Letters to the editor

Vital plebiscite

I am a shareholder of an incorporated farm of 2,500 acres which produces only creeping red fescue seed (lawn grass). We farm in the Peace Country of northwestern Alberta. Our farm has not had a permit book for six years.

It is obvious that it is very important what happens to our grain-producing neighbours as their income is eroded away to the point of them either leaving the industry or looking for other commodities to produce.

That brings me to the issue of the mainstay of the grain industry in Western Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board.

Read Also

Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions

Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.

Quite frankly, that battle has been going on for so long and has been so bitter that some of us are getting rather tired of it.

This is especially frustrating since those of us that believe strongly in the democratic system felt that the issue was being dealt with through the director elections, which always returned a large majority of supporters of our wheat and barley marketing system.

In his fight against the single desk CWB marketing system, (prime minister Stephen) Harper’s government has undertaken an unprecedented number of undemocratic actions. …

Mr. Harper and his henchmen have perpetrated a gross injustice on the total western Canadian grain industry.

They have by their actions treated the CWB, a grain marketing system, as an enemy of the state. No government has ever undertaken this kind of unprecedented action against an established well-supported and respected institution, which by the way has functioned well at arms length from the past government.

There is one chance to speak left for board supporters at this point in time. That is the barley plebiscite.

I urge all supporters of the CWB marketing system to use this opportunity to be heard. I also urge supporters to write letters to all leaders in government and opposition, to the editor and support organizations such as members of the coalition and Real Voice for Choice.

These organizations are financed exclusively by their members.

– Hartmann Nagel,

Woking, Alta.

Minister responds

Re: Supply management days numbered (WP, Dec. 21.)

Barry Wilson’s article left the wrong impression about our government’s position on supply management.Â

Our track record is clear. This government has consistently defended our supply managed sectors at the World Trade Organization and we have made this position known to our trading partners.

Our supply management system is not on the negotiating table. Our party campaigned on it and Canada’s new government will continue to stand in support of this system in the dairy, poultry and egg sectors.

We continue to believe that an ambitious outcome to the Doha Round is in the best interest of the Canadian economy as a whole. With talk of negotiations in the new year, Canada will be an active participant.

Trade liberalization remains critical to our economy as a whole and to our exporting agriculture industry, and we will continue with the mandate of improving market access while supporting our supply managed sectors. This is the right thing to do for our farmers, farm families and our economy.

– David Emerson

Minister of International Trade

Ottawa, Ont.

Park it

So now we have the spectacle of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and agriculture critic Wayne Easter standing shoulder to shoulder with Canadian Wheat Board CEO Adrian Measner in attacking the freedom of individual farmers in Western Canada.

Here’s yet another case of two eastern politicians and one soon-to-be dismissed western “politician” presuming to know what’s best for me.

They think it’s fine to send prairie farmers to jail for trying to sell our own wheat and barley and yet they aren’t prepared to impose the same restrictions on farmers in their own home provinces.

Until Dion and Easter stand up in the House of Commons and demand the CWB’s monopoly be extended to farmers in Quebec and Prince Edward Island, they should park their anti-individualist views at the door and let the Canadian government follow through on its campaign commitment to give us the marketing freedom that other Canadian farmers take for granted.

– Conrad Johnson,

Bracken, Sask.

Speckles & Strahl

In the article on Speckle Park cattle (Dec. 7) Karen Morrison went right from the developers, Bill and Eileen Lamont and the late Mary Lindsay, to animals being shown today at major western shows such as Agribition.

Just for the sake of history, however, although Edward Melchior bought bulls from among Pike cattle, his original cows were purchased directly from Bill and Eileen Lamont….

On Dec. 11, Sheila Coles asked pointed questions of agriculture minister Chuck Strahl. When she asked what he thought of the election putting in four directors who believe in the Canadian Wheat Board single desk selling out of five directors elected, his reply was that “we” put in one who didn’t. Who all is this “we” of whom the minister speaks?

He then claimed that farmers are showing their dissatisfaction with the wheat board by growing non-board crops.

It’s called crop rotation, Mr. Strahl. Look it up. …

– C. Pike,

Waseca, Sask.

Customer driven

I would like to comment on Mike Larsson’s opinion piece in which he champions the cause of something he calls the “commercial organic farmer,” ( WP, Nov. 30.) Mr. Larsson’s concept of a “commercial organic farmer” is a fabrication that does not and could not exist in the current reality of certified organic farming.

Commerce is only one aspect of a much broader role which the organic farmer fills. To label an organic enterprise only as “commercial” would immediately throw it under suspicion with our customer base.

Organic farmers and our partners, the people who eat organic food, understand that organic agriculture is based on the three pillars of environmental stewardship, social responsibility and economic viability. These pillars of responsibility and sustainability are inseparable and are addressed in the way we farm.

Contrary to what Mr. Larsson asserts, the interests of organic farmers and our customers are largely in alignment and this relationship must not be portrayed as a wedge issue.

Furthermore, it is this mutually agreed upon philosophy … that is formalized in the rules of certification and regulation. When direct relationship buying and selling is not possible, it is the system of rules and regulations that allows the buyers of organic products to have confidence in the food’s organic integrity.

Like any successful human enterprise, certified organic agriculture is able to function because of a system of mutually agreed upon rules and principles. The Canadian National Standard being developed will form an integral a part of this foundation.

But aside from all of that, even if we wish to look at organics from strictly a dollars and cents point of view, there is something fundamental to remember. That is “the customer is always right.”

If I want to succeed financially as an organic farmer, it is in my own best interest to provide the people buying my products with what they want; be that food safety, food nutrition and taste, environmental stewardship or social responsibility. If it is bottom line, hard nosed business we want to talk about, then organics is customer driven. Period.

For instance, if my customers want to be able to eat food that is GMO free, then I had better be doing everything in my power to maintain my historic ability to do that. ….

The notions in Mike Larsson’s article that “the problem with consumers is generally they don’t have a clue about business, farming or science” and that somehow their interests are counter to those of organic farmers, are especially troubling.

On the contrary, the people I know who eat organic food are knowledgeable and sophisticated, and historically they have proven their support for the organic sector by voting with their pocketbooks. …

– Doug Bone,

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate,

Elrose, Sask.

Why the fear?

What is the Canadian Wheat Board afraid of?

Recently we have been bombarded by a great deal of rhetoric about the merits of the CWB and dire predictions of disaster should farmers be given a choice in marketing their own wheat. There are other aspects to this politically charged topic and I suggest we often hear mostly one side, the CWB official position.

The CWB is really not Canadian at all. If you farm outside of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or the Peace region of B.C., you are not under control of the CWB’s heavy hand. This has to be one of the more blatant examples of discrimination in Canada.

The idea (is) that farmers are incapable of marketing their own wheat. We are able to market our own canola, oats, hay, cattle and most other commodities but somehow selling wheat is beyond our capabilities.

I would contend if farmers can figure out and use the recent convoluted marketing options developed by the CWB, they will have no difficulty doing their own marketing.

We are often told (that) the CWB can only exist in a monopoly and if farmers are given marketing choices the CWB will cease to exist. This seems strange to me. If the CWB is doing the great job of marketing our wheat and getting producers an extra $800 million for this wheat, they have nothing to fear.

As wheat producers, we like getting a little extra for our product and would gladly sell to them. You don’t need a monopoly to get our wheat.

Removal of the CWB monopoly could greatly benefit the agri-food industry in the region controlled by the board. This would benefit not only farmers but also Canadians as a whole.

It is time for the heavy-handed discriminatory wheat board monopoly to be removed.

If they are doing the great job of looking after producer’s interests, they have nothing to fear. If not, perhaps the present rhetoric is really only self interest.

– Fred Barg,

Brooks, Alta.

Freedom fashion

The real issue in the CWB debate is this: whose property is the wheat that I grow on my farm? Is it not my right to sell the fruits of my labour to whomever I please?

In a free and democratic country, the answer to these questions are obvious. The wheat is my property and I should have the right to sell that property to whomever I please.

This right was taken away from us farmers over 60 years ago. It is time to get it back.

The democracy argument constantly brought up by the proponents of the wheat buying monopoly is false.

It is like saying, if the majority of people vote against freedom of the press, it would make it OK to get rid of that right.

The right to sell my property should not be a collective decision. We should leave that to communist countries.

Here is the fundamental difference between proponents of the monopoly and freethinkers like me.

I have nothing against farmers organizing themselves in a marketing organization like the CWB on a voluntary basis. This is their choice.

However, they have no right to deny me my choice.

Freedom is never out of fashion and this is why this issue will never go away until the government restores my fundamental right to sell my own property, a right that all other Canadians take for granted.

– Andreas Boersch,

Elie, Man.

Acting on faith

Several provinces have government auto insurance, a monopoly supplier for that province. Buyers of auto insurance in those provinces have no choice of supplier.

But guess what? Those buyers largely are happy because their insurance costs less.

They know that other places without a monopoly supplier are more expensive. Having many competing suppliers all charging higher rates is not an attractive alternative.

Choice comes at a price.

Monopoly selling of an agricultural product is similar but in the opposite direction. Producers may have no option but to sell through a compulsory marketing board, but so what?

Break the monopoly and you get multiple marketers of that produce all chasing the same buyers and cutting prices in order to get the sale. The bias is toward a downward price spiral.

Producers get a choice of who to sell to but the prices on offer are lower than when a monopoly marketer exists. Choice comes at a cost.

Malt barley prices will trend down if multiple sellers are competing for the same few buyers. How would giving up the marketing clout of a monopoly seller benefit producers? It defies logic.

Those who believe that monopoly is bad, competition is good and that somehow, magically, producers would be better off without a monopoly marketing their produce, are acting on faith.

Such people believe competitive markets are always best; they have faith all will turn out well. How, they cannot say. Facts will not sway them; logic has no impact. Their faith is fundamental. For such people market economics is a dogma, a secular religion. They are strong in their belief, steadfast in their faith.

And if they get their way and kill the monopoly, they can glory in their steadfastness while cashing the smaller cheques they get for their produce.

But then true believers are frequently willing to suffer personally for their dogmas. Why others should be forced to suffer along with them is a very good question.