Freedom query
In the discussion about the Canadian Wheat Board it has been stated that it is a freedom issue. If that is the case, where is the freedom in mandatory union memberships or at least payment of dues?
People talk about how much better the grain price would be under an open market. If the open market offers so much, why are hog and beef prices where they are today?
– Lars E. Rude,
Tofield, Alta.
ABP & packers
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?
While their national representatives in the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association were in Ottawa holding out their cowboy hats and begging for the government to fill them with taxpayer assistance, the Alberta Beef Producers were busy at their annual general meeting voting on resolutions to ensure that the big packers, Tyson and Cargill, would be first in line to receive a big portion of any government handouts.
The big packers own or control a great number of cattle and during the BSE crisis Tyson and Cargill got the lion’s share of the millions in government aid money.
They also bought cattle off the farmers at a fraction of their value due to BSE and made additional millions while cattle producers went broke. Even today they are only offering between 84 to 90 cents a pound for prime steers….
At their meeting, ABP defeated two resolutions that would have restricted packer ownership and control of livestock. They also defeated resolutions calling for a democratic vote on the compulsory $3 a head checkoff and another resolution that would have allowed producers the choice of directing their check-off money to an organization of their choosing.
We need a postal ballot to see if farmers and ranchers even support the existence of ABP, let alone their collection of even more money.
In his presentation to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee regarding the lack of government assistance, the CCA representative said, “it is really starting to get the industry (producers) very bitter, not only at government but at associations.”
When the ABP votes to side with Tyson and Cargill and votes against democracy in regard to the Alberta government legislated compulsory checkoff, it is understandable why cattle producers might become bitter at their associations.
– Dale Fankhanel,
Ferintosh, Alta.
Good signals
John De Pape is distorting the facts (Poor signals from barley PROs, March 13) with his assertion that the 2008-09 Pool Return Outlook for barley is creating “price signal problems.”
What is the problem with an accurate price signal? Would Mr. De Pape rather the CWB sent an inaccurate signal that would risk a reduction in seeded malting barley acres?
The initial PRO for malting barley in the 2008-09 crop year is higher than the February PRO for the 2007-08 crop year. This sends an accurate signal, and it is the same signal U.S. producers are receiving: U.S. 2008 malting barley contract values are much higher than 2007 contract values, higher than 2007-08 average returns for U.S. farmers, and higher than nearby bids.
So where is the price signal issue?
Furthermore, the PRO isn’t the only price signal the CWB sends to barley growers. CashPlus sends cash signals and is designed to address price-signal concerns of pooling in extremely volatile markets.
Despite Mr. De Pape’s assertions, the new PRO should not create a recurrence of last year’s barley market. The situation last year, where the spread between malting barley and feed became so narrow that many farmers delivered feed, no longer exists. There is now a sizable spread between feed and designated barley PROs.
The initial 2008-09 PRO provides little incentive for producers to withhold malting barley from delivery in the current crop year and deliver into the 2008-09 crop year.
First of all, farmers are obliged to deliver on existing contracts. Second, given the quality concerns of the current crop, it would be a huge risk to store barley into next year, unless a producer is expecting to deliver it as feed.
– Greg Arason,
President and CEO
Canadian Wheat Board,
Winnipeg, Man.
Seed labs
The article “Laboratories needed to test seed quality,” (WP, Feb. 7) correctly highlighted the importance of having seed tested before planting. I would like to further add that growers seeking to have their seed tested should ensure they are using the services of an accredited laboratory, an important point not discussed in the article.
There are approximately 45 laboratories in Canada accredited for seed purity and germination testing.
Half of these are in the prairie provinces. All adhere to a quality systems protocol based on international standards and administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Seed Institute.
It is a requirement of the protocol that all laboratories submit to periodic technical audits and participate in a proficiency testing program.
In addition, it is a requirement that all accredited laboratories employ seed analysts who have passed rigorous practical and theory exams set by CFIA.
Most of these analysts are members of the Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada, which requires analysts to participate in ongoing continuing education activities to ensure they are current with testing methods and regulations. Although there are a number of competent laboratories offering tests for varietal purity, including DNA testing, there is no Canadian accreditation program for these tests. Nor is there accreditation for seed or seedling vigour testing.
The CFIA seed health analyst accreditation program only accredits Canadian analysts for the testing of true loose smut in barley and wheat. Growers wanting non-accredited tests should discuss with their lab the procedures in place to assure test accuracy.
– Doug Ashton,
Executive Director, Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada,
Almonte, Ont.
Check policy
My MP David Anderson wrote this in a local paper: “I believe that farmers, when they produce a product, they should have the freedom to market it as well.”
If Mr. Anderson believes this, then he is at odds with a big part of the Conservative party’s agricultural policy. This can be found on their website.
“Canadian Wheat Board: A Conservative Government will give farmers the freedom to make their own marketing and transportation decisions and to direct, structure, and to voluntarily participate in producer organizations.
“Supply Management: The Conservative Party believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative Government will support supply management …”
Supply management organizations are in fact marketing boards, although the policy statement is careful not to call them (that.)
There are dozens of marketing boards in Canada and at least five of them operate under federal legislation. They are: Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Isn’t it interesting that all five of these boards negotiate a price for their commodities, all are single-desk sellers, all manage the supply that goes to market and none are voluntary.
So why is the Canadian Wheat Board the only one of these boards where Anderson insists producers should have freedom of marketing choice? Could it be because most of the marketing boards in Canada are in Ontario and Quebec?ÂÂ
I have no doubt the Conservative government would like to get rid of all marketing boards but knows if they tried it would be unpopular in Ontario and Quebec where most of the voters are.
When it comes to an agriculture policy, it appears that the Conservatives would never think of letting an honest principled position get in their way.
– Bev Currie,
Swift Current, Sask.
Inaccurate notion
There are a lot of inaccurate notions being bandied around by those wanting to remove barley from under the Canadian Wheat Board single desk system.
I heard one such notion stated at the gathering in front of the Saskatchewan legislative building (Feb. 29) while waiting for (federal agriculture minister Gerry) Ritz to arrive. One anti-wheat board person claimed that farmers did not do very well under the wheat board after World War II.
I pointed out that it wasn’t the CWB. It was government policy that caused the problem.
Some people will remember the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement of 1945-50 when Canada was trying to help England get back on its feet economically after the war by selling them wheat at a fixed price. The CWB had to sell wheat to England at the price fixed in the agreement.
Then, there was the “have regard to” clause under which England would take account of certain factors in making a final settlement. Canada did not get a strong enough wording and in the end, England said they did not owe anything. The result was an eight-cent final settlement to farmers, which was not near enough to cover the intervening increase in costs.
So Canada helped to get England back on its feet at the expense of western Canadian farmers. It was government actions that caused the problem, not the CWB.
This is just one example of the distorted thinking that leads to the proposition of removing one of the last sources of economic power for farmers.
– John S. Burton,
Regina, Sask.
CWB slogan
I have an issue with the integrity of the CWB’s omnipresent slogan, “CWB returns all sales revenue, less marketing costs to farmers.”
The CWB pays for dozens of scholarships each year and local advertising. As well, every employee who is terminated sues the CWB for a lifetime pension. Stress bonuses of $1,000. These are not marketing costs …
I recently locked in a price for new crop HRSW for $10.35 delivered to the local elevator. Since then it has dropped over $2 per bushel. Sounds like I did it right but in the United States, farmers are locking in over $20 per bu.
The world is crying for wheat now and many farmers including myself have uncontracted HRSW and would love to sell it in the U.S. for $20 plus per bu. but are forced to take less than half from the CWB.
If sales were made too aggressively when they shouldn’t have been, draw up a review and let farmers vote on the marketer’s termination. Just paying half price for wheat hurts farmers.
If the CWB has farmers’ best interests at heart, they would sell to the highest bidder, not pull out of the world wheat market or reduce exports protecting other Canadian sectors.
There is not a doubt in my mind the CWB’s failure to farmers will be the end of the CWB. If farmers in our area received fair market value for wheat and barley, they would grow more and stop pushing their canola rotation so much.
As well, if we received more for our wheat board grains, we wouldn’t need to apply for Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization and similar subsidy programs as much.
The CWB should allow farmers to vote on issues, not just directors, and every vote should be weighted by tonnes produced each year …
– Jason van Oirschot,
Porcupine Plain, Sask.
Somebody voted
It appears congratulations are in order for prime minister (Stephen) Harper, for picking two consecutive worst ministers of agriculture in Canada’s history.
He can sure pick them.
The same farmers who thought Chuck Strahl’s appointment had hit a new low for ag ministers just got a surprise. Never in Canada’s history has the farm community had to deal with such arrogance and bull-headedness and total disregard for the facts.
Farmers are beginning to wake up to the fact that when the truth is no longer important and only politicians’ ideology and opinions count, how is this different from a dictatorship?
Some of the same people who voted for (federal agriculture minister Gerry) Ritz in the past are now experiencing a guilt feeling when they look in a mirror.
Harper can sure pick them. Some of my neighbours are now asking, where does he find these guys?
It appears the answer is simple. Somebody voted for them.
– Barb Dwyer,
Lloydminster, Sask.
Willow worry
If farmers plant willows and bale those, that’s one thing. (“Researchers probe willows as crop,” WP, March.)
But if farmers bale existing willows growing naturally around sloughs and other damp areas, the loss of habitat will kill off another bunch of songbirds, particularly red-winged blackbirds.
Already so few birds are left as a result of fence-to-fence crops, with loss of bluffs and headlands.
– M. Claudette Sandecki,
Terrace, B.C.
CWB solution
… I suggest ending the single desk monopoly on both barley and wheat. Allow any grain producer who wishes to leave to compete head to head with the big grain dealers like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and James Richardson International.
Grain prices are at unprecedented highs. Every grain farmer is suddenly a savvy businessman, so let the good times roll.
However, by my reckoning, there must be a couple of caveats associated with this scenario and they should be the following:
The Canadian Wheat Board would continue to exist for those who appreciate its services, which would probably amount to a healthy 50 to 60 percent of western Canadian grain farmers. With this level of support, the CWB would, I believe, remain a strong, viable and respected marketer of high quality Canadian grains around the globe.
The other more ominous caveat would come in the form of a legal document. Any farmer wishing to market his own wheat or barley must sign a legally binding document to the effect that he relinquishes any future ability to participate, in any manner, in the programs delivered by the CWB.
Simply put, he shall never again have the option of marketing his grain through the CWB.
You see, what is happening right now is boringly typical of human nature. Socialist ideals, such as farmer owned and directed grain marketing, are normally born out of economic hardship like that experienced by prairie farmers in the earlier part of the last century.
Regardless of what anyone says, one of the primary forces that made these same farms profitable decades later was the creation of the CWB by the grandfathers of so many of the hardnosed “businessmen” clamoring for its demise today.
Memories are short and invariably clouded by cash. But this is symptomatic of the mentality spawned by the relative economic prosperity we are now enjoying, a prosperity that will not continue indefinitely.
The major opponents of the CWB – mainly envious American agribusiness – have instructed our weak and directionless federal government to scrap it, all the while stealthily convincing the individual farmer that he needs the freedom to market his own wheat and barley in order to give their duplicitous scheming credibility.
To seal the deal, the schemers have under their thumbs a patsy prime minister and a dormant minister of agriculture leading the charge to dismantle an institution that would be able to weather the inevitable decline in the agricultural economy….
To attempt to convince the masses that the will of the people and the common good are not the same entity is futile. Let them leave.
In the words of Friedrich Nietsche: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
– Charlie Kaufmann,
Bon Accord, Alta.
Seen it all
A die-hard CWB supporter?
I have a suggestion for Mr. Axten of Minton, Sask. (Open Forum, March 6.)
If he likes the highly subsidized U.S. grain prices, why not move there and farm? I’ve farmed nearly seven decades, my dad and granddad before so I think I’ve heard it all. Back to when a bottle of Johnny Walker could suddenly find room in an elevator or get a better grade.
Yes, I can go on-line and find grain prices around the world, but how do I arrange a sale? Or arrange shipping to be at port when the ship arrives, who pays demurrage if the train is delayed, by track dockage? Me.
How can I guarantee quality when other shippers are loading as well? How do I arrange for payment?
Yes, things have changed but the large grain companies haven’t. They’re out for profit. The only place to get it is from the farmers.
I’m sure once the CWB is gone Cargill will gladly take my grain at their price.
If the CWB is so inept at selling grain as Mr. Axten implies, why has the U.S. tried unsuccessfully 11 times to discredit the board? Because they can take the profit they want.
– Charles Dowswell,
Wetaskiwin, Alta.
Torch went out
On Feb. 29, CBC Radio broadcast a confrontation between pro-and anti-wheat board farmers on the steps of the legislative building in Regina.
When it comes to debating skills, most of them should go back to school, but when it comes to foul language, the anti-wheat board supporters need take no lessons.
Yes, it is a very serious subject, but many city people (and they outnumber us) already have an image of farmers as slovenly, overweight, ignorant, whining individuals who wear a greasy cap 24 hours a day.
Now, add to that a tongue that cannot be controlled in public.
Freedom of speech. Oh, goody.
There are so many companies out there which are sucking money out of farmers as fast as they can but do farmers get together against them? No, they prefer to exercise their democratic rights in allowing themselves to be divided and conquered.
For years now, many government plebiscites have contained loaded questions of the “have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no” type.
A barley or wheat questionnaire should have two questions: “Do you want barley under the wheat board? Yes or no.” “Do you want barley on the open market? Yes or no.”
A third question is added only to muddy the waters and that should be clear to anyone.
Why should Stephen Harper want to destroy the wheat board? What has he to gain?
I live near a cemetery containing graves of many grain growers and wheat pool pioneers. All they worked for has gone down the drain because we hadn’t the fortitude to carry the torch they lit, and buckled in to the greedy and manipulative corporations instead.
We prefer to cut each others’ throats and our own and watch one another bleed to death.
Will the last farmer please remember to turn out all the yard lights?
– C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
