CWB for me
To the Editor:
Operating a grain and beef farm is a full-time job. I do not have the time available to hunt up markets in other countries.
The CWB is my marketing agency. It sells my grain for me at a cost of a little over three cents per bushel.
It is highly respected and trusted around the world and has maintained a high percentage of world grain markets.
The CWB was not to blame for the extremely low prices we received during the last decade. The finger must be pointed at the U.S. Export Enhancement Program and the European Common Market.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
Any profit made on my grain by the CWB is allotted to me. Yes, I must wait awhile for the final payment but I accept that a cash advance is available as soon as harvesting is completed, and can be taken out to pay those outstanding fall bills.
Under the open market system the farmer is financially vulnerable. The young farmer, the small farmer, those in less productive areas generally must deliver their grain at the first opportunity to pay outstanding bills, usually receiving a low price for their grain as compared to the well established farmer who can bide his time and sell several months later at a much higher price.
The open-market system favors the rich and discriminates against the vulnerable. The open-market system buys from the farmer as low as possible and retains all profits.
Most of us are aware of the U.S. grain scandals of past years. Several of the multi-national grain traders were found guilty of short weighing fraud, selling contaminated grain and bribing government inspectors.
The poor and hungry people of the world have been the main victims of what has been termed the greatest theft of food in the history of humanity and it all happened under the open market system.
If I had my choice, I would market all my grain through the Canadian Wheat Board.
– George E. Hickie,
Waldron, Sask.
CWB rhetoric
To the Editor:
As a producer who has been following the debate over the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board with interest, I am becoming rather dismayed at the rhetoric used by the pro-Board side.
Simplistic statements which play to producers’ fears rather than their potential are an insult to the intelligence of producers who have serious questions about the monopoly powers of the Wheat Board.
While an increasing number of farmers like myself feel that this is an issue of having the freedom to select a buyer for our product, the Board’s widely publicized mishandling of several marketing issues, its inflexibility, arrogance and lack of accountability have only added to the wave of discontent that is spreading over the Prairies.
The Wheat Board’s so-called success story is the story of a salesman on a free expense account, who can acquire his product without competition, since his suppliers (farmers) are required by law to sell only to him. He offers them only a down payment and an unspecified final price. He can go into any market, offer any price (maybe even undercut prices) to make a sale, knowing that his suppliers must accept the selling price as their payment for the product.
But farmers and non-farmers alike should all be concerned about the fact that 50 years ago monopoly powers were given to a body that is essentially an export marketing agency.
The Board’s pricing system, for example, rests on the assumption that wheat will be exported. Also, the prime focus of grain marketing research, which is funded by the Board, has been on how other countries can better process Canadian wheat.
There has been no concerted effort or incentive to find ways to process wheat domestically and export a superior finished product; it is a fact that Canada, supposed producer of the world’s best wheat, lags far behind other countries in exports of processed agricultural products.
While Manitoba is now becoming a desirable location for canola, livestock and straw processors, no one seems to want to touch wheat. …
The Board has painted itself in a corner by insisting that anything short of its monopoly would signal its demise. Most farmers, even those opposing its monopoly powers, do not want to see the destruction of the Board as a marketing agency.
But farmers are becoming more independent and innovative marketers, and some are exploring value-added avenues, so is it really realistic to assume that the Board can be immune from a changing environment?
As the Canadian Wheat Board’s only other counterpart, the Australian Wheat Board has already relinquished its monopoly over domestic sales of grains, and it has changed to operate successfully in a more competitive environment. Unless the Canadian Wheat Board shows this kind of flexibility soon, it may really face its demise. But it will only have itself to blame.
– Henry Kuhl,
Bagot, Man.
Trucker blues
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to Ed White’s front-page comments in the Jan. 18 issue of the Producer. Saskatchewan truckers certainly appear to be giving him a line of crying the blues. It appears the informants must have been tagged a few times for being overweight and wish to unload the penalties on the farmer.
Let it be known that any truckers who have come to my farm for grain pickup know how to load their trucks so they aren’t overloaded.
If the farmer doesn’t know the bushel weight, the trucker carries a portable bushel weight measurement scale in his truck to check it out.
Rarely do they overload, and if it happens, most will drop the few bushels they are overloaded into the elevator when weighing through.
As for paying a fair share of road costs, I for one should have annual rebates on licence fees for my grain truck. In an average year I estimate about 300 miles on the road hauling grain. The rest is given over to truckers with their large economical units.
I realize I’m not today’s average size farmer but I have under 66,000 miles on my 1964 vintage truck and the majority of those miles are put on in the field chasing the combine. So how can Warren Smith of the Saskatchewan Truckers Association think I should pay more for licensing fees for road costs? When, too, will he stop trying to bite the hand that feeds him?
So for those few Saskatchewan truckers crying the blues to the media I have no sympathy.
If they don’t know how to load their trucks and don’t want to spend a few dollars on a simple bushel weight measurer to help them, and who may even deliberately overload to make the trip pay, I say, “Grow up and admit your own mistakes and quit blaming the farmers.”
– George Bruins,
Cayley, Alta.
Self-marketing
To the Editor:
Lately the Western Producer and some of your readers appear to be in a bash-Alberta mode.
So we had a little vote so farmers could register their feelings regarding marketing.
Even if the word “freedom” had been replaced with the word “option” or some other word, it would have made no difference how I voted.
I have lived on this farm for 66 years. We produce barley, canola, finished steers, very little wheat. Nearly all the feed barley is sold “off board,” canola and steers on the open market, malt barley through the Wheat Board.
Amount of final payment? Years ago with bins full of barley, low quotas, family to raise, bills to pay, Wheat Board unable to sell much barley, we either had to start feeding cattle or get out of farming.Time to get off your butt and look after your own marketing. Well, the same holds true today.
If your farm is located near a potential market you should be able to take advantage of that market. In our area this can reflect on the price of land. Right now land here is once again approaching $1,200 to $1,400 an acre.
Is it because the western side of Alberta is close to Vancouver and Prince Rupert? We should be able to take advantage of this.
The Wheat Board needed barley for Saudi Arabia and Japan but were unable to fill the order. Initial payment was raised. I wonder if they will get enough barley?
Suppose they had offered $4 a bushel, no final payment, for X number of bushels? I bet they would have been able to fill that order.
– Don Leach,
Olds, Alta.
Environmentalists
To the Editor:
I was disturbed to read that Barry Wilson has decided to lump all of Canada’s environment groups in one category (“No compromise reached between landowners and environmentalists,” Dec. 31) and has resorted to stereotypes to articulate our support for endangered-species legislation.
While there was legitimate frustration at last month’s consultation meetings on the federal legislative proposal for an endangered species act, not all environmental groups “left in a huff” as Wilson describes it.
Neither did all environmental activists announce “their boycott of further consultations.” In fact, I only counted two groups who walked out of the process. Many of us remained, determined to work with landowners to find a solution to the serious problem of species decline in Canada.
Wilson’s suggestion that farmers could be “forced off the land by costly or intrusive legislation” is shameful fear-mongering.
Legislation should recognize the considerable voluntary efforts of landowners with incentives and assistance.
As we have seen from Operation Burrowing Owl, landowners have an important role to play in species protection. Ultimately, legislation has to provide a crucial safety net where other efforts fail. Let us not forget, extinction is forever.
– Francesco Binda,
Canadian Endangered
Species Coalition,
Ottawa, Ont.
Freight bills
To the Editor:
With regard to the lost Crow: I hauled 500 bushels of wheat on a truck; the freight was $628, so that is $1.25 per bushel or $50 per acre on a 40-bushel crop or 3500 x $1.25 = $3,750 to ship a car. So now you add fertilizer, chemical, crop insurance and fuel and other expenses at $100 + $50 freight = $150 per acre. Nothing left for payments. So you break even at $5 wheat. What happens when it goes back to $2 to $3, which is normal? …
What happens when in 1997 there’s no payment? You figure out for yourself how many farmers will be left by the year 2000, as it will cost more to grow the grain than the freight.
– Jack Pawich,
Cartwright, Man.
GRIP ripoff
To the Editor:
… The changes to GRIP, made by the NDP, took up to
$1 billion out of Saskatchewan farmers’ pockets. … All this from a government that said it was going to board the train to Ottawa and go to war with them for more support for Saskatchewan farmers!
I guess the NDP just can’t resist another money grab from rural Saskatchewan.
– John R. Olinik,
Kelliher, Sask.
Debt pain
To the Editor:
J. B. Forrest (Jan. 4 O.F.) sees the world writhing in severe pain of heavy debt. Forrest, among many, wonders who makes these loans and the source of such funds.
Some such monies come from savings certificates bought by individuals. Money collected from these certificates is loaned or in fact rented out. Such borrowings seldom present any serious burdens.
The major portion of crippling debt is the result of our money supply system which favors the private central banks by allowing them to create money out of nothing, then issue this currency as an interest-bearing debt in exchange for real securities. As the debt is paid off, money is taken out of circulation.
Should the principal ever be paid off, there is still the matter of the accumulated interest which can’t be paid off because currency to cover interest charges has never been issued. This allows private corporations to obtain national and global control simply by calling in loans. An example of getting something for nothing.
The simple solution is to issue currency interest and debt free in relation to the Gross Domestic Product as is outlined in Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act of 1867.
A similar money supply system had been used by the Abraham Lincoln administration. However, private corporations taking advantage of an uniformed public and legislators easily destroyed President Lincoln and his “greenbacks.” No doubt legislators in Canada and other nations realize that the present money supply system is at fault but because of corporate influence they stubbornly resist any positive change.
Private corporate Chief Executive Officers are more ruthless than Hitler or Stalin. In fact if private corporate CEO’s were not cunning and ruthless, the likes of Hitler and Stalin would not have surfaced.
We come across snippets of corporate brutality; however Dan Morgan in his book Merchants of Grain and Mel Hurtig in The Betrayal of Canada explain corporate influence and brutality in detail.
Many Canadians are very disturbed about the way things are going in Canada. We are urged to express our concerns to our MPs. In most cases our MPs initially are very concerned about their constituents; however in time the corporate elite gets to them. This explains why we receive ambiguous politically correct replies. Should an MP decide to express local concerns which conflict with the corporate elite, the party leader disciplines that MP should a political leader become a people person, a way is found to disgrace and remove the leader.
Canada is not a democracy. Canada is a corporate dictatorship. The only true segment of democracy we have is in our municipal form of government. Now the corporate elite is finding ways how to destroy that. Surely there must be better brains than that of the writer in how free legislative voting can become the rule in our legislative houses.
– Stuart Makaroff,
Saskatoon, Sask.
SPCA in schools
To the Editor:
Garry Fairbairn contends that animal-rights propaganda is turning Canadian school children against the use of animals in research. Animal agriculture will be next, he warns (Jan. 11).
The example he provides is the Alberta SPCA’s school catalogue which contains the “disparaging” remark that a video defending the use of animals in research “emphasizes the benefits of using research animals and ignores the many possible alternatives.”
One wonders exactly who is guilty of extremist propaganda and fear-mongering. The Alberta SPCA’s statement simply says that some alternatives to animals in research are available and should be used (which no self-respecting researcher would argue) and secondly that because the video does not acknowledge this fact, it is not fairly balanced.
If Mr. Fairbairn really had any knowledge of the Alberta SPCA, he would be aware that their educational philosophy is that the job of an educator is to provide students with accurate information from various sources and help them form their own critical opinions.
The animal industry would be well served to follow the same path. Open minds do not fear the free exchange of information and philosophical debate.
– Frances Rodenburg,
Executive Director,
Cdn. Federation of
Humane Societies,
Nepean, Ont.
GRIP dies
To the Editor:
Saskatchewan farmers are paying their final respects to GRIP. The Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) was born in 1990. It was a farm safety net program developed with federal, provincial and farmer contributions to assist farm income in lean years, with the provincial government being the administrator.
In GRIP’s childhood years, the program was beneficial to many farm participants, as crop failures and low grain prices triggered significant payouts.
Teenage years, as often is the case, saw a rebellious and rocky time for the program as some farm operations abused the system, farming for GRIP instead of grain. Rule changes were implemented as the program gained maturity, but many farmers became disenchanted and opted out of the plan.
Recent years have seen an increase in crop productivity and prices with less emphasis on the program. In fact, in the last two years the program has really been nonfunctional.
Surpluses in the plan were used by the administrators to continue to pay premiums including the farmer share, but there was no hope of payments. There was only the pledge that the plan would be terminated.
As we now prepare to bury the plan we hear from the administration that the surplus which existed two years ago has been eaten up.
Some farmers may receive small cheques while others will be sent overpayment bills. These farmers will be responsible for paying the funeral costs of the ill-fated plan.
The eulogy will no doubt read “Weak start, weaker finish”.
I’d like to leave you with two questions. One, why was the plan not terminated two years ago and funds returned to farmers, saving bureaucratic costs and confusion? Two, how can any government now expect farmers to carry the burden of their mismanagement?
– Allan Kerpan, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Elk whining
To the Editor:
As a sportsman and a farmer, I have found that the farmers who complain of wildlife damage are the same ones that refuse access for hunters.
Certainly they want a longer hunting season. The farmers that complain also charge access fees to hunters and outfitters. Outfitters can charge fees back to their clients.
A longer season, more hunters, more money for the farmers?
If the farmer raised these animals on his own land, I see no problem with this.
However, if these animals are spending most of their life on pasture lease or crown lands, then the hunters should have unlimited access to the complaining farmers’ land. It seems the farmers also want to control access to government lease land. I wonder why.
I guess the farmers want the elk and want the government to pay them for feeding the elk. Fifty tonnes of second-cut hay off 16 acres one farmer wants paid for? The insurance agent should maybe count those bales?
Perhaps I should quit farming and start whining, it seems to pay better.
– D. Williams,
Bonnyville, Alta.
Rural internet
To the Editor:
I recently looked into the cost of Internet service for rural residents. It appears Roy Romanow has it in for us again. The same service that costs urban residents $19.95 for 20 hours usage per month would cost rural residents only $133. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
My telephone bill runs around $100 per month. My neighbor three miles away is long distance, the elevator of choice is long distance, and all machine and parts dealers are long distance! It’s long distance to phone a cellular phone in Colonsay despite the fact we have a cell tower here. We don’t have 911 on our land line phones either. Many people in this area that work off the farm are employed in Saskatoon, a distance of only 35 miles, another long distance call for us at 29 cents per minute!
Sask Power increased rural electrical rates at a higher rate than for urban customers. I can’t get natural gas on my farm thanks to Roy. I’d have trouble finding the $50,000 for me and my three neighbours. Yes, more than $12,000 each! SGI put a 100% surcharge on house insurance if you have a wood burning furnace. It’s been -30 to -40 for a month now. If there is anything rural Saskatchewan needs, it is fair access to some of the utilities that urban people take for granted.
It appears the NDP governing is based on some backward philosophy. They want to control us as best they can. Why is there no alternative long distance carrier in Saskatchewan? Let me assure you that Sask Tel and Roy Romanow are at the root of it all. Why does $19.95 get urban subscribers 20 hours of Internet time and rural subscribers only 3 hours? If it’s because of the long distance, don’t forget which government controls our long distance competition.
If the costs of providing rural Internet service is slightly higher, I can accept that, but let’s be fair about this now. I pay income tax at the same rate as an urban resident, should I not get some benefits from this? Maybe rural residents should pay 50% less on the provincial tax line; that would come close to the service levels in rural Saskatchewan.
– Gary Lawrence,
Colonsay, Sask.
Freedom abused
To the Editor:
The word “freedom” is a much abused word these days. A number of people seem to think that their own interpretation of what should be gives them the right to flout the law to achieve their own end.
Democracy gives us the right to differ and try to persuade others to our way of thinking, but it doesn’t give us the right to override the law until we can convince others of the necessity for change by the democratic process. To do otherwise would lead to a state of anarchy.
Such a course of action would seem to be the line of thinking of those campaigning so hard to establish a dual-marketing system for wheat and barley. Board marketing was established in 1943 and in 1949 coarse grains were added supported by a vote of western farmers.
The move was made only after more than one attempt was made to operate the board on a voluntary basis which proved fruitless and ended in failure.
It is extremely disheartening to see men like Mr. Sawatzky openly challenging the law and a system of marketing which has been so successful since its inception. It is even more disappointing to see such action being supported by members of parliament, in particular Mr. Jake Hoeppner. Do these men not value our democratic system?
The dual-marketing supporters are taking advantage of a situation which developed temporarily in the markets of the U.S.A. Ordinarily the American market accounts for about eight percent of our exports in grain. Due to their close proximity to the border, some farmers were able to cash in on what looked like a higher price.
In reality, the Board could obtain a higher average price in export markets if delivery had been made to them, but contracts were broken because of what looked like extra immediate cash in hand.
Seemingly, no thought was given to the farmer who lived hundreds of miles from the border. Too bad, but I am out to help myself.
If this kind of action was allowed to continue it would certainly bring retaliation in the form of an embargo by the Americans. Their farmers were certainly put to great inconvenience when Canadian farmers continued to congest their delivery system.
The Board could sell the same grain to the end users without causing any disruption to their delivery system.
Who is to say that much of the grain hauled across the border did not end up in export channels and into the very market the Board could have filled?
Board marketing was developed after many years of effort and I believe is strongly supported by a good majority. For anyone to cite the Alberta plebiscite as an indicator would be tantamount to saying the Quebec referendum gave us a true picture of the feelings of the people of Quebec.
Both questions were worded to bring the desired results. Ask a straight question and you will get a straight answer.
The Wheat Board has brought more stability to the western economy than any other single factor. If dual marketing were allowed, it would mean the demise of the Board.
In order to make sales you have got to have a guaranteed supply. They would become just another grain company bargaining for supply.
You hear the argument that the Board needs more competition in the marketplace.
The one fact those advocates miss or fail to grasp is that the Board does not buy grain.
It is an agency set up by the farmers with government support to sell our grain. In my opinion they have done a darn good job. It is self-supporting and we get back every cent above expenses which amounts to five cents per bushel.
Think twice before you allow the noisy minority to destroy what it took years to build. Instead we should be adding new crops for the Board to handle. Get out to the review hearings and make yourself heard. If we lose the battle we won’t get a second chance.
– William Sloane,
Pilot Mound, Man.
Cargill venture
To the Editor:
It will be interesting to see how much fuel the recent Sask Pool decision to team up with Cargill in the Roberts Bank loading facility will add to the smoldering resentment already burning in some of their membership on the share-structure proposal.
Now, while I am not alone to jump up and down with glee over either deal, I am realistic enough to recognize that sometimes you have to roll with the “waves” to avoid being engulfed by them!
But I hope that Sask Pool has done its homework well, as Cargill is no ordinary Robins donut-maker. Buster Kneen, in his book Invisible Giant, reveals that in the last several years their annual turnover has averaged about $47 billion. To best describe the size of this, try visualizing 47 stacks of crisp new $1,000 bills, laid flat, one on the other to a height of 666 feet each. As for you off spring of the metric era, that would be 204 metres, or a fifth of a km high. Hopefully, they (SWP) will be smarter than Devine was in the Sask-Fuco deal, where the government for its 64 million shares (only one less than Cargill’s 65 million) got what?
Cargill got control, also the right to veto any move by the government to sell its interest to anyone Cargill did not approve of, yet they (Cargill) can buy out the government’s share any time, should the venture prove profitable, and as Saskatchewan taxpayers are stuck with loan guarantees of the $305 million borrowed to build the plant, should it turn out sour!
Not bad eh? Quite a bit like Peter Newman portrays our Free Trade deal with Uncle Sam, in which he recalls how Raymond Hnatyshyn (our recent Governor General) when he was Energy Minister in Joe Clark’s short lived government, described Free Trade in energy with the U.S. as being comparable to “swapping wives with a bachelor.” A perfect description for sure. Unfortunately and ironically, his next leader, Mulroney, a few years later did exactly that.
While it is possible to deal with Cargill in a fairly equitable manner, as is indicated by Roy Romanow’s deal in the Clavet Canola Crushing Plant, you have to keep your eyes open as Kneen in his book reveals a good portion of Cargill’s spectacular growth comes from deals something along the line of Jonah and the whale.
So keep your fingers crossed that Sask Pool can fulfill its role of David with the Cargill Goliath and does not end up just another rung on the Cargill ladder of success.
– Philip Lindenback,
Weekes, Sask.
Respect grass
To the Editor:
I read in the Western Producer, Sept. 21, 1995, regarding growing native grass and singing the praises of big bluestem. I read your article with much interest and enjoyed it very much.
As an older stockman I would like to add a little to the article. Here on this range land which we call the prairie grass land, “prairie wool” covers all the native grasses.
There are two things I learned when grazing prairie wool: Do not overgraze. Do not graze too early in the spring, if possible. I have gained up to two and a quarter pounds per head per day, weighed in and weighed out.
I have wintered the cow herd very good on prairie wool and a shot of vitamin A plus free choice of mineral supplement. When this country was open range we would turn the horse herd out in the fall and round them up in the spring. They would come in from the range in good shape if the grass was fair to good. I do not like to see the grass land abused.
– Ellis Jamieson,
Major, Sask.
Farm irony
To the Editor:
Our farming interests always send us in search of livestock news, but we were caught by Elaine Shein’s “Rich Farmers” in the Dec. 7 issue.
It brought to mind the painfully standard joke about the farmer who won the lottery and planned to keep farming until the money was gone.
There is irony and stress (as Verna Thompson pointed out in the same issue) in a business as essential as food production. Those closest to the source have the least price-setting power.
Things would be different if we could say to the banker, feed store, telephone company, etc., “Sorry, but beef (pork, lamb) prices are down this year so we’re only going to pay you 50 percent of last year’s rates.”
The response of a growing number is direct marketing. Though most days we would prefer to be behind the team of mules than at the computer or on the telephone selling our meat directly to those who eat it keeps us afloat.
It also introduces our customers to pasture-raised meat, with its distinct flavor and texture. Though standard recipes can be used, we have found through experimenting that best results come from adapting for less fat and firmer flesh. (No, that doesn’t mean tough!) We give our customers recipes, which helps them achieve best results and assures us of repeat business.
Because of the demand for cooking tips, we are compiling a cookbook for naturally raised lamb, beef, pork, turkey and chicken. We would welcome recipes from your readers (sent to Miocene Box 15, Williams Lake, B.C. V2G 2P3). Credit will be given for all recipes used.
– Cathryn Wellner,
Williams Lake, B.C.
Abandon Ottawa?
To the Editor:
Due to the uncertainty of the Quebec problem, it might be wise to consider moving our Federal government from Ottawa. If Quebec were to separate, it might be safer for the rest of Canada to have our central government in some other part of the country. With just the river separating, what might become a more or less hostile country, from our capital city, we should locate it somewhere else. It is almost certain that the Quebec problem will end up as a civil war, unless the rest of the provinces wake up to the danger involved. …
We need a complete change of leadership in Canada. We need to get rid of the old gang and get some new blood. …
– J. R. Clayton,
Killarney, Man.
