No logic
I understand that Bill Toews and Bill Nicholson (Strahl dug his own hole on CWB, WP March 1) wish to discredit the government’s three-part plebiscite question that includes the option of a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. Their logic, however, defies reason.
On the one hand they say that “you either have a single desk … or an open market with a whole host of sellers. A dual market does not exist.” But then on the other hand they contend that, “whether some kind of modified CWB continues to exist in the open market doesn’t make any difference.”
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.
Which is it? If a modified CWB exists in an open market, that is a dual market. A dual market has always been defined as a voluntary CWB with no monopoly operating alongside the open market.
I would challenge Toews and Nicholson to find a single instance over the last 20 years where someone promoting marketing choice used the term “dual marketing” to describe an environment where the CWB would maintain its monopoly in a voluntary environment. They will find it does not exist.
Dual marketing has always meant a marketing environment where producers can choose between a voluntary CWB, with no monopoly, and the open market. Their assertions to the contrary are nonsense and are designed only to try and convince farmers that a voluntary CWB is not possible.
– David Anderson, MP
Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board
Ottawa, Ont.
Dirty tricks
The minister responsible for dirty tricks against the Canadian Wheat Board has truly performed well below everyone’s expectations. He has moved from election tampering in the CWB director elections, to firing a top-notch CEO without cause, to a new round of deceit.
The minister and other Harper MPs have recently been using a quote from Algeria against the CWB. The problem is that the quote is a fabrication. The government knows it is a fabrication but continues to use it without apology.
Besides the use of the fabricated quote, the minister’s latest dirty tricks include conducting a barley plebiscite wherein the ballots can be traced back to the voter’s name and address. The minister can call this a secret ballot as many times as he likes, but it doesn’t make it so. No 4-H club in the country would conduct a vote in this manner, but the minister is pleased….
Another dirty trick has turned up with the posting of a new anti-CWB website with a name almost identical to the “official” KPMG plebiscite website.
According to news reports, the anti-CWB website was registered more than a week before the KPMG website, in which case the sponsors would have needed advance information from the government or the government’s agent, KPMG.
Also, the anti-CWB website in question was registered in the United States in order to keep the sponsor’s name secret. …What exactly are they trying to hide with the website laundering scheme?
The barley plebiscite has been nothing more than a vehicle for Harper’s government and its corporate friends to attack, smear and slander the CWB while the gag order is in place.
All fair-minded Canadians, wheat board supporters or not, will be embarrassed by the government’s actions.
I am pleased that CWB supporters don’t have to hide behind fabricated quotes, loaded questions, secret websites and traceable ballots.
– Stewart Wells,
President,
National Farmers Union,
Swift Current, Sask.
Read with care
I am at a loss to understand how Mr. Lee Morrison, described as a retired geologist, farmer and MP in the preface to his Feb. 22 opinion piece on climate change, could presume to speak with total certainty on such a complex scientific and public policy issue.
We are asked to believe that such bodies as the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and of course the Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change have all been conscripted in a massive evangelical campaign of disinformation to convince the public that human-induced climate change is a reality.
It does not matter, apparently, that a widely reported analysis of 928 scientific papers on climate change, published between 1993 and 2003 in refereed scientific journals, found that not a single paper disagreed with the IPCC consensus that the earth’s climate is being affected by human activities (Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Science 306:1686). The fourth set of IPCC reports will be published in 2007, and I would encourage Mr. Morrison, and anyone else who is prepared to consider this issue seriously, to read them carefully.
– Gary Howland,
Regina, Sask.
Not a secret
Some farmers have received ballots to vote on the barley plebiscite for the Canadian Wheat Board. Many farmers have grown barley but not in the last five years so they do not get a vote.
Anyone having a quota book should be entitled to vote including the 16,000 farmers (federal agriculture minister Chuck) Strahl removed from the voters list.
Each of the ballots farmers received has a different number printed on it, which enabled those conducting the vote to know who marked the ballot and how they voted. This is against any form of democracy and is an outrage.
An envelope is supplied on which is printed “Secret envelope ballot only,” which is absolutely not true.
This vote was to be secret ballot and should be conducted by the CWB. I believe it is the responsibility of opposition parties in the House of Commons to pass legislation to destroy all these ballots because it is not a secret vote as called for on any changes to the CWB.
What the minister of the CWB is doing is not democratic. It is disgraceful and should not be allowed. He should be forced to resign.
– Roy Nelson,
Regina, Sask.
End monopoly
The following will shed some light on the CWB’s impact on the rural economy in Western Canada. I am 27 years old, married, with two young children. I have a Bachelor of Business Administration, and I am the fourth generation on our farm.
In the last week, I did my Producer Direct Sale in order to sell our organic CPS White. It cost me 42 cents per bushel just to have the right to sell my grain.
I have organic barley I want to sell as well, where I could get 75 cents per bu. more in Montana than here in Canada. But the producer buyback is 75 cents per bu. right now, and likely to increase to $2 per bu. where it has been in the recent past.
Our neighbour, who also farms organically, recently calculated that in the last 12 years the CWB has cost his farm $1 million in buybacks. These costs do not even take into consideration the inability to access markets in the States, where markets are more lucrative, because of the hassle of performing the buyback, getting the export license, etc. that buyers do not want to have to deal with.
In the conventional markets, malt barley prices in Montana, less than 200 miles from many farms in southern Saskatchewan, are paying upwards of $5 US per bu. The CWB will return less than half that amount to the farmers in our area.
It is little wonder that rural Saskatchewan is suffering, that young people flock to the cities, businesses keep closing, farmers can’t afford to pay hired help and land prices remain lower than they were 15 years ago, while in South Dakota prices have tripled in the last 15 years.
In two years time, if the CWB continues to steal our grain, then I will quit farming. We must fight to end the CWB monopoly, or the CWB will end us.
– Corban Honey,
Bracken, Sask.
CWB & APAS
In reply to Henry Neufeld’s letter Feb. 22 in the Western Producer that the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan president Ken McBride and the provincial agriculture minister Mark Wartman failed to convince the APAS delegates to support the CWB, Henry Neufeld wrote: “Are these guys for real? What kind of a weak-kneed position is that on this important issue that could end up costing grain farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost income?”
In 1971 to 1982 Allan Blakeney served as premier of Saskatchewan. In those 11 years the grain farmers of Saskatchewan lost 6.5 million acres to the land bank.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool around the middle of 1960 was buying 68 percent of all the grain produced in Saskatchewan. The remaining 32 percent was bought by all other companies in Saskatchewan including Cargill.
Under the CWB, Sask Pool in effect went bankrupt. Since the Pool joined the Toronto stock exchange, which is the open market, it is now making money and is planning to purchase Agricore United shares.
Hurray for APAS …
– Steve Mudrey,
Wakaw, Sask.
Risk level
There are many things to consider before voting on the barley plebiscite.
The government of Canada has introduced the concept of the open market or a so-called dual market. To properly make business decisions, we have to look at concepts like these with an open mind. The first thing that is required is a feasibility study that shows whether the concept can work, followed by a business plan that supports that feasibility study and shows how it will work.
Some of the things one would look for in that business plan would be, what is the level of risk? An analysis of the competition – do we have to rely on them for elevators to gather and load our grain? Do we have to rely on their terminals to load our grain into ships? What is their capacity?
Will the benefits from blending western grain continue to go to producers? Does the business plan show where that revenue will be recovered? How will acceptable rail service be assured?
These are just a few of many questions that need to be answered. Despite its claim we will still have a strong Canadian Wheat Board without the single desk, the government has introduced a concept without a plan.
Producers need to be very wary of supporting this concept. Without answers to the many questions, the risk is extremely high.
We have to wonder about the business savvy of a government that makes claims without any evidence to support them.
With all the unanswered questions and no plan, the only choice is a vote for the single desk.
– Lenard Yeaman,
Birch Hills, Sask.
Quite simple
I have been following with great interest the controversy from farmers and industry about the upcoming vote of the barley plebiscite as each person debates their stand on how they feel they will lose or benefit if the vote goes one way or another.
This is not a complex matter. This is a question about choice. This is a simple question that states, can those that want to, sell their barley to whom they choose?
I personally am a believer in open markets. With open markets you get true buy and sell signals, you get the choice to sell when you want, how you want to and how much you want to sell.
This is also very important in regards to cash flow issues. These contracts are binding and are very simple to do. Once the grain is delivered, you receive a cheque marked “paid in full.”
I do not know how much simpler this can be.
I could explain the pooling method of marketing grain but we all know how that works, and I guess I could say that for those of you that like dealing that way, that is your choice, but it should not have to be everyone’s choice.
For those of you that are afraid of a dual or open market, I am a bit taken aback by your lack of faith in the CWB. This is an organization that has offices around the world, staffed by people that are suppose to know the markets and have relationships with buyers that no one else could ever get.
If the vote goes so that we can have a choice where to sell our grain, the CWB should be so far ahead that no one could ever come close to their marketing ability.
If this were the case, why would these people not vote to open the market up?
This would prove once and for all that the CWB is the king of marketers, and if it turns out someone else can offer a better option for us as farmers when it comes to barley sales, I can only see that as a positive for my bottom line.
– Douglas R. Miller,
Acme, Alta.
Farmer control
The recent material which was distributed with the ballot for the government’s plebiscite on barley contains a number of important errors. One in particular deserves a response.
Mr. Cooper, claims that “…it is not run by producers…” The implication is that farmers do not control the CWB.
Farmers are elected to 10 of the 15 seats on the board of directors. It would be interesting to argue that a company with a two-thirds share in another company does not control that company.
The fact is that since the change in structure in 1998, farmers have driven the changes at the CWB.
Farmers place ideas for change before individual board members, the board meets regularly with farm groups from across the Prairies, directors have held hundreds of accountability meetings with farmers and our co-ordinates are on the website to allow farmers with suggestions for change to put them in for discussion….
For clarity, Mr. Cooper may wish to refer to the Act which states, “The Board of Directors shall direct and manage the business of the Corporation and is for those purposes vested with all the powers of the corporation.”
It appears that the only people who have not accepted the new opportunities for farmers to chart our own destiny are those who oppose the existence of farmer power in the market. …
As a producer board, we do not claim to have created perfection. We have made many improvements.
If the single desk is maintained, we will continue to make changes to improve efficiencies, price signals, market returns and price flexibilities for farmers.
If the single desk is lost, change will continue to happen but as with farm inputs, railway service, and meat packing plants, these changes would then be driven by commercial interests other than farmers.
– Ian McCreary,
CWB Director
Bladworth, Sask.
About subsidies
Our (Manitoba) minister of agriculture, Rosann Wowchuk, was in Washington trying to get the U.S. government to cut their subsidy. I wish her luck …
She may tell them we do not pay subsidy here in Canada and we only lost about 2,000 farms last year. We may soon have to import food.
She may have told them we have the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization program where farmers put in money and get nothing back. Called a crop program, my accountant said if you pay him to fill it out, you lose as it does not cover all expenses. You can’t collect. It is only there for show.
Our federal government always said Canada can’t pay a subsidy, yet our new prime minister Stephen Harper is going to spend $16 billion on war material.
We have gone from a peacekeeping nation to a war nation. Lester Pearson would turn in his grave.
We are fighting a war in Afghanistan in the Middle East. We get all orders from Mr. Bush. These people did us no harm. I think Mr. Harper will bankrupt this country. No nation is going to attack Canada …
– Jack Pawich,
Cartwright, Man.
Clean milk
Your article on milk (WP, Dec. 28) stating there was no difference in nutritional quality between pasteurized milk and real milk is a gross error in fact.
You make a mockery and do a great disservice to the hundreds of scientists and researchers and their numerous studies that have proven otherwise.
Clean, well-cared-for milk from grass and hay fed cows is a vastly superior product when compared to that anemic stuff that now passes for milk at our stores.
One can only claim pasteurized milk to be as good as or safer than raw milk by completely ignoring the facts, the science and the taste. But I guess that’s not a problem considering the size and power of the companies running the show these days.
I can’t imagine your welcoming these comments but I thought I would tell you anyway.
– Allan Stewart,
Bella Coola, B.C.
Taken for granted
It is clear (federal agriculture minister) Chuck Strahl and the Harper government take the western farm vote for granted. They are running a plebiscite which, even though they have gone some distance to fixing the results, they are prepared to ignore.
As reported in a recent Reuters article, Strahl said his government, “hopes to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s barley monopoly as soon as it can” and “told reporters he would consult with the CWB’s board of directors on the timing of any changes.”
So there it is – a public commitment to gutting the CWB. It is just a matter of timing. The Harper government and its many western MPs don’t care what we think.
At the other end of the country, supply-managed farmers in rural Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada think they have wrestled the Harper government to the ground over the single desk of supply management. How have they achieved this political miracle when we can’t?
Perhaps it is because those astute farmers have clearly signaled they don’t intend to support a government bent on undermining their single desk.
A clear vote for number one on the barley plebiscite ballot is the best short-term defence against the Harper assault on our western single desk. But, over the next few months, we western farmers should take stock of what you get when the Harper election map shows you as a “for sure.”
– Wendy Manson,
Outlook, Sask.
Whisper game
When we were kids, we used to play a little game: One person whispers something in the ear of the person next to them, who whispers it to the person next to them, and so on around the room.
Then the last person repeats out loud what was whispered to them and everyone laughs uproariously because the initial message got so distorted in the re-telling.
The game is going on right now amongst the pro-CWB monopoly lobby. It started with a quote from the government’s task force on marketing choice.
This was what the task force said: ” ‘Marketing Choice’ is a better term to describe the new environment than ‘dual marketing’. The latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible.”
The task force was concerned that some people were confused by the term dual marketing, thinking it meant that a voluntary CWB would still retain its monopoly. So in their report, the task force clarified how a reformed CWB would look: it will be voluntary. There will be no monopoly. The CWB will continue to operate for all those who prefer a pooling approach to grain marketing.
The first twist in the re-telling came from the wheat board itself. In its official response to the task force’s report it said: “We note that the task force acknowledges that the CWB as we know it today could not co-exist in a dual market, but rather as simply another small grain company in an open market.”
Well, no, that’s not what the task force said. What they said is that the CWB couldn’t have a monopoly in a dual market. And to make sure that there was no misunderstanding, they preferred to refer to it as marketing choice rather than dual marketing.
Then the Manitoba government jumped in: “The federal government’s own task force on the CWB recognizes in their report that ‘dual marketing’ is not a possible outcome.”
Wrong again. What the task force said was that it is not possible for a voluntary CWB to retain its monopoly. ÂÂ
The increasingly shrill refrain has now been enthusiastically embraced by monopoly supporters across the Prairies.
“Harper’s own task force to destroy the CWB even admitted that a dual market is not possible,” Ken Larson announced in a letter to the editor of the Western Producer.
“…the task force appointed by Strahl decided a dual marketing system can’t work…,” insisted Wild Rose (Agricultural Producers) president Bill Dobson to the Edmonton Journal.
When we played the game as children, we were whispering to one another. In this case, the task force’s report is written down. Perhaps the monopoly lobby should read it.
It’s clear enough: Marketing choice is another term for dual marketing. The task force was clarifying the concept of a voluntary CWB, not denigrating it. Those who try to insist otherwise should quit playing games.
– David Anderson, MP
Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
More profit?
As a past director of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for 12 years, I can imagine that management of all grain companies are sitting with their fingers crossed wishing that the barley vote would result in an open market.
For them, that will be an opportunity for increased profitability. While farmers will have more choice of who to sell their barley to, it is the grain companies who will do the actual marketing and the name of the marketing game is still buy low, sell high and keep what’s in between. Farmers will receive only what it takes to bring the product in.
Of course, the grain companies will have to sell the barley that is delivered to them. When there are multiple sellers, customers can and will play one against the other and when sellers are offering basically the same product, they really have only two bargaining tools:service and price. Most of the time price will be the most negotiable.
The CWB is the only seller of barley to the domestic human consumption and export markets. If the CWB is to be involved only as an optional delivery destination, its marketing power will be diminished. Any grain company would love to be the lone supplier of a commodity and in pursuit of that goal there have been buyouts and amalgamations.
While this has made the grain companies more efficient and given them control over more of the commodity, farmers have not received any of the profits.
While the barley ballot has three questions on it, there are only two choices for producers to make: do you want to keep the current system for barley or do you want an open market?…
When producers dream of delivering into the U.S. market and receiving a high price, they need to keep in mind that the U.S. does not buy a lot of barley from Canada and that the price can be driven down quickly by a small increase in the amount of barley being delivered there.
The open market may give more choice but will it give more profit? Only a portion is sold at the top end of the market. Consider the amount of barley that has to be sold overseas. Who will extract the best price for producers?
The CWB is a very different organization then it was a few years back. Without a doubt, it will continue to evolve as long as we put good, capable people on the board of directors. If farmers want to have any clout in the market place, this is the only system that can do it for them.
– Maurice Kostichuk,
Insinger, Sask.
Questions asked
The question must be asked. When the CWB was initiated, why were Ontario and Quebec and whomever else not included or affected in a similar manner to the West?
Was the kind of agricultural product different? Was the market for the product different? Was transportation and storage a factor? Did the philosophy and general need of the East differ from that of the West?
What was or is the political kickback to the above? Why have the differing attitudes and treatment continued? We had more than one governing philosophy during the last 50 some years.
The above questions lead to the present situation. Did either ConAgra, (Saskatchewan) Wheat Pool or Richardsons Pioneer consult with the grassroots producer as to what was best for the country? Were the farmers who went to jail for selling their own grain just small pawns in a much bigger and complex game or game plan?
What salary will the CEO of the amalgamated result draw? Whose money will pay the salary?
What or who is a farmer?
– E. O. Oystreck,
Yorkton, Sask.
Biofuel help
For the last year and more, the Alberta agriculture minister has been trying to destroy farmers to help the big boys.
Now a sudden turn around. He is afraid the big boys will take over the biofuel industry. If he is sincere, why doesn’t he help farmers get in that industry via co-ops or similar? The same applies for the meat processing industry.
We have been for the last three years trying to get a plant going in northern Alberta, but we have not been able to get help from any department. (There is) so much red tape ….
If the agriculture minister, federal or provincial, had the interest of the farmer at heart, maybe we would see changes.
– Lucien Cote,
Donnelly, Alta.
Paid the price
In the Feb. 15 issue of the Western Producer, the front page article “Grain car shipping woes mount” reports the cost to farmers as a result of the strike at CN Rail. The second line, “Farmers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, are paying $300,000 per day in demurrage” clearly states the problem prairie farmers face.
The sad part is that over the years, farmers have always paid the price and yet have remained powerless to do anything about it.
The CWB control over grain handling and transportation does nothing to shield farmers against additional costs resulting from actions or events over which they have no control. In fact, it does just the opposite.
The added costs of failure in transportation, as in this case, have always been charged back to farmers and paid for out of their pool accounts.
Justice (Willard) Estey, in his report to the minister responsible for the CWB, recommended that the CWB take possession of the grain at spout. This recommendation would have gone a long way to shield farmers from added costs that result from events such as the recent rail strike.
The CWB saw implementation of this recommendation as a loss of control and fought aggressively against its implementation.
Although farmers may be unable to mitigate all the negative effects of labour disruption on the railway, our industry can take action to reduce any added cost.
Using canola marketing as an example, a farmer fixes his/her cost of handling and delivery by locking in a basis value. In a situation such as the rail strike, any additional costs like ship demurrage will not be charged back to the farmer, but becomes an issue between the shipper and the railway.
Over the years, farmers have been forced to pay for costs resulting from strikes, derailments, snow slides and cold weather. Each time, the CWB complains loudly and calls on the government to take action for a resolution, but refuses to make any changes to protect producers from the resulting added costs.
The barley plebiscite is the first opportunity in two generations for individual farmers to have a say in how their grain is marketed, thus changing who pays for ship demurrage in a rail strike.
Clearly, the status quo cannot continue. When barley producers vote for choice in marketing their barley, they are also voting to end the system where additional costs resulting from failure in transportation are charged back to farmers.
– Albert J. Wagner,
Stony Plain, Alta.
Mutual respect
Sometimes farmers get into debates about John Deere vs. International or Ford vs. Chevy but it’s always good natured because everybody knows at the end of the day, it is up to you.
We respect one another’s decisions because it is each of us that has to live with the consequences.
The Canadian Wheat Board debate is a tough one because it has involved the use of compulsion. It is framed as though we all have to go the same way. I really feel we should be looking for ways that each person could act according to their own convictions, and respect the other guy, too.
I just came from the Farm Credit Canada office. I’ve borrowed from them off and on for 30 years. It is a federal government-backed agency that serves farmers voluntarily.
Nobody thinks it should have a monopoly but somehow it has thrived without one. It serves farmers in unique ways that the banks can’t. Could a voluntary CWB have a fit like this?
A more open grain system would probably let each of us do our own thing, or to work together collectively as we see fit. This is more fitting in a free country like Canada. I do believe, as with FCC, the Credit Union or many other co-operative institutions, that a voluntary CWB would have a supportive, but not dominant, role to play long into the future.
– Jim Pallister,
Portage la Prairie, Man.
Secretly signed
In reporting on the recent FarmTech 2007 conference in Edmonton, Bill Strautman (“Regulations hinder industry expansion,” WP, Feb. 15) neglected to make the obvious connection between Owen McAuley’s agri-business presentation and the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.
Apparently, Mr. McAuley finds our provincial and federal regulations irritating, stating that “these were (provincial) regulations put in place for good reason at the time they were put in. But once they’re 20 years old, or sometimes five years old, maybe they’re not relevant anymore.”
He also suggested that “… integrating Canadian with U.S. and other country’s regulations may be a good first step.”
Enter TILMA. This corporate-friendly document, signed in secret last year by the B.C. and Alberta governments, without any consultation with residents in either province, and apparently without any legislative debate, comes into effect on April 1.
TILMA is essentially a long list of things governments will be prohibited from doing, for all time, regardless of who gets elected provincially or at the local government level and, according to Todd Hirsch, Canada West Foundation, has the potential to erase “the provincial boundary for all purposes except voting and the colour of the licence plate.”
For example, it may affect municipalities, school boards, nursing homes, crown corporations, private health clinics, regulations regarding air quality, restrictions on tourist developments, establishment of ecological reserves….
Under TILMA, private investors can take their complaints to dispute panels, whose decisions will be binding, and may also file suit against any government regulation for a maximum of $5 million with no limit on the number of challenges against the same regulation.
With their feet held to the fire by the Harper government and by the Saskatchewan Party, Saskatchewan’s NDP government is also considering signing on to TILMA this spring.
If Saskatchewan residents don’t want to live under a corporate-driven puppet government, now is the time to make our opposition to this backroom deal known loud and clear.
– Elaine Hughes,
Archerwill, Sask.
