Who supports ‘teams?’
In these last two weeks I have received cards in the mail promoting “Team Barley” and “Team Wheat.”
As farmers are aware, theSaskatchewan Wheat and Barley Commission elections are underway and it now appears that there are candidates running under the banners of “Team Wheat” and “Team Barley.”
Here we have it, a slate of candidates attempting to defeat the incumbent members of the wheat commission and the chair of the barley commission. Maybe we should call them a “bloc.”
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?
It would appear that Team Barley and Team Wheat have some heavy financial backers as is evidenced by the cards I received in the mail. They have also to set up websites, held a web broadcast, and who knows what else.
There are two questions farmers must ask themselves before they vote: Who is backing these teams, and what impact will it have on representing farmers’ best interests?
With the kind of money these teams are throwing around to get elected, one might be inclined to believe that there is some big business or political money at play.
For corporate plant breeders, I am suspicious that it is about getting access to check-off money and do you really want to see the exorbitant seed costs that we experience in some other commodities.
I would urge my fellow farmers to consider the old saying: “You dance with the one who brought you.” If it is big money that brings Team Wheat and Team Barley to the board tables of the wheat and barley commissions, keep in mind that when big money wins elections, it never is a win for farmers.
Leo Howse
Porcupine Plain, Sask.
History repeated
Re: “Good riddance to CWB” (WP, Oct. 22). The letter by John Seierstad’s makes one wonder where these people get their facts.
The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 as quoted, but as a voluntary board, and became compulsory in 1940 and for wheat only.
In 1949, barley and oats were added with feed wheat and barley remaining as dual marketing. Only milling wheat and malt barley were controlled by the board, not as compulsory as suggested. It was the wheat board that brought in contracting that allowed farmers to determine how much grain they wanted to sell, moving away from the quota system.
The letter then goes on to talk about transportation and demurrage, talking about a cost of $5,000 per day, but failed to mention that in 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 we retuned $4.9 million, $23.9 million and $4.6 million through the wheat account alone back to farmers from demurrage.
The letter tries to make out that only wheat board grains pay demurrage, when in fact all grains for export are subject to the same costs. The only difference was the board showed its in a financial statement that was audited by Deloitte and Touche Chartered Accountants, not as the letter suggests. The auditor general of Canada audited the books and found nothing wrong.
As for transportation, we only have to look at 2013 to see the mess we can get in without co-operation amongst all parties involved in moving grain to port.
The letter then makes out that you can move grain to the U.S. freely, but when I checked on Albert Agriculture website, I found the same regulations apply today as they did before, except today you must use a U.S. broker. In fact, you can no longer sell grain on the grain exchange in Canada yourself without hiring a broker.
Good riddance to the CWB tells the whole story. They really didn’t want marketing freedom. If they did they would have removed the monopoly from the board and allowed the dully elected directors to carry on, as was the case in Australia when they dismantled there wheat board.
Today, we still have no answers as to why this wasn’t done. What they did was go back in history to 1920 and suspend the board again, and probably for the same reason, the federal government and the grain trade saw the farmers gaining too much power.
Lorne Pattison
CWB Advisory Member 1990–98
Marshall, Sask.
G3 is not the CWB
As a retired farmer, I was tied up at a CP railway crossing in Saskatoon in Sutherland and observed two engines pulling, two engines in the centre pulling and pushing and one engine in the rear pushing. All the rail cars were Canpotex fertilizer cars, probably 150 train cars.
My first thought was why do the federal Conservatives and our Saskatchewan party support a monopoly for fertilizer sales?
On the other hand, why did these two governments want to destroy the western Canadian farmer’s marketing agency, The Canadian Wheat Board, which was farmer’s monopoly for wheat and barley?
When BHP Billiton tried to purchase Saskatchewan Potash, the federal government blocked that sale because BHP refused to make their sales through Canpotex.
All this came to mind when I read G3 promises, re: Ed White’s article page 7, Nov. 12 issue (“G3 promises more efficient grain handling).
In that article, G3’s statement leads the reader to believe that they want to get farmers’ grain to export position more quickly. This is very misleading. The grain that was in the farmer’s truck when it entered the elevator becomes the property of the grain companies the minute it is unloaded. The goal is to get the grain to export position. What is misleading is the fact that it is not the farmer’s grain.
The picture in this article is also misleading. The CWB sign on the top of this facility is obsolete. G3 is not CWB. Matter of fact, G3 was given all the assets that belonged to farmers.
Canadian farmers made an effort to take control of The Canadian Wheat Board and then-agriculture minister Gerry Ritz and the Conservative party refused to entertain the bid from Canadian farmers. So now the Saudis and Bunge have received a handout from the Conservatives.
The Canadian Wheat Board was a work in progress and Ritz and the Conservative government destroyed it in less then 10 years. G3 is not the CWB; it is foreign owned.
David Bailey
Saskatoon, Sask.
