In regards to the articles comparing the Quebec neverendum to the westerendum on the wheat marketing board, an acute, almost laughable comparison is the world is in awe that Quebec wants to secede from a country that is the best in the world.
While the farmers of western Canada want to get rid of a marketing board that farmers in other countries wish they had. I can’t stop laughing. Ha! Ha! Ha!
– Edwin Bronsch,
Tilley, Alta.
CWB teamwork
To the Editor:
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.
In the WP Nov. 30, Mr. de Beaudrap says he does not trust the CWB. He writes as though he is invincible when it comes to marketing, or should I say selling, his own grain. I felt he has never sold at a low price, but always at the top price, never at the average of the market – no.
He suggests spot prices benefit everyone. This is an uninteresting concept which expects a neighbor to step aside and allow a select few to benefit from the spot price. He indicates that the neighboring producer who stepped aside is somehow to benefit as well.
Well, wheat and barley grower of the anti-CWB variety, the news for you is that many farmers grow the crop they wish to grow in the acreage that they choose. Every farmer depends upon all markets to sell the production for cash flow and hopefully cash stick.
The CWB marketing and selling benefits all farmers by its team work. To be on a team, each must do one’s best from the farmer to the CWB seller. As usual, open marketers choose not to play on the team and end up in opposition to the best efforts of the CWB to increase the pool returns for all farmers. Mr. de Beaudrap indicated price unfairness exists because one farmer is receiving more than another farmer in the domestic market. This is because non-board spot market prices are not pooled through the CWB, thereby lowering the cash flow for Mr. de Beaudrap and his neighbors.
Mr. de Beaudrap could also complain that the old open-market system’s price discrepancies have reduced the income of those who grow oats, rye, flax or canola. Such complaints should be overcome with farmers demanding that more grains be marketed by the CWB.
The mandate of the CWB to market to all spot priced markets allows selection of maximum value markets to be returned to all growers through pooling. What could be more fair to all growers?
When is he going to overcome his fear of his neighbor and call for more crops to be marketed by the CWB?
What does he do in his production which is significantly different from any other grower? When will he realize that the old open-market system has many disadvantages?
In a rising market, pooling is the best; in a falling market, pooling is still the best strategy for growers. Most open marketers learn this quite quickly.
There is one thing the CWB could change and that would be to sell at prices which return no less than the costs of the growers expenses. This should solve Mr. de Beaudrap’s cash-flow complaint. He could then complain about hail or snow to the proper authority.
– Ian Robson,
Deleau, Man.
Jolly fan
To the Editor:
I enjoyed Warren Jolly’s letter in the Nov. 30 issue of The Western Producer (Open Forum). Mr. Jolly has been active in CWB related controversy for quite some time and is well respected in our district.
Who are we kidding but ourselves? The system we knew 10 years ago is finished.
The Crow rate, the CWB hopper cars, CN-CP rail systems and the CWB were all part of an organized system, a system which took 50 years to put in place. Enter a federal government that feels that this system is no longer necessary.
It shelves the Crow subsidy, sells CN rail systems, sells the hopper cars that were paid for by the Wheat Board, and now at the last minute is saying “wait, the CWB has to stay.”
The CWB worked well in conjunction with the rest of the system that evolved with it. It is too late now to try and convince western grain farmers that there is in fact an advantage to save yet another failing government organization.
I had the same experience as Mr. Jolly three years ago. While the CWB was paying less than $2.00 for #1 Canada feed, grain buyers across the lines were willing to write a cheque for $3 U.S. ($4 Can.) upon delivery of the same wheat.
Yet that same year while thousands of western Canadian farmers lost millions of acres to creditors, the federal government sat back with their arms crossed and threatened to lay charges if anyone exported this feed wheat to the U.S. Incidentally, that year feed wheat accounted for over 50 percent of the grain in southern Saskatchewan. Ask any farmer who has lost a third-generation farm what an extra $1.50 or $2 per bushel would have meant for him or her. …
– John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Trucker talk?
To the Editor:
I am in total agreement with the letters written by J. Robidoux and Mark Henry to Open Forum in support of the Wheat Board.
As I see it, some of those farmers against the Board seem to be more truckers than farmers, probably making more money trucking. They have attracted a certain number of followers.
I can’t imagine someone with a three- to four- ton truck, as most of us have, would travel 75-100 miles to haul his grain, considering the wear and tear on the truck, fuel, etc.
The hazards of the road may be wait in line at the elevator, take a whole day for one trip. More than likely he will be a loser. This is where those trucking farmers come in.
That’s why they want the Board out of their way so they can keep their trucks busy.
They want it their own way without any regards for the rest of us.
A few years ago when some were all in favor of letting a little bit of the Crow go, it was supposed to be so much better.
Well, it seems the railways did not keep up to their promises of being more effective. What happened is we lost everything and are paying dearly for it.
If a little bit of the Board is let go the same thing will happen. We will lose it and it will never come back.
The Board, like a democracy, is not perfect but are the best we can have.
We all have the same price for our wheat and barley, which is the fairest way of all.
Would it be nice to have flax etc. under the Board. We could haul when we can and let the Board do the gambling for us.
When the price of flax dropped over $2 a bushel in a matter of two to three weeks last spring, how many got caught and had to sell? Would the Board have done that?
The Americans say they would like a Wheat Board like ours.
So why would any farmer want to do away with it if the border is ever closed?
What next with no Board?
We will be at the mercy of a few big grain traders and merchants. The Farmers for Justice want to make their own laws for themselves. They don’t mind hurting or ruining everything for the rest of us. …
To think that the big grain merchants will outbid themselves to give us the highest prices is dreaming in color.
They are there to make a profit and will buy at the very cheapest price possible, especially with no Board to set some kind of floor price in times of surpluses.
Let’s back the Wheat Board that our forefathers fought for and has served us very well.
United we stand and divided we fall.
– Remi Gregoire,
Winnipeg, Man.
Pool cheques
To the Editor:
Recently Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has proudly advertised only 12,000 out of a possible 57,000 farmer members will receive MVP cheques.
I wonder how the other 45,000 Pool members feel about this specialized treatment?
I always thought that as a Co-operative “all profits” were to be shared among “all members.” This initiative certainly illustrates class distinctions within the Pool. Or perhaps there are only 12,000 supporting Pool members?
– Kyle Korneychuk,
Pelly, Sask.
Fuzzy logic
To the Editor:
It is extremely difficult to comprehend the logic which apparently motivates a small active minority of our grain farmers and some of our political representatives to pursue objectives and policies which ultimately will see the demise of the world’s most successful wheat marketing agency, the Canadian Wheat Board.
Reportedly Manitoba’s Minister of Agriculture Harry Enns doesn’t believe it has to be an either/or situation.
Somehow he believes we can fragment our grain marketing power and maintain our strong selling position.
That’s an interesting strategy when the business pages of our newspapers are regularly filled with news of yet another merger concentrating the production and marketing power of various industries in yet fewer and fewer hands. While this vocal minority lobbies to split marketing efforts, the Santa Fe and Burlington Northern railroads are merging south of the border and it is expected the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific will not be far behind.
Why are these railways merging? To reduce competition and gain control of the market for their transportation services, particularly the interstate transportation of grain.
Who is in the driver’s seat in this instance? The merging railways, because they will have greater control of the transportation service market.
You bet some U.S. farmers are upset, particularly when they already have cited instances of inflated freight rates in single rail service market areas. For instance Montana farmers are somewhat upset they are paying $278 more per car to ship their grain from Billings, Mont., to Portland, Ore., than it costs to ship the same car from Alliance, Neb., to Portland. Billings is 500 miles closer to Portland than is Alliance. Burlington Northern is the railway servicing Billings. …
While other groups are protecting and furthering their interests by enhancing their market power, we have a minority of grain producers incessantly crying for the disintegration of the market power advantage we enjoy through the single-desk selling of the Wheat Board.
Now, admittedly those who argue for a dual market system do so because they believe it will be to their advantage.
They believe they will be able to realize a greater return for their wheat and barley. They hope to do this by taking advantage of high spot markets, selling ahead, etc.
On occasion they might, but let’s take a look at a few recent scenarios from the real speculative grain market world: a) Many producers presold canola in the winter of 1994 at $6.50 per bushel, only to deliver it when prices had reached $9.00 and better per bushel. b) How many producers contracted canary seed last fall at 12 cents per pound? Now it is 24 cents and better. c) How many producers sold oats last winter for delivery this December at $1.70 per bushel? Today the same oats are $2.50 per bushel.
If the opportunity had been available, how many farmers might have presold their hard wheat at $4 per bushel last winter? It appears the final price through the Wheat Board could be easily over $6 per bushel.
The Wheat Board final price, by the way, represents the best average price, so that regardless when you delivered your grain that is the final price you will receive for each bushel sold through the Wheat Board. …
No system is perfect. Obviously improvements can be made to the Canadian Wheat Board. However, caution must be observed. We must be careful that we do not jeopardize the Wheat Board because under the terms of the Canada-United States Trade Agreement, we would not be able to reestablish the Wheat Board once it was lost.
Let’s build together for the future of farming, not demolish for the gain of a few or the right of some to fail at the disadvantage and discomfort of the rational majority.
-Wilfred A. ‘Butch’ Harder, Chair, CWB Adv. Committee,
Lowe Farm, Man.
Need vote?
To the Editor:
Yes, the rest of Canada is long overdue for a “wake-up call.” Do you think it’s time we had a referendum, a yes-or-no vote to see if we want metric, bilingualism, seven-percent tax, rail-line abandonment, gun control?
Did we want the Crow to go? Postage hikes, the loonie, a justice system with their puny laws, free trade, the government travelling all over the world on our behalf, foreign aid to the extent that we have no money for our own needs? The list could go on and on I’m sure. …
-Lillian Johnston,
Hazlet, Sask.
Exceptions
To the Editor:
The government of Canada believes the same laws should apply to all people of Canada -just read so-called gun control.
Then how come no one has been fined in Ontario for selling grain to the U.S.A. not using the CWB? I would also like to point out to Mr. T. A. Madison that he is a lot closer to the U.S. border than barley trucks are from north of Winnipeg that truck barley here into Alberta.
By the way, some farmers in B.C. have always had a choice. They can sell to the CWB or the U.S.A. It’s been that way for years. They are not breaking the law nor killing the CWB.
– John Pokorney,
Tilley, Alta.
CWB helps
To the Editor:
A few lines to show our appreciation for the CWB.
This fall we hauled directly from the combine to the elevator. We didn’t have to wait for the price to go up. We knew the Wheat Board would give us a fair price, as it has for all the years we have farmed.
We do not have the expertise to find good markets for our small operation. We hope the Wheat Board will not be hampered but will continue to give us the service it has in past years.
– Albert Banks,
Oyen, Alta.
Health cuts
To the Editor:
I would like to comment on the article “NDP misleading in health change” that appeared in the Western Producer Oct. 19.
Dr. Lewis Draper, a former New Democrat MLA, is asking the same question about health care reform that we have been asking all along. Who made the decisions to cut health care in this province and on what did they base these decisions?
Dr. Draper claims, “I cannot find a single doctor that will admit to having been involved.” This is deplorable.
What makes the NDP government think they have more knowledge about health care issues than the people who deal with it face to face, day to day?
The government is elected to represent the concerns of the people, and I am quite certain the people of this province would prefer to solicit input from health care professionals. The fact the government did not do so is both irresponsible and unacceptable. …
– Rod Gantefoer, MLA,
Opposition Health Critic,
Regina, Sask.
Education focus
To the Editor:
Which is most important in our education system-money or the education of our children? We have government deficits that we are trying to deal with and the unions are demanding wage increases knowing that it will mean increased taxation or an increase in the public debt.
The general public is beginning to realize that the present methods of education are becoming too expensive.
Over half of rural taxes go for education. And we also find that a fair percentage of our high-school graduates are classed as functional illiterates. …
Perhaps our whole conception of education is wrong. The main slogan today is upgrade your education and get a better job with a higher wage – jobs that do not exist. People are more inclined to pay for working ability than highly educated people. Over the years most of the education is wasted. What good is it if it is not used?
Would it not be better to drop a lot of programs that could be better learned with on-the-job training? That is a far more efficient way to learn. And when you get out in the real world and have to make a living, what you learned in school is not much good to you if it does not apply to the job you are doing.
Most of the teaching today is for white collar jobs, mostly service jobs, jobs that produce none of the country’s wealth. We are overspending and what we need is an increase in the jobs that produce wealth. …
The place to start is in the schools, emphasize education for jobs that produce the nation’s wealth, such as agriculture. …
– J. R. Clayton,
Killarney, Man.
Western people
To the Editor:
The Western Producer has come to our house for longer than I can remember. It has been a valuable tool in the business of farming over the years. Your people have helped farmers and ranchers keep in touch with about every facet of rural life.
The best thing you have come up with recently is the Western People insert. The articles are short and interesting. You don’t have to be a weight lifter to hold it in bed or the bathroom or wherever! I think it’s so good, why not make an annual paperback? It is worth keeping.
– Leighton Perry,
Calgary, Alta.
