Wants a choice
I am a farmer and voter in central Saskatchewan and I would like to have choice in selling my wheat and barley.
I feel this is a free country and we should have some way of selling grain at a profit rather than a loss as it is happening over the past few years with the Canadian Wheat Board as they are making sales to other countries for less than we can produce it for.
I don’t know why (National) Farmers Union and Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities are interfering with the decision of the individuals to have choice of selling his or her own product. Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan is another organization that is not planning out too well as they started out with the idea to go for choice and now seems to be drifting in another direction. Do they like to see farmers on the poverty line?
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?
I wonder who these organizations are trying to help. It seems it’s themselves only. If these groups insist on controlling our market, then let’s get the government to control and force all CWB lovers to grow only wheat and barley, and I would grow my off boards such as canola, canaryseed, oats, flax, etc., which I seem to be able to pay my bills with and would do better if the farmers that believe in the single desk would quit flooding our market with these off board grains and oilseeds.
I have farmed for 50 years plus and like to run my own business rather than have someone with little or no experience with farming telling me what to do and how to do things so they can make a profit for themselves.
– Donald Sunderland,
Quill Lake, Sask.
What’s in a name?
The recently released task force report suffers from so many internal contradictions that it’s hard to make any real sense of it.
The whole report is supposed to outline how the Canadian Wheat Board will be dismantled and replaced by another entity. But the authors confuse themselves, and try to confuse farmers, by naming the new entity CWB II.
CWB II as described in the report will be no such thing at all. It won’t be Canadian. The report says, “CWB II should have no restrictions on who can own shares.” It won’t primarily market wheat. The report says, “The CWB II should be free to market a range of Canadian crops as well as crops from origins other than Canada.” And it won’t be a board. The report outlines a shareholder owned company.
It would have been more accurate to name the new company “Saskatchewan Wheat Pool – Light.”
The report does get one thing right: dual marketing. It notes that the “term implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible.”
No indeed. Most of us have known that all along, but someone really should tell the Alberta government.
Unfortunately, the replacement term “marketing choice” is also a misnomer. What they really mean is “presidents’ (of Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland) choice.”
What’s in a name? A lot of deception and misinformation.
– Nettie Wiebe,
Delisle, Sask.
Gaps remain
With regards to the Western Producer articles “Memos reveal CAIS unease” (Oct. 5) and “Low commodity prices require program adjustment: Strahl” (Oct. 12), it is heartening to hear that minister Strahl understands the issues but it is regrettable and frustrating that the federal bureaucracy does not.
It is disappointing that our bureaucracy consistently fails to see the reality that producers face every day.
They cling to the idea that, “Canada’s decoupled programs have led to more diversification and production of value added products.” They cling to the concepts of not distorting markets yet the reality is the marketplace is already distorted.
Not only do the U.S. Farm Bill direct supports lower the prices facing Canadian grain prices, they create a foundation of stable, competitively priced inputs for value-added activity in the south. The U.S. Farm Bill creates a foundation of inputs to value-add Canadian weaner hogs, feeder cattle, ethanol and biodiesel production. This will apply to many value added activities including the new “bioeconomy.”
Does Canada need to focus on new opportunities? Yes. Ottawa has focused much attention on new markets, innovation, food safety and quality. These are all noble efforts and will increase Canada’s competitiveness in world markets but it still ignores the elephant in the room.
The U.S. is also doing these things, spending over $20 billion US a year on agricultural research and development, marketing and promotion alone. Even if Canada were to catch up on these investments, it still ignores the reality of direct supports creating that foundation for value-added activity….
It is unfortunate that the federal bureaucrats have not understood the reality of real business and distorted markets that continue to draw Canadian value-added activity, our jobs, our young educated people, our rural economic opportunities, south. If there ever was a clearer signal of their error it is this: the past three years were the best years in U.S. farm incomes in their recorded history.
The past three years were the worst Canadian farm incomes in our recorded history.
Canadian farmers are competitive, they are seeking new markets where they can, they are trying to value add where they can.
But to be truly competitive, Canadian farmers need competitive policy. It’s not only how much you spend but how well you spend it. Canada must be more strategic in its investments. Canadian policy must be competitive with what it is competing against.
It’s time for our own homegrown Canadian Farm Bill. Farmers from across Canada have developed practical solutions from the farm gate. …
– Bob Friesen,
President, Canadian Federation
of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Chevs only?
To all you farmers in favour of the CWB, do you enjoy being controlled by a dictatorship?
Last time I checked, we lived in a democratic society with freedom of choice, except for some odd reason, the CWB, and their non-accountability with closed books.
Have you ever talked to Ontario farmers or listened to their stories? The best thing that ever happened for them was choice. I also find that strange. We’re one country but Ontario has its own wheat board and dual marketing.
How would you like being told you could only drive a Chev? The Chev is all right, but you know there’s a Ford or Dodge out there. The Chev gets the job done, but maybe a Ford or Dodge would get it done better in different situations. Wouldn’t having the choice be better than not?
Nobody is saying you have to market your product elsewhere, but why not let those who want to at least have the options?
The CWB has been low-balling farmers for years. If they want to pay $3 or $4 per bushel, that’s what they’ll pay, because we don’t even have an option to see what else is out there that is better.
Why do so many of you believe a choice will decrease the cash back to the farmer? If we could market our own grain for $5 or $6 per bu. or more, something called fair market value, which the CWB knows nothing about, do you think maybe the CWB would finally have to start paying fair market value if they want some business?
Now I’m not a rocket scientist, but I think I would prefer to sell my wheat for more, rather than less. This will never happen as long as we’re controlled by a monopoly. It’s time for a change. It’s time for a choice.
– Troy Miller,
Bow Island, Alta.
It’s a spade
The federal government wants to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk selling authority. This Conservative government will give the grain companies, including Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge, the ability to buy wheat and barley from western Canadian farmers and resell this grain at a higher price.
With the CWB as a single desk seller, these companies are not able to make a profit on the difference between the price they buy this grain from farmers and the price they receive when they resell this grain to the end user.
With the CWB acting as their agency, farmers are marketing and selling their own grain, realizing the final selling price for themselves and their local economies.
Western Canada has the ability to grow one billion bushels of wheat per year.
Over a 10-year period, the potential is there to give the grain companies the ability to profit from buying and selling 10 billion bushels of wheat, potentially pulling billions of dollars out of the Canadian economy over the next 10 years.
Clearly the federal government’s position to implement “marketing choice” and “marketing freedom” will lead to an open market for wheat and barley. Clearly this debate is about increasing profits to multi-national grain companies.
This year the United States and Australia have reduced supplies of wheat due to drought. Europe and Ukraine have lower production as well.
Canada holds a large supply of milling wheat, and through the CWB, the farmers of Western Canada are in control of this grain. Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, and Chuck Strahl, the minister of agriculture, want to take control of this wheat away from Canadian farmers and hand it over to foreign-owned multinational grain companies that already control over 70 percent of the world’s grain trade.
There are huge profits to be made for these companies….
Mr. Harper and Mr. Strahl, don’t hide behind the terms “dual market,” “market choice” or “market freedom.”
A “dual market” will essentially kill the CWB. State publicly that your government’s agenda is to eliminate the CWB and replace it with an open market for wheat and barley in Western Canada. …
Call a vote, make a question clear. Farmers will make this business decision, not governments.
I will vote to market my wheat and barley through the CWB. Our CWB must keep its foundations intact: monopoly single desk selling, price-pooling and government-guaranteed borrowing.
– Brad Mroz,
Beausejour, Man.
Unaffordable CWB
… As a winter wheat producer in southern Alberta, I decided to do my own research comparing the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and the U.S. wheat marketing system.
I drove to Shelby, Montana, on Oct. 19 to an elevator with a sample of my own winter wheat grown this year. This winter wheat graded No. 1 quality, 11.2 percent moisture and 11.4 percent protein in both systems. The Kansas City futures on Oct. 19 were $220.15 per tonne. My winter wheat delivered to pit in Shelby was worth $4.57 per bushel US or $5.12 Cdn ($188.07 per tonne).
There would be a nine cents per bu. or $3.30 per tonne discount because the dockage was over 0.2 percent. I would net $184.83 per tonne dumped in the pit at Shelby. This was the net cash price for the day at this elevator.
I used the CWB fixed price contract for Oct. 19 to make my comparison, as it is the only pricing mechanism that would effectively give me pricing for the same date. On that date, the CWB quoted a fixed price of the Kansas futures price of $220.15 per tonne less its basis of $25.42 and a further “adjustment factor” of $5.50 to arrive at a fixed price of $189.23 per tonne, basis Vancouver.
When the elevator I deliver to subtracts its deductions for freight, handling and cleaning of $45.37 per tonne, my net price at pit in the CWB is $143.86 per tonne. My winter wheat is discounted $40.97 per tonne under the CWB monopoly when compared to Shelby prices.
If I chose to sell into the pooled account, the latest CWB PRO is $171 per tonne. After subtracting the elevator basis of $45.86 per tonne, I would net at the elevator $125.14 per tonne. This works out to a $50.69 per tonne discount under the CWB monopoly.
How can the CWB make the statement that they sell for premium prices under the CWB monopoly? I have grown winter wheat on my farm for my entire 33-year farming career and I can state that this price disparity is not an isolated event.
The CWB consistently discounts the true value of winter wheat grown in Western Canada. This year, using the price discount of $45.86 per tonne, the CWB monopoly has prevented my farm from accessing an extra $45,000 in revenues.
I question why western Canadian producers are not allowed to participate fully in the true value of the present wheat rally. I have been averaging my way into the latest wheat rally by signing CWB FPCs since last May.
Unfortunately, this has been an imperfect pricing mechanism because of the extra CWB basis deductions, which are unique to our monopoly marketing system….
Yes, I need market choice. My farm cannot afford the CWB monopoly any longer.
– Brian Otto,
Warner, Alta.
Undemocratic act
Over the last six months the federal government has been working to defeat democracy and kill the Canadian Wheat Board. In the last two weeks, the federal government has taken its undemocratic actions to unbelievable lows.
The gag order imposed on the CWB was a despicable and cowardly act by the federal government. While the grain companies and the government of Alberta are allowed to spend millions of dollars spreading their venom, the people with first-hand experience and information at the CWB are not allowed to put forward the case for single desk selling. Clearly, the government is afraid of the facts.
Secondly, and even worse, is the ministerial order that changes the voting rules in the CWB director elections half way through the election process. The deliberate undermining of our CWB election process is unequivocal evidence that the federal government has no respect for democracy.
The minister’s changes have dropped 36 percent of the eligible voters off the list of farmers receiving ballots. Again, this change comes half way through a process that started in the first week in September. Even though these farmers have been dropped from the list, they may still have to pay for the election process.
These changes affect farmers directly, but no Canadian is safe from these undemocratic actions. If you disagree with the government handling of this issue, please write to your MP, copy the letter to all MPs and send the letter to the National Farmers Union office in Saskatoon.
– Stewart Wells,
President,
National Farmers Union,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Poor options
… In the Oct. 12 issue of the Western Producer, I read several articles where (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl had been quoted. The article entitled “Government program not an easy ride: minister” held my attention, as it was dealing with the Farm Family Options Program.
Minister Strahl was quoted as saying: “If they are in a situation where they are below the poverty line, then we will help them in the interim. However, they have to do something different in the long run. They cannot continue to do the same old, same old. This is not a year-after-year plan.”
Minister Strahl should know that his program is a two-year program set up to help the poorest farms that fell through the cracks of other previous programs provided during the recent BSE crisis. Farmers are not confused on this issue: We saw this as a short-term hand up, not a hand out that would continue on.
Minister Strahl … appears to be confusing this aid program with low commodity prices. We all know our production costs continue to rise resulting in decreased profit for our product. This issue of production costs rising is not just at one level of production: small, medium and large operations face the same problem. Efficiency doesn’t always go with size of farm, but by who operates the establishment.
Agriculture is not the only industry with families at or below the poverty line. We see a lot of wage earning folks receiving the same return. The answer shouldn’t be to push farmers off the land into another job only to remain in the same income bracket…. A single definition of farm status that tries to cover all groups of agriculture is not progressive, and doesn’t address present conditions in agriculture. …
I suggest viewing the farm expense statements along with gross farm income and all farm income, as well as land base, to show who farms the land for a living and who is using it for a hobby. Bona fide farmer status depends on what type of agriculture you work in. A program of “one size fits all” would have to define what type of agriculture you are in and then apply the appropriate criteria.
If the agriculture minister wanted to re-do farm bona fide status, why did he make it more difficult for poor farm families after the BSE crisis? Raising the gross income needed for bona fide farmer status to $50,000 was not progressive, but regressive….
Farms were having problems when BSE hit, but it didn’t matter what size of farm we are, or what our income was. We were all hit the same. The governments began to tinker with inefficient programs by putting funds to a few at the top to make a bad situation worse by further destabilizing the industry. The cow-calf producer was only one of many that were hurt.
The Farm Family Options Program had great potential to level the playing field. It would have allowed us to get back to the business of making a living, low that it may be. It could have given us hope for the future ….
The Farm Family Options Program however, tells us that this government doesn’t believe in poor farm families, and we are the less fortunate victims of a BSE crisis. We have been deliberately excluded and have not been provided any support whatsoever. We are the farms in the category of $10,000 to under $50,000 farm gross income.
– Sandra White,
Fairview, Alta.
Choice removed
The federal government says that by getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board it is giving choice to farmers.
I don’t think that this government really believes in farmer choice. It did not give the farmers a choice in buying the rail cars this last spring. By the way, where is our $2 a tonne freight reduction promised by this decision?…
Chuck Strahl says the government was given a mandate to change the CWB in the last election. It was part of their election promises.
Well, there are less than 50,000 farmers on the CWB voter list and the government has eliminated one-third of those. There are approximately 70,000 voters in David Anderson’s riding alone. This is a mandate by farmers?
Some people say that any vote on the CWB should be weighted so that large farmers have a bigger say than small farmers. This would be undemocratic. It should be one person, one vote.
After all, in the federal election a rich person does not have more votes than a poor person.
This government should give the farmers the choice to vote on a clear question of either an open market selling system or the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.
But then this is a government that seems to have made the choice of keeping a promise to change the CWB that will cost Saskatchewan farmers money and so far not keeping a promise on equalization that would bring the people of Saskatchewan money.
– George Rapley,
Climax, Sask.
Nurses needed
About 25 years ago the nursing authorities made a decision which has impacted our lives ever since. They decided every registered nurse needed a degree and the large hospital nurses’ training schools were closed down. How did we, members of the general public, allow this to happen?
Every large hospital across the country had a nurses’ training school. Providing accommodation, uniforms and an allowance for each nurse, they enabled her, after obtaining the necessary education, to enter into a three-year nurse training program.
These hospital schools had around 500 student nurses in training at any one time. The nurses attended classroom lectures and staffed the hospital. …
(The program) enabled hundreds of girls from outlying communities to come to the cities and train for a noble profession without the burden of student loans …
The unions are now very powerful and would undoubtedly strongly oppose the re-establishment of the hospital training schools.
With the increasing shortage of the hospital beds, delays in surgeries and emergency rooms crises plus the increasing stress in the nursing profession, which are all basically due to the disastrous nurse shortage, I can see no other alternative but to re-institute the old system. …
The hospital-trained RNs, at the end of their three years of training, had worked in all the different departments of the hospital, had passed their exams, had learned loyalty and pride in their profession and were all well respected by the medical community.
I think the time has come for us to seriously consider this matter. Every large centre needs that extra yearly inflow of new nurses if we are to keep the health service operating. We can already see the disastrous results the shortage is creating and it will only get worse if something is not done.
– Celia D. Rogers,
Chilliwack, B.C.
