Letters to the editor

American board?

As you can tell by our address, we farm in the “lower 48” states. We enjoy the information and humour from our northern neighbour. Lately I have noticed a lot of controversy about the wheat boards.

When I was on the extension agent’s advisory committee about 25 years ago, a man came to one of our meetings and advocated the founding of an American Wheat Board marketing system. We didn’t understand too well so his question and answer period was mostly silence.

About that time my mother’s cousin, Roy Gertje, went to visit his wife’s uncle who lived somewhere in Saskatchewan province. He came back with mostly a misunderstanding of the Canadian marketing system. I really believe a wheat board violates the (our) Sherman Anti Trust Act.

Read Also

Worrisome drop in grain prices

Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.

I wish the Western Producer would play a little marketing game with me. Let’s pretend I am a wheat producer living near Saskatoon. I produced about an average crop this year, say 100,000 bushels. I store it all on the farm.

Like all farmers I have some bills due this fall. I need to get my money soon. As there is only rail transportation there, I must get my grain to a local elevator as soon as possible.

I would like to know at what rate it is reasonable to deliver my grain and when I can expect payment.

Under the American system, I can deliver my grain any time the terminal has room, and as there is always a bid, I can sell any time the market looks good.

I would like to see an article describing the actions of the wheat board. I might like it really well if I understood it better.

– George Thompson,

Nezperce, Idaho

Much poop

Once again, the heavies of agribusiness are throwing their weight around. The Manitoba Pork Council has bought big newspaper ads and is threatening legal action if the government doesn’t drop its moratorium on new hog barn construction. The council claims the government is picking on it over its role in the contamination of Manitoba’s water supply.

Its theme song goes, “don’t blame us. Hog waste makes up just a fraction of the nutrients that are fouling Lake Winnipeg.” They label as unscientific any claims to the contrary.

But wait a minute. Doesn’t a single pig produce four times the waste of a human being?

Call me unscientific, but with almost nine million hogs calling Manitoba home, isn’t that more poop than is produced by the entire human population of Canada?

Of course, each of us contributes to the problem. Human sewage has already created huge problems in this country.

But if we all acted as irresponsibly as the pork council, solutions would be a long way off, indeed.

Besides, just how much is enough for the industry? While the council whines about discrimination and lost investment, 17 applications for new barns could still proceed to construction, untouched by the moratorium.

The man feeling the most heat is Stan Struthers, (Manitoba) minister of conservation, who introduced the moratorium. For you, I have four simple words of advice. Hang in there, Stan.

– Larry Powell,

Roblin, Man.

Initial payments

If Canadian Wheat Board directors feel the process for approving increases in initial payments is unduly slow, there is a process by which it could be sped up.

In the 1998 amendments to the CWB Act, provision was made to enable adjustment payments without approval of the government. However, the relevant amendments have not yet been brought into force, as the CWB board of directors has preferred that it not be done.

The government of Canada sets the CWB’s initial payments based on expected pool returns for the crop year, with a safety factor to protect taxpayers against deficits in the pool accounts. Initial payments may be raised if grain prices increase substantially, or as the CWB makes significant sales at prices well above the current initial payments.

The response to requests for increases in the initial payments usually takes six to 10 weeks. The Oct. 27 announcement of an increase in the initial payment, as requested by the CWB at the end of August, is within that time frame. In early November the CWB recommended a second increase and that is currently being reviewed.

Since each approval is a decision putting taxpayers’ money on the table, my officials and the Department of Finance need to verify that the increase can be approved without risk of a deficit, and we need approval from the Governor-in-Council.

Canadians expect the government to act responsibly with their money and these steps are put in place to ensure that we do so.

– Hon. Chuck Strahl,

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and

Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board,

Ottawa, Ont.

Writing on wall

Saskatchewan and Canadian farmers should see the writing on the wall regarding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board as they witness (prime minister Stephen) Harper’s minority government and (Saskatchewan Party leader) Brad Wall’s recycled Tories in Saskatchewan’s legislature voting to end CWB’s single desk marketing.

The CWB would then be a small grain company unable to compete with five giant international grain companies, including Cargill, that control 80 percent of world grain trade.

The farm income crisis results from an imbalance between thousands of farmers and a handful of grain, machine, chemical and fuel giants….

Auditor general Sheila Fraser’s 2002 audit claimed the CWB was run very efficiently with 98 percent of board revenues returned to western Canadian farmers. As farmers’ agent, it sets prices, negotiates with customers and arranges railway delivery. Grain farmers get world prices. Multinational giants don’t want to compete with the board….

To instigate changes to the CWB, Harper hand picked organizations opposed to the CWB and excluded supporting farm-organizations. This was neither democratic or lawful for Section 47.1 of the CWB Act requires farmers have a vote before any marketing changes. C-300 would witness the death of the CWB to the cheers of the American wheat lobby.

Now, as in 1935, farmers would be unable to compete with the giant grain companies.

– Joan Bell,

Saskatoon, Sask.

– E. R. Fischbuch,

Spennymoor, Alta.

Good for U.S.

I am a dairy and beef producer. As winter sets in, I have to find room for a lot of animals.

I have extras of every type of bovine. I have bred heifers, cows, steers and so on. They are worth nothing.

Canadian farmers need the border open to the United States so North American animal trading can be normal again.

I consider this urgent for all ruminant livestock producers in Canada in all provinces.

So what is Chuck Strahl, the federal agriculture minister, spending all his time on? Strahl’s number one priority is to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Ottawa bureau

newscrats and the Conservatives seem hell bent on dismantling the wheat board.

I think their motivation and loyalty lies with our overlords to the south.

The huge American grain trading companies want the wheat board dismantled. Divided farmers work much cheaper than organized one-desk sellers. If the CWB needs to be dismantled, the wheat farmers that own the board can hold their own plebiscite to deal with their issues.

The Conservatives need not interfere, but for some reason they do anyway while they take no action on the closed border to our cattle.

So there you have it. The Conservative agenda is about selling out and ruining agriculture for Canadian farmers like me, to the benefit of corporate America.

Every farm and farmer we lose diminishes us as a country and the Conservatives are working toward our demise.

– Ranald MacFarlane,

Regional coordinator, NFU,

Fernwood, P.E.I.

Vote needed

I am writing this letter to express my disapproval on the way our federal government is handling the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

This government was elected on a promise of accountability and creditability, and now we are denied the right to vote on the future direction of the wheat board.

I find it ironic that we send our military overseas to provide democracy to places like Afghanistan, but yet, we are denied the right to a free vote here at home.

Yes, I support single desk selling, as I believe it serves the best interests of our producers, and yes, there is always room for improvement. I think the wheat board is addressing these issues. …

In my opinion, without a single desk monopoly, we would be at the mercy of the multinationals. This is why the Canadian Wheat Board Act was legislated in 1935. This action stopped exploitation by unscrupulous grain merchants. Ask yourself: do you want to return to this in the future?

I believe the so called dual marketing system will only serve to weaken the wheat board and it will be a short matter of time before it will cease to exist.

At least collectively under the single desk system our producers have some power to deal on the world markets. Individually we can’t deal with the same effect.

This is exactly what our multi-national grain companies would like to see. …

– Lawrence Pommier,

Shaunavon, Sask.

Snow job?

Over the last few months, I have sent several pieces of correspondence to my Member of Parliament, Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands) criticizing Conservative government plans to remove all meaningful marketing power from the Canadian Wheat Board.

Today, he responds. He restates his government’s election promise and their commitment that farmers have the freedom to transport and market their grain to any facility of their choosing.

Further, he is critical of studies suggesting the CWB is earning farmers millions of dollars in premiums.

He further suggests, and I quote: “The CWB could in fact be costing farmers a billion dollars every year on account of transportation and administration costs, protein and grade give-aways, production inefficiencies and lost opportunity costs.”

Could this be true …? Not surprisingly, (Anderson) provides no hard facts to back up his assertions. But let’s take a look at a few of his claims.

Transportation costs: Why would transportation costs be less if there was no CWB? It is not the CWB that sets freight rates, nor is it responsible for ripping up branch lines and destroying many community grain-handling facilities. So please, Mr. Anderson, provide some background to back up this statement, if you have any.

Administration costs: It is no secret what the CWB spends on administration. Is he suggesting the private trade does not spend on administration? But how does Mr. Anderson know? The private trade does not release such expenditures to the public. My guess is he doesn’t know. That’s why no data is forthcoming….

Production inefficiencies: I know the CWB is not in the production end of grain growing. I am baffled by what part of production could be blamed on the CWB. In my neck of the woods, farmers do all the production. When over the last 20-25 years farmers have more than doubled the amount of product they send to market, that does not look like inefficiency to me.

If there is any inefficiency in this production method, it is the reduced financial returns farmers are getting….

In closing, I would suggest to Mr. Anderson, farmers are plenty smart enough to recognize a snow job when they see one.

– Henry Neufeld,

Waldeck, Sask.

Climate cow

The Nov. 9 issue of the Western Producer featured an article on page 77 under the heading of, “Climate report gives countries failing grade.” The article was quite typical of the hundreds of similar media articles that bash Canada and the United States on a regular basis for not being active members of Kyoto. Most similar columns, News release

newss, etc. are quoting climatologists, environmentalists and other scientists, often referred to as experts.

It’s hard to believe that these are the same experts who provide us with daily weather reports and weather forecasts – predictions that tend to be wrong more than 40 percent of the time and for a period of less than 24 hours.

When dealing with a time frame of two to five days, the percentage of accuracy is less than 20 percent.

Keep in mind that in mathematical science of odds and probabilities, a forecast of any given event that is less than 50 percent correct can be considered as mere chance.

If indeed these climate experts are at odds to predict the weather for less than a week, how can they make accurate predictions about the future in five or 10 years?

The truth is they can’t, mostly because we don’t know what causes global warming, a condition that has happened in the past long before humans inhabited the planet.

The truth is, they’ve found a cash cow that misinformed taxpayers are willing to feed for all it’s worth. If you want to believe that we should invest billions of hard earned tax dollars into a science that can’t tell you whether it will rain on next week’s Sunday picnic, or whether the sun will shine, then go for it. Just leave me out of it.

I just hope the climate cow doesn’t die before the planet cools down again.