CAIS betrayal
The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program is meant to help with the poor years following years of drought and ridiculously low prices of the past years.
We received some benefits in 2003 but because of very low margins, nothing since then. BSE advance payments were a help but were clawed back from the grains and oilseeds program. We have come to accept this but when the new valuation of inventories was announced we assumed some help was on the way.
Wrong. In our case, there should have been a payment due to much lower values in inventories of cattle. Wrong again.
Read Also
Term easements positive way to protect grasslands
Term easements positive way to protect grasslands
Apparently the money we would have received from the reduced cattle prices was offset by almost doubling the grain price used in the inventory valuation.
After some investigation, we find ourselves penalized yet again for trying to survive in farming. We have been told by officials that grain farmers’ inventories have also risen but they are not being asked to repay monies received.
Why are we then having our money clawed back yet again?
We feel betrayed by a very unfair system and have been falling through the cracks for years, getting more and more frustrated reading about how much money is flowing through CAIS to farmers. It is time the whole truth was told and I am writing to you in hope something can be done.
– Tony Hill,
Wiseton, Sask.
Just curious
Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how much campaign money Stephen Harper’s Conservative party really gets from all the corporate grain companies and the rest of the major grain companies that want to see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled so badly.
Remember the 25 people who sat in on the closed door meeting in Saskatoon? They have everything to gain once the CWB is gone and they are the ones quoting the price you will receive for your grain, which will be a one-time price, not an average of the whole year.
They are the companies who have to show large profits for their shareholders, which will be at the producers’ expense. Your neighbours to the south who basically control Canada now sure won’t allow you to flood their market with wheat and barley without imposing a tariff or tax on the grain.
To Stephen Harper, Chuck Strahl and David Anderson, farmers are under three percent of the vote. I don’t think that little amount Canada-wide gives you the right to dismantle the CWB when in a farmers’ vote, it’s over 80 percent to keep it a single desk system.
So wake up, other farmers. When it’s gone, it’s going to hurt and the big companies have no sympathy, just large profits at your expense.
Also to the Conservatives, stick to trying to run the country and leave the CWB alone.
– Ken Fordice,
Galahad, Alta.
Bona fide farmer
Canadian farmers with $10,000 farm gross (income) to under $30,000 farm gross (income) have been deliberately excluded, effectively turned away from any support by this federal government.
We have been arbitrarily re-defined as hobby farmers by the Farm Family Options Program because we do not meet the bona fide status required.
In my phone conversations with (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl’s western advisor, Chad Shaver, I asked two questions: 1. Did they intend to include at any time the under $50,000 farm gross group in the Farm Family Options Program? He said no.
2. Did they have any thoughts or plans to develop an aid package for this group? The answer was no aid unless existing programs, for example the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, insurance, disaster assistance would apply. Maybe new programming in 2007 but no promises.
In other words, don’t hold your breath. We are in this alone.
They have no intention of backing anyone that can’t show to be a winner quickly and their interpretation of viable. Don’t look to this government if you really need their backing in a crisis….
The Farm Family Options Program, when yet unannounced and unnamed in July, was already being promoted as aid to the poorest bona fide farmers. All government programs at that time defined bona fide status at $10,000 farm gross. We were horrified to see this government changed things to $50,000 farm gross in the middle of a crisis.
The wheat board issue, also very important to farmers, has kept everyone’s focus away from another very important event, the loss of bona fide status for many.
This government claims to have no intention of changing the status in other programs but because of how they have defined bona fide status in the Options program, it would not be me to trust them on this issue.
– Sandra White,
Fairview, Alta.
Non-board grain
During my farming career of 60 years, I strongly supported the Canadian Wheat Board and the quota system, which gave every farmer a fair portion of the available market and market space according to the size and acre management of their farm. My permit book was a management tool and was jealously guarded.
Not for me, not any more, after the following incident.
One year in October, I signed a contract with the CWB to sell “x” amount of wheat. Following many inquiries, this contract was never called for delivery until April the following year.
At that limited spring time, the road bans were in place, my trucks were busy with seed and fertilizer and the nearest elevators still had no room to take delivery. The wheat was still in farm storage – no money.
So by and by, here comes a bill from the CWB – and not small – a fine for non-delivery of the contract and the threat of taking this sum from my CWB account for payment of the fine. Several letters to the CWB were never answered.
So much for the CWB looking after this farmer’s wheat sales.
At the present time, the only way I can consistently make a profit is to grow and sell only non-board grain, oilseeds and pulse crops directly to grain companies, feedlots, crushing plants, the United States and specialty markets.
– Gerald Cole,
Coronation, Alta.
Locally grown
Locally grown food within Canada’s boundaries should be our government’s priority, looking at the world’s uncertain future.
We cannot rely on other areas of the world should the worst happen – we have none here and little to buy. Even though we are a main exporter of agricultural and horticultural products, that could change quickly. Could we produce enough to feed this nation?
Fresh water, too, could be as valuable as oil if present global trends continue. Canada’s farmers and cattlemen need not support, but enhancement within our industry to keep Canada’s people alive and well.
– Nick Parsons,
Farmington, B.C.
Animal stories
I would like to commend the Western Producer for choosing to publish an interesting variety of stories and articles on farm animals.
In particular, my sister and I, raised on a Saskatchewan mixed farm, appreciate the excellent photos of horses with suitable captions. The colour, although on newsprint, is surprisingly good.
Thank you for giving us so much pleasure.
– Jean Reinhardt,
Courtenay, B.C.
Four-letter word
SARM is a four-letter word.
Farm leadership in Saskatchewan has chosen to sit itself on the sidelines, warming the bench, and that’s where they should stay.
Given their antics in withdrawing from the farmer coalition for the Canadian Wheat Board and refusing to provide leadership in this very important issue, they have lost all credibility and I suggest that they remove themselves from all policy discussions in the future.
If one sticks their head out of the sand to lead, for goodness sake do it. “It was a divisive issue,” they tell us, but when has there ever been a farm policy issue that hasn’t had some dissension?
An 87 percent resolution from their March annual general meeting should have been direction enough. As leaders, they should have been well informed about the consequences of losing the single desk of the CWB. The facts were out there.
Instead, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities swayed to what I call the “men’s washroom politicking,” switched positions and left their membership wondering what happened to their supposed leaders.
May I suggest that, at the least, SARM could have shown some leadership by providing opportunities … in the format of debates, where both sides of the issue could have been heard? Farmers are facing an uphill battle to retain their marketing power against a manipulative and undemocratic government. They desperately needed this municipal leadership.
By shifting into neutral on this uphill grade, SARM is committing its municipalities to the slough bottom – economically, socially and emotionally. …
– Noreen Johns,
Allan, Sask.
Makes no sense
I am amazed at this new fad of animals raised as free range by these animal activists in your Nov. 2 edition.
We were raised on a farm in Saskatchewan during the Depression. At that time everything was free range as we couldn’t afford any fences. We had cattle, horses, pigs, chickens and turkeys all running together.
The cows left their pile of manure and the chickens helped themselves to the undigested grain. Then the pigs came along and ate the rest. Any animal that died from whatever reason … was immediately eaten by the chickens, turkeys and pigs. …
Some farmers even shot rabbits that were plentiful some years and fed them to their pigs.
Finally people realized that all this garbage the animals ate ended up in our own food and decided to confine them and restrict their diet to clean feed and water only.
Now these “concerned” individuals want to go back to where we were 80 years ago. It doesn’t make sense to me.
– Tom Wolsey,
Fort St. John, B.C.
CWB smoke
In (Rob Brown’s) column on the Canadian Wheat Board, (he) speaks of moral ethics and publishes under the (heading) The Moral Economy. (WP, Nov. 16)
Good ethics and good journalism would suggest that you should not deal in half-truths and unsubstantiated claims.
The CWB is a monopoly even if they let you buy out and sell your own grain outside the CWB. From the paperwork to the fact that they can control the price you receive makes this more of an exercise in futility than an actual workable solution.
You speak of all the money the CWB makes us poor farmers as well as the whole western economy. There have been learned studies showing how much money the wheat board has made or lost. He who pays the piper seems to always get the tune he wishes.
The idea that the only real marketer is the CWB and all other marketers are resentful and inept would be laughable if it wasn’t such an absurd little comment.
The real smoke and mirrors is the idea the CWB is farmer controlled and it is allowing us freedom of choice in our marketing. I completed my harvest one month ago and am starting to market my 2006 crop. Two weeks ago, the CWB cut off the Fixed Price Option so I can no longer sell my wheat on the open market. ….
How’s this for a marketing choice? I sell my grain to the seller of my choice at a date mutually agreed on and I get paid all my money when I deliver. No final payments and no convoluted marketing options.
As for farmer control, the CWB is a crown corporation. Its CEO is appointed and removed at the crown’s pleasure….
I believe in democratic freedom but I also believe in business freedom. I do not understand the concept that someone else has the right to vote on my business. I am the only person who has the right to vote on this. If anyone wishes to pay my bills, they can have a vote.
This issue is a farmer issue. I am tired of outsiders with no money invested but strong ideological views weighing in. I stay out of their business. Can’t they stay out of mine?
– Bob Gilmour,
Carrot River, Sask.
Emperor’s clothes
So it has finally been admitted that “there’s no such thing as a dual market for grain.” (WP, Nov. 9.) A lot of innocent farmers have been conned by this grand deception, and deserve an apology from those promoting so-called dual marketing.
Does this indicate what their real motives are? It is like the fairy tale about the emperor with his invisible clothes. Everybody oohed and aahed, but it took a child to say the emperor has no clothes.
This should now result in any balloting regarding the wheat board having a clear choice of either single desk selling such as the wheat board, or a fully open market. Dual marketing is not an option.
With such a clear question, we can fully respect the decision that farmers themselves will make.
– George Burton,
Humboldt, Sask.
Absurdity continues
It simply boggles the mind. It would be laughable if the future of farmers’ marketing power through the Canadian Wheat Board wasn’t at stake.
Agriculture and CWB minister Chuck Strahl was quoted in a Nov. 15 Reuters interview on his reaction to Saskatchewan Wheat Pool’s takeover bid for Agricore United, saying, “it does offset somewhat the ability of big companies like Cargill and others to dominate the market, so this isn’t a bad thing.”
He also said, “to have a heavy-duty Canadian player in the market is, I think, a good thing in the long run.”
This is the same minister who is continuing an unprecedented attack on the heavy-duty Canadian player in the market that we already have – the CWB. The minister and marketing choice supporters apparently understand the logical moves by grain companies to consolidate and eliminate competition to increase their market power and returns to their shareholders, who are increasingly not farmers or Canadian.
At the same time they claim that farmers would do better by getting smaller, competing against each other to sell the same product to the limited number of end users. They propose that a pale shadow of the CWB, without the single desk and dependent on increasingly powerful competitors to execute business, could survive. The logic gap is breathtaking.
It is inexcusable that minister Strahl has never taken the time to have meaningful discussions with the CWB regarding the market power that farmers have with the single desk, to examine the actual sales and performance measures that prove it and to understand the flexibility and choice the CWB delivers through pricing options.
Fortunately, I believe the majority of farmers do understand that a strong single desk CWB gives farmers market power but larger and fewer grain companies do not. Farmers can make that clear choice in the current CWB election.
– Bill Nicholson,
CWB Director, District 9,
Shoal Lake, Man.
Move the bodies
Re: Barbara Duckworth’s article on the problem with energy companies wanting to drill sour gas wells near or in urban areas (Collaboration vital in handling energy exploration, WP, Nov. 9.)
It is interesting to note that Synergy Alberta was formed to deal with the problem of sour gas developments in close proximity to large urban areas.
However, look at the list of players: Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen and members of the public.
Imagine that. Four bodies that are financed by the gas and oil industry. Guess whose side they will be on? The members of the public won’t carry much weight against that.
There are 57.28 million square miles of land surface on the earth with 3.6 million of them in Canada, and these resource companies want to drill in urban areas.
I think it would not be beyond these companies to want to drill a sour gas well in a cemetery, and run a pipeline out amongst the graves. They probably would get approval to do so as long as they had an emergency plan in place that would show how they might get not only everybody, but every body out in case of a disaster.
– D. Budesheim,
Grande Prairie, Alta.
Starting debate
After eight months of saying “there will be no debate on the wheat board issue,” the Harper Conservatives are desperately trying to start a debate.
As a result of their newfound interest in talking about the issue, we have the announcement of a barley plebiscite and the minister of agriculture (Chuck Strahl) exhuming discredited studies to use in his ongoing campaign against the wheat board.
In his recent op-ed article, Strahl quotes extensively from work produced by an anti-CWB economist named Colin Carter.
Strahl would do well to read articles from the farm press from 1996 and later. Strahl should also read Carter’s testimony from a 1997 court case on the subject.
Carter’s work was thoroughly refuted by other economists in the mid to late 1990s. Carter’s many mistakes were pointed out in many newspaper articles and other venues. And in the 1997 court testimony, Carter acknowledges that he knowingly supplied “studies” to the court that contained flawed data without caveat or correction.
By the end of the 1990s, economic analyses that attempted to deny the benefits of the CWB single desk had been so soundly discredited that not even the most vehement anti-CWB crusader was quoting the work, instead opting for the line, “this isn’t about economics, this is about freedom.”…
To the surprise of many, the Harper Conservatives seem to have mistaken farmers for people that will accept gag orders, ministerial interference and faulty logic. This new mistake only compounds the weakness in the government’s position.
– Stewart Wells,
President,
National Farmers Union,
Swift Current, Sask.
Told off
With regards to the Open Forum letter “Wants a choice” (Nov. 16), I agree that all of these so-called organizations that claim to be working for the farmers are first and foremost working for themselves.
They make a profit for themselves, not for the farmers. If they were all working for the farmers’ best interest, how is it that they are making big profits, while the farmers, who are the producers, keep on struggling and can’t even make ends meet because of low commodity prices and high production costs?
As Donald (Sunderland) says, farmers are getting tired of being told what to do by people who make a profit for themselves.
– Angele Bouffard-Lewans,
Assiniboia, Sask.
No glasses
I was somewhat aghast to see the picture on page three of the Nov. 2 issue showing a young man with grinder operating and a shower of sparks flying and him without safety glasses.
Yes, he is wearing glasses but they are of essentially no value as far as protecting his eyes is concerned. You should be more responsible in the selection of pictures you print…
– Marv Fyten,
Lac La Biche, Alta.
