PASTURE TRANSITIONS
I am writing in response to recent comments regarding the transfer of federal community pastures.
The statement that our provincial government has not listened to pasture patrons is simply not true.
We have been consulting with patrons on a regular, ongoing basis since this transfer was announced last year.
To accommodate the needs of pasture patrons, we have announced several initiatives throughout this process, including:
• The option for patrons to purchase or lease their pasture.
• Funding of up to $120,000 per patron group to assist with business development plans.
Read Also
Worrisome drop in grain prices
Prices had been softening for most of the previous month, but heading into the Labour Day long weekend, the price drops were startling.
• Lease agreements of up to 15 years.
• The use of fixed assets, such as handling facilities, fences, dugouts, etc., at no cost.
The federal government agreed to delay the transfer of the first five pastures by one year. I fully recognize there are some patrons who would prefer a further delay; however, the timing of the transfer is a federal decision and, provincially, we have no control over this timing.
Furthermore, our government has continued to make pasture patrons the priority throughout this transition. We have been approached by many other organizations, companies, and many producers who are not patrons interested in acquiring these lands.
Our response to all of these offers has been the same — patrons are the priority and only they have the opportunity to lease or purchase their pasture.
Our government will continue to make patrons the priority and work with them throughout this transition.
Lyle Stewart,
Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister,
Regina, Sask.
Comments clarified
The Aug. 8 article “Small grain trader says open market has less competition than expected,” in which I am referenced, completely missed the intended theme. At the same time, the quotes were taken totally out of context.
To correct matters — while there is obviously a high C4 ratio (market share of the top four firms relative to the total market), there is a vibrant cash market going on and many smaller players are finding their way as we move out of the CWB single desk period.
There is a good cash business going on and it will improve and deepen as time passes. This is, after all, year one of a new era after seven decades of a single desk.
It was not at all accurate to suggest that anyone has essentially given up because the big guys won’t trade with the smaller guys.
The smaller (and) medium-sized players have a good business going on and that will grow as time passes and the larger firms have been trading with the best deal provider at any given time.
The theme I did mention was that the integrated firms can buy from a farmer, run it through their country terminals through their export terminals and go to an overseas customer — but that is hardly news to anyone.
I remain convinced the future is bright for all players, regardless of size. I have toured parts of Western Canada lately and I have seen first-hand the emergence of a new group of trading firms, grain handling firms and more market advisory providers.
A well-run business will flourish in Western Canada and I wish The Western Producer would have worked harder to get that message across from our conversation. They have generally been accurate in their reportings, but missed the mark in a big way on this one.
Doug Hilderman,
Vice-president Western Grain Trading,
NorAg Resources Inc.,
West St. Paul, Man.
No protein premiums
John De Pape’s criticism last week (WP letter to editor Aug. 1) that a farmer was blinded by ideology when he complained about the private trade no longer passing protein premiums back to farmers generated much laughter.
For years Mr. De Pape compared averages of the occasional high U.S. spot price to CWB prices to criticize the CWB.
Now he is criticizing a farmer for using an average of the actual protein premiums the CWB passed back to farmers over the years.
Of course, like all small brokers, Mr. De Pape has to cultivate a relationship with one of the big four grain companies that now run the world grain trade while at the same time convincing farmers he has something of value for them beyond being a middleman.
Through our single-desk wheat board, farmers sold directly to end- use customers around the world.
Now western farmers, along with (agriculture minister) Gerry’s (Ritz) crippled wheat company and small brokers like Mr. De Pape, all ultimately have to sell their grain on the terms and prices set by those big four giants.
All the bluster and long letters from the likes of Mr. De Pape will not change that fact or the fact that protein premiums are no longer going to farmers.
Ken Larsen,
Benalto, Alta.
CWB CO-OPERATIVE
It has been noted that the present Conservative government has decided the (CWB) will be privatized in the near future. I presume they are contemplating someone such as Archer Daniels Midland or Richardson as owners. That would certainly serve the major corporate owner well.
However, if you are talking about being of service to the agricultural industry, the only logical owner should be Federated Co-operatives.
In this way, the farmers would have a voice in the operation and an opportunity for individual landowners to profit would exist.
The trend lately has been to allow corporate landowners — even offshore owners whose interests are far different from small individual owners.
These people have no interest in preserving the productivity of the land or the supply of good food that is not contaminated with GM genes that is sold to the unsuspecting consumer.
The wheat board run as a co-operative would serve both producers and consumers much better.
Jean H. Sloan,
Open market competitive
In an article published in the Aug. 8 edition of The Western Producer (“Small grain trader says open market has less competition than expected”), Mr. Doug Hilderman suggests that removal of the CWB monopoly has led to a loss of competition among buyers of farmers’ grain.
His belief is premised on difficulties NorAg Resources has encountered in finding opportunities to buy or sell grain to or from companies such as Richardson.
Meanwhile, another article published in the same edition of The Western Producer (“Open market attracts new grain brokers from outside Canada”), confirms that 14 companies have been granted new grain dealer licences in Canada since Aug, 1, 2012 — obviously invalidating Mr. Hilderman’s assertion that competition has diminished since the elimination of single desk grain marketing.
What is incontrovertible is that western Canadian grain marketing is now governed by commercial principles.
Companies like Richardson, who have invested billions of dollars in their grain handling, crop input and processing facilities, are well-positioned to directly connect producers with consumptive customers and have little to no requirement for intermediaries.
Offering our best price directly to our customers is the most efficient way of conducting business, and we believe that our customers support our approach.
This is not to say that companies like NorAg Resources cannot be successful in such an environment but, as is expected in a commercial system, it does require the delivery of a value proposition that is attractive to farmers or grain buyers who will then determine whether they wish to avail themselves of such services.
Jean-Marc Ruest,
Senior Vice-President,
Corporate Affairs and General Counsel,
Richardson International Limited,
Winnipeg, Man.
