CONSISTENT RESULTS
In Ed White’s article entitled “Is Canadian wheat in decline?” (WP March 26) a grain buyer incorrectly states that, in its single-desk marketing days, the Canadian Wheat Board was a crucial guarantor of the quality and consistency of Canadian wheat shipments, and that it oversaw grain quality and standards.
For over 100 years, the Canadian Grain Commission has served as the sole agency responsible for Canada’s quality assurance system. Our grain quality assurance system is among the best in the world. Changes to the marketing of Canadian wheat and amendments to the Canada Grain Act in 2012 have not affected the quality and consistency of Canadian wheat shipments.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
For the 2013-14 crop year — a year where western Canadian grain producers saw record yields — the Canadian Grain Commission inspected and provided certificate finals for 34.9 million tonnes of grain (15.4 million tonnes of wheat) for export. This was the largest annual volume inspected in recent memory.
The rigour of our inspections has not changed. We continue to inspect and certify the quality of grain as it is loaded onto vessels. The Canadian Grain Commission issues a Certificate Final on the basis of either incremental or composite sampling as agreed upon by the buyer and the seller in their contractual commercial agreements.
Since 2011-12, the last crop year that Canadian wheat was marketed through the CWB, the number of quality complaints for wheat shipments received by the Canadian Grain Commission has decreased, and none were deemed to be justified.
Regardless of who markets Canadian wheat, we will continue to work with all industry stakeholders to inspect and certify shipments of Canadian grain that meet the specifications of contractual commercial agreements between buyer and seller.
Canada’s quality assurance system has always delivered consistent and reliable results, and it will continue to do so for the years to come.
Elwin Hermanson
Chief Commissioner
Canadian Grain Commission
Winnipeg, Man.
NO SURPRISES
Re: Front page headline “Buyers dispute Canada’s status as top quality wheat supplier” (WP March 26)
Surprise, surprise. Those supporters of the old Canadian Wheat Board and the single desk monopoly told the government and those who wanted to destroy the single desk that quality would be lost when the old Canadian Wheat Board was destroyed.
I am a retired farmer and it’s not too many years ago that some U.S. grain companies got caught putting garbage (screenings plus adding moisture to increase weight) into grain shipments. Let’s say eight percent of garbage is added by weight to a shipment of 400,000 bushels — get the picture?
The U.S. has never had the high standards that our old Canadian Wheat Board had for quality and I believe that the grain companies in Canada cannot supply that same quality.
Not too many years ago, farmers in Western Canada had the greatest grain handling, marketing and transportation system in the world. That has been lost.
We had the best farmer-owned grain company in the world and like the CWB, that co-operative was destroyed.
Remember the crop year of 2013-14? Farmers were getting just over $4 per bushel for wheat and the same wheat was being sold for just over $11 per bushel by the multi-national companies. This year farmers are getting just over $5 per bushel, thanks to the grain companies.
The multinational grain companies made more money in 2013-14 crop year. Can you find those profits printed anywhere? No, and why not?
No transparency. Ain’t it wonderful? We’ve got no farmer owned multi-national and no marketing agency.
Are farmers going forward or backward? You be the judge.
David Bailey,
Saskatoon, Sask.
NOT WHERE I LIVE
Re: “Farmers should welcome nature’s architect” by Dan Yates (WP March 26.)
Overall, the article was actually quite interesting. Problem is that we are not in a dry cycle right now on most of the Prairies, thus the article will not resonate very well with most readers.
I believe most readers are quite happy with beavers in general, but also they realize that when conditions are generally very wet there ends up being too many of the Canadian symbol causing way too many problems.
Interestingly, Lorne Fitch, riparian specialist with Cows and Fish in Alberta, says beavers have benefited from lower fur prices (for that specific animal) and declining rural populations, meaning their activities cause fewer problems.
Quite the contrary. When the prices were up, and when there were more rural residents, we looked after our own beaver problems. The problems for rural Saskatchewan are the worst they have been for years for the very reason Fitch sees as benefits. This is just another sign of not knowing what is really happening in rural areas.
Cows and Fish’s fact sheet of simplistic “over abundant beaver fixes” such as wrapping trees, building a fence or modifying grazing routines is just that, too simplistic. I realize they did say “can be” so I will give them that.
David Weiman,
Danbury, Sask.
