Convoy compare
To the Editor:
I’m pleased Russell Larson of Outlook, Sask., had a chance to read The Alberta Pro-CWB campaign news release about truck convoys. I’m also glad he accepts the Canada Grain Commission and Statistics Canada numbers showing that over 60 percent of off-farm barley sales are through the Canadian Wheat Board, and the other 39% are off-board.
As a thoughtful observer, I’m sure he did not intend to imply, as he seemed to, that all those who sell barley in the off-board market would be prepared to break the law … If that is what he is saying, don’t count any of the barley I have sold on the open market. I know most of my neighbours also respect the law and would not want to be counted either. I think Russell’s anti-Board convoy just shrunk back to the same tiny bunch.
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.
In our high-production area, I suspect that much of the non-board barley is there simply because the railway system is so incompetent that the Board is unable to schedule shipments earlier in the crop year; but that is not the fault of the Board or the quota system.
I would also expect he did not mean to imply that if you sell on the Board, you cannot use the non-board. Not much freedom there. For most of us, it’s not a question of “loyalty,” it’s just a matter of circumstance, convenience and many other things. Of course if we do away with the CWB for barley, all of us will have less freedom, not to mention less money. After all, the only choice on the open market is the day you sell on.
Lastly, thanks to Russell Larson for spelling my last name correctly. Only us Larsens and Larsons seem to notice the difference.
-Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alberta
CWB is fair
To the Editor:
… Three eminent economists who, after a researched and careful perusal of the activities of the wheat board, who have sales contacts in seventy countries, concluded that millions and millions of dollars were made and returned to the farmers in a final payment on top of the initial price less the administrative expenses. What could be better and fairer than this? On the other side of the equation, these profits would have gone to the conglomerate of speculating grain companies which would have bloated their already juicy returns.
Some of these “freedom fighters” such as the Farmers for Justice and the Western Wheat Growers tell us that with computers, fax machines, cellular phones and other electronic gadgets, that they can market their wheat and barley better than the wheat board.
Maybe, just maybe, they could snare a better return in a niche or spot market. This would be a minuscule minority, whilst over 80 or 90 percent would be selling in a depressed and reduced price, if the single-desk selling agency was abandoned.
Just recently, a new report released by four qualified economists said “farmers benefited by $72 million per year from having a monopoly export their barley from 1985-86 to 1994-95” (Free Press, Feb. 1, 1997). …
The anti-wheat board lobby, financed in part by “freedom fighters” and perhaps by others prominent in the grain trade, want to turn the clock back to the good old days of unbridled exploitation.
Farmers came by the hundreds to show their strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board at many places across Western Canada. The gathering at Oak Bluff, Man., accounted for almost 900 wheat board permittees. They came in mid-summer, a time of haying and pre-harvest, a very busy season. They came to show that they are in favor of the continuation of monopoly of single-desk marketing of wheat and barley.
The large attendance plus the comments of various speakers, totally endorsed the whole concept of orderly marketing by the Canadian Wheat Board.
Ballots have been sent to all permit holders, so join the majority, vote yes and return your ballot. If you do that, then you are joining thousands of farmers who believe in orderly selling of grain and you will be rewarded with stability in the marketplace going into the next century.
– Mike Sotas,
Winnipeg, Man.
CWB works
To the Editor:
Please let me add one more to your letters in support of orderly marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been some excellent letters, notably a Jan. 2 letter from Cory Ollikka.
It is apparent that groups who are determined to end the operation of the CWB are sparing no ideas, however ridiculous, to promote their cause. A man claiming to be in jail because he sold his own grain, is a prime example. The demand for a choice of markets option on the ballot is another. There is ample evidence, and common sense tells us, that a dual marketing system would be totally unworkable. The proponents are simply trying to mislead and to weaken the Board vote.
It is easy to say that the CWB lost money for farmers on some particular occasion but no one seems to be bragging about how much he or she lost by not being able to outwit the open market.
Commodity trading brokers will tell anyone that nine out of 10 people who trade on the open market, lose money. That leaves one out of 10 who would be better off without the CWB.
The Canadian Wheat Board was created to serve the needs of farmers by enabling them to deliver grain freely without having to sell at depressed harvest prices or to hold back in the hope of an improved market. The final payment is a fair picture of the year’s markets.
There is a squawk by some that the CWB is government controlling their lives.
The Minister of Agriculture has announced a large increase in farmer impact on Board policies. Canadian taxpayers have rights too, and they have picked up the tab to cover the Board’s past shortfalls when markets dropped. Perhaps the appointment of the top board official by the government is a reasonable price to pay for government backing of credit sales to foreign countries and the guaranteeing of board solvency.
– F. Grant,
Glenbush, Sask.
Study history
To the Editor:
I read Verna Thompson’s column and enjoy it. She is a champion of the local community and, I would judge, the family farm. In that I am right with her.
In her write-up in Jan. 16 edition, she came up with an opinion re the coming vote on barley marketing. I strongly disagree on her opinion on this issue and her statement that there should be a third option, dual marketing, as it had never been tried.
I would like to remind her that there isn’t anything which has done more for the local community than single-desk selling through the CWB because of the amount of money which has been pumped back into the local communities through stable and reliable returns.
I would judge that you, Verna Thompson, were not around in 1935 when a voluntary Wheat Board was in operation. Please read the report of the Western Grain Marketing panel. In 1935, poor crops kept prices high and above the initial price and the Board didn’t receive any grain. In 1939, record production caused prices to fall and the Board received all the grain.
In 1943, board marketing was made compulsory and in 1949, coarse grains were added supported by a supporting vote of prairie farmers in 1948-49.
Do we need further evidence as to the necessity of single desk selling? Unfortunately there is. In 1993, Mr. Mayer arbitrarily took export control of barley away from the Board. The price of malting barley fell drastically.
More recently, partly as a result of requests from farmers, the Board instituted contract selling for barley. Two years ago due to an unstable situation, the domestic price of feed barley rose enough to cause a lot of farmers to break their contracts with the Board. The result being the Board fell short on commitments to the Japanese market and we ended up with a lower price for everyone.
I hope the Board doesn’t have to go into the cash market to buy barley, as under new regulations being discussed, because I feel it would lead to more farmers holding back and speculating and hurting our contract sales again.
Verna Thompson, I plead with you to study the history of grain marketing and use your good office to help retain the most successful marketing system we have ever had. It is the envy of the world except for a few who would profit by its demise. Read Merchants of Grain by Dan Morgan and see why we farmers need an agency like the CWB.
Farmers, get your ballots in and let the country know where we stand on this issue. Our future depends on a strong positive vote. The foundation of any good movement is trust in each other to achieve a goal.
– William Sloane,
Pilot Mound, Man.
Buy back?
To the Editor:
I am very tired of farmers saying that all you have to do to export your own grain is to get a permit. However, the buy-back price is a ridiculous “pie in the sky” price that is never reflected back to the farmgate by way of initial, interim and final payments. I would venture to say that there is more than a nickel difference between the CWB buy-back price and what the farmer receives at the farmgate.
I would also venture to say that there are many expenses that are not revealed.
I would also like to mention that most farmers would continue to use a company to export their grain, whether that be Xcan, Cargill, AWP, Sask Pool, Man Pool, etc. There would not be 10,000 individual farmers heading across the border.
I am not a farmer for “just us” nor do I idolize the “simple dumb selling system.”
I simply encourage all farmers who want more choice in marketing to vote for the Open Market. It works very well for canola and many other non-board grains.
It is very important to state that the Canadian Wheat Board, with all of its marketing expertise, could “kick butt” in an open market system as well. I would really love to see that happen. Let’s give the CWB the opportunity to show what it can do. The status quo is not working. Please vote for the open market.
– Glenn Sawyer,
Acme, Alta.
Foot and mouth
To the Editor:
Re: Western People Jan. 9, 1997, Curbing hoof and mouth disease in Saskatchewan.
Losses from this disease had a far-reaching impact beyond the farmers that lost cattle to the disease. Other farmers saw the price of market cows drop from $400 to $75, and you had to have a real good cow to get $100.
It took over 20 years for cow prices to recover to what they were in 1952. I was there.
-John Pokorney,
Tilley, Alta.
Rail ransom
To the Editor:
I am a prairie farmer who is tired of being held for ransom by our National Railroads. In your recent article about the slow grain shipments, you said farmers are losing tens of millions of dollars in lost sales and demurrage charges.
Take the $50 million in lost sales, and the $15 million in demurrage, gives you $65 million (you can bet that is a conservative amount).
From central Saskatchewan at a rail freight of $34/tonne, this would translate into an excess of 1.9 million tonnes of lost grain transportation in our system.
Maybe a short-term solution to the problem would be to hire trucks to get the grain to the coast. If a freight rate of say $65/tonne was paid, farmers would have hauled one million tonnes to Vancouver for what it just cost us to do nothing! Trucking grain that far doesn’t sound feasible, but if all it does is put pressure on the railroads to do a better job for us, then it would be worth it (not to mention freeing up some space in the prairie elevators).
Imagine how backlogged things will be and how much it will cost us if the current situation doesn’t change for six or eight weeks! I never even calculated the $280 million that won’t go into this year’s pool accounts. You calculate it and decide if you would give this radical idea a chance. Farmers are going to have to stand together and insist on a voice in policy making!
– Tom Edwards,
Nokomis, Sask.
No boon
To the Editor:
… The Canadian Wheat Board has never been known as a boon to western agriculture. It has never recorded any outstanding performances or any great accomplishments on behalf of the farmers. The Board has performed as a mediocre marketing agency according to the dictates of the Federal Government. The officials of the board are appointed by the Minister in charge who also sets their salaries.
It is almost certain that these lush salaries come from the pockets of the prairie farmers, but this is not for certain, because the account books of the wheat board are never allowed to be opened for public scrutiny.
The Canadian Wheat Board was installed in 1942 and the farmers were delighted because for the first time they had orderly marketing of grain. In 1946, after World War II, the Wheat Board made a five-year agreement with the British Government whereby they would send all surplus wheat to Britain for the price of $1.50 a bushel. After the five years were over, they would negotiate a final payment for the wheat depending on the world market price. Later in 1946, the world wheat prices rose up to $4 and $5 per bushel.
In 1951 when the agreement with Britain expired, the Federal Minister of Trade and Commerce, C. D. Howe, flew to England. He negotiated with the British for the final payment of this huge volume of grain. Some people estimated the wheat that was shipped to Britain was approximately one billion bushels. The exact figures were not released from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors. When finally the doors were opened up, the announcement was made to the British press. The final payment for the wheat shipped to Britain in the last five years would be three cents a bushel.
The newspaper reporters were stunned. When the news reached Canada, the farmers in the west were completely devastated. They had expected a final payment of $3 and now they received a total of $1.53 per bushel. In the last five years, the American farmers sold their wheat on the world market at $4 to $5 per bushel. Never before had the western farmers experienced such a rip-off, all because of the Wheat Board.
– John Exner,
Killaly, Sask.
CWB curlers?
To the Editor:
In the Jan. 23 issue, L. R. Mitchell of Brandon suggests CWB supporters are either curlers, in coffee shops or snowbirds where they have no concern about marketing. I suppose in Brandon the anti-wheat board group are not found on the ice, coffee shop or down south.
CWB supporters generally favor price pooling and orderly marketing for wheat and barley – farmers working together.
The WCWG believe that membership gives them strength in their organization but they believe otherwise when it comes to grain marketing.
Our complaints about the CWB in the past should really be directed against our Federal Government. Our WCWG are mainly PCs and yet our previous PC Government did not please the WCWG group.
For what reason did the PCs not act on barley marketing much earlier, and which party acted on the “Crow”?
Board barley marketing could be good if politics were removed. Our Federal Government needs to have more commitment to grain farmers. The open market may at times find a disadvantage in having to compete with U.S.A. policy, which is rather unpredictable.
– Henry Rempel,
Plumas, Man.
