CGC issues
After reading the article by the new chief (commissioner) of the Canadian Grain Commission, I felt the need to respond to his drivel exalting the changes to the commission.
Having worked for the commission for over 32 years, I felt I had to express my concerns over the fact that grain inspectors will lose much of their powers under Bill C-39.
In the past, senior inspectors in charge of loading vessels at export terminals had the power to stop the loading if a problem arose.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
According to Bill C-39, he will now be unable to do so.
I was an inspector-in-charge of export terminals in Vancouver, B.C., for over 14 years.
Over the course of those years I had on numerous occasions halted loading due to infractions by the terminals with regards to adhering to shipping tolerances.
I am sure that many producers are unaware that a certain amount of Total Foreign Matter (TFM) is allowed in most grains and oilseeds shipped for export. For instance, in canola that TFM can be up to 2.5 percent.
It’s plain to see that the elevator company can reap a tremendous profit by staying as close to the 2.5 percent as possible.
Now, under Bill C-39, the inspector-in-charge cannot stop the loading if the elevator goes beyond the tolerance.
Do you think the elevators will police themselves? Good luck.
– Nick Serdar,
Abbotsford, B.C.
Taking less?
Am I missing something? Our western Canadian hog farmers are moving their hogs for finishing into the U.S. because it is too expensive to buy the feed in Canada. Yet we have some free marketers saying we must get rid of the Canadian Wheat board so we make more money.
I am no brain surgeon, but in order for us to be more profitable, they are saying we must take less for our grain.
– Leo Howse,
Porcupine Plain, Sask.
KVD past
Kernel visual distinguishability (KVD) has been a simple tool, but in today’s world its shortfalls are evident. The restrictions KVD places on the release of new market-specific wheat varieties is just too costly.
Canada is the only area in the world that uses kernel shape and size as a requirement for varieties, so we miss many developments on the global stage. Plus, we are moving into a new era where wheat has the opportunity to play a larger role in the industrial and feed sector.
For many producers, wheat is the logical choice to service this market because corn and soybeans are not options. We need innovation to make wheat a viable choice in these markets.
An example is winter wheat. Current KVD restrictions have brought western Canadian winter wheat breeding efforts to a standstill. New varieties have not been registered since 2001, and the consensus among current breeders is that few if any promising new lines will pass KVD requirements.
The winter wheat industry cannot survive under the current regulations and producers are being denied the diversity they need in their crop rotation.
While there is general acceptance that we need to move away from KVD, there is strong debate on the timeline to implementation. Every year it is delayed represents millions in lost productivity and specialty markets.
Given that the registration system will take at least three years to get any new products through to market, decisions are needed today. Our commission firmly believes that moving the regulatory removal of KVD for all classes of wheat in 2008 will send a strong signal to all participants that the industry is moving forward.
Some people are focused on the problems that might happen. Experience in other crops, like canola, and other jurisdictions, like Ontario, shows that it is possible to set up orderly markets without KVD. …
It is time we made decisions to put wheat back on the agenda, and keep it as a viable part of the farming mix.
– Art Enns,
Morris, Man.
Give us choice
I believe it is time for the CWB to respect the wishes of western Canadian barley growers. A majority of the producers voted in favour of having marketing choice.
It is now time for the bureaucracy within the CWB to stop making these insignificant changes and give us what we want, and that is the choice in who we market our barley to.
The CWB’s arrogance in ignoring the results of a free and democratic vote by barley producers only goes to prove to me that their interest is not in what is desired by producers, but in protecting many well paid jobs in Winnipeg.
– Gregg Adair,
Westlock, Alta.
Fewer bees
My early memories of a childhood in northeastern Saskatchewan are of wild beauty, nature-wise; the land covered in wild chokecherry bushes, saskatoons, red raspberry and hazelnut….We picked wild blueberries, most berries on forest floors. Wild strawberries grew big in shaded poplar glades amongst tiger lilies and scarlet paintbrush in the ditches. Somewhere golden lady’s slippers bloomed, shyly.
The Earth smiled.
Ditches were not sterile as now in some places but lush with alfalfa and sweet clover. Every kind of wild flower bloomed and thrived.
In the early years, the Indians and settlers dug the fragrant seneca root.
The bees were in their element, groggy if not besotted with the perfumes and nectars of nature.
Theirs was a busy but happy halcyon life, I believe, before they had to fight, perhaps in bewilderment, the onslaught of the white man and his destruction – chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.
The bees could only fly back to their hives and nests, staggered, weakened, if not destroyed….
The bees are needed for canola pollination. Yet the canola fields are sprayed with chemicals and fertilizers with a vengeance.
Does the bee get out of the way? No, it is drenched.
But butterflies too, field birds’ nests (such as) killdeer, plovers, etc. Eggs (are) contaminated, if not hatchlings. The feverish, frenzied madness of mankind to do it his way and fast.
No more summerfallow that I can see, but squeezing out of the land everything that can be gotten, as fast as possible.
Are the bees declining? Sure, they’re declining. We’d be declining too, if giants dumped gallons of poison on us every day as we went about our business outdoors.
We’d probably be dead.
– T. Peddie,
Camrose, Alta.
Funds & ag
The surge in grain prices is not the answer. How many farmers are taking advantage of this? Statistics prove we never sell the highs, and since we haven’t learned to work together, we don’t dare forward price too much of next year’s production either.
Commodity funds started buying up grain futures 18 months ago for as low as 40 cents on the dollar, and are now holding the world hostage.
Like small boys playing with a new toy, they have discovered how to make prices dance: buy them, they go up, sell and they go down.
What could be simpler? Every billion dollars they make is exactly how much more consumers will pay and farmers will never see. …
You can bet funds are selling new crop highs right now, building up another huge equity. What’s stopping them? Everyone should remember what happens next. Prices can drop just as fast and possibly just as far.
Welcome to the real world. Meet your new marketing agent. It’s not Viterra, Cargill or the CWB. It’s the funds.
– Louis K. Berg,
Sedalia, Alta.
Check-off choices
The Jan. 17 Western Producer reported a conversation which all Albertans should be aware of. It was between Alberta agriculture minister George Groeneveld and the highly respected outgoing president of Wild Rose Agricultural Producers, Bill Dobson. It gives insight into the Alberta government’s concept of democracy and makes a mockery of its position on “freedom of choice.”
WRAP’s roots go back to the formation of Alberta itself. For many years WRAP has been trying to get the Alberta government to provide legislation allowing them stable check-off funding.
However, Dobson was told by Groeneveld that WRAP must promote the Alberta government’s views on the Canadian Wheat Board if it is to receive check-off funding like other provincial agriculture associations.
Dobson said he was told by the minister of agriculture, “if you change your position to conform with the provincial government, we’ll have time to talk about it.”
Many urban readers may not know that Alberta government legislation forces farmers to pay compulsory sales checkoffs to numerous commodity associations, all of whom repeat the Conservative party mantra of choice. A recent estimate of the total amount of legislated checkoffs paid annually by Alberta producers was $42 million.
If the Alberta government really believed in “freedom of choice” they would make all of the checkoffs voluntary at the point of collection. At the very least they would allow farmers to direct their checkoff to a group they thought was useful.
Obviously the Stelmach Conservatives are afraid farmers’ money might go to a group that didn’t toe the government’s line.
It is ironic that in the name of “choice,” the iron-fisted Alberta government has created a situation where farm groups must parrot the Conservative party line if they expect check-off funding.
The Conservatives have been in power for 37 years. Evidently they are so arrogant they cannot tolerate open, democratic discussion and are treating Albertans as if they live in a one party state.
They need to be put out to pasture.
– Art Macklin,
DeBolt, Alta.
Set up fund
The role of government is to solve problems. The Progressive Conservative party has a long history of helping farmers. Hog and cattle producers have a serious problem with the high Canadian dollar, high feed prices and short term depressed prices.
Food and grain prices have risen. When the current North American hog and cattle sell off is completed, beef and hog prices will have to rise to get meat on the table.
Unfortunately, if the federal and provincial governments do not act quickly, few hog producers will be left.
As a former minister of trade, I understand the complications of trade distortions, countervail and dumping. Our governments have introduced a limited loan program. It is not enough.
For decades the Americans have had a loan program on grain (price guarantee). The Americans are feeding subsidized corn and subsidized distillers grain.
Our governments need to establish a currency and price stabilization fund for beef and pork. Payments from the fund must be immediate.
When prices rise, producers would pay into the fund. If your MLA or MP does not know how to set up such a fund, tell them to contract the PC Party of Saskatchewan. We have experience in setting up the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.
– Grant Schmidt,
Melville, Sask.
CAIS aid
Regarding (federal) agriculture minister Gerry Ritz announcing in a conference call to provincial counterparts, they are giving $1.5 billion to programs like the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization and other programs, the money flew away.
What a joke. I received my cost of production payment. I got $196.27. That payment does not pay the GST on a tank of fuel.
If you put it another way, I got 39 cents an acre. Somebody got the money. It wasn’t Mulroney, as he was long gone.
We did not qualify for any CAIS money because you cannot use all your farm expenses and I had lost for three years. …
We should not have to pay GST on fuel to grow cheap food. The money the farmers were to get is gone for administration.
They could turn it to a simple program – so much per acre and let crop insurance pay it, as their people get paid anyway.
The program is so bad you need an accountant to fill it out. In this case I would have got $11 after I paid the accountant. Too many people get paid to handle this program.
The $1.5 billion looked good on paper. It’s a crapshoot. They could have programs like the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan. It was good and simple and you did get paid.
Most MPs do not care about agriculture and the minister does not know much about difficulties.
– Jack Pawich,
Cartwright, Man.
Excess protest
Farmers and others are being increasingly disgusted by the bullying tactics of federal agricultural minister Gerry Ritz and his parliamentary secretary David Anderson in attempting to promote their opinions and policies regarding their position in changing the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board through the medium of letters to the editor in various publications.
The latest attempt, but by no means the only one, appears in The Western Producer of Feb. 7 by Mr. Anderson under the heading “Farmers spoke.”
In this he implies that George Hickie is a brick short of a full load by disagreeing with the direction that their proposals are taking in the marketing of wheat and barley in Western Canada.
In my opinion, he is also quite erroneous in his statement that a majority of farmers spoke in the flawed plebiscite on CWB marketing.
I have known George Hickie for many years and I have always found him to be most knowledgeable and perceptive in analyzing the agricultural situation and his ideas well worth listening to.
Perhaps Mr. Ritz and Mr. Anderson should confine their remarks to the professional media and to Parliament. They have much to answer to in both those venues.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks both honourable gentlemen do protest too much.
– R. Don Robertson,
Liberty, Sask.
Philosophy change
“In the case of a few rich farmers who can sit on all of their grain while the raging masses sell out early, perhaps Saskfarmer has a legitimate argument. Perhaps we did cost him $5 per bushel on his durum. Perhaps it ran 50 bushels per acre and perhaps he had a thousand acres. And perhaps he could have earned an additional quarter of a million dollars. … So yes, the down side is that we kept Saskfarmer from buying another section of land where he might next year make enough extra money to buy out another suffering neighbour who had to sell a section to Saskfarmer.”
This is a quote by Canadian Wheat Board director Rod Flaman, posted on agri-ville.com on Jan. 26.
I have confirmed the authorship and found this reprehensible opinion is not confined to the smallest minority imaginable.
In a one week period I have heard both public and business officials, as well as an individual, state exactly the same view in almost as clear a fashion.
It saddens me to think that these persons are so frustrated and resentful and I predict they will not see their lot improve even if they could rid the world of what they have identified as being the problem source.
I could certainly mention some points that have been overlooked. Maybe hard work, some measure of tolerance, a marketing plan, learning and consulting with a wider group, having an open mind, patience, not being blinded by firmly held beliefs and opinions, acceptance of some things that are unlikely to change and picking your battles where you have some chance of success.
Maybe knowing what you don’t know, cutting your losses at appropriate times, trying to be reasonable and conducting business in a fair and honest way are also traits that work in the long run too.
Investing in inventory, seed supply and grain storage are not to be rejected out of hand and these options are available to some degree to even the smallest or least well off.
I would consider the possibility that there is a self perpetuating cycle at work.
Because of operating loans and debt, the financiers are really in control of the decision making. A lender might be most interested in proof of ability to fulfill their payment schedule. As long as hedges, forward contracts and taxpayers’ subsidies appear to cover their exposure and the banker will have repeat business next year, what incentive is there to change from a system designed to do little better than break even?
The extremely rare opportunities for windfall profits are important for those really interested in getting ahead. I suspect that “the raging masses” and “suffering farmers” would welcome such opportunities; perhaps even more so than supposedly few rich farmers. It’s time for a philosophy change at the CWB level as much as at the community level….
– Murray C. Johnson
Oxbow, Sask.
Too much credit
The other night, after I had finished my homework, I picked up my brother’s Grade 6 Social Studies book, Government Matters, by Tony Burley and started flipping through it. I couldn’t believe what I saw.
On one page it shows a t-shirt designed by a boy that shows government services. It says that the government meets all our physical needs, including our food and our homes.
The government does not supply our food; it’s grown by farmers. I live on a farm and I’ve never seen someone from the government come and work here.
My dad had to earn money to pay for our house. I’ve asked a few people and they all seem to have been absent the day the government handed out houses.
One paragraph says, “Who made sure that your classroom has chairs and other furniture? Who hired the teacher and principal? Who checked that your home has proper sewer lines so that your bathwater does not flood the basement? When a fire starts, who supplies the firefighters? The answer to all these questions will usually be the same. In most communities, these things are done by the local government.”
I would ask, “Who provides the government? Who made them?” Answer: the people. We do.
We elect our representatives, we earn money and pay taxes, which pay for desks in schools and teacher’s salaries and ice arenas.
The people pay for their homes to be built and their plumbing to be installed. I know that, and I’m just a fifth grader. Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
I know that the government chooses our textbooks. Why would they choose one that makes us feel like we can’t possibly survive without them?
We need government for many things, but to say that they provide everything is wrong. I think they’re a little full of themselves.
– C. D. McKee,
Stirling, Alta.
