presentations. Honesty needs to be top priority, not what is best for a minority and narrow-minded individuals.
I believe the CWB to be of utmost importance to the majority of prairie farmers as a single desk seller. Here in northern B.C., much wheat is downgraded, barley mostly makes only feed, canola is an excellent producer, hence we do not rely so heavily on the board as we have good access to local feed markets within southern Alberta and B.C.
We do rely on the CWB for advances on seeded acres and crop in the bin. This should not be brushed aside as it is a great asset to our businesses.
We must think back also to the abolition of the Crow (Benefit) 11 years ago, which was a terrible mistake but did not seem so at that time.
The same mistake could easily be made again with the CWB.
Our future directors to the CWB must look back to see what is right for the future.
– Nick Parsons,
Farmington, B.C.
Fruits of labour
With the exception of agriculture, there is no facet of economic activity that Canadians are exposed to which commands them to submit the fruits of individual labours to the will of a collective few.
Legislation was imposed in 1943 forcing a collective system only on western farmers and only on the sale of certain commodities. It is rather telling that a government which was dominated by Eastern Canada and with an overwhelming commitment to food aid to war-torn Europe committed only western farmers’ production to a controllable system. The underlying goal was not to achieve better prices for farmers.
Holding a plebiscite on the future of the CWB monopoly, as demanded by the coalition of five farm groups, is only an effort to continue to deny individual farmers freedom to engage in an economic action which others take for granted. A system which forces selected individuals to sell their production of wheat and barley to a buying monopoly restricts the economic freedom of those people.
It is interesting that when the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board dismantled the monopoly, the loudest complaint came from the flour millers because they now had to absorb storage costs, which in the past had been a grower’s expense of some $53 per tonne. The CWB has similar arrangements.
The monopoly held by the CWB over wheat and barley in Western Canada is not one where it can manipulate the prices paid by buyers. It can only control the price paid to producers. …
The claim by the CWB that they extract premiums from certain markets such as Japan is also bogus. Japan’s wheat buying history shows that Canada’s share of that market has remained constant as has the share enjoyed by U.S. and Australia. Clearly any premiums in the Japanese market are shared by farmers throughout the world and are paid for quality, not a selected marketing system.
The goal of this group is to vote away one’s and other’s freedom. A plebiscite will never resolve the issue but only serve to intensify the war, regardless of outcome.
Maintaining the monopoly will bring on a rash of border runs, shackled farmers being led into courtrooms and jailings until individual freedom is achieved.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Final chapter
So, Mr. (Adrian) Measner and Mr. (Ken) Ritter aren’t happy with the Conservatives’ gag order to not advertise and promote their agenda of “no-choice marketing.”
That’s what farmers have felt like since World War Two: no choice for selling their wheat to the highest bidder, but only to the Canadian Wheat Board. So how do you like being told what you can and cannot do, Mr. CWB?
Their “vision” for the future, where they ask for $1.6 billion from the federal government, is a joke. Tell you what: the CWB, the farm groups and our NDP government in Saskatchewan are all asking for a plebiscite to determine the future of the CWB. Here’s a suggestion.
Give the $1.6 billion to producers and then ask each individual farmer to donate his share of it to the CWB if he believes in the single desk. If the CWB ends up with more than $800 million, the CWB remains as is.
By the way, in their own survey this past summer, about half the farmers surveyed wanted dual marketing and seven percent wanted the CWB gone altogether. I agree with the wheat board that big, big things are at stake here: big CWB employee wages.
I’m glad to know that we’re in the final chapter of this horror story of marketing wheat through the single desk. There’s been a lot of letdowns: high storage costs to carry old crop into the new crop year due to lack of calls, lost money due to interest since farmers only get paid in full 18 months later, lost revenue due to grading factors by the CWB and Canadian Grain Commission, no value-added on the Prairies, high freight costs because they sometimes move grain from Churchill back to the West coast due to the lack of “vision” and/or vested interest on the CWB’s party, undercutting of the world wheat prices as stated numerous times by our friends globally, trade irritants and cause for import duties imposed on us by certain countries, and now also bin audits.
Look at rural Western Canada. If the CWB is so good, why are so many people seeding their land to grass or selling out altogether?
If in this country a woman can choose to kill her baby but a grain farmer can’t choose to sell his wheat as he finds fit, then all I can say is “help us, God.”
– Rupert Theuerer,
Spring Valley, Sask.
All ours
I am appalled and very disappointed in the actions and behaviour of the federal government who seem determined to radically alter the Canadian Wheat Board to the point where it will be powerless to serve the best interests of grain producers.
It is our grain, our board and our means of making a living. Any decision regarding the future of the CWB should be left to farmers. It is our democratic right. Change should not be forced on us by the federal Conservative government.
The CWB is not the cause of grain producers’ financial hardships. Taking away the CWB’s monopoly powers will only weaken it to the point where it will be unable to function as an effective marketing tool for grain producers.
The cause of grain producers’ financial problems lies elsewhere. The present federal government refuses to acknowledge this. Therefore it will solve nothing, only worsen the problem.
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
Beyond farm issue
I served six years as an elected Canadian Wheat Board director ending Dec. 31, 2004. Prior to this, I served 12 years as an elected farmer advisory member of the Canadian Wheat Board when we had both Liberal or Conservative governments in Ottawa.
At no time were we dictated to or had gag orders placed on us as we are now witnessing from the Harper regime.
Sometimes government became a little cranky about some of our public positions but at no time did they attempt to interfere with day-to-day operations of the organization.
We were sometimes accused of being an arm of the government by those who wanted to discredit and destroy us but our position was that it is farmers we were responsible to because it was they who elected us.
It is extremely hypocritical that the same organizations and individuals who were so fearful of the CWB being an arm of the government are now saying the board should knuckle under and be dictated to by the Harper government.
This government says it has an elected mandate to change the CWB to a toothless organization without monopoly power. Wrong.
The majority of farmers in my community, which I think is typical of most western Canadian constituencies, voted Conservative for three main reasons: because that is what they have always done; because they didn’t like this misuse of government money in Ottawa; and they resented the costly gun registration being rammed down their throat.
The CWB debate is not only a farm issue. If the Harper government succeeds to castrate the board and remove its monopoly power, we will be another step closer to enabling a few world wide corporations, who will have a monopoly, to source grain as cheaply as possible from any farmer around the world and sell to the consumer for as much as possible – similar to what is taking place in the energy sector today.
Vic Toews is my member of Parliament and justice minister. Whenever he has campaigned in our coffee shop, he has repeatedly stated that it is farmers through a direct vote who should decide the future of the CWB, and not the government.
I am publicly asking Mr. Toews to see that justice is done.
– Wilfred “Butch” Harder,
Lowe Farm, Man.
