Presumptuous
How dare Mr. (Ian) McCreary and the (Canadian Wheat Board) board of directors presume to know what we would like to do with our money.
My understanding was that their mission as directors was to maximize returns from our wheat sales. Exactly how does giving $500,000 to wheat board employees maximize our returns?
I have nothing against the employees at the CWB. Most are knowledgeable and helpful when I do business with them, but their salaries are good and they make more than we have been able to pay ourselves for the last 10 years.
Read Also
Crop profitability looks grim in new outlook
With grain prices depressed, returns per acre are looking dismal on all the major crops with some significantly worse than others.
They may have stress in their workplace but I doubt the stress is more than farmers have been under for years, not knowing from one year to the next if we will be able to continue or how we will make ends meet.
I’m sure that each and every farmer would have appreciated a $1,000 Christmas bonus.
The scariest part of this scenario: if the board of directors of the CWB can make such a poorly thought out decision handing out $500,000 of our money to make employees feel better, what other major decisions have they made that have cost us money?
At meetings we have heard Mr. McCreary answer questions with a comment such as, “I can’t give you more information because it might compromise the board’s ability to do business, but trust me, we’re doing the right thing.”
I think not.
– Audrey Zelenski,
Birch Hills, Sask.
Unfair plebiscite
When I received the ever so controversial barley plebiscite, I saw why there was so much involvement in the options. It is an unfair setup.
Option one is pro-monopoly. Option two is pro-choice including the CWB. Option three is anti-CWB.
This vote should only have two options, pro-monopoly and anti-monopoly. By adding a third option, the plebiscite divides the anti-monopoly votes, thereby creating an unfair advantage for the monopoly.
Whether you’re pro-choice or anti-CWB, you are anti-monopoly. I’d be willing to bet the CWB was the push behind this scheme.
When a farmer does a Fixed Price Contract with the CWB, the CWB loves to levy an adjustment factor. I certainly hope when it comes tally time, there is an adjustment factor levied for splitting the anti-monopoly votes.
– Jason van Oirschot,
Porcupine Plain, Sask.
Ballot query
In reading Barry Coopers’ letter that came with the barley vote ballet, I noted statements I thought inaccurate.
The present day CWB was not a war measure imposed on the farmers by government.
It was formed in 1935 after much pressure from farm groups. It has undergone many changes and improvements since then.
Income tax was introduced during World War One. A short-lived CWB was brought in to control widely fluctuating wheat prices. Another was tried in early 1920s but failed….
How can you say the board is not run by producers when the majority of board members are pro-wheat board elected directors? Producers do not have to sell and buy back grain to use for their own purposes.
Whether you think it is fair or just, it appears to be favoured by most producers.
– Ralph Manson,
Wiseton, Sask.
Producer cars
The Landis Producer Co-operative is a producer owned rail car loading facility located in Landis, Sask.
Our 50 member owners purchased a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool crib elevator in 2002 and use the facility to ship their Canadian Wheat Board grain by producer cars. We also provide custom loading services for non-members.
By shipping our board grains this way, we realize both personal and collective benefits by saving on handling and elevation. It also frees us from the delivery constraints inherent in the commercial elevator system and their space utilization plans.
The LPC has created two full time jobs generating tax revenue for the village of Landis and helps reduce pressure on the rural road and highway systems.
We have provided you with this history because this is what is at stake in the current debate about the future of the CWB. The LPC, like other producer car loading facilities, is reliant on the CWB’s single desk and its influence on many aspects of the western Canadian grain handling system.
The CWB had been most helpful and supportive since our inception. If we were to lose the CWB or have its role diminished, LPC and other producer car loading facilities would be at the mercy of the railways and the large grain companies.
Our member owners produce a wide variety of crops including board grains, pulse crops, oilseeds, contract grains and organic grains.
Membership in the LPC is politically diverse as well, including supporters of all the major political parties. However, there is a concern among the LPC membership that the upcoming CWB plebiscite for barley does not represent a genuine attempt by the federal government to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the producers.
While the CWB remains constrained by the federal government gag order, a well financed anti-CWB campaign continues to produce misleading information in an attempt to sway the vote. The list of electors appears to have been gerrymandered by the federal government specifically for the barley plebiscite. At this moment, it is difficult if not impossible to determine if your name is on the voters list. We ask that producers make sure they are on the voters list and that they return their ballots.
Let’s ensure that we keep a real choice by retaining a strong single desk marketer, the CWB.
– Glen Harris,
Landis Producer Co-op Board of Directors,
Landis, Sask.
Story clarification
I feel compelled to clarify Ed White’s article concerning my presentation to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (“Analyst refutes CWB claims of barley marketing success,” WP, Feb. 8).
Contrary to what Mr. White indicated, I did not say that the recent study by the University of Saskatchewan is “practically worthless because it relies upon data the board supplied in its defence.”
Mr. White also suggested I had “extreme skepticism about information provided by the board.” Please allow me to make it very clear that I did not make any indication in that direction whatsoever. I have no reason, no evidence to suggest that the data provided to the U of S by the CWB is flawed or skewed in any manner.
However, I do feel the study is practically worthless because it assumes price differences found between export destinations are a result of price discrimination by the CWB. The same approach to non-CWB markets, like canola, would get the same results. Some countries (like Japan) pay more than others, year in, year out.
Any conclusion that the CWB is responsible for these price differences is misguided and any further analysis based on that premise is equally weak. The conclusions of the study cannot be accepted.
I also would like to respond to a quote attributed to Mr. Bob Cuthbert of the CWB. The argument that Mr. Cuthbert puts forward is irrelevant to the debate over the CWB’s involvement in the barley sector. Mr. Cuthbert used meaningless comparisons with the U.S.: “We malt three-and-a-half times per capita what the U.S. does, …we export five times more malt than they do, and export 10 times as much malting barley as they do.”
These are useless measurements and it is extremely disappointing that anyone from the CWB would use these to try to indicate value by the CWB. I indicated the CWB has failed on price, on cost and on market signals. Mr. Cuthbert could not argue against any of these points; otherwise he would have….
– John De Pape
Winnipeg, Man.
Servants of elite
Many people consider themselves to be loyal Canadians. They are unhappy with the formation of separatist groups that wish to break up Canada.
I am writing with personal views, which I hope will help create positive discussion and understanding between the loyalists and the separatists.
Independence and self-reliance may not be bad traits. A child who wishes to feed himself or walk without help is exhibiting normal behaviour. In general, separatists wish to bring the government of the people closer to the people. Instead of decisions being made in a distant city, decisions are made at home by people accountable to the local area.
The Canada which the loyalists think so highly of is not the Canada envisioned by the founding fathers. Under the British North American Act, careful attention was made to give the provinces major power and the federal government very limited power.
For example, all the resources belong to the provinces. Also, all taxation powers belong to the provinces and it is illegal for the federal government to tax except temporarily in unusual circumstances. Legally, the BNA Act is still in effect since the legal requirements that would allow it to be discarded have not been met.
It is not enough that we have lost local government, but now our federal government has given up its role in decision making. Our country is being run by globalists who are not even citizens of Canada. Our elected officials are merely messenger boys and girls, bringing instructions to us from the globalists.
Why do you think the metric system was imposed on us? Why are we being overrun with oppressive laws and regulations? . . .
Independence is not a simple panacea for all our problems. Without the diligent, informed involvement of the population, decisions in this new independent country will also be made behind closed doors and our new elected leaders will also become the servants of the elite.
– Laverne Isaac,
Medstead, Sask.
The agenda
It must be obvious to producers that the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper and executed by agriculture minister Chuck Strahl is out to bring about the eventual destruction of the CWB and they are doing it in a most undemocratic fashion.
Strahl has proceeded to fire and/or replace four of the five government-appointed board members with people who have definite anti-CWB positions.
This not only hinders the CWB in its daily operation but it also creates an air of uncertainty among our international customers. Add to this the gag order placed on the CWB, which renders it totally unable to defend itself, and you get a one-sided, undemocratic approach to the whole situation.
Now comes the promised plebiscite on barley.
As I understand, the ballot will consist of three questions. In essence they will be:
- Do you want barley to remain with the CWB?
- Do you want barley on the open market?
- Do you want both?
The fallacy in this ballot lies in the last question, dual marketing.
Anyone who examines the scenario soon realizes that such a situation is impossible and that any attempt at such would eventually lead to the demise of the single desk seller.
Furthermore, Strahl’s own task force report came to the same conclusion on this issue.
Bearing this in mind, one can assume one of two possibilities – either Strahl has chosen to ignore the advice of his own task force or he has included this question on the ballot in order to lure any uninformed producer into casting another anti-CWB vote.
Ask yourself, “is this democracy?”
Is it democratic to intentionally weaken the object of your agenda by destroying it from within and not give those most affected by such a move any say in the matter? And is it democratic to conduct a plebiscite with a loaded ballot? . . .
There is no doubt in my mind that the Conservative party will pay for their actions in the polls come next election.
– Don Bamber,
Oyen, Alta.
Soap opera
As the CWB soap opera unfolds and deeply divides, I can’t help but add my two cents worth.
To Ken Ritter, chair of the CWB: Ken, you’ve gone to great lengths to wrap yourself and the CWB in a cape of pro-democracy and doing so have failed to acknowledge these tidbits of democratic realities.
The CWB was legislated a grain marketing monopoly by the federal government of the day and without farmer input to combat soaring grain prices during the Second World War and to help aid starving Europe. My grandfather didn’t vote for it, nor did any prairie farmer.
To paraphrase popular TV (character) Oscar Leroy from Corner Gas, “I got news for you Ken, we won the war.”
Last election, the federal Tories ran on a platform of not dismantling the CWB but rather offering a choice for prairie farmers between the CWB and other marketing institutions. No tricks, no hidden agenda, a grassroots platform that was out front for all to see and hear.
It is true, Ken. The Tories came to power as a minority government. Does that somehow make all election platforms and promises nonexistent?
The truth of the matter is, where the CWB applies mainly the three prairie provinces, there was actually a strong majority of Tory seats and votes. Is that not democracy?
Ken, if you ask for a CWB plebiscite, aren’t you trampling on the democratic rights of the people of Western Canada who voted for such a platform? I hear a train a comin’ and it ain’t to pick up western Canadian wheat. . . .
Canada is a difficult country to govern. I offer a possible solution. After reading Ken Ritter’s description of Ontario and Quebec grain marketing operations, I believe it is time for a made-in-Canada, not just Western Canada, solution. Divide the grain growing areas of Western Canada into four blocks: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Peace area of northern British Columbia and Alberta, and the rest of Alberta. …
Let these areas, different in every way with regards to geography and grain transportation, decide their own fate just as the grain areas of Ontario and Quebec do.
Revisit the question every five years. . . .
If this method is adopted, I can only predict optimism and yes, finally some value-added industries in dual market areas that are reluctant to invest now under the current monopolistic system.
Remember, if choice is such a bad word, how do we ever survive marketing canola, mustard, peas, lentils, etc. without a monopoly system?
– Lee Ward,
Arrowwood, Alta.
American view
As a farmer from North Dakota and long-time subscriber to the Western Producer, it is with great interest and concern that I have been following the efforts of the huge American multinational grain companies, who are on both sides of the border, to try to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board and the Australian Wheat Board and their single desk system of marketing their farmers’ grain. Our American press does not cover this important issue like they should.
… It is no secret down here the multinational grain giants do not like the CWB and do not want farmers to band together in marketing their production to obtain more power and equity in the marketplace by their own efforts. They like the old marketing system where farmers market one on one against the powerful worldwide grain marketing system they have built, own and control.
They have often told us the reason we can’t get a fair price in world trade is because of the CWB and AWB monopoly. This is not true but divide and conquer still works to keep people from effective action to protect their best interests.
But how can tens of thousands of individual food producers sell into this monster of a few world-wide buyers and expect to receive a fair price, grade or other conditions of sale? They can’t and they don’t. In our global food economy maybe Canadian and U.S. food producers should consider marketing together in some commodities for our mutual benefit and survival.
We certainly should open lines of communication to develop trust and knowledge of what is happening in world food trade.
South of the border we ordinary people often resent the often abusive power and influence of the multinational companies at all levels of our government. Many of us feel they are the government.
America has 300 million people. That’s a lot of people to feed three meals a day. We need food and trade food with many countries to supply food for our citizens.
Canada is our biggest and most important trade market or trading partner in the world, in both food and hard goods. What happens to our fellow Canadian food producers is very important and affects all of us. …
Good luck and Godspeed in your fight to save your CWB. Single desk selling or marketing together is something all food producers need to consider to give us enough power in the marketplace to survive. Do not let your political system and especially the American food corporations destroy what you have built.
– Kelly Shockman,
Lamoure, North Dakota
Price watch
In regard to the article headlined, “CWB brings added profit to barley growers: study” (WP, Jan. 4), the authors of the study give absolutely no explanation as to how they arrived at that conclusion. Did they compare CWB malt barley prices to open market feed barley prices?
I won’t argue the figures for six row and two row malting barley. I do not grow malting barley because of the uncertainty created by the malting industry.
Early in the crop year, they accept large volumes of samples above their requirements. Later in the year, they start rejecting samples, not because of change in quality as they say, but because their needs have been filled.
During the time you wait for a delivery call, you have probably missed some decent feed barley pricing opportunities.
I have been comparing export prices at Vancouver and Seattle since the early 1980s. The American price is always higher, sometimes substantially so. …
As long as I have been comparing prices, the CWB price is almost never equal or better than the U.S. price. Not much wonder why the CWB customers are happy with the board.
The study in question compares the Lethbridge feed barley price to Great Falls. The Lethbridge price is set by the domestic market. The CWB has absolutely nothing to do with the Lethbridge price and the CWB price is usually considerably lower.
In most cases, the CWB PRO is set so low it creates downward pressure on the open market price. The open market pays as little over the PRO that it can, to get the grain. …
Considering some of the hogwash one reads from time to time, the authors of all the B.S. must think that farmers don’t read or can’t add or think for themselves.
– Roger Brandl,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Barley vote
Don’t lose your barley vote.
If you are like me and have had a permit book in your family since they arrived on the scene but have not grown barley in the last five years, consider this.
I will submit my vote to retain the single desk and complete my extenuating circumstances section detailing the reasons why I should be eligible to vote.
This might be an estimate of the amount of barley my family has grown over the years, the number of years we have had a permit book to sell wheat and barley and the fact that I like barley this year and hope to have some to market this fall.
My vote will be rejected since (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl has undoubtedly been advised by some very wise men and women that by eliminating those of us who have not grown barley recently, they will reduce significantly the number of people voting to retain the single desk.
Having faith in the wisdom of these people, I would conclude that a majority of the spoiled ballets will then be considered to be supporters of the single desk.
I assume that the number of spoiled ballots will be announced and if the government instructs KPMG to do otherwise, even the not so skilled politician should be able to drag this information out of Mr. Strahl and company.
So, if you are lucky enough to receive a ballot, be sure to use it because it could be more significant than votes that fit under Mr. Strahl’s rule. Even those who spoil their vote accidentally may be lumped into the single desk column.
What a shame that would be because like our government, we all want this thing to be decided on the fair and square….
– Boyd Denny,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Animal care
In response to the article submitted by Patricia Pich in Open Forum (Animal treatment, Jan. 18.) For 15 years, the Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan has provided informative and timely conferences addressing a variety of current and emerging animal welfare related topics.
If Patricia would have attended the December 2006 conference, she would have noted we featured a blend of Canadian and American presenters. The FBI was only one of many.
The examples the FBI presenter used, both this year and last, were not in reference to “concerned animal lovers” but rather referencing people and organizations who use arson and terrorist tactics to make their point. And sadly, terrorist tactics are a reality.
I will also clarify the December conference is open to the public and was well advertised in a number of locations including the Western Producer. It is not and never has been an “invite only” event.
Every person in the room, producers, educators, government, transporters, SSPCA and veterinarians attend our meetings because they care about animals and they want to hear the latest on current and emerging animal issues, including animal rights and animal welfare.
I salute the many individuals, industries and organizations who support such conferences and view animal welfare as paramount.
Striving for excellence by wanting to continually learn from experts about current welfare practices, research, consumer issues and trends as well as emerging welfare issues should be commended.
– Adele Buettner,
Executive Director,
Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan Inc.,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Behind the scenes
Permit me to comment on federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl’s recent statements on the barley vote.
Mr. Strahl says “groups like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the Western Canadian Barley Growers support our efforts.”
This is hardly news. Farmers are well aware of the support Strahl claims from these groups and their corporate allies. …
Strahl brags about his support from the WCWGA, but he doesn’t mention this group has fewer than 400 members, while the Western Barley Growers membership is less than 200.
In fact, the WCWGA went bankrupt a few years ago and was revived by financing from the government of Alberta and some of their agribusiness friends.
There are probably more farmers and wheat board supporters in Manitoba’s Swan River Valley alone than there are members of these two discredited commodity groups. In fact, Conservative MP Inky Mark estimates 80 percent of his constituents support the CWB. To his credit, he has spoken against Strahl’s attempts to kill the CWB.
Strahl’s own hand picked task force admitted that a dual market would not work. This is the reason why Strahl’s office ordered the document entitled CWB Response to Strahl’s Task Force removed from the CWB website under his gag order. This document can be found at www.savemycwb.ca.
Contrary to Strahl’s assertion that he wants a “strong, viable wheat board,” his actions tell the real story. He has muzzled the organization with gag orders, fired the director-supported CEO and appointed CWB haters to the CWB board of directors.
Strahl recently stated that Ontario farmers get about $5.50 a bushel in the spot market for wheat and then compared that unfavourably to prairie wheat prices. Please be advised, Mr. Strahl, that wheat, unlike politicians, cannot travel free of charge on government jets. Farmers’ wheat has to travel by rail to terminals, and then by water to the millers in Eastern Canada.
This freight is costly, and when the farmer has to shell out for freight, it means he gets lower returns. …
The WCWGA is responsible for the loss of the Crow Rate and the high cost of shipping grain. Now this same bunch is saying that getting rid of the CWB will increase farm incomes and boost value-added processing.
This amounts to more hollow promises. Why should farmers listen to them now?
Farm leaders, pollsters, and politicians have all criticized Strahl’s barley vote. Why conduct a vote when farmers keep electing CWB supporters to the CWB board of directors? Why will the ballots be stuffed with misleading anti-CWB propaganda material from Rolf Penner and Barry Cooper?
Why is the voters list not being made public? Why does Strahl’s plebiscite not follow the CWB Act, which requires a simple yes or no question and a vote on exclusion of crops currently under the CWB jurisdiction?
Finally, Ms. Editor, the CWB is under attack.
Farmers in the upcoming barley vote need to say no to Strahl and his unethical actions, and they need to say yes to the CWB and single-desk selling.
– Kenneth Sigurdson,
Swan River, Man.
