Voting idea
The Canadian Wheat Board elections are over and the arguments continue. I still support the CWB and believe it benefits the majority of farmers.
Now, I’m sure those that wish to destroy it will carry on their fight. One argument will still be whether we should have dual marketing or choice as an option.
I believe that will just lead to the final demise of the CWB, no different than negotiating the Crow Rate (rail transportation subsidy) led to its end. Also in this last election, business organizations said that they should not have to buy from the CWB so they could pay less to the farmer for his wheat or barley.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
How does that help my farm?
The other argument that has come out in the past is because the CWB is connected to the government, it is a socialist or communist program and should be ended.
If that is the case, all programs connected to a government should be ended as well Ñ crop insurance, BSE aid, irrigation programs, etc.)
The latest I read was that all farm voters should not be treated equally. A farm that produces more grain should have more votes than a smaller one. So I guess that a 1,000 acre farm should have one vote, a 10,000 acre farm should have 10 votes, and a 100,000 acre farm should have 100 votes.
Why not do that for municipal elections as well? The larger farms should have more votes than those “damn small family farms” holding up progress.
This is just my opinion, but I guess it’s not really that important as I’m not a mega farm, factory farm or intensive livestock operation operator or supporter.
Ñ Donald J. Koenig,
Beatty, Sask.
Pool betrayal
The proposed Saskatchewan Wheat Pool share conversion of Class A shares and Class B non-voting shares to a single class of voting shares, if implemented, will irrevocably end farmer members’ formal direction of the Pool.
This proposed share conversion will allow for the sale of the Pool to any competing transnational corporation, ultimately ending all farmer influence into Canada’s grain marketing and handling system.
I call upon the delegates of Sask Pool to defeat the proposed share conversion and return full control of the Pool to Class A shareholders, the farmer Pool members.
During all my farm life, I was a loyal and totally supporting member of Sask Pool, a strong believer in the theory and goals of co-operation. I sold all my grain to the Pool and bought all the fertilizer and herbicides that I used on the farm from them.
I served many years on Sask Pool committees, both at Fenwood and Melville, and did not hesitate to go the extra mile for the Pool when it was called for.
But, now I feel that I have been betrayed, not only by the delegate body, but even more so by the board of directors who have failed to live up to their sworn duties to operate the Pool for the best interests of its farmer members, who were the actual owners of the Pool.
They negated on these duties and virtually handed over control to senior management, who were brought in from transnational corporations and were contemptuous of co-op philosophy and the idea that farmers should have a voice or influence in company operations.
Never before in the history of farming has it been so crucial that farmers gain at least some control of their own destiny. Will the delegate body give up what our forefathers worked for when they created the Pool, or will they take a firm courageous stand, stiffen up their backbones, and come up with a resounding no to the proposed share conversion plan?
Ñ Eric Sagan,
Melville, Sask.
Salary freeze?
It would appear that Mayo Schmidt, chief executive officer of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, is on a roll.
Having been rewarded a $1 million bonus for the last “successful restructuring,” it appears that another restructuring is on the horizon. Immediately one would wonder, if a bonus was paid for a successful restructuring, why is another one required? Maybe the last one wasn’t so successful or the job isn’t complete.
Moreover, it appears that the job is to remove all effective control of SWP from the producers by reducing the number of farmer directors and to ensure that the reduced number of directors must be approved by the new board.
Although farmers have reduced costs for the SWP by the previous president’s initiative to freeze and then lower his wages and then make the position into a farm-based, part-time undertaking, with a 50 percent reduction in salary, there has been little initiative shown by SWP corporate executives in the form of leadership with respect to personal cost-cutting measures.
It appears cost cutting is only borne by union members and the services SWP provides to farmers.
If the CEO was really interested in returning this company to profitability, he would perhaps take a freeze on his salary, cut his own salary or reduce the number of assistants he maintains. It is hard to accept he is really concerned about the company when the company’s financial situation is in the red…
Ñ Murray Strain,
Mayfair, Sask.
CAIS concerns
Since more and more producers are expressing concerns about the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program, I am hoping to highlight some of the problems so producers may have a better understanding of the process and maximize the benefits they are entitled to under this complex program.
During the last year, a number of CAIS’s shortcomings have been identified including but not limited to the following:
- The margins used for assessing entitlements have been dropping steadily due to drought, grasshoppers, wet seeding weather, wet harvesting weather, cold summers, early frost and BSE. What this means is that producers’ income levels have fallen to abnormally low levels over the last four years, and their CAIS benefits are now being assessed on abnormally low-income years as opposed to an average year.
- To add further insult, CAIS payments, which are used to normalize a producer’s income and create stability, cannot be used to calculate CAIS benefits, again leaving the margins used to assess income abnormally low.
- When calculating the reference margins, producers are asked to list earnings or losses over five years, then throw out the highest and lowest years and average the remaining three years. If a negative margin exists in any year, it reduces the amount a producer would be eligible for.
If a large negative margin exists in one year with two low-earning years, resulting in a negative reference margin when averaged, it results in zero payment, even though the producer may have had positive earnings in two of three years. …
- Special advances paid to producers under the Transitional Industry Support Program automatically force producers into the CAIS program for 2004. The TISP payments are then deducted from the amount producers may have been eligible for under the CAIS program.
If the producer does not qualify for a CAIS payment, (he) may be asked to return the TISP advance or a deduction may be made on future CAIS payments….
There are a host of other problems producers should be aware of that are too numerous to mention in this letter. …
The federal government’s website has application forms as well as some helpful information: www.agr.gc.ca/caisprogram/main.html. There is also a toll free helpline, 1-866-367-8506.
Ñ Lyle Stewart,
MLA Thundercreek,
Saskatchewan Party Agriculture Critic
Regina, Sask.
Protect rights
Does the government really know the truth about what is good or bad for us as consumers and business owners?
Let yourself be the judge. Consider the following. For years we were told that trans fats were better for us than other products. Now we are told trans fats are not good. … Some countries that we import fruit and vegetables from water with contaminated water. We are told to wash them and it should be safe, all the while knowing that this water can make you violently ill or may cause death …
You can buy filtered water, which removes some of the impurities but consider all the natural minerals your body needs are also filtered out.
Cities, towns and villages in (Saskatchewan) are allowed to discharge sewage into natural waterways and then take their drinking water from downstream, causing many people to become violently ill, perfectly legal. …
How about the proposed changes to legislation that will no longer allow fowl suppers, perogie suppers, pancake breakfasts, etc., to be held, for they are not safe for the public? This is what most communities… depend upon to help offset the costs to keeping these places going. …
Business owners are told that we will be fined if we permit smoking in our buildings, yet tobacco products are legal to buy if you are over 18 years of age. The government reaps the profits from tobacco products and from the money that businesses makes.
I am not saying that smoking is good or not good for you. It is your right to decide. Some businesses had chosen not to allow smoking within the establishment. That is their right, and there are businesses that did allow smoking, also had a no smoking section and you as a consumer did have the right if you want to patronize that business or not.
If the government is allowed to take the rights of these businesses away, what will the government be going after next? Will it be your job? …
This is not only about allowing smoking in public buildings, it is about our rights to freedom of choice. Call or write your MLA and let your voice be heard for your freedom of choice is your right and allow the people and the businesses in Saskatchewan to have their rights respected.
Remember your rights could be next to be taken away.
Ñ Charlene Gray,
Bankend, Sask.
Spread the news
I am 100 percent impressed by the letter Roy Bailey submitted to the Western Producer, (Open Forum, Jan. 20.)
It should be reproduced on the front page of every daily and weekly paper in this province, as it gives an economic perspective to the contribution a farmer makes to the provincial government coffers, and for what return?
The majority of Saskatchewan citizens have no real awareness or interest in the magnitude of value farming contributes to the province’s well being, not to mention the country or the rest of the world.
Only hard numbers and dollar figures like yours can change the misperceptions the average citizen has.
Ñ Louise and Armand Levesque,
Balgonie, Sask.
What’s next?
Re: “We have a problem: ag official,” Western Producer, Jan. 27.
After 25 years of deregulation, Ottawa finally acknowledges there is a farm income problem and the Hon. Wayne Easter is holding hearings.
The usual bunch of Alberta government funded open-marketers told Mr. Easter the only problem is that government has not deregulated enough. Your article quotes them as saying that if we can get rid of fisheries regulation, prosperity would be just around the corner. When that fails, what’s next, dog licensing?
Even the auditor general of Alberta made the point there is no such thing as an open marketplace in agriculture. He said there are only three grocery retailers in Canada who typically do 80 percent of the business. Just two meat packing companies do more than 70 percent of the business in Canada and 90 percent in Alberta.
The packers and retailers are all tied to each other, both vertically and horizontally. It is the same way in the United States and Europe.
Let’s not forget the two deregulated railways that hold an effective monopoly over grain deliveries and freight rates. So where is this fantasy land open market?
The ideas of free markets and deregulation have failed for the farm community.
The only ones to benefit have been a handful of giant American corporations, and of course those few farmers who have made a good off-farm living by cycling through the executives of the various Alberta government funded farm groups.
It is hardly a surprise that farm income is lower than it was in the great depression and getting rid of fisheries legislation is not going to change that, but recognizing there are no free market solutions would be a good start.
Ñ Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
Pool hot air
No sooner had Mayo Schmidt, chief executive officer of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, announced the new capital markets initiative, which will essentially take all formal control of SWP away from farmers, when the debate of the initial share conversion started again.
There were several groups of farmers who predicted SWP’s eventual announcement of capital conversion over eight years ago. Ironically few of the experts at that time agreed or even gave those groups the time of day.
Even now, the misinformed columnists and tunnel visioned experts are offering their supportive opinion, even though they have no real capital in the system, have never had to drive an additional 50 miles to deliver their grain, or never had to wait for the efficiencies of the elevators or trains to filter back into their pocket.
They may have invested in the grain industry capital markets hoping for their quick buck, just like all the other leeches in the system. Expert advice from (the Regina) Leader Post columnists indicates the Pool must change to survive. … Ironically, this was the same argument used in the initial proposal for equity conversion. The CEO must make the company profitable, but he has not done so to date. …
Yes, there is debt to deal with. However, everyone except the bondholders and noteholders have lost the majority of their investment with the decline of the B shares from a high of $24 to $12 to $5 to about 35 cents.
To expect the noteholders and bondholders to retain the majority of their investment while farmers, and class B shareholders continue to lose their shirts is not acceptable.
SWP was formed to provide producers with a voice and a financial return to their farming interests.
If all effective control is taken away, one has to wonder why the company is worth saving. If the answer is to protect external investors, then who will protect the economic interests of farmers?
SWP must change. But it must change in a manner in which producers want to do business with a company they own and control.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was a profitable company, which Saskatchewan farmers built. I think farmers are tired of being told by experts what is good for them.
Ñ Harold Blodgett,
Abbey, Sask.
Back to sleeves
In the late 1800s and into the 1900s, people who had to mail a letter containing bad news would edge the envelope in black. The envelope in which the 2004 annual wheat pool report was mailed is completely black; a little late in the game.
A late farmer of this area used to quote what might have been an Irish saying, that it was just one generation between shirtsleeves and back to shirtsleeves.
In other words, one generation works hard so that everyone can afford coats, the next generation gets used to having lots of coats, and then the following generation loses it all and is back to shirtsleeves and sees someone else wearing the coats.
The question is who, if anyone, is going to roll up those shirtsleeves?
A lot of things are black these days, but someone benefits from that, somewhere.
Ñ C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
