Glow is gone
Do you remember all the glowing stories about how the prairie economy would flourish if we would just get rid of the Crow (Benefit)?
How we would create niche markets and how the meat industry would expand if they just had access to cheap land locked grain?
Well, the very same wise men who fought for the abolition of the Crow are again gazing into their crystal ball where they are seeing a new vision for life on the farm – if they could just get rid of the CWB.
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.
Perhaps farmers will remember the last bit of wisdom they endorsed from the wise men when they look at their grain cheque.
While the railways are singing hallelujahs, farmers are forking out $200 million per year.
This loss is small in comparison to what eliminating the wheat board will cost.
But not all will be lost. Think of the rejoicing by the American grain traders if Harper and Strahl will just help them pull this one off.
– Barb Dwyer,
Lloydminster, Sask.
Changing weather
In the last while, the new Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has promised that if elected, he is going to change the weather.
Don’t laugh, many proponents of Kyoto actually believe that Canada, under a Liberal government, could actually change
worldwide weather patterns.
I was raised in a Christian home, and I do believe that the good Lord does yield a considerable amount of power. I doubt, however, that even the Lord can make such an outrageous claim.
Furthermore, if I were to kneel down and ask the Higher Power to cool the planet down, I would fear being struck by lightning, given the fact that for the better part of my life, I nearly froze to death on the Prairies north of the 49th parallel….
Looking at the past, we had another Quebec politician by the name of Pierre Trudeau who actually believed he could take a square section of Saskatchewan soil, complete with roads and fences, and stretch it out 2.2 times the size of its original form to make hectares and metres.
Perhaps it’s not that hard to understand why Mr. Dion believes he can change weather patterns.
Then there was Ralph Goodale who squandered millions of dollars excavating four metres of soil out of Wascana Lake. He wanted to make the lake a tad deeper.
I’m told Mr. Goodale was really disappointed when the lake filled the following spring, and the Regina MP discovered that the geese that were wading on Wascana barely had enough water to cover their wings.
He did manage to get re-elected, and that’s what counts in the end, now doesn’t it?
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Start now
The Jan. 11 issue of the Western Producer featured a story written by freelance writer Joan Eyolfson Cadham of Foam Lake, Sask.
The story suggested people write/publish their family history for the next generation to enjoy.
I agree with Joan.
In 2005 we developed/published a 140 page Mellen Patch Bio that detailed the Mellen family from their Irish roots to the present day. We gave it to our children for Christmas and they were thrilled with it.
With this experience under our belts, we published a story about my wife’s mother who passed away at age 94.
We detailed her life from childhood to old age. She lost her husband in 1947, when he was only 37. She raised five school-aged children all by herself with virtually no money. We provided this 45-page publication as a 2006 Christmas present to her children and nieces. The favourable comments received have made the effort well worthwhile.
We did all the work on our own PC, and even bound the stories ourselves.
You can do it too. Get started while you remember things.
– Fred and Dolly Mellen,
Bow Island, Alta.
Choice effects
Here is one more perspective on the continuing Canadian Wheat Board saga.
It seems to me that one only needs to look at the beef industry to see the effects of choice on an industry.
Even though a study was done by the government on the monetary windfalls the slaughter plants received during the BSE crisis, the final conclusion was yes, they did make enormous profits but nothing illegal was done, it was all in the name of business.
This “all in the name of business” is the result of an industry where as a producer you have the choice of selling your product at any age, size, condition and into any market you choose. Along with this goes the buyer’s choice of having all the same options. He can play the market any way he chooses and can and does choose to play one producer against the other to get the best deal or the lowest price.
As a seller, if the market is in an oversupply situation, your only choice is to go somewhere else to sell, but where is that market?
Although a system such as the wheat board eliminates choices, because it has such enormous buying power it is able to go out into the world and get the best overall price possible for the producer. As such a big buyer, they have options at their fingertips that the average farmer doesn’t have a chance at, such as selling grain on a world market, extending credit to countries that need the product but don’t have the immediate funds and the ability to line up the transportation necessary to move the vast quantities.
Any system that is best for the majority is going to have some downfalls. For example farmers who live close to the border of another market may see them getting a higher price than what they do, but meanwhile the farmer who lives 500 miles from the border wouldn’t have a chance at being able to access that same market.
Again back to a comparison to the cattle industry. Stop and think for a minute at the reaction from across the border if truckload after truckloads of grain start appearing on the highways. …
– Margaret Hall &
William Hall,
Vanderhoof, B.C.
Taylor fan
I want to say how much I enjoy Ryan Taylor’s column.
I grew up and farmed in southeast Saskatchewan, which is not that far from North Dakota, across the border. I can relate to his musings even though he is much younger and I am now retired. It makes me reminisce about my life experience of rural life, not that much different from his; good and bad experiences.
– Harry Hoedel,
Regina, Sask.
For shame
As a former employee of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, I am deeply concerned by their decision to purchase Agricore rather than pay up its debt to its own employees’ pension plan.
When the company was in dire straits it was the employees that gave up a two-year contribution to their pension plan from SWP. Now you say you have had two good years in a row so it is the time to buy.
You have used the federal government agency to help bide some time and now that they have ruled that you should pay up the pension fund shortfall, you want to appeal the ruling through the courts. Shame on you, SWP.
– Harvey Peever,
Colonsay, Sask.
Cushings opinion
I would like to clarify that the information provided to Daniel Winters regarding pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction in horses, sometimes referred to as equine Cushing’s disease (WP, Jan. 11) was given without knowledge of the context in which it would be presented. Mr. Winters asked me for general information regarding prevalence of the disease, clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment.
He did not inform me that the article in which this information appeared was based in entirety on one case, or that the case in question had led to a complaint against a veterinary colleague.
In no way should my comments therefore be construed as an opinion about Ms. Clinch’s
horse, its medical condition or the veterinary care it received.
Despite my request, I was denied the opportunity to review the article prior to its publication.
– Katharina Lohmann,
MedVet, PhD,
Associate Professor, U of S,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Different shoe
In your Dec. 21 edition, Barry Wilson in his article “Inherited confusion” gives a synopsis of the debate from 10 years ago that surrounded the establishment of our current Canadian Wheat Board board of directors.
Wilson remembers the questions about Goodale establishing the board with five appointed directors and an appointed CEO even though we were supposedly moving to a more democratic farmer controlled structure.
Goodale’s gerrymandered preferential balloting election, with non-farming voters from every corner of the globe, had one purpose. That purpose, to which Goodale openly admitted, was to preserve the status quo.
Undemocratic, dictatorial, abuse of power. Ten years later, same words, different shoe, different foot.
A majority of farmers wanted marketing choice 10 years ago and if the CWB’s own polling is to be believed, nothing has changed. A majority still want marketing choice outside the monopoly.
– Richard Brooks,
Wynyard, Sask.
Key question
In the ongoing CWB debate, the key question is which method of selling will provide farmers with the better return: single desk or a dual market. Everything else is either a diversion or a red herring.
Common sense tells farmers when one party/seller/CWB has complete control of all the supply, farmers are in the most enviable position. The buyer has no freedom of choice. If he wants Canadian grain, he must be prepared to outbid his competitors. Farmers, under this option, turn out to be winners.
Now consider the other option: the dual market. In this situation, there is no longer one seller. In fact, sellers may greatly outnumber the buyers. Buyers can shop around for the lowest price. Unlike the single desk, the race to the bottom is on. Farmers under this option will be losers, big time.
These are the stark consequences of allowing freedom of choice among farmers. It’s a freedom farmers can ill afford to exercise.
– Peter Galawan,
Oak Lake, Man.
Choice explained
Why has choice become such an issue by so many western farmers? Thinking that the open market system gives U.S. farmers more choice than us is false.
In the United States, most crops are hauled directly to the elevators, at harvest time. The only choices U.S. farmers are making is their choice of elevators.
After the grain has been delivered to the elevators, the only choice that remains is when to sell the crop at the prices quoted to them by the elevator companies.
Whether directly or indirectly, U.S. farmers are paying for storage of grain that isn’t sold when hauled to the elevators.
In the U.S., the elevator companies and a small portion of the farmers make good profits from the grain, while the majority of U.S. farmers will get below average prices for their grain. If you don’t believe me, then you do the math.
If the U.S. open market system is so great, then why do they need to import any malt barley for their local markets?
In the 2007 Saskatchewan Seed Grower Association list of crops, there are more than 20 different crops listed. There are also other crops, which haven’t been listed. Of the crops listed, only malt barley and milling wheats must be marketed through the CWB.
When farmers decide to grow malt barley or milling wheat they have made a choice. It’s no different than the choice many farmers made in the spring of 2006, when they priced part of their 2006 oats at $1.60 per bushel. Now that oat prices are above $3 per bu., these farmers’ average prices will be well in the bottom half of the price ranges farmers get for 2006 crop oats. The same comparison applies to all other non-board crops.
Farmers in favour of an open market system are always comparing the CWB prices to the peak open market prices they think they would have got. How close to the peak prices do most farmers actually get for non-board crops?…
The chance a farmer has at getting that peak price for any crop is about the same as his chances of winning a big lottery. If he wins the lottery he won’t need to worry about farming – for a while.
– Fred G. Willis,
Saltcoats, Sask.
Useful story
I thank the Western Producer (Jan. 4) for publishing the article about David Emerson’s comments relating to the eventual demise of supply management under the Harper government.
We all know that Stephen Harper and the parties he was associated with before the Conservatives were staunchly against the supply management system and the Canadian Wheat Board. They are now taking steps to kill the CWB and it is only a matter of time before supply management is weakened too.
It is amazing to me how farmers in Western Canada are so desperate to deal directly with their friendly American neighbours, the same friends who applied tariffs on hogs, closed the border during the mad cow crisis and aggravated us all with the softwood lumber dispute.
Maybe when everything is said and done and most family farms are completely gone people will wake up and realize what they have done. Then it will be too late.
– Ronald Drost,
Calgary, Alta.
No third option
On June 3, 1993, Charlie Mayer, minister responsible for the wheat board in the previous Conservative government, announced a continental barley market, effective Aug. 1, 1993.
This removed the wheat board’s exclusive jurisdiction over exports of western Canadian feed and malting barley to the U.S., as well as malting barley sold to Canadian maltsters.
The changes were made by order-in-council rather than the required amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This was challenged in court, and on Sept. 10, 1993, the Federal Court of Canada declared the changes null and void.
Remember what happened to barley prices in those few weeks? Prices dropped $40 per tonne and more on malting barley. Moreover, the effect on U.S. Pacific North West price for feed barley also depressed our offshore price for feed barley to places such as Japan by $5-$10 per tonne.
Then a Winnipeg newspaper published an article suggesting that Canadian maltsters were “planning to arrange U.S. purchases to drive down the Canadian price of malting barley.”
Surely we as farmers can learn from history about sticking together and working together, as we consider this year’s barley vote.
Furthermore, recent news reports indicate the minister is still considering dual marketing as a third option on the ballot. Yet, it has been admitted by the committee studying the options that a so-called dual market is unworkable.
It is either open market or single desk selling as we now have under the wheat board. A third option on the ballot can’t help but be misleading and unfair to imply as a workable solution.
– George Burton,
Humboldt, Sask.
Talk about stress
Regarding the Canadian Wheat Board bonus payment of $1,000 per employee, they were under great deal of stress.
There is something wrong here when they give away our farmer money. You talk about stress. We have been under stress for years. For example, (I) sold malting barley for $1.70. When you paid the freight, cleaning and got your final payment, you end up with $2 per bushel. I could have sold it for $3 a bushel. You end up with a $50 per acre loss. There has been a loss for the last three years.
If the wheat board can throw money around like that, maybe they should give it back to the farmers. The money is the farmers’ money.
– Jack Pawich,
Cartwright, Man.
