Why a vote?
I think I understand why some farmers want a dual marketing system for wheat and barley.
They want to sell their grain on the open market when prices for grain are high, but they want to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board when prices are low.
ls this not correct? How can the CWB exist in this situation? The CWB has no storage facilities to carry grain stocks.
The CWB is a collective sale agency for farmers trying to get the best world price and distributing it in a fair manner.
Read Also
Trump’s trade policies take their toll on Canadian producers
U.S. trade policy as dictated by president Donald Trump is hurting Canadian farmers in a multitude of ways.
A couple years ago when there was a surplus of poor quality damp wheat on the market, barley prices dropped dramatically, feedlot operators bought this poor wheat instead of barley. The CWB bought quite a bit of this surplus barley.
At present we have a dual market for our feed barley – the feedlots, hog barns and poultry take most of the barley we grow and they set the price for feed barley. So why do we need a vote on dual marketing for barley?
– Frank Gechter,
Medicine Hat, Alta.
Wants options
I sure hope that all the supporters of a single desk seller sell all of their feed wheat and barley to the CWB and also all their canola, canaryseed, oats, peas, flax and any other crops that they grow to them too.
Why not add pigs, cattle, chickens, etc.? Maybe Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, John Deere, Case IH, New Holland, etc. should all be under one dealership so that they can get the best price for their products.
I don’t think this would be good for anyone. Some fair competition is good for both the buyer and seller. If a business can’t withstand any competition, maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
When the CWB – or should I say Western Canadian Wheat Board as it seems to be different rules in other provinces – sets or recommends the initial price for our high quality grain at just pennies a bushel with a possible payment or maybe not, a year or more later, doesn’t tell me they are there to get the best price for our grain. It’s more like they could give it away.
I would like to have the option of being able to sell my high-grade wheat and barley to whoever I believe is giving me the best price.
No, I won’t always be a big winner or always get the best price possible, but I will not be selling a good crop of high quality grain for a lot less than the cost of production. This has been the case all too often when selling to the Western Canadian Wheat Board in the more than 45 years that I have been farming.
– Myron Sunderland,
Rose Valley, Sask.
Devil you know
As a young farmer, I have been watching the Canadian Wheat Board scenario with great interest, and Cherilyn Jolly-Nagel’s comments in the Western Producer have prompted me to put pen to paper.
With the results of the CWB district elections published, Ms. Jolly-Nagel suggested that the result of 39.7 percent support for open market candidates “just go to show that the CWB is not reflecting the interest of all farmers.” Perhaps, but the 60.3 percent that supported single desk candidates could also say that these results would indicate that an open market system is unsustainable.
That leads me to pose the question: do open market wheat and barley supporters grow canola? There is a crop where the producer has 100 percent control over the marketing of their produce. And where has the price of that commodity been in the past couple of years? Nowhere near the levels to which producers feel is a fair price for their production, the same argument that the opposition to the single desk are currently presenting.
Admittedly, canola has rebounded of late but I would suspect that you would be hard pressed to find someone regaling tales of fortunes made off of $6 canola.
I know that people will mutter that wheat and barley through the single desk are worse, and believe that profit for our wheat lies south of the 49th parallel. I have seen examples of comparisons between U.S. prices and return from the CWB in your publication and there were price advantages in the instances that were presented.
But for how long? Do we believe our American counterparts will willingly accept truck after truck of Canadian wheat coming across the line? Likely not for long before the imposition of a tariff that would remove the appeal of shipping cross border.
There is no doubt that some changes would certainly benefit the CWB but I also believe that strides have been made to accommodate the marketing wishes of those producers who prefer a more self-directed marketing scheme with the introduction of daily price contracts and basis price contracts. I believe with some alterations to these pricing options, for example revamping sign up deadlines and trying to reduce the administration fees, the CWB as it currently exists could be a workable entity for producers no matter which side of the debate they reside on….
Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don’t.
– Sean Martin,
Brandon, Man.
One opinion
The article by Murray Fulton and Richard Gray, “Why the CWB game matters” and their comments (in) the Dec. 7 issue of the Western Producer are blatantly biased.
Mr. Fulton and Mr. Gray are both supporters of the CWB monopoly and that clouds their ability to understand that a change of operating circumstances is not a reason for failure in marketing farmers’ grain.
The CWB is not unlike any other business where operating criteria changes throughout the business year. It is in times of turbulence when CEOs who successfully manage the business demonstrate their value to shareholders and customers.
That has not been the case with the CWB, where Mr. Measner, president and CEO, has focused all the energies of the organization in defending/maintaining the status quo, thereby not attending to the job he was hired for – selling farmers’ grain. Failure to provide leadership in changing times in most corporations would very quickly result in termination of the senior people as they are held accountable.
The suggestion that a restriction on spending farmers’ money on self promoting propaganda and appointment of new directors as a cause of major consequence which disrupted the ability of the CWB staff to effectively conduct farmers business further demonstrates Fulton and Gray biases….
In offering only opinions without consideration of how businesses without monopolies operate, one has to wonder if the instruction Fulton and Gray provide in their economics lectures at the University of Saskatchewan are equally shallow. It is clear that neither of these two gentlemen are experts in the field when the subject is related to the CWB.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Quality control
A few years ago, I experienced a fortunate opportunity to visit grain handling and marketing facilities in the Ukraine, Russia, and China at no expense to the Canadian taxpayer.
In Beijing, China, Cyril Marcotte and I met with the Canadian Wheat Board representative as well as the head of the wheat purchasing agency for that country. This latter gentleman told us very clearly that, until China became self sufficient in grain production for the flour milling industry, they were very happy with the quality and consistency of our products as compared to that of other international suppliers.
If the grading and marketing standards were disturbed, they would revert to buying wherever they could at the best possible price, i.e. cheaper.
In Kiev, Ukraine, at another time, the manager of a flour mill considered our wheat to have quality and consistency superior to their own grains and that from United States suppliers. In the meantime, of course, they have increased their own production to the point where imports of grain are at a very low level.
Most farmers I have discussed with regarding the marketing status of the CWB are willing to accept whatever decision might be made by a vote of the producers of those grains rather than by Members of Parliament, some of whom are not grain producers.
– Norm Flaten,
Weyburn, Sask.
Farmers decided
In the past couple of months, several news articles and reports have cited the wheat marketing systems of Quebec and Ontario as examples of marketing choice environments.
While it is understandable that discrepancies in information occur, there are serious flaws with these arguments.
Firstly, in 2005, Quebec farmers established a single desk for Quebec-grown wheat destined for human consumption.
The Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec is now in its second year of operation and has been successful at providing additional value for the Quebec wheat industry.
The decision to incorporate marketing under a single desk was made by Quebec wheat farmers in a province-wide producer vote.
Secondly, the 2003 decision to move away from a single desk for wheat to an open market in Ontario was made by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board’s farmer-elected board of directors and by Ontario wheat farmers.
The marketing environment for wheat from Ontario is vastly different than that of Western Canada. Ontario wheat production is largely geographically concentrated with easy access to transportation. The majority is used domestically and in the United States.
Western Canadian wheat is exported to roughly 70 different countries and is sourced throughout the Prairies.
In both Ontario and Quebec, farmers have had the right to choose their marketing systems. By the same token, any decision about the marketing system that best meets farmers’ business needs on the Prairies should be made by western Canadian farmers.
– Ken Ritter,
Chair, CWB board of directors,
Winnipeg, Man.
Animal treatment
Why does the Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan feel that it is necessary to import fear mongering, terrorist obsessed Americans to be guest speakers at their annual conference, held on Dec. 13? (“Experts wary of horse slaughter bill”, WP Dec. 21).
There are plenty of knowledgeable, interesting and informative speakers representing the livestock industry in this country who could better relate to producers in this province. This is exactly what I wrote in the evaluation sheet, filled out following last year’s conference where they had three similar speakers from the U.S. bent on striking fear and suspicion into the hearts of those attending, one of which was an FBI agent from Chicago who considered anyone who was concerned for the well-being of animals to be an extreme animal-rights activist.
Even the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was listed as having ties to terrorist organizations. Come on now.
Why brand those of us who care about the treatment of animals in industry and entertainment as ecoterrorists?
I speak from experience. I attended last year’s conference and when I tried to present a question regarding this list in the presentation, my questions were refused by the moderator, Kevin Hursh. And when I personally asked my question of the speaker, I was ushered out into the hallway. Needless to say I wasn’t invited back this year.
I am a farmer, born and raised on a farm, who has always been concerned with the humane treatment of animals – used and so often abused or neglected. I served five years on the board of the SPCA and still do whatever I can to improve the lives of animals domestic and wild, and to try and see that those who abuse and neglect animals are convicted and punished.
There is also a valid concern over animals, especially horses, being transported long distances destined for slaughter. Overcrowding and serious injuries causing suffering to the animals in transport as well as insufficient feed and water are also concerns.
It is well known that in the U.S. it is next to impossible to monitor or check on the well-being or treatment of animals in user industries.
We like to feel that we are a more caring and compassionate society in this country, and do not label concerned people as activists and terrorists.
– Patricia Pich,
Rosetown, Sask.
Good warming
It seems like every day we read about the negative effects of global warming. Why do we never hear anything good about the effects of global warming?
There are many positive things about a more temperate climate, especially for Canadians. We would benefit in agriculture.
Canada has millions of acres of land that are now not considered arable because of severe climate restrictions. A warmer climate would result in an huge increase of arable land.
Northern regions that are now under cultivation would also benefit from a longer growing season and more heat units, allowing cultivation of many crops not presently grown. Energy costs to heat homes would be cut and livestock production would be more efficient in northern regions since beef cattle would be using less energy to stay warm.
Not to mention us humans are more comfortable and more productive working in moderate temperatures.
The media is trying to convince us that global warming is a terrible thing and we must act now to save our planet from certain destruction. The truth is that there is nothing governments can do to keep humans from digging up all the carbon we can find and using it to run our machines and heat our homes unless we all decide to travel back 100 years, park our cars and start riding horses again.
What is the point in buying carbon credits from third world countries and continuing on the same as before? It makes no difference. If we were to meet our Kyoto targets, all it would do is slow down the inevitable by a tiny margin. It is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it is sinking….
– Frank Schlichting,
Cecil Lake, B.C.
Expensive profit
In 1995, western Canadian grain farmers allowed themselves to be bribed into giving up the federal government subsidy known as the Crow (Benefit) for moving grain out of the Prairies with a one-time payment by the Liberal government in Ottawa.
Farmers were assured that this move would help them by boosting value added sectors and diversifying prairie agriculture.
No mention was made of the potential soaring of transportation costs and record profits to be realized by the railways that eventually followed.
Now proponents of eliminating the single desk selling method of the Canadian Wheat Board talk about “freedom of choice” but do not mention the potential soaring profits that would be made by international grain trading corporations at the expense of prairie grain farmers.
In keeping with the ideology-driven policies of the Liberal and Conservative parties, I believe it is safe to assume that once the CWB is destroyed by the Harper government, the next target will be the Canadian Dairy Commission, which stabilizes the production and pricing of milk in Canada.
This would allow international corporations to move in to the Canadian market and turn a handsome profit by exploiting both producers and consumers alike.
– William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.
Biofuel economy
This letter is in response to Nettie Wiebe’s pessimistic column about the biofuel industry (WP, Jan. 4). The biofuel industry is worldwide and the massive amount of grain it will take to keep it fed will take care of the chronic oversupply/low price problem. Because many countries have mandated that a certain portion of fuel must be biofuel, … the biofuel plants will pay whatever it takes for their feedstocks. And because there are only so many acres out there, the crops planted for the biofuel industry will compete heavily against crops grown for food and livestock feed.
Will this make food more expensive? Of course, but as we all know, double the price of wheat and the price of a loaf of bread would only go up a few cents.
Will it be difficult for livestock producers? Yes, but then again feeding livestock $2 barley always was a false economy. Nobody can make money growing $2 barley, and I never got into the grain industry because I felt a calling to produce grain at below the cost of production until all my equity was gone. …
There has never been a more positive future for the grain industry than there is now.
– Keith Yoder,
Tofield, Alta.
Respecting rights
Trying to frame the Canadian Wheat Board debate in terms of property rights is really a smoke screen.
In the real world, no one is alone on a deserted island. Everything we do affects those around us, so we are all restricted from using our property to hurt others.
For example, we have rules about which side of the highway to drive on.
Like every other profession, farmers have voted to restrict their own rights to market their products and services. This is for the same practical reasons we restrict which side of the road people drive on. It is to avoid the costs of chaos and to make more money.
No serious studies of the CWB, including the 14 audits done by the Yanks to challenge it, have ever shown that the CWB sells grain at lower than market price. Most of those studies, including the International Trade Commission investigation of the CWB on barley, show that the board gets premium prices.
So, “whose grain” is the wrong question. Harper’s own task force to destroy the CWB even admitted that a dual market is not possible. The idea that a few free loaders can cherry pick high spot prices, while CWB farmers set a price and move grain into the international market in an orderly fashion, is as dead as the dodo.
In the real world, farmers can sell grain themselves with the CWB producer direct sales program. This allows the maximum individual freedom for these few, while preserving the right of the majority to work co-operatively through the CWB’s single desk, and that respects everyone’s rights.
– Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
30 seconds
On Dec. 14, farmers rallied in Winnipeg in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. This demonstration was significant more for what it did not advocate than for what it did.
For instance, there was vociferous support for the single desk monopoly that the CWB holds on wheat and export barley but no mention of expanding the role of the CWB to marketing canola, flax, grass seeds, hemp, oats or other farm commodities.
Of the above-mentioned commodities, oats had at one time been under the domain of the CWB. That was in the era when farmers grew oats for on-farm feed or for a tax deduction because there certainly was not any profit in having the CWB market oats.
Now farmers consider oats a cash crop and a valued marketing choice and certainly would not rally to include it with the monopoly of the CWB.
One has to wonder why supporters blindly accept the benefits of the CWB when an analysis of market factors clearly shows the benefits of an open market. Wheat prices have been rallying over the past year but the CWB has been unable to return value to the farmer….
The CWB has provided pricing options outside of the PRO but these alternatives come with high administrative costs, are designed to limit the price potential to the CWB’s PRO and are difficult to understand and monitor.
As a message to the CWB, please be advised that if you cannot explain something in 30 seconds, it is too complicated. By contrast the open market provides for transparent and definite prices, enabling farmers to hedge profit and arrange marketing of their produce. Prices are either a specified cash price f.o.b. at a particular location or a futures price less a basis.
The single desk marketing of the CWB provides the illusion of a price guarantee but consistently fails to deliver a price equal to even its PRO. What the CWB does deliver is a price average, which comes at the expense of farmers who have the ability and the desire to control their own financial destiny….
I fully support those farmers who wish to continue marketing their grain through the CWB single desk. I only ask to receive the same consideration in being allowed to market my wheat and barley from my desk just as all farmers are allowed to market their canola, flax, oats, etc.
I could argue at length on the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of the CWB to provide higher prices and marketing options but unfortunately my 30 seconds are up.
– David Manchur,
Gilbert Plains, Man.
About fairness
On behalf of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, I would like to respond to two articles in the Dec. 21 edition of the Western Producer, (“Organic case develops into battle over words” and “Organic appeal heard”), that may have left some misconceptions.
Simply put, the real story in the class action lawsuit Saskatchewan organic farmers are attempting to bring against Monsanto and Bayer is about fairness. It’s about the struggle to get their day in court to plead the case for justice to be done.
It has nothing to do with trying to advance a so-called socio-political agenda, engage in a war of words through the media or denigrate the farming practices of their non-organic farming neighbours.
This case is about protecting the livelihood of certified organic farmers. Organics is a consumer driven enterprise, and organic farmers have had a historic and prior practice of supplying the GMO-free food that the market for organic food demands.
This tradition of growing and eating GMO free crops has roots that extend back to the dawn of agriculture, but in Saskatchewan it has been damaged and continues to be damaged by the recent entry of the biotech companies’ genetic material into canola.
Call it what you will – “adventitious” or “contamination”; for this damage, organic farmers want compensation. And they want the damage to halt.
SOD, through its Organic Agriculture Protection Fund, will continue to work hard on this case to support Saskatchewan organic farmers who have dug deep to fund this pivotal lawsuit.
They know fundamentally it is their livelihood that is on the line.
– Doug Bone,
President, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate,
Elrose, Sask.
Hateful letter
As a grain farmer for 55 years, I have not been given to expressing my views on timely controversy, but as a citizen I feel I must comment on one of the most hateful letters to the editor ever written vis-Ã -vis the Canadian Wheat Board.
Case in point is “Hello, Quisling” (Open Forum, Dec. 21) by Mr. Ted Turner of Regina, Sask.
For a responsible newspaper to publish such a letter is close to or beyond responsible journalism. Vidkun Quisling was a Nazi who, after the Second World War, was hanged by the Norwegian state for treason.
Because some, or say many, people express a difference of opinion or philosophy, it does not make them traitors or being labelled a Nazi. I refer to the opponents of single desk marketing.
What I find ironic is that many letters to the editor are above names of the former hierarchy of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They speak of democracy. Isn’t this the same organization that would not allow a vote on the change of corporate structure, all the while hiding behind delegate representation?
They seem to forget that most of the rural federal seats in Western Canada elected members of a government whose clearly stated intentions were to take a hard look at the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Like the little boy who wet his pants in church, he doesn’t have much to say. His credibility is already pretty low.
– John Burgeson,
Assiniboia, Sask.
Built by farmers
I have to respond to Mr. Petersen of Mazenod in his letter in the Dec. 21 Western Producer.
How wonderful it is in the United States, where farmers can deliver all their grain right from the combine to an elevator and sell all they want.
Does he not know it was the United States government that built a large majority of the large elevators in the grain growing area and at the gulf ports?
It was also the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that built and maintains the waterways to the Gulf.
Next time he is down in the U.S., he should slip over to Washington and ask Uncle Sam to come up to Canada and build some here that will hold 30 million tonnes for the U.S. companies that are up here buying grain.
All I know is it was and is farmers, out of the price they receive for their grain, who have built every elevator, farmer owned or line elevator ever built here in Canada.
(Petersen) wonders “when and how did we come to be under the control of the CWB.”
Well first, I suggest he read a book on the subject. There are a number of them that trace the development of the grain industry in Western Canada. I’ll also give him a little example very close to home.
My father and hundreds more after harvest had to sell some grain to pay the bills and buy food for winter. I was a very small boy but I recall him telling mother after hauling a load of grain by horses and sleigh 25 miles to Expanse that had three line elevators at that time.
All they would give him was No. 3 for prime grain threshed from a threshing machine. And every day the price was lower than the day before. They also fell short on weight and had to weight it in by pail.
It was “take our grade, take our weight, or take it home.” There was no grain commission to check scales or rule on a grade dispute. And no cash advance….
If Mr. Petersen takes the time to read what took place under a voluntary board, he would learn that when the price of grain rose, it went to the private traders, with no grain to the board.
When their bins were full and the prices fell, then they would sell to the board. As a result, the board did not know how much grain would be available to meet its own sales commitments.
It was pressure from farmers that changed it to what we have now. With the current attack on the CWB and also the Canadian Grain Commission, will history repeat itself and will we go back to “take it or take it home”?
I hope everyone comes to their senses and gets politics out of this important industry before it’s too late. There is enough competition from other countries without farmers competing with one another.
– Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Faint hope
I find it interesting that in three recent elections, the masses chose underdogs over the front runners.
In Edmonton’s last municipal election, dark horse Stephan Mandel was picked over acclaimed front-runners Bill Smith and Robert Nocce.
In the Liberal leadership race in Montreal, it was Stephane Dion who unexpectedly won out over front-runners Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae.
The trend was repeated in Alberta where underdog Ed Stelmach came out on top over Jim Dinning and Ted Morton to become leader of the Progressive Conservative party and Alberta’s premier.
Do I detect a faint hope that voters are becoming aware that they should no longer accept decisions made in corporate boardrooms to be in their best interests?
– William Dascavich,
Edmonton, Alta.
