Real issues
I want to respond to federal agriculture minister (Gerry) Ritz’s Nov. 22 letter to the editor.
I must congratulate the minister on a brilliant political letter. His “facts” are a little suspect, to me. His stirring the pot does serve to keep the real issue from being debated.
When the Conservatives chose to have a three-option question, it created a problem. My understanding of democratic process would be the option that received the most votes won. I don’t think either side of the wheat board debate can claim victory.
Read Also
Higher farmland taxes for investors could solve two problems
The highest education and health care land tax would be for landlords, including investment companies, with no family ties to the land.
Simply put, you can’t steal the third options numbers.
Is the biggest problem facing Canadian agriculture the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly? Considering that the CWB has no influence on crops, other than wheat and barley, it would seem clear the answer is no.
The current financial problems with beef and pork have nothing to do with the CWB.
Political letters keep the real agriculture issues out of the spotlight. In the RM I live in, the population dropped by 33 percent since the last census. What is the average age of farmers? What is happening to rural towns, schools and services?
In my opinion, all three of these problems are related. As population declines, so do numbers of students. Small businesses are under increasing pressure to survive. As businesses close, a sense of community is lost and towns disappear.
Rural residents cannot allow our fate to be decided by dividing ourselves into groups and participate in useless arguments.
Our other option is to do, as I believe the pioneers of this province did, meet together, form consensus and work together to solve problems. The bully mentality has to be replaced with co-operation.
– George Alexander,
Avonlea, Sask.
Strange events
Maybe I’m cynical, but it’s strange that both the current prime minister and the former prime minister of Australia, John Howard, were both singing from the same song book and not signing on to the Kyoto Accord on global warming…..
As well, both were trying to take away the rewards from farmers by jointly selling from the Australian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board and turning it over to the large international grain companies.
In Australia, their producers voted no by a legitimate vote, as I understand.
In Canada, the prime minister used every devious way possible to do the same; sent in some political hacks to strike 16,000 producers off the voters’ list. Many had normally grown barley but changed to peas and other special crops that paid better.
Then, concocted a three choice plebiscite that pollsters said was not legal and should have asked just two questions; do you want the board or do you want the open market.
Then, he fired the CEO of the board and put a gag order on the total board to make their case.
They do not believe in or follow the rule of law that’s in legislation. Then, appointed political hacks to sit on the board along with members that were elected by producers.
We hear about these things going on in other countries but did not think it would happen in Canada.
Anyway, John Howard’s government is no longer in power and he was defeated in his own riding. I hope it’s a message for our politicians….
It’s rather strange. (The CWB) was started by a Calgary Conservative prime minister to help farmers in Western Canada and endorsed by every prime minister we have had.
Now, it’s a so-called Calgary Conservative prime minister that wants to turn it back to the international grain companies.
– Avery Sahl,
Mossbank, Sask.
Dairy sector
In response to the Nov. 22 article “Dairy sector booming,” let’s mention the real reason why our dairy quotas have increased 4.5 percent from August 2006 to 2007.
Canada’s dairy processors, who import large amounts of dairy ingredients including more than 50 percent of all dairy ingredients used to make so called Canadian ice cream, have over the past year faced world high prices on the ingredients they were purchasing, therefore making some of our Canadian domestic prices cheaper than the imports.
We as Canadian dairy producers can enjoy our temporary quota increases because of the world high demand for dairy products.
Reality will set in when the world price for dairy products loses ground and if the dollar situation with the U.S. continues, processors in the near future will import more dairy ingredients from the U.S. than ever before, which will also equate to more dairy ingredients coming from rBGH (bovine growth hormone) dairy farms.
If Dairy Farmers of Canada would only start promoting true Canadian dairy products, maybe we can inform the consumer on what to look for in the dairy case and maybe we as Canadian dairy farmers can avoid the potential landslide of our dairy quotas.
– John Van Dyk,
Perth County Milk Committee,
Tavistock, Ont.
Barley prices
I would just like to ask a question to all of the people who have been seeking the demise of the CWB’s barley monopoly.
How many of them have asked the wheat board to pay them the amount for their barley that they had tentatively contracted with various companies when it was assumed that the CWB was losing the monopoly?
None, I’m pretty sure.ÂÂ
The Pool Return Outlook for malt barley is 50 to 75 cents higher than any company in my area was offering for malt barley this fall.
It’s pretty hypocritical of these people to take the full advantage of the pool system right now. I wish they could have opted out so that they would realize what they would be missing.
The wheat board has its problems, no doubt. But in an industry where farmers are pitted against each other in order for big business to make a profit, it’s nice to have the ability to realize a high price without having to risk your neck.
This may be a simplistic view, but this year I know that I will get the highest available price for as many malt tons as I can produce. Not many grain companies are going to be offering that to you when the board has no monopoly.
– Brent Johnson,
Strasbourg, Sask.
Predators & prey
I read an article where Statistics Canada, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, and Alberta Agriculture and Food numbers were used to compare today’s prices with those of 20 years ago.
(It) made me think that when talking about the economics of farming, one can use the words “predator” and “prey”.
The article seems to prove that the agricultural industry supplying farmers is successful. An example: seed cost for canola 20 years ago would be about $4 per acre.
Since then the industry has taken over the development of new varieties. The cost per acre when including the Technology Use Agreement can be $40 per acre.
When looking at processors, they have prices that are not what one would expect when using the cost of living index as a guide.
An example: 20 years ago with the two-price system for wheat, they were buying wheat for $7 per bushel and selling bread at about $1 a loaf. They are still able to buy wheat at about $7 per bu. Bread prices are much higher.
How often have we heard cow-calf producers say that the industry will look after them? Does that happen when hamburger goes up 70 percent and cow prices go down 30 to 50 percent?
It does look like suppliers and processors are predators with producers being the prey.
– Lorne Jackson,
Riverhurst, Sask.
Organic piece
In “Should organics be subsidized?” (Opinion, WP, Nov. 29), organic inspector and testing company entrepreneur Mischa Popoff variously rails against: Lon Borgerson’s organic report to the provincial government, organic activists, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, government support for organics, all Saskatchewan certifying bodies, the organic audit trail system, business leaders in the organic sector, and paperwork.
He proposes instead an “annual test” and advocates marketplace competition.
Why the need, though, for this hurtful public condemnation of the work and choices of colleagues in the organic food movement?
After all, it will ultimately be the organic market that decides if there is a use and a need for his annual tests – or for that matter paper audit trails, activism, or government support for the organic sector.
For a proponent of market forces, that should suffice.
– Doug Bone,
Elrose, Sask.
