Farmers for Justice

For Harper, Silence is Golden at Wheat Board

Court sides with Prime Minister on 'gag order'

February 2, 2010 -- Stephen Harper has managed to silence one of the most vocal and activist groups battling against his plan to give prairie farmers the right to opt out of selling their wheat and barley through the wheat board. Namely, the Canadian Wheat Board itself.

The board's directors had, since the Tories' election, been running a relentless campaign to protect their "single-desk" marketing monopoly. They regularly funded studies and surveys that invariably concluded the CWB's model was the most profitable, most popular manner for grain marketing; when Ottawa held a plebiscite in 2007 that resulted in a majority of barley farmers voting for marketing choice, the directors launched a publicity campaign undermining it as rigged and irrelevant; they urged farmers to write the agriculture minister in protest.

That may have all stopped, permanently, after the Supreme Court on Jan. 22 declined to hear an appeal from the board that challenged an order from the government requiring it to stop using members' money to fight political battles. The board's directors had initially succeeded in getting a federal judge to find what it called a "gag order" to be illegal and unconstitutional. An appeals court later ruled that to be a mistake. With the directors' last resort, the Supreme Court, declining to intervene, the appeals ruling stands.

"I think it ends here," says Wheat Board chairman Larry Hill. "Certainly, I think the board of directors is disappointed that we cannot proceed with the appeal. And that's based on the principle of farmer control. As elected representatives, we think that the elected and appointed board should make the decisions as to how the CWB operates, not the government. And I think farmers think the same thing."

The debate around the future of the Canadian Wheat Board has rarely had much civility. Or perspective. The "Save My CWB" website, operated by opponents of the Harper government's promise to end the agency's monopoly over Western wheat and barley sales, urges readers to "report rats" -- businesses and politicians supporting the government's reform efforts, and posts their photos online.

Government appointees to the board are called out as "saboteurs." Ralph Goodale, the Saskatchewan Liberal MP and fierce defender of the Wheat Board's status quo, has blasted the Tories' deregulatory manoeuvres as "thuggish"; his former leader, Stephane Dion, accused the Prime Minister of spying on his Wheat Board opponents, part of "an assault more brutal than anything we've seen before."

Mr. Hill says that Mr. Goodale, then the agriculture minister, told the directors explicitly that his government's amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act were intended to "pass direction onto the elected and appointed board," Mr. Hill says. It was an apparent response to growing Western fury over the board's authoritative control over the livelihood of prairie producers (growers east of Manitoba are exempt from the act).

It now appears to have been mere political window dressing: The amendments arguably gave Ottawa more, not less, control, adding language the judges say "was intended to provide the governor in council with the authority to direct the Wheat Board on any matter of governance in the event of a disagreement with the board of directors."

Any check against irresponsible directives, the judges ruled, would not come from board directors, but from political means: If Parliament or voters didn't like how the government was running things, they could deal with it their own way.

"The reason why that's a good decision is because we still have a parliamentary democracy rather than complete bureaucratic control over the lives of western farmers and I think that's extremely important," says Barry Cooper, a University of Calgary political scientist.

To date, the Tories have ordered the directors only to cease and desist from their campaign promoting the single-desk monopoly. Possibly the government could order the directors to promote marketing choice. Or perhaps to stop directors from launching legal challenges against Conservative efforts to deregulate, as they did in 2007 when they convinced a judge to overturn a Cabinet order that would have given western barley producers the ability to sell outside the board.

At the very least, suggests Doug Robertson, president of the Grain Growers of Canada -- a pro-reform group -- putting an end to the CWB's political advocacy could put more farmers' opinions in play, possibly leading to changes in the complexion of the board itself. Currently the single-desk directors outnumber the marketing-choice directors by just one. "The board has been extremely good at getting their side across and the rest of us aren't as good at it and don't have access to the same resources," he says. "We don't have farmers' money to do it."

Whatever deregulatory levers are available to them, expect the Tories to use them to the maximum extent: Mr. Harper first came to Ottawa promising an end to the Wheat Board's monopoly and has only vowed steadfastness in that mission following a number of subsequent setbacks. This, his first tangible victory on the file, can only re-energize the Tories' resolve.

They will still need it: With the Wheat Board's opposition dispatched, the Tories must now find support from Parliament to proceed with any changes to the way the board operates. The Prime Minister will likely find no support from the NDP or the Bloc, who were convinced to see any deregulation as a threat to their own supply-managed agricultural industries.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has made conciliatory sounds toward westerners since becoming leader; farmers will be watching to see whether he, now, will choose to make himself the last real hurdle to ending the Wheat Board's monopoly.

~Kevin Libin, National Post

Latest Crop Prices Offer Few Kernels of Hope

February 3, 2010 -- The first month of 2010 has not been kind to crop prices. On most grains, oilseeds and specialty crops, values have been slipping.

On Jan. 12, the United States Department of Agriculture released a production report that surprised traders. The USDA significantly increased its 2009 production estimates, especially for American corn. Markets reacted immediately.

On Jan. 11, the March futures price for American corn was $4.20 a bushel. By the end of January, the price had dropped to around $3.60. Canadian feed barley sold into the domestic market has been slipping in price, reacting to the drop in American corn. Most Saskatchewan prices have now slipped to the $2.30-a-bushel range.

At the beginning of the year, the March futures price on canola was more than $410 a tonne. It rallied a bit on Feb. 2 to close at $380. The only good news is that the basis -- the difference between the futures price and the cash price -- has narrowed.

Still, producers selling their canola these days are lucky to realize much more than $8 a bushel. New crop prices for delivery in the fall are in a similar range. By comparison, new crop canola prices of around $10 a bushel could have been locked in earlier in the winter.

The price pressure is also evident in the Canadian Wheat Board's price estimates for the current crop year. The pool return outlooks (PRO) for wheat and durum were down in the estimate released Jan. 28.

The durum PRO dropped by as much as $15 a tonne, leaving the expected Saskatchewan farm gate price at around $4 a bushel for No. 1 durum with 12.5 per cent protein. Last crop year, durum was more than $8.50 a bushel and the year before that it was nearly $12.50.

You have to go all the way back to 2005-06 to find a lower price than the one expected this crop year. Delivery opportunities are also restricted on durum. The CWB is likely to buy only 60 to 70 per cent of the durum that producers want to market.

While spring wheat delivery opportunities will be much better, the price isn't good. Wheat dropped by up to $5 a tonne in the most recent PRO. The expected Saskatchewan price for No. 1 with 12.5 per cent protein is about $4.50 a bushel. Last year was $6.50 and the year before that was nearly $8.50 a bushel.

Malting barley was unchanged in the latest PRO, but at $3.14 a bushel, it's depressed, too. A year ago, producers could lock in a malting barley price of around $5 a bushel through the CashPlus program. So far this year, no companies seem to be offering CashPlus contracts at any price.

Later in February, the CWB will come out with its first PRO for the new crop year. The way the cereal market has been going, it's hard to imagine those 2010-11 PROs being attractive.

In fact, there isn't much that is attractive when it comes to the upcoming crop. New crop lentils can be locked in at around 22 cents a pound, but that's a huge drop from current prices, which have been sitting at 35 to 38 cents.

Even though 22 cents is a profitable price given a decent yield, producers have been reluctant to sign when there's such a big difference between old crop and new.

It's premature to say that we're heading back into the bad old days of ugly grain prices and limited crop profitability, but market optimism is sure taking a beating. It's a far cry from 2008 when you could pencil in a profit margin on virtually every crop.

Kevin Hursh is a consulting agrologist and farmer based in Saskatoon.

Court Upholds Ottawa Again

February 1, 2010 -- A federal judge has dismissed the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board's case against the federal government.

The group was questioning the legality of the federal agriculture minister's actions leading up to the 2008 CWB director elections when Gerry Ritz made changes to voter eligibility requirements.

Ritz welcomes the ruling saying the Wheat Board elections should be determined by farmers, not landlords and bankers.

Justice James Russell announced his ruling late Friday.

From Everyone at Farmers for Justice may you have a blessed 2010, and may the year keep you healthy, safe and with hope.

Due to a technical glitch on our end, our annual Christmas message did not get posted for public viewing. We would like to extend our apologies for this, and offer you this late Christmas message for your viewing pleasure.

Please click here.

CWB Final "Cashplus Offer" has Canadian Malting Industry asking "Where's the Rest of it?"

December 9, 2009 -- The CWB's recent announcement of the final Cashplus payment to barley farmers for the 2008-2009 year has surprised and disappointed the members of the malting industry given the value back to the grower that was anticipated. The industry is now asking "where's the rest of the payment?"

Maltsters purchased a significant volume of the Board's Cashplus barley offering in 2008 - 2009 at much higher values, thus expecting the final payment to farmers to be at least double the amount of the $12.89/mt announced by the CWB.

"The figure is based on the price paid to growers and the "Cash" that the CWB held back in Maltsters' contracts and presumably other barley industry member's" says Phil de Kemp, President of the Malting Industry Association of Canada.

The final payment to producers reinforces the malting industry's position that the program as presently managed by the CWB, continues to be uncompetitive, complicated, cumbersome, and extremely expensive to administer. There is also a concern that monies held back from farmers supplying the domestic malting industry may be used to promote sales of malting barley to our offshore competitors. The program continues to send non transparent price signals to farmers and that appears to be validated by the low payment announced by the CWB says de Kemp.

Costs attributed to the CashPlus program now in its second year continue to remain unclear and the industry is still unsure whether the program costs are required to be fully disclosed and itemized by the CWB to farmers. "I guess we'll wait and see what the latest annual report shows. It will be up to farmer's to decide if they think the costs are reasonable or excessive" says de Kemp.

The malting industry has always advocated that the CWB must maximize the amount of "upfront" payment to producers in the program to ensure as much price effectiveness as possible. The low final payment results were released to the industry last Friday in a meeting with the CWB. The CWB needs to provide greater price effectiveness, more accountability and significantly reduce the excessive administrative costs experienced by both the CWB and the value-added malting industry who are trying to remain competitive in a fiercely traded global market.

The industry is committed in trying to work with the CWB and other partners in the industry in a cooperative and proactive manner; in an attempt to provide the best possible marketing solutions as possible under a marketing system that constrains value-added activities.

The Malting Industry Association of Canada represents the four major malting companies in Canada. They include: Canada Malting Company Ltd with plants in Calgary, Thunder Bay and Montreal. Rahr Malting located in Alix, Alberta. Prairie Malt Limited in Biggar Sask., and Malteurop Ltd. located in Winnipeg. Collectively they are the largest customers of the CWB buying approximately 1.1 million tonnes (or 60% of the entire CWB pool) of malting barley annually. Canada has now fallen to the 3rd largest world exporter of malt behind the E.U. and now Australia.

With the holiday season approaching, here are some thoughts from our neighbours to the south:

As you finalize your Thanksgiving plans, be sure to reserve a seat at your table for an extra guest: Uncle Sam.

Have you ever asked yourself how much of the cost of your Thanksgiving feast is owed to the fact that the government takes a big bite at it in hidden taxes?

The Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability have calculated just how big that government “tax bite” for Thanksgiving is, and it clocks in at a whopping 40.91 percent.

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, the average cost for a Thanksgiving feast for ten lies at $42.91 in 2009. The menu items for a classic Thanksgiving dinner used for their survey include turkey, bread stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls with butter, peas, cranberries, a relish tray of carrots and celery, pumpkin pie with whipped cream, and beverages of coffee and milk. Of that, of course, the turkey is the largest cost factor at an average price of $18.65 for a 16-pound bird.

Because Thanksgiving is a celebration, for our calculations, we also factored in five bottles of wine at an average price of $7.35, which brings the total cost of the average Thanksgiving feast to $79.67.

But not all of that reflects the actual cost of your meal – a large chunk of it is taken by the government in some form or another:

On top of the direct excise taxes on the wine, there are taxes paid by the farmers, winemakers, manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and shippers, retailers, warehouses. To be more specific, out of what the consumer pays, the producers and sellers must pay federal income taxes, state income taxes, federal payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, workmen’s compensation taxes, state franchise taxes, local property taxes and any local income taxes.

All told, for a Thanksgiving feast for a family of ten, the government takes a bite of 40.91 percent, or $32.59.

And that is only if your family does not have to drive or fly to get to the Thanksgiving party, or stay at a hotel for the duration of the festivities, as domestic airfare, gasoline, and hotel stays have their own “tax bites” which are even higher than the bite the government takes out of your Thanksgiving meal, and which we calculated last year.

Source

On November 11 we ask you to take two minutes and stand in remembrance of the brave men and women who have served, and are serving, our country.

It's been 10 years and the CWB is celebrating the directorship. The board has been blowing their 'horn'. WE ARE PLEASED THAT THESE CHANGES have happen; yes, of course, the farmers moving grain to the U.S. made no difference?? RIGHT!

But, We have farmers who have committed to their beliefs and they mark our latest 7th anniversary on the 31st and a number of other farmers who spent time in jail also, couple have spent birthdays, the McMechan family, whose father and dad spent the summer into December apart, before 2002----for the point that this grain the CWB claims as THEIRS is the farmers first! WHOSE GRAIN IS IT!!!!! IT'S OURS!!!!

We celebrate and THANK everyone who has had such a strong stance. WE ARE PROUD AND AS FARMERS WE KNOW WHY AFTER NEARLY 60 YEARS - FARMERS FINALLY GOT A "VOICE" with the Canadian Wheat Board. BECAUSE FARMERS STOOD UP TO THE CWB!!!

THANK YOU TO ALL YOU HAVE SPENT TIME BEHIND THE "BARS" FOR THE CRIME OF "DEALING IN WHEAT"!!

Class Action Suit Filed Against Canadian National Railway

Merchant Law Group LLP announces that a class action has been filed against Canadian National Railway (“CN”) and Canadian Pacific Railway (“CP”) on behalf of all persons who, since August 1st, 1983, paid CN or CP for the carriage of grain from any point west of Armstrong, Ontario to Armstrong, Churchill, Thunder Bay, or British Columbia Export Ports.

The suit was filed after a ruling by the Canadian Transportation Agency in February, 2008, which found the maintenance cost for a hopper car is $1,372 annually. However, freight rates actually included an embedded maintenance cost of $4,379 per car – approximately 300% higher than the real cost.

Some Farmers Seek Cash if Wheat Board Goes

October 13, 2009 -- There should be discussions about compensating Prairie farmers in the event new trade rules force an end to the Canadian Wheat Board, the board's former chairman says.

Ken Ritter, who last year ended 10 years as chair of the Winnipeg-based grain marketing agency, says farmers need to start preparing for a time when they no longer have the CWB to market their wheat and barley.

An impartial committee should be set up to look at how farmers should be compensated if that happens, said Ritter, a Kindersley, Sask.-area grain farmer.

Ritter believes the G-20 nations will try to come out of the current economic crisis with a new trade agreement.

During negotiations that have already begun, Canada will likely be making tradeoffs to try to preserve the supply management system that covers the dairy and poultry industries in Canada, Ritter said.

And that could spell the demise of the wheat board, Ritter said.

"The government of Canada, whether it be a Conservative government or a Liberal government, when push comes to shove, will support supply management over the wheat board," he said.

Subsidy Accusations
In the past, American farm groups have accused the board of being an unfair trader that subsidizes Canadian farmers, although the World Trade Organization has rejected such claims.

The wheat board, which has a monopoly on Western wheat sales, has been controversial inside Canada as well. Many farmers support the board, but others believe they could get better prices selling their own grain.

Rene de Moissac, who farms near Biggar, says he gets a good price for his grain from the CWB and he isn't ready to give up the fight for the board.

"We generally get a higher price," he said. "We also sell the majority of it every year."

Compensation certainly would be needed if the board is dissolved, de Moissac said.

However, the current chair of the wheat board, Larry Hill, thinks it's too early to be talking about compensation or the board's demise.

"This is a time to remain firm. You don't show any weakness to your negotiating competitors," he said.

Whatever happens with the current round of trade talks, changes are coming to the wheat board. Canadian negotiators have already agreed to get rid of government guarantees on money borrowed by the board.

Ritz Reappoints Three CWB Directors

October 13, 2009 -- Three of the federal government's appointees to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors are back for another term.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz on Tuesday announced the reappointments for Alberta farmer Ken Motiuk, cattle producer and former Manitoba ag minister Glen Findlay, and ex-Saskatchewan Wheat Pool executive Bruce Johnson, all first appointed to the board in 2006 by then-agriculture minister Chuck Strahl.

Motiuk's reappointment took effect Sept. 15, Johnson's takes place Oct. 30 and Findlay's Nov. 27, the government said.

Ten of 15 CWB directors are elected by Prairie farmers; the remaining five are federal appointees.

The three "will continue to address key issues regarding the direction of the CWB and the services that it provides, to serve the best interests of Western Canadian farmers and farm families," the government said.

Motiuk's resume includes stints on the boards of UGG, Agricore United (now merged with Saskatchewan Wheat Pool as Viterra), the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange (now ICE Futures Canada) and the Farm Debt Review Board. Apart from his grain and cattle operations at Mundare, Alta., he also currently sits as a director of the Alberta Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corp.

Johnson, who works as a agribusiness consultant in Regina, previously served stints as CEO of SaskPool's AgPro Grain business, and later as executive vice-president of SaskPool's grain group, a post from which he was fired in 1999 as the company spun into financial troubles ending in major reorganization. He later served as CEO of FarmGro Organic Foods.

Findlay, who served as Manitoba's agriculture minister (1988-93) under Tory Premier Gary Filmon, raises beef cattle at Shoal Lake, Man. His resume includes a professorship in pesticide toxicology at the University of Manitoba (1970-77) and stints on the boards of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association and Western Barley Growers Association.

Farmer's Creed

I believe a man's greatest possession is his dignity and that no calling bestows this more abundantly than farming.

I believe hard work and honest sweat are the building blocks of a person's character.

I believe that farming, despite its hardships and disappointments, is the most honest and honorable way a man can spend his days on this earth.

I believe farming nurtures the close family ties that make life rich in ways money can't buy.

I believe my children are learning values that will last a lifetime and can be learned in no other way.

I believe farming provides education for life and that no other occupation teaches so much about birth, growth, and maturity in such a variety of ways.

I believe many of the best things in life are indeed free: the splendor of a sunrise, the rapture of wide open spaces, the exhilarating sight of your land greening each spring.

I believe that true happiness comes from watching your crops ripen in the field, your children grow tall in the sun, your whole family feel the pride that springs from their shared experience.

I believe that by my toil I am giving more to the world than I am taking from it, an honor that does not come to all men.

I believe my life will be measured ultimately by what I have done for my fellowman, and by this standard I fear no judgement.

I believe when a man grows old and sums up his days, he should be able to stand tall and feel pride in the life he's lived.

I believe in farming because it makes all this possible.

This Thanksgiving, Be Thankful for Canadian Farmers

By Ron Bonnett, CFA 1st vice president

October 5, 2009 -- The rising cost of food was a topic that ranked high in the minds of Canadians this year. As a farmer and 1st vice president of Canada's largest farm organization, I am often asked: "How much of what I pay in the grocery store goes back to the farmer?" The Farmers' Share, a recent study commissioned by Manitoba's Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP), Saskatchewan's Agricultural Producers Association (APAS), and Alberta's Wild Rose Agricultural Producers (WRAP), sheds some light on this question. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture hopes that this Thanksgiving season, families will pause and appreciate their local farmer as they comb through grocery store aisles.

While Canadian farmers still provide some of the most affordable food in the world, the amount that returns to the farm gate is relatively small. The report showed that, on average, only 27 per cent of the cost of an entire week's worth of groceries for a family of four goes back to the farms where the food is produced. Although there was a rise in the cost of groceries by 3.2 per cent from 2008 to 2009, the average farmers' share decreased by 1.7 per cent from the previous year. While consumers paid $6.01 more for groceries, the farmer received $0.86 less, and the middleman received $6.87 more.

The farmers share does vary significantly between food products. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that some farm sectors are not feeling the price squeeze. The number of steps in the chain between consumers and producers, variations in the costs associated with producing different commodities and differences in the shelf life of some farm products are just some of reasons for variations between different farm products.

In this study, 89 per cent of the foods analyzed are listed as being produced in Canada. To ensure that consumers are able to identify Canadian food products and support our agriculture sector, the CFA will continue to advocate for effective ingredient-based 'Product of Canada' guidelines that are both informative to the consumer and practical to the agri-food industry.

Farmers not only produce food, but they are environmental stewards as well as business owners. Canadians continue to receive high quality food produced at the highest food safety and environmental standards because farmers re-invest in food safety, environmental and animal welfare initiatives on their farms. Factors such as the rising cost fuel and fertilizer, as well as utilities, wages, and other services all put a strain on the farmer's bottom line.

The items listed below often make up a typical Canadian Thanksgiving meal. It is interesting to note the relatively small farmer's share of these products. Click here to view the full report.

Choosing locally-produced foods cuts down on the transportation costs and re-invests in the local economy. The CFA hopes that Canadians will support their local farmers and demand locally sourced products at a time when farmers need them the most. The CFA hopes that Canadians appreciate the value of the Canadian agriculture industry and the farmers who help put meals on their tables.
This harvest season, be an informed consumer. Support your local farmer.

Background Information

The Farmers' Share
The average Farmers' Share in this project is 26.25%. The share does vary significantly depending on the specific food, and even between food groups:

	2009 Farmers' Share	2008 Farmers' Share
Vegetables and Fruit	25%	29%
Milk and Alternatives	53%	47%
Meat and Alternatives	22%	28%
Grain Products	5%	4%

Featured Products and the Farmers' Share

	Total Cost		Farmers' Share
	2008	2009	2008	2009
2 Loaves of Bread	$5.74	$4.54	$0.26	$0.22
900 g Cheese	$16.11	$14.82	$7.38	$8.02
2 cups of Red Pepper	$3.99	$4.99	$0.40	$0.26
600 g Turkey	$11.25	$11.25	$1.74	$1.74
600 g Sirloin Tip Beef*	$4.61	$9.15	$2.05	$2.05
1.2 kg Strawberries	$7.98	$9.78	$1.64	$1.31
1.5 L Yogurt	$5.77	$5.01	$1.34	$1.47
700 g Oatmeal	$2.35	$3.30	$0.08	$0.05

*Indicates the main change from 2008 to 2009 during which there was a dramatic rise in pork and beef prices, but a reduction or no change in money received by pork and beef producers. As a result, the farmers' share decreased considerably.

About the Canadian Federation of Agriculture

Founded in 1935 to provide Canada's farmers with a single voice in Ottawa, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is the country's largest farmers' organization. Its members include provincial general farm organizations, national and inter-provincial commodity organizations, and cooperatives from every province. Through its members, CFA represents over 200,000 Canadian farmers and farm families.

CWB Decision is Costing Prairie Durum Growers more than $30 per Acre

September 24, 2009 -- The decision earlier this year by the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to hold back sales of durum wheat will cost prairie farmers more than $30 per acre, says the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

Projected returns this year for milling quality durum wheat have dropped by $3.85 per bushel from returns received last year.

In 2008/09, CWB officials elected to accept only 74% of durum wheat offered by prairie farmers, forcing them to carry over 26% of their durum supplies to this crop year or to sell into the much lower priced feed market.

The CWB's latest Pool Return Outlook, released today, is projecting a final return of $4.62 per bushel for #1 durum wheat (13.0% protein) for the 2009/10 crop year, basis Saskatchewan. This compares to a projected final return of $8.47 per bushel in the 2008/09 crop year.

According to Agriculture Canada, durum yields across the prairies in 2008 averaged 34 bushels per acre. This means that the CWB's decision to hold back durum sales will end up costing prairie farmers $34 per acre (34 bushels/acre x $3.85 x 26%) or a loss of more than $200 million on a prairie-wide basis (6 million durum acres in 2008 @ $34 per acre), excluding storage and interests costs.

What's worse is that the CWB's monopoly did not generate higher returns for western Canadian farmers in the 2008/09 crop year.

While Saskatchewan durum growers can expect to receive $8.47 per bushel for last year's crop, the prices received by Montana durum growers over the same time period averaged Cdn $9.29 per bushel for the same quality durum (#1, 13% protein).    Moreover, Montana farmers were able to receive all of their money upfront, whereas Canadian farmers will have to wait until December to receive full payment for their 2008/09 deliveries and December 2010 for the 26% carried over into this crop year.

"Where's the CWB's single desk premium?" asks Stephen Vandervalk, Alberta Vice President of the Wheat Growers.   "Not only do we get a lower price, but we end up incurring higher storage and interest costs.   On top of that, we've lost a ton of money on the durum we involuntarily carried over into this crop year."

"I may make a 100 good decisions on my farm and yet they can all be undone by a single bad decision by someone sitting at a desk in Winnipeg," says Vandervalk. "I have no problem with those farmers who want to turn responsibility for their grain marketing over to the Wheat Board. But many of us would rather make our own marketing decisions, instead of leaving our fate in the hands of those who have no skin in the game."

Argentine Farmers Begin Friday Seven-Day Trading Strike

Argentine farmers’ organizations announced Tuesday another national trading stoppage to protest President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner administration camp policies particularly taxes on grains and oilseeds exports.

August 26, 2009 -- The strike, the third so far this year and the eighth since the beginning of the conflict in March 2008 is scheduled to last seven days starting Friday midnight. During that time there will be no trading of grains or oilseeds for industry or export and no livestock will be sent to markets.

The decision was taken Tuesday during a meeting of the liaison group which represents Argentina’s four main organizations with a membership estimated in almost 290.000 farmers.

“Let’s hope that the new protest limiting farm trading helps the government to re-capacitate and reflect about the decisions it has been adopting”, said Carlos Garetto the spokes person for the liaison group.

The stoppage decision follows President Cristina Kirchner’s veto to a farm emergency bill approved last week by Congress, on her government’s initiative, but which included the elimination of export taxes for certain counties of the province of Buenos Aires.

Export taxes on soybeans, sun flower, wheat, corn and on beef and dairy produce are at the heart of the conflict between the Kirchner couple administration and farmers organizations.

When windfall earnings and as part as a contribution to Argentina’s recovery following the melt down of the economy in 2002, farmers organizations accepted paying export levies, but in the last two years with the normalization of commodities prices, and costs catching up, the taxes have turned several crops money losers.

Such is the case that Argentina is forecasted will have to import wheat, beef and fresh milk sometime in the next 18 months because of the drastic contraction in the production of those basic items.

The government refuses to lower the taxes because it desperately needs the revenue to balance a bloated budget with billions of dollars spent in subsidies for transport, fuel and cheap food.

Garetto said that the emergency bill approved in Congress would have given farmers some “breathing space” from the almost two-year drought that has punished central Argentina, but the veto was “just the very end of this long dispute”.

Garetto added that farmers’ were most disappointed because following the meeting with several cabinet ministers on July 31st, “we have received no replies to all our proposals to help alleviate the serious situation of the Argentine camp”.

He also anticipated that once the seven day strike is over, we will keep to our “protest plan” and assess what further steps must be taken.

Argentina once the breadbasket of the world has seen its annual crop plunge dramatically following the 18 months dispute between farmers and the Kirchner couple who are intent in “making the rich landowners pay taxes to help finance the poor city dwellers”.

The confrontation has had two peak events: July last year when Congress repealed a further increase in export taxes and last June 28th, when the Kirchner couple lost their comfortable majority in Congress following mid term elections.

However since the new lawmakers will not be sworn in until next December 10, Kirchner is forcing through Congress, taking advantage of a divided opposition, legislation to support his wife’s administration.

When Government Creatures Turn Against Their Masters

August 12, 2009 -- If the fate of the Canadian Wheat Board means little to the majority of Canadians not involved in the production, sale or export of grains, it does at least provide an edifying lesson about the dangers in building powerful government creatures. For three years now, the Conservative government has tenaciously worked to try and end the CWB’s monopolistic, “single-desk” marketing power over Western wheat and barley. Though the board was created by Ottawa, has been funded by Ottawa, and is granted its extraordinary market-control powers by dint of federal legislation—permitting it even to jail farmers who independently sell their wheat without its permission—the board has nevertheless become what some critics describe as a Frankenstein agency. Turned on its master, it has aggressively and bitterly fought Ottawa at every step to resist deregulation. A few weeks ago, the federal government won a quiet (because it went largely unreported) and significant court decision that asserts its right to tell the marketing board what to do. As usual, the Wheat Board is vowing to keep resisting. And at stake is whether governments have the right to control the very agencies they create.

The Wheat Board argues that it is independent of government, owned and controlled by farmers—a line it has advocated since Ottawa began permitting farmers some, but not all, of the board’s 15 directors. This was made possible, though, only because the Liberal government of the day allowed it to be possible. But when the federal government held a plebiscite in 2006, surveying barley producers on whether they would rather have “marketing choice”—that is, the option to sell to the Board, as is now mandatory, or to sell to another buyer of their choosing—or stick with the single-desk system, the CWB rebelled. It undertook an intensive political campaign to promote the single-desk side.

The Tories didn’t like that, and issued an order in council directing the Wheat Board to stop spending money on politics, since the money was being taken from farmers’ funds, and not all farmers were in favour of the CWB’s position. In fact, most weren’t: 62% voted for marketing choice anyway. But the Board claimed the government had no right to tell it how to operate. Last year, a federal court agreed. In essence, the judge said Ottawa could only prioritize the board’s spending if there was a shortage of cash (there wasn’t). And the ruling, chastening Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, made headlines across Canada.

A few weeks ago, that ruling was overturned by an appeals court. The government, the three justices ruled, had the right to order the CWB to pretty well do whatever it wanted, under Section 18(1) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states that “the Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act shall be conducted, exercised or performed.” Directors must consider these orders, whatever their own opinions, to be in the “best interest” of the board. The Board, they added, “is a creature of statute and, as such, it has no powers, rights and duties save those bestowed on it by the Act.” As much as the CWB may claim to be a farmer-run, independent agency, unanswerable to Ottawa, this is, according to the high court’s ruling, a delusion on the part of directors who apparently repeated it to themselves so often that they came to believe it. According to the law, the CWB is the official property of the agricultural ministry.

Not surprisingly, the CWB, even today, insists differently. And it now says it will to use the revenues it takes from selling Western farmers’ wheat and barley to battle the government again, having pledged recently to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada—so it can argue in favour of using Western farmers’ wheat and barley to continue to fight against allowing farmers the freedom to sell their grains independently. It is, CWB chairman Larry Hill said the other week, a “vital question of control.” Indeed: with its authority validated, the federal government could order the directors to do more than just stop issuing pro-monopoly spin. They might just order the board to start handing out export permits to anyone who wants one, and stand aside peacefully while farmers sell their own goods to the buyers of their choice—giving western producers the same freedoms enjoyed by growers everywhere east of Manitoba. (Presumably the Tories are also free now to order the CWB not to appeal to the Supreme Court, but probably fear looking thuggish and fearful in blocking the administration of justice). In short, the Tories could start effectively ending the monopoly by making the directors do it for them.

To date, the CWB has cannily used the court system to stall attempts by its Ottawa bosses to loosen its chokehold on the Western grain market. Before this, in 2007, board lawyers convinced a judge to strike down a Conservative cabinet order that would have ended its barley monopoly just hours before it was to take effect (she found that any change of that nature required Parliamentary approval). Court cases can easily outlive governments, especially minority ones, and quite possibly, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case (and the question of a government’s right to command an agency of its own creation may be important enough to warrant it), by the time that happens, the Liberals may be running the country. And to date, the Liberals have opposed the prime minister’s deregulation plans for the CWB.

But then, the text of section 18(1) that provides the government, according to the appeals court, such power over the board, was not put there by Conservatives. It was, rather, added in 1998, under Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien. Though it was also Mr. Chrétien’s government that appeared to grant producers greater ability to elect many of their own directors, he retained several seats, including the chairmanship, as appointees of the governor in council. And his legislative rewrite carefully ensured that all directors could not, anyway, act so independently as to resist the directive of government. Apparently no one noticed that the elections that the government allowed the CWB were, we can see clearly now, far more hollow than they appeared.

What’s also clear, then, is that this is not, as some would cast it, merely a power face-off between a market-oriented Conservative government and a monopolistic, socialized grain marketer. This is, rather, the struggle of a nation’s legislators to control the things they create by their legislation—as relevant to the wheat board as for any of the new agencies being created or enterprises being taken over in this era of larger government. The Liberals may not be eager to grant Western farmers freedom to sell their own grain (though Michael Ignatieff has not yet pronounced on the issue), given how they passed on earlier opportunities to do so. But they also had the chance earlier to make the Wheat Board truly independent. They passed on that, too, and it seems unlikely the Liberals would be eager—particularly now, in light of the Wheat Board’s demonstrated indiscipline—to give the CWB any more latitude than it already has. The would-be mutineers at the Canadian Wheat Board had better dearly hope that the Supreme Court agrees to hear their case, and that they succeed in overturning the ruling as it now stands. For, if not, they will be stuck submitting to federal bosses, and to the wishes and whims of whatever government—even an anti-monopoly one—is in power on any given day.

Kevin Libin
National Post

Marketing Freedom for Western Farmers

The recent Federal Appeal Court "Gag order" case established the Government's broad authority to issue orders and regulations to the Canadian Wheat Board and provides a great opportunity for the Conservatives to carry out their election campaign goal of marketing freedom for western grain farmers.

Of all the parts of the CWB Act, it is the export licensing that falls most squarely under government responsibility, because not only is it national legislation that applies equally to all Canada, but it also applies to products such as flour, malt, etc.

Please help by writing to the Honorable Gerry Ritz, Minister of the Canadian Wheat Board, asking him to order the CWB to grant export licences to western grain farmers just as they already do for eastern farmers.

Address:
1322 100th Street
North Battleford, SK
S9A 0V8

Phone: 306.445.2004

Fax: 306.445.0207

eMail: Ritz.G@parl.gc.ca

Web: http://www.gerryritzmp.com

Ottawa Office

781 Confederation Bldg.
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Tel: 613-995-7080

Fax: 613-996-8472

Agriculture Ministers Meet

A $20 million announcement has been made for the traceability of livestock from farm to grocery store.

The Livestock Auction Traceability Initiative was announced last week, following a meeting of the nation's provincial agriculture ministers with federal minister Gerry Ritz. He says strengthening Canada's traceability system will make it easier for individual Canadian producers to get credit and premium prices.

"A superior traceability system also helps protect the security of our food supply by allowing us to quickly and effectively track down a potential problem before it can spread. This will, in turn, help us open up new markets for Canadian livestock producers on the world stage," Ritz says.

The funding will allow Canadian auction marts, assembly yards, fairs and exhibitions and privately managed community pastures to upgrade facilities to help identify and trace individual animals.

Ritz says the department is working with producers to ensure traceability systems work throughout the entire value chain.

"This particular initiative responds to producers' request to ensure that traceability respects the speed of commerce," he says.

The funding will help upgrade handling systems in facilities to keep track of individual animals as they are mixed with other herds in auction marts and other facilities such as community pastures. Once delivery arrangements with the provinces have been confirmed, application details will be made available.

During the federal-provincial meetings, the ministers agreed to take a national, science-based approach on food safety. They directed officials to advance work in three key areas: enhanced surveillance; pathogen reduction in meat and poultry; and common meat hygiene standards. These actions will build on progress made by federal, provincial and territorial governments in upgrading and improving their systems. Ministers will take stock on progress at their next meeting.

The provinces, except Saskatchewan, committed to move forward on a comprehensive national traceability system for livestock and poultry. Such a system is critical for managing animal health and food safety issues, as well as expanding market access and driving efficiencies. They agreed that a mandatory comprehensive national system for livestock will be in place by 2011 and that implementation will be supported by national funding and regulatory framework.

Ministers committed to engage key industry groups on the timing of implementation for each species.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association applauds the initiative. However, it states it is disappointed with what it calls the only firm deliverable out of the meeting being a deadline of mandatory traceability throughout Canada by 2011.

"This announcement disregards the principles established by producers for tracing cattle,” says CCA president Brad Wildeman. “Canada’s beef and cattle industry is already burdened with many additional costly regulations due to BSE and we have not experienced positive return for doing so."

There are significant obstacles to overcome before we implement a verifiable, efficient and cost effective national program for traceability. If the governments truly want to assist industry, they should focus on helping us overcome these barriers rather than heaping more regulations on our industry."

The CCA states that Canada's beef and cattle industry was the first to adopt national animal identification and to develop a comprehensive national traceability system -- but insists that the system be designed in an efficient and cost effective manner.

"Also important to keep in mind is that the requirements should not exceed the current technological capabilities. It is difficult to see how the technology we envision as being needed will emerge in the two years agreed to this week at the Ministerial conference," notes Wildeman. "There may be a time when the industry would collectively agree to mandatory measures, but it sure isn't now. We need more announcements of support to the industry and less on implementing more regulations."

by Allison Finnamore

CWB to Appeal Reinstated "Gag Order"

The Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors plans to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the matter of its ability to publicly advocate for its single marketing desk.

The board decided Thursday to move ahead on an appeal and said it plans to have its application filed by Sept. 22.

The CWB directors' decision follows a June 23 ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal, which set aside a June 19, 2008 Federal Court decision overturning the federal government's so-called "gag order" on board officials.

At issue is an October 2006 order-in-council issued by Chuck Strahl, who was then the Conservative federal government's agriculture minister. Strahl's order blocked the CWB from spending on public advocacy for its single desk for Prairie wheat and barley.

The minority-government Conservatives oppose the CWB's single desk but lack the votes in the House of Commons to deregulate the CWB through legislation.

The Court of Appeal last month shot down Federal Court Justice Roger Hughes' ruling, in which Hughes said the government failed to show its order came from any real concern for the spending of public funds.

The original order's "plain purpose," the appeal court said last month, "is to ensure that the Wheat Board no longer advocates a mandate that is at odds with government policy." Hughes' suggestion that the order was "concealed under the guise of a non-existent financial purpose is, with respect, misconceived."

The appeal court also shot down Hughes' assertion that the CWB is entitled to Charter protection of its freedom of expression. "The Wheat Board is a creature of statute and as such, it has no powers, rights and duties save those bestowed on it" by the CWB Act, the court said.

“Question of control”

CWB board chair Larry Hill said last week that the board's application to Canada's top court concerns the "vital question of control" of the CWB.

"Western Canadian farmers believe strongly that they, through their elected directors, are in charge of their grain-marketing organization," said Hill, who farms at Swift Current, Sask.

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers, a pro-deregulation group, on Monday declared itself disappointed that the CWB has decided to try and take its court fight to the next level.

"It's disappointing the CWB is bent on wasting more of our money to fight this court ruling," group chairman Mike Bast said in a release. "The appeal court ruling is clear in its findings and strongly dismisses the CWB arguments."

The Wheat Growers noted that last month's appeal court ruling found the government's ability to direct the activities of the CWB was "actually strengthened in the 1998 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act."

Agriculture Ministers Meet

July 17, 2009 -- A $20 million announcement has been made for the traceability of livestock from farm to grocery store.

The funding will allow Canadian auction marts, assembly yards, fairs and exhibitions and privately managed community pastures to upgrade facilities to help identify and trace individual animals.

Ritz says the department is working with producers to ensure traceability systems work throughout the entire value chain.

"This particular initiative responds to producers' request to ensure that traceability respects the speed of commerce," he says.

Ministers committed to engage key industry groups on the timing of implementation for each species.

Appeal court reinstates CWB "gag order"

June 29, 2009 -- Canada's Federal Court of Appeal has reinstated a federal government order that blocks the Canadian Wheat Board from spending on public advocacy for its single marketing desk for Prairie wheat and barley.

The appellant court on Tuesday set aside a June 19, 2008 Federal Court decision that had shot down an October 2006 order-in-council issued by Chuck Strahl, who was then the Conservative federal government's agriculture minister.

The Court of Appeal's ruling leaves the CWB's board of directors, a slim majority of whom support the single desk, considering its options.

CWB chairman Larry Hill said Thursday the directors would meet and consider whether to try and take Tuesday's ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hill, who farms near Swift Current, Sask., said the Court of Appeal's decision shouldn't mean a dramatic change in how the board conducts its business. It isn't currently running advertising or otherwise campaigning for the single desk, he said.

"Basically what we do as directors and at the CWB is to get farmers factual information and I think we can continue to do that," he told the Manitoba Co-operator's Allan Dawson. "So I don't think it's going to change the way we do things dramatically other than that we have to make sure we obey the law."

Tuesday's ruling rethinks the extent of the CWB board of directors' autonomy in decision-making, a point that Hill said the CWB's legal team would have to review. "It's certainly not our understanding that the government is in charge," Hill told the Co-operator.

Government funds

Among the reasons the Court of Appeal gave Tuesday for setting aside Federal Court Justice Roger Hughes' ruling, it noted that Hughes had conducted his analysis of the case on the basis that Strahl's order "provides authority for constraining or directing the expenditure of funds."

Hughes, the appeal court said, ruled that the government failed to show its order came from any genuine concern for the protection of public funds.

However, the appeal court said, "on a plain reading, subsection 18(1) is not restricted to the protection of funds… On its face, the power to direct extends to the full range of activity which the (Canadian Wheat Board Act) authorizes the Wheat Board to conduct."

The original order's "plain purpose," the appeal court said Tuesday, "is to ensure that the Wheat Board no longer advocates a mandate that is at odds with government policy." Hughes' suggestion that the order was "concealed under the guise of a non-existent financial purpose is, with respect, misconceived."

The CWB's ability to advocate for the single desk could only be by virtue of the general power it has under the CWB Act to carry on its operations, the appeal court said. And after Strahl's order was issued, spending funds to advocate for a single desk was "no longer in the best interest of the Wheat Board for purposes of the Act."

The appeal court also shot down Justice Hughes' assertion that the CWB is entitled to Charter protection of its freedom of expression. "The Wheat Board is a creature of statute and as such, it has no powers, rights and duties save those bestowed on it" by the CWB Act, the court said.

"Intervention"

In short, Tuesday's ruling "makes it clear that politicians have the ability to control the operations of the CWB," said Kevin Bender, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, a group supporting deregulation of the CWB's single desk.

"While their (the government's) intervention was welcome in this instance, the Wheat Growers would rather see the CWB become voluntary and truly accountable to farmers," said Bender, who farms at Bentley, Alta., northwest of Red Deer.

Meanwhile, he said, the ruling "means the CWB can no longer take farmers' money to promote its monopoly."

Prince Edward Island MP Wayne Easter, the federal Liberals' agriculture critic, said Friday he was concerned not with the ruling itself, "but with this Conservative government's determination to use whatever means it can to discredit, undermine and ultimately damage the CWB.

"This is a government that has maintained the ideological agenda of organizations such as the Western Canadian Wheat Growers which is to destroy the CWB by every means other then the legitimate one provided under law -- a binding plebiscite of farmers on an honest question."

Well That's a Pickle...

We all have them. Moments on the farm where something completely unexpected happens, and most of us have photo proof. We invite you to share them with everyone. Send us your photos and a write up of the event, and we will post them here! Email us.

Here is a couple of incidents that happened in southern Alberta. One day in the field this seeding season and then the following day moving down the road. We as others check and try to be field ready BUT things do happen - RIGHT?

This could be called Piggy Back Farming or Making a New Harmon Air Drill!

There is a bit of a incline, the back tractor rolled down the little hill and climbed up the other set of air drill, setting on the level ground. The eagle-beaks had been lifted out of the ground so they could be checked after supper. Not one thing was wrecked including no flat tires - this is just what the men found after eating.

Going down country roads we were feeling a little dragged down lately. The wheel bearing gone out of the company tank.

Why we Need CWB Election Reform

The following is a letter to the editors of certain western farm newspapers sent by Henry Vos, the elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board for District 1 in northern Alberta:

The CWB voters list does not accurately reflect the farm community. It gives far too much clout to those who do not depend on farming as their main source of income.

In the 2007-08 crop year, the CWB issued 84,403 permit books. Some would suggest that this should be the makeup of the voters list for the CWB elections. However, 29,538 of these books did not have any deliveries. Of the remaining 54,865 books a large number are "Interested Parties" (i.e. landlords). Most of these people are not active producers but get a share of crop produced on their land.

There are also many permit book holders who have deliveries under 50 tonnes. These are usually small operators who have business interests other than farming. Those with deliveries under 50 tonnes represent an additional 12,723 books. This leaves 42,142 permit book holders who one might consider as active producers.

CWB data shows that two-thirds of CWB deliveries are made by less than 12,000 permit books. In fact, 80% of deliveries are made by 18,000 permit books, representing just 21% of total books issued. To put it another way, it means farmers who account for 20% of our deliveries get 70% of the votes!

If 18,000 farmers account for 80% of our business, it makes one question the legitimacy of sending out 62,235 ballots during the 2006 and 2008 elections. It means there are an awful lot of people eligible to vote who really don't have much of business interest at stake.

One reason for the excessive number of permit books is because producer car shippers and those with small holdings gain a delivery advantage if their family takes out a number of permit books. The CWB allows every permit book holder to ship out a full producer car (about 100 tonnes) or truck (45 tonnes) under the first contract call, even if the tonnage under the contract call would be less than these amounts.

For example, if a farmer has 100 tonnes of wheat contracted and the CWB has issued a 25% contract call, the producer car shipper can ship the full 100 tonnes. A farmer with 1,000 tonnes contracted would only be allowed to ship two producer cars (2 x 100 tonnes) plus another 50 tonnes by truck.

This means a family of four that has four permit books and produces 400 tonnes would be able to ship out their entire wheat production by producer car in the fall whereas a farm with 1,000 tonnes and four permit books would only be able to ship out 40% of their productions (4 x 100 tonnes). Bear in mind too that large farmers are more likely to be incorporated, in which case they are limited to one permit book. Now don't get me wrong. I do not have access to cars or choose to ship through the elevator system.

The effect of all this is that those with small holdings (many of whom are older farmers who are gradually exiting the business) have a disproportionately large say in CWB elections.

The CWB farm surveys have consistently shown that older and smaller farmers tend to support the CWB more than younger and larger farmers. In the 2006 producer survey there was 20% more support for the CWB from farmers over 65 years of age compared to farmers under age 35. There was also 12% more support for the CWB by farmers under 640 acres than from farmers over 2500 acres.

Why does this matter? The risk to the organization is that the Board of Directors does not have a mandate from the active producers of CWB grains. The voters list does not align with the actual producers who raise the majority of the grain. This lack of conformity between voters and actual producers represents a serious threat to the long term interest of producers and the long term best interests of the CWB. The risk is the organization moves on a track that is not in a direction that meets the needs of current and future producers. History is littered with examples of animals, organization, including grain companies that became extinct because they failed to adapt quickly enough. They were not in tune with the needs of current and future generations they had hoped to serve.

I believe it is my duty as a director to ensure we have a mandate from actual producers and actively strive to meet their business needs now and into the future. I think we need to change the voters list to represent active producers of Canadian Wheat Board Act grains. We also need to change the rules to ensure directors are truly representative of the farmers we are entrusted to serve.

Open letter to MP's and Senators

The Canadian Wheat Board, Government Guarantees & Billion Dollar Bailouts

The Canadian Wheat Board was set up never to fail by previous liberal and conservative governments. This state trading enterprise was made bullet-proof by lawyers, bureaucrats’ and politicians who through the years closed any loopholes that made the CWB vulnerable. How and why did they do this? The answer to these questions will show taxpayers that the money lost in the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal was miniscule in comparison to the money paid to keep the wheat board operating over the last two decades.

Throughout the years the CWB, a state trading enterprise, has had direct access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund (taxpayer's money). CWB debt is irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed by the Government of Canada, which means that the principal and interest on borrowings and receivables is backed with hardworking taxpayer's dollars. These guarantees encouraged higher risk credit grain sales as well as "special transaction" and concessional transaction sales which seemed to be designed to help rid the board of troublesome excess grain.

Due to government guarantees, the Consolidated Revenue Fund also paid off any deficits the Wheat Board created. Deficits to date in the pool accounts total a whopping $1.2 billion dollars.

The CWB has two main credit programs, the Credit Grain Sales Program and the Agri-Food Credit Facility, the latter being a program started by Export Development Canada in 1995 to cover credit risks of sales to private importers who could not provide a guarantee from their government. EDC is a federal crown corporation and the CWB transactions accounts for the bulk of the use of their Agri-Food Credit program. With the government guaranteeing 100% of both principal and interest on the receivables on the first program and 98% on the second, it did not matter if the debtor countries had the ability to pay back the loan, the CWB was covered.

CWB transactions were cloaked in secrecy because the Canadian Wheat Board has always been exempt from Part X of the Financial Administration Act and not subject to Access to Information until late 2006. The fact that the CWB was and is exempt from Part X of the FAA is significant because this area of the act provides the control and accountability framework for crown corporations. The exemption from Part X means the Canadian Wheat Board is not subject to certain provisions that support good management and accountability. They also do not have to submit to a regular regime of internal audits, annual audits and special examinations by the Auditor General of Canada. With tax dollars at high risk, the taxpayers of Canada should insist that the Auditor General of Canada start auditing CWB books on a regular basis!

There are three types of borrowings done by the CWB; financing for credit grain sales, ordinary operations and investments. Financial records show that until the early 1990s these transactions were reported separately to provide transparency between credit grain sales and ordinary operations. Borrowing are now reported to the government as a lump sum with no way of separating the three. Where is the transparency in this? By 2002, Public Accounts of Canada showed that CWB borrowings reached a whopping eight billion dollars and no one, not even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, ever questioned the reason for it. The credit grain sales programs made up only 5-15% of total grain sales per year in the eighties and nineties but accounted for most of the billions of dollars of borrowings. This should have raised red flags!

When the Canadian Wheat Board makes credit grain sales the money is borrowed and placed into the pool accounts so the farmers are protected. During the late 70s and early eighties the countries involved in the credit grain sales program began to have trouble paying their debts and the CWB was forced to extend their lines of credit and even roll unpaid interest payments into the rescheduled loans. Remember, the CWB was extending the loans and getting very little cash repayments from its clients. The CWB will counter by saying that rescheduling = loans paid in full even though little or no actual cash repayments are made. Where then was the board getting the money to pay the interest on the billions of dollars of borrowings? The taxpayers of Canada were either absorbing the hundreds of million dollars in interest losses through the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the CWB was borrowing the money to pay back the interest on billions of dollars. Could this be why the borrowings increased so dramatically during this time? If the CWB were borrowing the money to pay the interest on the billions of dollars of debt, the government guarantees would force them to borrow enough to cover the spread in rates between themselves and the debtors. The spread would then go into the pool accounts. Remember this is all taxpayers' money and would be a direct subsidy to the pool accounts. Is this how the CWB managed to average positive interest earnings of $60 to $75 million on a regular basis through the years? Was it merely borrowed money? This definitely needs to be made transparent to the taxpayers of Canada.

In the late eighties the Auditor Generals office started putting pressure on the government and the CWB in regards to credit risk. The Auditor Generals office said that creditors are now discovering that loans to sovereign states are not always collectable, that some loans may never be repaid in full and that repayment of others may be delayed indefinitely. They also commented that they thought CWB receivables were overvalued due to accrued interest being converted to principal. The Auditor Generals office offered several solutions for their multiple concerns regarding the CWB but qualified their remarks in the Public Accounts by saying "I am not in any way suggesting that the CWB should write off its accounts receivable from debtor countries because sound collection practices must prevail if public assets are to be protected." Unfortunately neither the government nor the CWB took any notice of the Auditor Generals advice to protect taxpayer's money.

In 1990 the CWB created a $700 million dollar deficit in the pool accounts which had to be paid directly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Pressure from the Auditor Generals office was mounting. This prompted a chain of events that cost the taxpayer even more money. According to the department of Finance, in 1991 the international credit community through the Paris Club decided to embark on a process of voluntary debt relief for Poland and Egypt, the CWB's largest debtors. They called this an exceptional case. Previously rescheduling was non-concessional. Poland owed the Canadian Wheat Board and the Export Development Corporation approximately $3.5 billion dollars of which $2 billion was unpaid interest. The report went on to say that debt relief to Poland and Egypt could cost Canadians over $3 billion in the next two decades. On behalf of Poland and Egypt, the Canadian government was to commence paying the Canadian Wheat Board and EDC a portion of the interest payments due from these countries. The Department of Finance had estimated that this would cost the taxpayers $800 million over the first three years beginning in 1991, and $3.1 billion in total. Shortly after that the Department of Finance decided to switch from debt service relief to debt relief (forgiveness of principal as well as interest) for Poland and Egypt as well as certain other CWB credit grain debtors. This started in 1991 and continues up to the present day. In early 2002 Paul Martin at a Prague meeting announced that Canada would cancel 100% of debt owed by HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) to the CWB. Suddenly bad debts turned into assets, and the Federal government started paying billions of taxpayer dollars in interest and principal to the CWB. Oil rich Iraq was also a beneficiary of taxpayer kindness. In 2000 Iraq stopped fully servicing its debt so in September 2005, Canadian taxpayers started paying 80% of what was owing to the CWB by Iraq. As of December 2008 taxpayers will have paid over $550 million dollars of bad Iraqi government debt. To add insult to injury in the summer of 2008, Iraq's trade minister met with the CWB to discuss large direct sales of grain to their unstable country.

The CWB dismisses the issue of debt forgiveness as a government issue but will not explain the lack of transparency concerning amounts due from the Government of Canada in their financial statements. The amounts shown in the CWB annual reports being due from the government as of the last day of the crop year are only a fraction of the amount actually received during the year. As an example, in the calendar year of 1995 the government paid the wheat board $347 million dollars and the CWB annual report showed $60 million due from the Government of Canada. The tally to date for money paid by the Federal government to the CWB is an enormous $4 Billion dollars including deficits.(see attached access to information stats) This number will rise dramatically when the federal government pays off the principal owed by Poland and Egypt to the CWB. Up to 2005 the government has only paid $200 million in principal.

For the first 10 years, starting in 1991 the CWB received only interest payments from the government on behalf of Poland and Egypt which allowed them to keep their receivables at the maximum level. This is relevant because the higher the receivables the higher the ceiling on the borrowings. With almost unlimited borrowings at preferred interest rates, the CWB ostensibly turned into a monumental lending institution that handled grain marketing on the side. Yearly cumulative borrowings of the CWB ranged from $41 billion in 1992 to $184 billion in 1998 to $85 billion in 2000. They used these short term borrowings to generate earnings from the interest spread between the preferred rates that they received from the Government of Canada and the rates that they charged their customers. With the CWB being exempt from Part X of the FAA the Auditor Generals office had no mandate to oversee their books. CWB cumulative borrowing transactions of this magnitude seemed out of sync with money that was generated from their grain marketing operations. Grain sales ranged between $3-4 billion dollars per year and cumulative borrowings ranged from $41 billion to $184 billion.

Government guarantees and almost unlimited borrowings given to a supposedly farmer run operation is costing taxpayers a fortune. The CWB's wellbeing is so solidly entrenched in government politics and foreign affairs that transparency has been almost impossible. Hitting taxpayers in their pocket book does not win votes but thankfully the Harper government is trying to rectify some of the previous governments mistakes.

The first question that I want the Liberal, NDP, and Bloc MPs and Senators to answer publicly is why are you fighting to block reform to a state trading enterprise that exists only in Western Canada, a monopoly that the majority of farmers do not want to be apart of, and an institution that is costing the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars? Your defence of the status quo should have some basis in facts and figures instead of half truths and rhetoric.

How was the CWB paying their interest owed on the borrowings in the late eighties when credit loan debtor countries were rolling unpaid interest into principal and rescheduling their loans while paying little or no actual cash payments on their debt? An audit by the Auditor General of Canada on this issue should be initiated.
Please also explain in detail why only interest was paid to the CWB by the federal government on the debt forgiveness to Poland for so many years without paying down the principal and why was the interest given to the CWB instead of being put directly towards reducing the receivables and the borrowings that were backed by taxpayers money? Remember that the CWB pool accounts received payment of the grain sale in the year the credit transaction was made. It was the government guarantees that left taxpayers holding the bag when large amounts of accrued interest was rolled into principal. An audit by the OAG is long overdue on this issue.

The transfers to the CWB by the federal government are given as grants and contributions which have no restrictions on how the money is spent. Please explain in detail why billions of taxpayer dollars are given to a corporation without any strings attached and why the CWB is not under the direct control of the Auditor Generals office? An audit by the Auditor General of Canada on the issue of these transfers would clear the air.

The last question that I want politicians to answer is how would the CWB operate without the government guarantees? Please back your answer up with facts.

I encourage politicians and senators to contact me with their answers, comments and questions!

Sources

(1) Access to Information (attached)
(2) 1988, 1989 and 1992 Report of the Auditor General (Loans to Sovereign States)
(3) CWB Annual Reports
(4) International Wheat Agreement
(5) Canada - Poland Wheat Agreement
(6) Canada - Brazil Wheat Agreement
(7) Public Accounts

Lynda Swanson
RR1 Elnora AB
lswanson@rttinc.com
403 773-2467

Albertans Ready to Fight Tories on Land for Public Project

If you want to start a fierce conversation in rural Alberta these days, you need utter only one remark--"Bill 19."

Across the province, the government's proposed legislation to set aside land for major public projects is raising hackles and stirring debate. Even last week's draft amendments containing significant changes don't appear to have quelled unrest in the Conservative heartland.

"It's draconian. It's communist. And it's not becoming of Alberta," said Aden rancher Warren Brower, who organized a meeting featuring discussion of the Land Assembly Project Area Act last Friday night.

He said dozens of people drove to a community hall for the meeting, at which three Tory MLAs weathered questions on the bill.

"We're not going to stand there and let them walk all over us," Brower said.

The bill also hits at some-thing much deeper--a concern based on past experiences and a lack of trust in the government's intentions. Grievances over issues such as private investigators hired by Alberta's energy regulator to spy on landowners opposed to a 500-kilovolt transmission line in 2007, and a perceived bias in favour of the oil and gas industry have contributed to the mutterings.

"They're nothing but a party of the oil business," said Brower, who describes himself as a Progressive Conservative party supporter since the early days of Peter Lougheed. He says he is now "disgusted" by the government's actions.

Green party Leader Joe Anglin said that in the past several years, Alberta landowners have been "burnt" by the Energy Resources Conservation Board and other regulatory bodies, "left and right."

Since his fight with the Alberta's energy regulator over the transmission line, Anglin has become a go-to guy for many who feel wronged by the system.

"When I speak to landowners, many share with me their numerous negative experiences," said Anglin, whose party holds no seats in the legislature, but who has become the most vocal opponent of Bill 19.

The bill itself deals specifically with the ability of the government to set aside land for an interim period before it is formally appropriated for a public project, and prevent land development that might jeopardize the planned project. Major projects involved include highways, ring roads, or transportation corridors including pipelines, transmission lines or water projects.

At issue for landowners is what they feel is erosion of their private property rights. Critics believe the bill gives the minister too much power to make or dispose of important regulations, is too vaguely worded, and sets out untenable restrictions on landowners.

Although the Conservative base has lashed out with meetings and angry words, it remains to be seen if the anger translates into political consequence for the Tories.

Letters to the editor have been fierce. And if approved by the membership of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC), a last-minute motion on Bill 19 may be debated at the association's spring convention in Edmonton this week--shortly after Infrastructure Minister Jack Hayden takes the floor for his speech to the delegates Wednesday.

The issue has also electrified seemingly all of the government's critics, including Wildrose Alliance Leader Paul Hinman, who says "every angle of this bill is rotten." On the left, groups such as Green-peace and the Sierra Club use much the same language to describe the bill.

"My guts are absolutely aching, "Donna Wise, 46--a member of the Green Party whose family owns a farm near Rockyford--said of the bill. Wise said the government is lashing out against increasingly organized and vocal landowners. "It's a defensive move," she said.

Hayden's department's hastily prepared draft amendments were released last Thursday, shortly after Premier Ed Stelmach reacted to increasing opposition and promised that rural landowners will be treated fairly.

"Those are always sensitive discussions," Stelmach said.

In an interview last week, Hayden--whose family farm sits near Endiang, east of Red Deer, and has a long history as a rural politician -- said "there is no way in the world" he would enact legislation that was going to hurt rural landowners.

Hayden said the legislation will, in fact, be a help to landowners because it will make public notification of government plans mandatory.

But he said there is always a sense of mistrust when it comes to government acquiring private land--even if it is being done in the public interest.

"No one ever likes to part with their land," Hayden said.

The original wording of the bill implied that landowners could be stuck in a long period of uncertainty until the government decided officially whether their land would be part of a large public project or not.

The amendments would place a two-year limit on government completing consultations and making a final decision.

Once a decision is made to classify the land as a part of a project area, the amendments also allow landowners to compel the government to enter into sale negotiations.

Even with the amendments, however, critics have not been silenced.

Those such as Don Bester believe the act still allows the minister too much power.

"We are not asking for amendments. We're asking for a complete bill-kill," said Bester, a director of the Pine Lake Surface Rights Action Group.

"The amendments are a pacifier."

Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition Betray Western Canadian Farmers

Ottawa, April 2, 2009 -- Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his coalition partners betrayed Western Canadian farm families today by obstructing legislation to modernize Canada's grain industry. Conservative MP David Anderson, a Saskatchewan grain farmer and Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board, blasted opposition parties for flip-flopping on their agreement to allow the legislation to go to the Agriculture Committee.

"Michael Ignatieff has once again proved that Liberals don't care about Canadian farmers. They continue to ignore Western Canada," said Anderson. "Western Canadian farmers deserve an opportunity to work with MPs at the Agriculture Committee to modernize our grain industry.

The three Opposition parties joined together Thursday to prevent Bill C-13 from being sent to Committee for amendment and approval. "Its clear that the three coalition partners have once again joined together to thumb their noses at Western Canadians. It's shameful that opposition parties refuse to listen to Western Canadian farmers. It's pathetic that they are stopping the modernization of the Canada Grain Act."

Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, would increase profitability for Western Canadian grain farmers.

Only in Western Canada is there mandatory inward inspection that is ultimately paid for by farmers. Bill C-13 will decrease costs for Western farmers while keeping Canada's high quality grain standards. Without the amendment Western grain farmers are stuck with the extra burden of paying for a system that adds no value to their grain.

Click here to download the WBGA's presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture from March 24, 2009

The CWB has to Come Clean to Farmers

March 4, 2009 -- The CWB in a news release on March 3 claims that they can set the record straight on the losses that occurred last year. However, the only thing that the CWB managed to prove with their release is that farmers can not afford to have the CWB do their marketing.

The CWB again reminded farmers that they lost nearly $90 million from their Producer Payment Option programs and $226 million more from other discretionary trading activity. The ugly reality is that farmers lost over a quarter of a billion dollars due to the CWB's risk management practices last year. That is on top of the $30 million lost the year before.

The more farmers learn about these losses the more it is starting to look like the CWB uses the contingency fund like a carnival shell game. A grand total of $38.7 million in other CWB revenue was shuffled into the contingency fund including interest from the pool accounts. Apparently $25.5 million of the $38.7 million was taken from the CWB pool accounts and shifted directly into the contingency fund. It does not matter how slickly the CWB shuffles the shells, the bottom line is they lost farmers' money.

These losses need to be fully investigated. The CWB must allow the Auditor General to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation of their disastrous trading activity.

David Anderson, M.P. (Cypress Hills-Grasslands), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Argentina’s Agricultural Agreement Is Inadequate, Farmers Say

March 4, 2009 -- Argentine farmers say yesterday’s accord with the government to cut dairy taxes and boost beef exports falls short after the worst drought in 50 years.

“The agreement isn’t good enough,” said Alfredo Rodes, executive director of Carbap, which represents 34,000 farmers in Buenos Aires and La Pampa provinces, in a telephone interview today. “What they signed yesterday has been promised before, but afterwards we haven’t seen any results.”

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is seeking to avoid a repeat of last year’s conflict with farmers, whose protests over export taxes halted sales and prompted food shortages in South America’s second-biggest economy. Fernandez joined talks with farm leaders yesterday, agreeing to eliminate export taxes on dairy goods and raise domestic prices for wheat to 420 pesos ($116) a ton from 370 pesos.

Rodes said the wheat price is too low and that Carbap leaders will meet March 6 to formally respond to the accord.

Farmers have been pushing the government to lower a 35 percent levy on soybeans and remove restrictions on exports of all farm goods after commodities prices plunged and the worst drought in about 50 years curbed crops.

Alfredo De Angeli, a regional leader of the Agrarian Federation, called the agreement “insufficient,” according to online newspaper Infobae.com.

Argentine Production Minister Debora Giorgi said the accord is a sign of “important progress” in negotiations, which will resume in Buenos Aires on March 10. Farm leaders asked the government to accelerate implementing the new measures.

Damaging Drought

Argentina, the world’s second-biggest exporter of corn and third-biggest for soybeans, faced a damaging dry spell in major producing regions in recent months, just as plants needed water.

The drought will pare output of corn this year by at least 36 percent from the previous harvest to 13.8 million metric tons, the Buenos Aires Cereals Exchange said in a Feb. 27 report.

“We hope this will put an end to the conflict so we can all work to get through this difficult moment,” Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo said yesterday in a press conference.

Eduardo Buzzi, president of the Agrarian Federation, said yesterday in a press conference in Buenos Aires that “the conflict isn’t over.”

Reports last week that the government planned to nationalize the purchase and sale of grains prompted farmers to warn the move could provoke “unrest.” Randazzo denied reports that the government is working to create a grains regulatory agency, although he said the government doesn’t rule it out either.

Argentina Plans Squeeze on Dissident Farmers

March 3, 2009 -- Argentina is preparing plans to broaden state intervention in agrarian markets, trying to tighten the screws on dissident farmers who are already unhappy about high export taxes.

Any increase in government control over Argentina's largest industry risks unleashing social unrest in the countryside and congressional opposition, analysts say.

Farmers, hammered by falling prices and drought, will meet Tuesday with government negotiators to discuss their grievances over agrarian policy.

Since the two sides' first meeting last week, Argentina has been convulsed with rumors about new farm policy. One scenario involves creating a state-controlled entity that would compete with private grain-exporting companies. The idea is to help regulate prices and ensure a supply of farm goods in the domestic market.

President Cristina Kirchner proved she won't shrink from bold steps to extend the government's economic reach when she nationalized privately held pension funds in October. But one factor likely limiting the scope of the government's options is increasing opposition in Congress, where the government bloc has been decimated by defections. Felipe Sola, a congressman and ex-governor who broke with the administration, accused Mrs. Kirchner of "making threats that don't scare anyone anymore."

Farmers say the discussion of a greater state agrarian role is at least partly a tactic to get them to back away from their demands for an elimination of a 35% export tax on soybeans. Analysts also say the government is trying to prod farmers to sell the large cache of last year's soybean harvest that they still have stored in silos. By holding out for higher prices or lower taxes, farmers are depriving the government of tax revenue -- approaching $1 billion by some estimates -- that Mrs. Kirchner needs now to spend ahead of October's midterm elections.

The talk of state intervention "shows that there are real cash-flow issues for the government," says Bernardo C. Piazzardi, an agribusiness specialist at Austral University in Rosario.

In a legislative address Sunday, Mrs. Kirchner lashed out at farmers and promised the government would unveil "new instruments to intervene adequately in the economy."

Under President Juan Domingo Peron, in the 1940s and 1950s, the government centralized marketing and exporting of farm goods in state hands. In recent years, agribusiness here has become sophisticated, with Argentina now the world's third-largest soybean producer, behind the U.S. and Brazil.

The FFJ family is in DEEP mourning with Jim Chantenay and family's loss of dear Olive.

She has been Jims' backbone and such a grand lady that will be missed by everyone who knew her.

We send our sympathy to Olive's Jim, children, grandchildren, mother, and her whole family.

"THOSE WE LOVE DON'T GO AWAY,
THEY WALK BESIDE US EVERY DAY,
UNSEEN, UNHEARD, BUT ALWAYS NEAR,
STILL LOVED, STILL MISSED AND VERY DEAR."

Did you realize that the Merchant Law Firm of Regina has been fighting for us western farmers in the Courts of the licensing coming out of the DA Pool accounts from across Canada. It is in the Appeal stage now to continue.

For those who are aware---The Merchant group is the Lawyers who fought for the Indian School Issues when NO OTHER LAWYER would take the cause -'cause it was the "Right THING TO DO".

Mr. Merchant has not heard from any farmers on, if they are grateful for he's believing in that it's unfair for DA farmers are paying the costs of license for ALL PRODUCERS in Canada.

Please consider sending The Merchant Law Firm a little note if you think it's worth the Firm to continue with the Appeal. Thanks... we as farmers should fight for ourselves and help those who are fighting for the unfairness that the CWB does with YOUR money!

http://www.merchantlaw.com/

CWB Must Cooperate Fully with Auditor General - Ritz

February 26, 2009 -- Today Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz issued a formal letter to the Canadian Wheat Board asking them to allow the Auditor General to conduct a full audit of all operations. Minister Ritz made the announcement during his speech to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in response to the CWB's loss of nearly $130 million.

"Despite record prices in the marketplace, the CWB lost nearly $130 million in farmers' money over the past two years," said Minister Ritz, who also serves as Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. "That's money that comes directly out of farmers' pockets."

"The Canadian Wheat Board must open all of its books and fully cooperate with the Auditor General to make sure she's able to do a complete and thorough job."

The Office of the Auditor General must receive a formal request from the CWB in order to conduct an audit. While the CWB has indicated some willingness to cooperate with the Auditor General, federal auditors must be given access to all of the CWB's books and operations.

"There cannot be any half-measures," said Minister Ritz. "The Canadian Wheat Board must not limit the scope of the Auditor General's investigation in any way."

"I look forward to getting quick confirmation from the board that they will agree and ask the Auditor General to conduct a full audit."

Future Implications for Argentina’s Growers

With October’s midterm elections approaching, the ruling Partido Justicialista (PJ) faces a largely divisive electorate and a rebellious party structure. Sensing the regional unpopularity of the current Fernández administration, none other than Eduardo Buzzi (head of the FFA) is considering running as deputy for the farm-center province of Santa Fé.

Yet the existing conflict spawned by Fernández’s allegedly anti-farmers initiative is of pressing concern and must be resolved forthwith if her presidency is to retain any remaining viability. Export tax revenues are not getting distributed amongst the provincial governments, but rather, are being accumulated exclusively at the federal level. And while some provincial governors remain loyal to the administration, they face incessant protests from farmers affected by the drought. Since they must secure their own electoral prospects, provincial politicians recently pressed the government to provide emergency subsidies and tax breaks for farmers, which came in the form of Fernández’s January 26 declaration. According to Latin News, on February 23, three legislators broke ties with Fernández’s Frente para la Victoria (FPV), a political wing of PJ. They now join senator Carlos Reutemann’s newly-formed Santa Fe Federal grouping, in concerted attempt to uphold the concerns of the agricultural provinces.

Buzzi exclaimed that, if needed, “Farmers are ready to withhold their produce. We know that this has an economic impact and affects markets around the world.” Fernández is expected to meet with farmers on March 3 to discuss a potential solution to the conflict. Fernández would be wise to try to work to find a compromise for the two bitterly divided sides if she is to head Argentina’s return to economic prosperity, or at least minimal stability.

Kevin Libin: The Wheat Board's risky business

February 18, 2009 -- The Canadian Wheat Board’s just-released annual report shows that despite its monopoly on western wheat sales, and a windfall year for crop prices, the board’s central planners still managed to lose roughly $90 million last year on commodity trades. What went wrong, as influential U.S. investor Dennis Gartman pointed out in a recent newsletter, is that the Wheat Board appears to have taken massive losses in commodity speculation trades, by betting the wrong way on grain prices. “There is no possible explanation for this loss other than the management took speculative positions in wheat that clearly went massively against them, and those losses were averaged into, making them worse as the losses increased, eventually becoming large enough to force the fund to liquidate it positions” deep in the red, Gartman writes. One series of trades, he reports, amounted to a loss of nearly a quarter billion dollars.

Placing bets on commodity markets, particularly those as unpredictable as we’ve seen recently, is a risky proposition, particularly for a federally controlled co-operative like the Wheat Board. But the board apparently feels it has to play the market to survive: that’s because as Western farmers became increasingly doubtful of the benefits of selling their grain through the monopolistic board in recent years, the CWB rolled out pricing programs to try and keep producers happier. Farmers can now lock in sales to the wheat board at certain prices over the course of the year. In order for the wheat board to make that work, though, it must then hedge its futures in the global commodity market. Trouble is, the board seems to be not particularly good at it: last year was the third year in a row the CWB took a haircut on its speculative trades.

“The loss is all the more shocking in that the Wheat Board buys wheat from Canada’s farmers at rather material discounts to the spot price and then ‘markets’ that wheat through its pooling activities,” Gartman writes. “Thus, it is one thing to lose money trading speculatively; it is quite another to lose a sum this large when one has a huge lead on every ‘trade’ from the outset.”

After a number of grain-grower associations (generally not fans of the CWB’s monopoly) demanded Ottawa investigate why the board is losing so much of farmers’ money, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said yesterday that the government must review the CWB’s risk management practices. The CWB says it “welcomes” a review—though it wants the auditor general to do it (who will likely be limited to checking only that the CWB is properly accounting for its losses according to GAAP). Though, it still insisted that it wasn’t the board’s fault for losing so much money:

"The 2007-08 crop year was unlike any seen in the history of grain markets,” said the CWB chairman. “Volatility was so extreme that on some days, the markets moved more in a few hours than they had in the previous year. During these unprecedented months, the CWB remained committed to offering farmers pricing and payment options, even when many other industry players withdrew their programs.”

Actually, what Hill forgets—or omits—is that the CWB did reportedly suspend producer payment options last year, at least for a few days, enraging many farmers. And while board pricing programs, when active, surely earned some extra money for farmers who timed the market right, the losses the Board suffered as a result will have to be made up for somewhere—and that means every producer gets less money down the road. Besides, those “other industry players” Mr. Hill refers to are not state-run monopolies, but private grain companies or voluntary grain pools: if participating farmers don’t like the way they’re run, they can opt out. And if the private operators lose money, that's their problem, not their suppliers'.

Those facts alone is probably all most farmers need as far as a “risk management review” goes: being captive to the wheat board, Western grain growers know that even with something like the pricing option program—a pale imitation of a free market arrangement—in the end, they all end up paying for losses in CWB managers’ decisions in setting prices, marketing and commodity speculation. With so much red ink on the CWB’s books this year, that may be a risk more farmers are unhappy to bear.

Back to to

Federal Budget Does Nothing to Increase Economic Activity

January 29, 2009 -- Tuesday's federal budget turns back the clock on Canada's past sound fiscal management and sets the nation back down the path of massive deficits and increased debt, says Niels Veldhuis, Fraser Institute senior economist.

This budget is simply irresponsible given Canada's current economic climate. Massive increases in government spending and $85 billion in deficits over the next five years will do little, if anything, to boost economic activity and instead will saddle Canadians with higher taxes in the future.

The government has caved in to the special interest groups lining up in Ottawa with their hands out for federal cash. This budget will do little in the way of improving the economy and sends a negative signal to the real generators of economic activity: skilled and talented Canadians, entrepreneurs and successful businesses.

From 1997/98, the year the federal government balanced its budget, to 2007/08, the federal government ran budget surpluses and reduced its debt by $105 billion.

Canadians are still paying for the legacy of past federal deficits with 13 cents of every dollar in revenue still going to pay interest on the existing debt. With a nearly $85 billion increase in debt proposed in this budget and interest rates that are likely to rise, this budget will significantly increase the debt burden for the next generation..

"Stimulus" Spending Doesn't Work

The 2009 budget contained a massive, $28 billion increase in government spending over the next two years (2009/10 and 2010/11) to "stimulate" the economy. The increase in spending is an attempt to appease nearly all special interests including seniors, aboriginals, farmers, the auto industry, forestry, tourism, arts and culture.

To finance this spending, the government must borrow nearly $85 billion, meaning the government will take money from some Canadians (those buying government bonds) who will have less to spend and/or invest in the private market. The end result is the government merely shuffles money around from one group of Canadians to another, rather than increasing overall economic activity.

With these spending initiatives, the government is merely transferring money from some Canadians to special interest groups. This will not increase economic activity.

Tax Relief

One of the budget's major disappointments is the lack of permanent broad-based relief, Of the $11.9 billion provided in tax relief over the next two years, only $3.8 billion is permanent and broad-based. This is in comparison to the total stimulus package of $39.9 billion, a meagre 10 to
one ratio.

The majority of the tax relief offered mirrors the spending increases by targeting select groups and preferred industries. It includes a host of new or expanded tax credits such as the new Home Renovation Tax Credit, a First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit, an extended Mineral Exploration Tax Credit and an increased Age Credit.

Unfortunately, $3.8 billion in permanent broad-based personal income tax changes (including the small increase in the basic personal exemption and the increase in the threshold for the bottom two personal income tax rates) will do almost nothing to help the economy.

The government could have achieved better economic results by dropping middle and upper personal income tax rates which would have reduced the burden on highly skilled, talented and creative people and improved the incentives for increased work effort, investment and entrepreneurial risk taking.

Infrastructure

The centre piece of the government's "stimulus" package is the $11.8 billion in new infrastructure spending over the next two years, including a $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund for provinces and municipalities, $2 billion to support repairs and maintenance and accelerated construction at colleges and universities, $515 million for First Nations Infrastructure, $500 million for recreation facilities, $500 million for projects in small communities, and $400 million for the Green Infrastructure Fund.

While Canada's infrastructure certainly needs improvement, increased infrastructure spending will do little to stimulate the economy. Infrastructure initiatives are rarely "shovel ready" and those that are, aren't necessarily the ones that will provide the greatest economic return.

Regional Economic Development and Bailouts

The budget also contained billions of dollars for specific regions and industries including:

$4 billion for the previously announced bailout for the auto industry
$1 billion Community Adjustment Fund for rural towns
$335 million for culture and arts
$140 million for tourism
$500 million for agricultural
$170 million for the forestry sector
$1.0 billion for a new southern Ontario development agency
$1.0 billion to support clean energy technology

Yet again, the federal government is relying on failed activist economic policies that will only delay the day of reckoning for these troubled industries. The government should have used these resources to create the right investment climate and environment for all businesses to succeed.

All in all, this entire budget was an enormous missed opportunity. If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty truly wanted to have a positive impact on the Canadian economy, he should have reduced government spending, eliminated the capital gains tax, and aggressively decreased personal income and business taxes.

Niels Veldhuis

Niels Veldhuis is the Director of Fiscal Studies and a Senior Economist at The Fraser Institute

CWB - 10 Years

The Canadian Wheat Board has been touting about the 10^th anniversary of the presence of farmer elections. But have we moved forward yet?? We all realize that the CWB has tried very hard to give farmers new options with selling grain, but it will still not allow true market choice.

If the CWB is the strong entity which it should be, that is staffed in a huge building in Winnipeg, and has offices throughout the world, then this entity should win grains sales with western farmers. It has experts in different areas – export sales, market trends, country policies, even weather to name a few. So why is it such an issue to allow choice in this democratic country for western farmers? The same marketing freedom enjoyed in eastern Canada?

Forcing western farmers to market only using the CWB monopoly wasn’t voted on – it was brought onto the farmers as a “war measures act” – REMEMBER? This voting for directors SHOULD NOT give direction on how we are marketing OUR OWN GRAIN!

We should not be voting to be able to market own grain in western Canada. This is a right!!! It is a “right” for the rest of Canadian Farmers! In the rest of Canada producers just sell their product wherever they wish and give NO THOUGHT TO IT!

While the CWB proudly reminds us in western Canada about the farmers being able to vote for their voice, this vote forces my vote to say HOW MY NEIGHBOUR MARKETS THEIR OWN GRAIN!! Did you forget in western Canada this is part of a democratic country? We have not in the ‘Farmers for Justice world’! No other citizen is forced into this situation! And when people who live away from the farm scene, understand or hear about this – they simply can not believe it.

Go ahead CWB be proud – the grassroots is stirring… and it is because of you!

Thank you, Jim

When I first meet Jim, I had no idea how much I would come to admire him. He was with a group of neighbours in his red van carrying a very dangerous cargo –“farmer grown grain”.

Jim, as with the rest of those men, crossed the magical line that Andy McMechan had shown to Canadian farmers to prove a point. “This is my crop that I grew, that I paid the expenses for, and I should be able to sell this grain where I want” -NOT!

These Alberta farmers were the last group in the designated area to do this brave act and the first group to meet the system. After spending the day being finger printed and having mug-shots done, knowing that what they did was wrong but it was a moment of pride for us all: taking a stand against the great Canadian Wheat Board.

I sat in the courtrooms with these men and waded through all the levels of court with them. It was not easy for the men, and it was a hard 'stand' for the whole family, but it was a proud time.

As we went through the court system we started to see change cracking the CWB. and in less than two years, there was an announcement that farmers would be able to elect directors to represent them. James Chatenay decided to run in District 2.

Jim explained that he had already made a stand in 1996 so if you want only ‘single desk marketing’ -DO NOT vote for me!! The grain is yours and mine and we producers should be able sell the grain as we wish! He won in 1998 as we all know and did all three terms. His last term was by acclamation. He represented his producers because the CWB was their marketing system and so it was important for the producers to know what was happening… at least in Jim’s mind. This view wasn’t shared by the great CWB, but Jim stood his ground and there were many shaky times for him and his wonderful strong wife.

He would review the issues and still stand firm. Jim disagreed with the big suppers put on by the CWB in each district, so District 2 was the first to stop spending farmer’s money on these meals. This was a point that most producers would see, but Jim was always explaining “these are my dollars that are being spent as are the dollars of the rest of the farmers of this designated area.” Winnipeg for Jim isn’t full of memories to remember but all there know he is a man of principle!

Jim stood his ground as did the others and since it was their grain, Oct 31, 2002 came.

Jim is the only CWB director whose went to jail for his strong stand on “this is my grain”! These men would not pay their fines and were willing to do the time instead.

Yes it shook the world that in this democratic country farmers are forced to market only through the monopoly of the great CWB, if you farm in the western part of Canada. When Jim’s time was finished he requested to remain with his comrades in jail, which was declined. From that time on Jim has worn his beard, saying that will come off when the designated area has marketing freedom he announced.

A lot of us feel that because of Jim’s strong stand for all of us change has happened, but I know Jim feels that he’s failed. You've never changed through the years - you stayed committed but you aren't bitter or harden from any of your ordeals. But Jim, because of you there has been differences shown and things have changed. I know that not many people would have endured what you have and that has been proven already!

I want to THANK YOU - JIM, Olive and all the Chatenay family for your dedication to your beliefs for Freedom Marketing for ALL Canadian farmers and for your STRONG Principles. How much we do owe to you --thank you! I’m so PROUD to know you and to be able to see how a person of strong beliefs lives -A MAN OF PRINCIPLE!

Colleen Biacnchi
and the rest of CFFJ

Canada does not Plan Barley Legislation: Minister

January 19, 2009 -- Canada's Conservative government will not introduce legislation in the short term to seek an end to the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley marketing, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said on Monday.

"We are holding back on legislation on barley," Ritz told reporters on a conference call.

"I don't see that on my radar screen in the next short time," he said, adding that he would focus on expanding international trade opportunities for agricultural exporters.

Ritz said the government remains committed to eventually reforming the farmer-controlled CWB, one of the world's largest wheat exporters.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, first elected in 2006, has wanted to give Prairie farmers the choice of selling to the CWB or dealing directly with buyers.

Ottawa's first attempt to open up barley marketing was successfully challenged in court. It later introduced legislation on the issue, but never brought it before Parliament for a vote.

Harper won a strengthened minority in an election last October and will lay out his policy agenda in a major speech on Monday, when Parliament resumes.

Railways Accused of Overcharging

January 14, 2009 -- Saskatchewan farmer Gordon Wallace has launched a lawsuit against both major Canadian railways and the federal government, claiming western farmers have been overcharged substantially for grain transportation for as long as 25 years.

Wallace said Tuesday that freight rates are a huge problem for farmers who must ship their grain with Canadian National or Canadian Pacific Railways. Rates are regulated by the federal government, which gives farmers no negotiating power.

Wallace hopes to have the suit certified as a class action, representing all western Canadian grain producers.

The Farmers Have Spoken

January 10, 2009 -- Many Canadians are wondering whether the Harper Conservatives have learned anything from their near-death experience last month when they blundered into their own trap, nearly ending their minority government before it began.

One promising sign that the Harperites may be -- finally, belatedly, grudgingly -- listening to the voters is contained in some comments made by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz to a Yorkton radio station just before Christmas.

Asked his reaction to the results of the Canadian Wheat Board director elections -- which voted in four single-desk supporters out of five seats available -- Ritz stated the obvious: "Well, farmers have spoken ...''

While bemoaning the low voter turnout (53 per cent of eligible voters), Ritz went on to say "the government recognizes democracy. We recognize that, at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for ..."

Asked about the future of the government's legislation to remove the CWB's monopoly on barley exports, Ritz admitted: "It's off the table for the short term.''

Coming from a minister who once characterized the CWB's supporters as "the tinfoil-hat and decoder ring crowd,'' this is quite an admission.

While not exactly a conversion of Damascene proportions, Ritz's comments suggest a softening of the government's rigidly ideological stance on the CWB.

Certainly, the government's critics have been quick to point to Ritz's comments as the first real admission that the Harper government may not have the monopoly on what the Western Canadian farmer wants and doesn't want.

In fact, it's fair to say the Conservatives have governed these past three years based on the assumption they represent rural Canadians, and Western Canadian farmers in particular.

And those rural Prairie folk have given credence to the notion by voting en masse for the Conservatives -- election after election after election.

But, contrary to popular opinion, the farm vote is not some monolithic bloc that accepts and supports all the tenets and policies of the Conservative Party of Canada.

There is, in fact, a significant number of western farmers who support the Canadian Wheat Board, not out of blind ideology -- "the tinfoil-hat and decoder ring crowd" -- but out of a pragmatic conviction that it does a reasonably good job of selling wheat, durum and barley on the world market.

Is the CWB perfect? Far from it.

Is it better than being left to the tender mercies of the private grain traders and commodity brokers? Many farmers believe it is.

How could it be otherwise when farmers continue to vote in pro-monopoly, single-desk supporters to sit on the CWB's board of directors?

Many farmers believe that the single-desk, like the single-payer system of health care or public auto insurance, represents a reasonable trade-off of personal economic freedom for collective marketing clout.

While the system of pooling grains may result in farmers not getting the highest prices for their grains at all times, the so-called open market doesn't guarantee that either.

It's high time that the Harper government took off its ideologically rose-tinted glasses and looked at the CWB through the clear, pragmatic eyes of the average farmer.

If the CWB is not delivering value-added benefits to the average wheat, durum and barley grower, then it will lose the support of Western Canada's 75,000 producers.

If the wheat board is failing in its mandate -- "to market these grains for the best possible price both within Canada and around the world" -- then no amount of government legislation can save it.

However, until such time as the CWB is shown not to have the confidence of the majority of Western farmers, then the Harper government should get on with governing the country and leave the wheat board alone.

Like the man said, "farmers have spoken."

MNP Releases Results of the 2008 Canadian Wheat Board Directors' Election

December 7, 2008 -- The results of the CWB director elections held this fall in five CWB districts have been announced today by CWB Director Election Coordinator Meyers Norris Penny (MNP).

The successful candidates for districts 2, 4, 6, 8 and10 are as follows:

District 2: Jeff Nielsen, Olds, Alberta on the first ballot

District 4: Bill Woods, Eston, Saskatchewan on the first ballot

District 6: Cam Goff, Hanley, Saskatchewan on the third ballot

District 8: Rod Flaman, Edenwold, Saskatchewan on the fourth ballot

District 10: Bill Toews, Kane, Manitoba on the first ballot

For further details on the results of the 2008 CWB Director Elections, see the CWB Director Elections web site at cwbelection.com

The vote was conducted in all five districts using a mail-in preferential voting system that allowed producers to rank the candidates in order of preference. The overall ballot response rate in this election was 52.8% percent. Ballot tabulation was conducted in the presence of scrutineers representing the candidates.

A total of 15 directors on the CWB’s Board direct and manage the business and affairs of the CWB. Ten of the 15 directors are elected by producers. In this round, elections were held in the CWB’s five even-numbered districts. The successful candidates officially take office on December 31, 2008 and will serve a four-year term.

About MNP

MNP is the seventh largest chartered accountancy and business advisory firm in Canada and provides world-class expertise, in-depth knowledge and personalized service on a full range of assurance, taxation, business and agriculture advisory services. Advising agriculture and agribusiness has been a focal point of MNP’s business philosophy since its beginnings in 1945.

A Line Is Being Crossed

December 2, 2008 -- We have had a policy of posting factual news items. Our columns contain figures and quotes that can be verified. Often we supply our readers with information as “food for thought” to encourage debate. Rarely do we offer a straight “opinion” piece, but these are unprecedented times so we are breaking our own rule.

What is going on? What is happening? Is this a third world country I live in today?

In October we had a federal election. You remember who you voted for. You remember who won, even if you were not happy about that. I can’t speak for every ballot in the country, but I’m very sure that mine did not contain “Coalition Government” as a choice. This is a democratic country, isn’t it? Aren’t the people supposed to decide the make up of the government? When did it become the responsibility of the politicians to decide that? Our rights are changing!

I listen to CPAC a great deal. When a Bloc MP speaks I hear “in Quebec” and “for Quebec” first. The MP may add Canada on to the statement, but I always know that Quebec is first and foremost to a Bloc MP. Am I really supposed to believe that the Bloc will consider what is best for Western Canada? Even if it only affects Western Canada?

I understand that our country is facing an economic downturn. What will the real effect be for us all? I understand that our citizens will need to “buckle down”. This is not a new phrase to farmers. We’ve been “buckling down” for a long time. (Canada’s “cheap food policy” has taken its toll. Your food bill has been one of the lowest bills of your budget. It’s been that way for most of North America, but not the rest of the world.)

We are in times of real turmoil, not just in Canada, but throughout the whole world. It’s not just the dollar factor anymore. And while the rest of us are “buckling down” our politicians are grandstanding and playing power games with our democratic right to vote.

The people should not be afraid of the government. The government should be afraid of the people. It’s very obvious that our government has lost their fear. It’s time to bring that back.

We all know what needs to be done. We all know what must happen. We have tried more than once to “work together”. Phone your MPs. Demand a referendum on this “coalition”.

And if the government will not listen, then the line in the sand has been crossed. It is time to stand up and say loudly:

I AM FED UP! I HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE! SEPARATE!!! SEPARATE!!!

Colleen Bianchi
Karla Folstad

Have you read the INFORMA report? Have you checked out the Ag session? Are you aware that farmers in other parts of this world are making their "needs" known in their countries? It's time to be informing your MP and the AG minister and Hon. Mr. Harper how you feel about the grain industry! Start writing and phoning - the contact information is here on the site in the links. USE YOUR VOICE! People have died to give us this right.

Canada's Wheat Cult

November 24, 2008 -- On Friday, Larry Hill, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) chairman, told the National Farmers Union -- a leftist farm organization -- that "there's a guarantee that a Canadian Wheat Board cheque is going to be good, and in uncertain times it's not an insignificant guarantee."

That wheat board cheque is also going to be about $18,000 a year less per farmer than American grain companies would have paid for the same crops, but at least it's guaranteed. Yep, that's a significant comfort to farmers, I'm sure.

The $18,000 figure comes from a C. D. Howe Institute study released last week showing that over the past three years, the CWB was paying Western farmers up to $40 a tonne less than what comparable American farmers were being paid by private grain companies.

The board, of course, disputes the findings. It says the institute was not making an "apples to apples" comparison, that it no longer runs the marketing program examined (although it still runs an almost identical one) and that it is unfair to compare the prices it obtains for grain to American prices.

It neglected to say which nation's prices would make a suitable comparison, but one supposes the board would prefer Canada-to-Vietnam evaluations or Canada-to-Zimbabwe, perhaps.

The board is never happy with outside examinations of its practices. That's because almost no outside study of the CWB ever finds that it does producers much good. Indeed, nearly all external studies of the board's practices and results have been critical.

The only studies that ever please board executives and their supporters seem to be internal ones, because they alone agree with the blind-faith belief that only if Western wheat and barley farmers market their crops collectively through the board will they obtain the highest returns.

Shortly after I started covering the board in the mid-1990s, a Saskatchewan economist produced a report saying the CWB often obtained higher prices for farmers than they would have been able to achieve acting on their own. They liked that one. Of course, they had paid for it and let the economist look at their books only from periods they had carefully selected.

The surprise would have been if his findings had not pleased them.

And the 2002 Auditor-General's report pleased them. Admittedly, Sheila Fraser's investigation found the CWB to be one of the weakest-managed Crown corporations her office had ever examined. Still, she proclaimed its books to be tidily kept and the CWB to have a good reputation internationally.

Of course, she was prevented from examining whether the board's grain deals returned more for farmers, or less, but never mind that trivial detail.

In the late 1990s, when two respected historians found that granting the board a monopsony over Western grain was always about controlling inflation and grain exports and never about maximizing returns for farmers, the board denounced them as revisionists.

Two years ago, the George Morris Centre, an independent agricultural think-tank based in Guelph, Ont., showed that value-added grain industries in the West "lagged the U. S. and Ontario" to the tune of $3-billion and 12,500 jobs in under a decade. Why? Because the wheat board forbids grain growers to sell directly to pasta companies, flour mills or factory backers. It makes them sell through the board at an exorbitant premium; a premium so high it makes the establishment of many value-added businesses uneconomical in the West.

In response, the board charged the George Morris Centre had used flawed economic models.

Earlier this year, Informa Economics, a highly regarded agricultural market analysis firm, examined CWB sales over the past 20 years and found the board controlled too small a percentage of world wheat or barley volume to exert upward pressure on prices. Indeed, the study found that over the past five years, the board's inefficient marketing practices had cost Western farmers $3-billion.

The board scoffed that these results could not be relied on because they had been bought and paid for by --cringe-- Alberta's government.

The CWB has become as much an economic cult as a Crown marketing agency. So it is never going to admit it is a drag on farmers or the West. But at some point taxpayers have to wake up to the fact that they are subsidizing Western farmers to the tune of $1-billion or more a year and they wouldn't have to if the federal government would simply make marketing grain through the board optional, rather than compulsory.

Congratulations Minister Ritz

.....on your reelection and keeping your position in Agriculture and the CWB.

We appreciate your work in the past and we hope that we will be allowed the 'freedom of marketing' as western producers wish in the near future.

Especially with this week being a time all of Canada remembrances and is thankful of all of our soldiers have fought for!!!! These people have fought and protected this country for FREEDOM.... freedom that most Canadians do not realize how important it is.

Freedom to market our grain the way we wish as other products are marketed in this country. Freedom to be able to vote on who will govern "us", and people do not seem to understand that men have died and fight so we can vote. So many Canadians never even took the time to vote this last month in the federal election.

IF farmers want choice in marketing then all voters should be marking their ballots and mailing them in for the CWB election. If you DO NOT vote then you deserve not getting a choice in marketing.

Congratulations to David Anderson on keeping on with the CWB file. We realize the hard work you have put into this file. We THANK YOU, Sir.

VOTE FARMERS!!!!

Surface Rights Board Ruling

The Alberta Surface Rights Board ruling in favour of annual compensation on pipelines, and the reasons why the board ruled in our favour can be accessed by clicking here.

A Pittance of Time

On November 11, 1999 Terry Kelly was in a drug store in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. At 10:55 AM an announcement came over the store’s PA asking customers who would still be on the premises at 11:00 AM to give two minutes of silence in respect to the veterans who have sacrificed so much for us.

Terry was impressed with the store’s leadership role in adopting the Legion’s “two minutes of silence” initiative. He felt that the store’s contribution of educating the public to the importance of remembering was commendable.

When eleven o’clock arrived on that day, an announcement was again made asking for the “two minutes of silence” to commence. All customers, with the exception of a man who was accompanied by his young child, showed their respect.

Terry’s anger towards the father for trying to engage the store’s clerk in conversation and for setting a bad example for his child was channeled into a beautiful piece of work called, “A Pittance of Time”.

A Pittance of Time
Written by Terry Kelly
Published by Jefter Publishing

They fought and some died for their homeland
They fought and some died now it’s our land
Look at his little child, there’s no fear in her eyes
Could he not show respect for other dads who have died?

Take two minutes, would you mind?
It’s a pittance of time
For the boys and the girls who went over
In peace may they rest, may we never forget why they died.
It’s a pittance of time

God forgive me for wanting to strike him
Give me strength so as not to be like him
My heart pounds in my breast, fingers pressed to my lips
My throat wants to bawl out, my tongue barely resists

But two minutes I will bide
It’s a pittance of time
For the boys and the girls who went over
In peace may they rest, may we never forget why they died.
It’s a pittance of time

Read the letters and poems of the heroes at home
They have casualties, battles, and fears of their own
There’s a price to be paid if you go, if you stay
Freedom is fought for and won in numerous ways

Take two minutes would you mind?
It’s a pittance of time
For the boys and the girls all over
May we never forget our young become vets
At the end of the line it’s a pittance of time

It takes courage to fight in your own war
It takes courage to fight someone else’s war
Our peacekeepers tell of their own living hell
They bring hope to foreign lands that the hatemongers can’t kill.

Take two minutes, would you mind?
It’s a pittance of time
For the boys and the girls who go over
In peacetime our best still don battle dress
And lay their lives on the line.
It’s a pittance of time

In Peace may they rest, lest we forget why they died.
Take a pittance of time

MNP Announces Candidates for 2008 CWB Director Elections

October 21, 2008 -- A total of 19 candidates have been officially nominated to stand for election to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) board of directors, according to Meyers Norris Penny LLP (MNP), the election coordinator for the CWB director elections. The deadline for submitting nominations was 6 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT), October 20, 2008.

"There has been strong interest shown for running for a seat on the CWB board," said Ian Craven, 2008 election coordinator with MNP. "Each of the five districts has at least two candidates running, and two districts have five candidates nominated."

The list of nominated candidates by district is:

District	Name	Phone	Email
2	Jeff Nielsen	403-556-3035	Click here
2	Gerald Pilger	780-672-4394	Click here

4	Sam Magnus	306-372-4615	Click here
4	Walter Suntjens	403-779-2212	Click here
4	Bill Woods	306-962-4477	Click here

6	Wayne Bacon	306-864-3278	Click here
6	Cameron Goff	306-544-2790	Click here
6	Gerrid Gust	306-567-2152	Click here
6	Doyle Wiebe	306-283-4340	Click here

8	Paul Beingessner	306-868-4734	Click here
8	Rod Flaman	306-771-2823	Click here
8	Phil Lewis	306-693-2152	Click here
8	Lonny McKague	306-459-2788	Click here
8	David Schnell	306-577-2511	Click here

10	Rolf Penner	204-746-8236	Click here
10	Barry Riemer	204-523-7256	Click here
10	Curtis Sims	204-685-2237	Click here
10	Bill Toews	204-343-2002	Click here
10	Harvey Vaags	204-853-2073	Click here

Craven said voters’ packages will be mailed out to eligible voters on October 29, 2008. The package includes voting instructions, detailed biographies and policy statements of the candidates in that district, a preferential ballot and an official postage-paid return envelope.

Producers who delivered wheat or barley to the CWB this year or last are automatically on the voters’ list. Other farmers can establish their eligibility to vote by submitting a completed “Application to Vote” form with supporting documentation before November 14, 2008. As in previous CWB elections, producers can provide a statutory declaration as supporting documentation. Alternatively, a new option for this year is that a crop-insurance contract number, grain delivery receipt or cash ticket can accompany the form to validate eligibility in place of a statutory declaration.

All completed ballots must be postmarked no later than November 28, 2008. Election results will be announced December 7, 2008.

To obtain detailed information on the election process, including voter eligibility, regulations and voting districts, please visit the website at www.cwbelection.com, call the toll-free number at 1.877.500.0795 or send an e-mail to questions@cwbelection.com.

About MNP
MNP is the seventh largest chartered accountancy and business advisory firm in Canada and provides world-class expertise, in-depth knowledge and personalized service on a full range of assurance, taxation, business and agriculture advisory services. Service to agriculture and agribusiness has been a focal point of MNP’s business philosophy since its beginnings in 1945.

NDP MP Pat Martin says the Conservatives failure to secure a majority government and the economic downturn should mean the pressure will come off the Canadian Wheat Board.

“I believe the Conservatives did not get a mandate to kill the Canadian Wheat Board,” Martin said today, at an unrelated press conference on Parliament Hill.

“Canadians will push back if they try.”

Martin also said given the current state of the Canadian economy, tinkering with the Wheat Board wouldn’t be a good idea.

In a time of economic crisis the last thing you want to do is turn orderly marketing of commodities upside down and on its head.”

The Wheat Board’s monopoly on prairie wheat and barley sales received very little attention during the campaign.

However as soon as the election was over lobby groups in favour of opening up barley marketing in the prairies immediately called on the Conservative government to implement the election promise Stephen Harper made in 2006.

Many cited the fact the Conservatives won almost all the rural seats in the prairies where wheat and barley are grown as evidence of the backing for eliminating the Wheat Board.

Legislation introduced last year to end the monopoly on barley sales was never brought up for debate by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and died on the order paper. Currently the government is fighting a court challenge against its regulatory change restricting the voters list in Wheat Board director elections to farmers who produce a minimum amount of grain.

Pro-Wheat Board supporters say that removes 16,000 people from the voters’ list.

A federal judge in Winnipeg earlier this week reserved a decision in the case.

Elections are already underway for five of the Wheat Board’s director seats. If enough directors are elected who want to open up marketing, the board could vote to do it on its own and the government would not have to pass its legislation.

Before the current elections, the pro-monopoly wheat board directors outnumbered the anti-monopoly directors by just one vote.

Martin said if the government reintroduces its legislation, he is doubtful Harper would make it an issue of confidence in order to help it pass.

In the last Parliament, a number of bills the Conservatives knew would not pass easily were hit with a confidence label, which meant if the opposition parties voted against them there would be an election. The Liberal party abstained from more than three dozen votes in order to prevent that from happening.

But Harper himself has said he is tired of elections and Canadians surely would be unhappy at any party that caused another one to happen soon. It means the confidence vote tactic likely will not appear as often if at all in the near future.

“My prediction is you’re going to see a kinder gentler Prime Minister,” said Martin. “I don’t think he is going to push the envelope on controversial areas in this next short minority government.”

Triggering an election over the Wheat Board would also be unwise, says Martin, noting it is an issue that only directly affects the prairies.

“Making the Wheat Board a confidence matter, most Canadians wouldn’t get that,” said Martin. “I can’t imagine Harper trying to trigger an election based on how barley is marketed around the world.”

Argentine Farmers Strike

We are closely watching this situation and have grouped the articles on one page.

Last Update: Sept. 2

Gerrid Gust ready to change CWB from within

Gerrid Gust of Davidson, SK announced today he is running to be the Canadian Wheat Board director in district 6 Director in this fall’s CWB director elections.

“It’s time to end the CWB monopoly and build a strong voluntary CWB,” says Gust. “The Federal Conservatives, and the provincial governments of three of the four designated area provinces all support marketing choice. The CWB’s own survey results show that most farmers want marketing choice for both wheat and barley. The 2007 barley plebiscite demonstrated that 62% of farmers wanted to end the CWB monopoly powers. It’s time for new leadership around the CWB board table.”

Gust and his wife Monica and their three children farm, with Gerrid’s family in the Davidson district. They grow a variety of crops including Board crops red lentils, yellow peas, and IP canola. They also have a cow/calf operation.

Gerrid, age 32 graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with a Diploma in Agriculture in 1998 with a focus on crop production and marketing.

Gerrid is active in his community. He was the Vice President of Prairie Diamond Credit Union, before a merger with Affinity Credit Union. He is the current delegate for Davidson to Affinity C.U. As a Member of the Davidson Kinsmen Club, he served on the Telemiracle 32 corporate committee. For the past 3 years, he has also been a Director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and currently serves as its Secretary / Treasurer.

Gust is clear when asked what his vision is for the Canadian Wheat Board.

“I want a CWB that will become the marketing arm of choice for all farmers, yet not have farmers be compelled by law to do business with us if they don’t wish “I feel strongly about building a voluntary CWB that can earn the business of farmers in a competitive marketplace.

Gust has a keen interest in improving board governance, and believes his board experience will serve him well as a director of the CWB. His experiences of lobbying both federally and provincially as well as presenting to various farm audiences have given Gerrid the knowledge and back ground to stay on course, and not change his position once around the board table.

“Gerrid Gust – your choice for marketing freedom in district 6”

Curtis Sims Announces Candidacy

A MacGregor area farmer who says he believes the Canadian Wheat Board should give up its marketing monopoly has declared his candidacy as a CWB director for Manitoba.

Curtis Sims joins two other farmers seeking a four-year term for District 10, which covers the eastern grain growing areas of the province, in this fall's CWB elections. Morris farmer Rolf Penner and incumbent Bill Toews of Kane have already announced their intentions to run.

"I am convinced that a true marketing choice environment will best serve farmers, customers and the western Canadian economy," Sims said in a statement Thursday.

"My goal will be to help turn the CWB into a successful marketing tool for farmers, competing effectively in an open market."

Sims has a commerce degree from the U of M and has served as a delegate to numerous grain and farm organizations, including Manitoba Pool Elevators, United Grain Growers, Agricore United and Keystone Agricultural Producers. In the early 1980s, he was president of the Manitoba Farm Business Association. He also served for three years as a panel member of the federal Farm Debt Review Board.

He received the Outstanding Young Farmers Award for Manitoba in 1991.

CWB Backers Sue over Shrinking Voters List

A group of Canadian Wheat Board supporters is suing the Harper government again, claiming this time that it illegally ordered the removal of an untold number of farmers from this fall's CWB election voters' list.

The Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board Thursday filed papers in Federal Court in Winnipeg to force the reinstatement of the farmer voters, who hold CWB permit books but have not sold grain through the board in the last 15 months.

"It's not legal in the Canadian Wheat Board Act to cut these people off the voters' list. We think we can't ignore it," said Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union and a Friends spokesman.

"Canadians would be out there demonstrating in the streets if Harper was trying to take away their right to vote in the general election the way he's trying to take away farmers' rights in this wheat board election," he said Thursday.

Director elections are being held this fall in five of 10 CWB districts. Ballots will be mailed to farmers in the coming months. Elected farmers control 10 of 15 seats on the CWB board of directors. The rest are federal appointees.

Last week, the Friends sued the federal government for making what the group called a "discriminatory" and "illegal" change to CWB election-financing rules. The lawsuit followed a federal decision to remove spending limits on third-party intervenors.

The CWB director vote is critical to the future of the Winnipeg-based grain seller as only a slim majority of directors support the board's monopoly on wheat and barley sales. The Harper government wanted to remove the CWB monopoly, but was unable to because it had a minority of seats in the House of Commons.

Two years ago, when director elections were last held, Chuck Strahl, then the wheat board minister, removing about 16,000 voters from the list -- also because they had not delivered grain to the board for more than a year. Critics then said that many farmers had been unable to deliver grain because their crops had been ruined by frost or overland flooding.

Wheat board supporters have learned that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz issued a similar edict for this fall's CWB election in a letter to the wheat board dated July 23, Wells said.

A wheat board spokeswoman refused to confirm or deny the receipt of such a letter, saying it could be construed as influencing the CWB vote.

Ritz was unavailable for comment.

The CWB director elections are managed by a third party, the accounting and business consultancy firm Meyers Norris Penny, but the wheat board provides the company with a list of eligible voters. A spokesman for MNP said the initial voters list contained close to 30,000 voters in this year's five election districts.

There are provisions for eligible voters who are not on the list to obtain ballots, but the Friends are worried that many won't bother to go through the effort, which would include supplying evidence of grain sales or a crop insurance contract.

Wells charged that the government is discriminating against eligible voters while marketing-choice supporters "dig up every anti-wheat board person who has ever grown any kind of grain to get a ballot in their hands."

David Schnell of Lampman runs in District 8

September 11, 2008 -- "Giving farmers more opportunities to add value to their grain is one of the main reasons David Schnell of Lampman has decided to run to be a Canadian Wheat Board director in this fall’s CWB election.

“I think farmers deserve to have more opportunities to sell their grain. They should have the opportunity to sell it without going through the CWB, or they should have the opportunity to sell it to the CWB – they should have the right to choose what’s best for their farm,” says Schnell.

David and Kathy Schnell started farming in the Lampman area in southeast Saskatchewan in 1965. They gradually expanded their farm to 8500 acres. After a farm accident in 2006 they downsized their farm to 1600 acres. They have three children, Bartley, Nannette and Melanie, all of whom reside in Regina.

David was the chairman of Prairie Pasta Producers from 1998 to 2000. Prairie Pasta consisted of a group of farmers who attempted to build a pasta plant in Southeast Saskatchewan, as a way of creating value added opportunities for farmers.

“This was the right thing to do for our local farms and the CWB made it impossible. I believe we should have the choice to add value to our grain,” says Schnell.

David has been the Chairman of the Southeast Transportation Planning Committee since 1998, which represents 27 rural municipalities in the southeast area of the province. David served as the Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Browning from January 1988 to December 2007. He also served as the president of the Southeast Saskatchewan Rural Municipality Association from 1995-2000.

In 2006 David was a recipient of the Saskatchewan Centennial Medal. David received a Saskatchewan Municipal Award in 2007 for community leadership in providing a primary weight corridor linking Highway 39 to Highway 9. David was chosen as Farmer of the Year by the Estevan Chamber of Commerce in 1995.

Over the years David has been involved in many community organizations. Some of these include board member of the Lampman Community Health Centre, a volunteer ambulance driver, a member of the Lions Club and he currently remains a member of the Knights of Columbus.

David is running in district 8 in this fall’s CWB election. This district includes Weyburn, Estevan, Moose Jaw, Rockglen, Assiniboia, Broadview, Kipling, Arcola, and all points in between. All producers who haul grain to the CWB will automatically receive a ballot for the election. All others who grow grain but don’t haul to the CWB are eligible to vote but must go to www.cwbelection.com and fill out an application to vote.

Canadian Wheat Board 2008 election of directors

September 2, 2008 -- The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) 2008 election of directors begins today, chartered accounting and business advisory firm Meyers Norris Penny LLP (MNP) has announced. Nominations for candidates for election to the CWB board of directors will be accepted starting today until 6 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT) on October 20, 2008.

Elections are held in five of the 10 CWB electoral districts every two years, ensuring continuity on the board of directors. For 2008, producers will elect a member from each of CWB Districts 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10, to a four-year-term expiring December 2012.

“Prairie grain farmers who are interested in being a member of the CWB board of directors should seriously consider becoming a candidate,” said Ian Craven, the 2008 election coordinator with MNP. “Becoming a director provides producers with an opportunity to influence the future direction of the CWB on behalf of farmers.”

To become a candidate, a person must be: (1) a Canadian citizen; (2) 18 years of age or older as of the nomination filing date; and (3) be named in a permit book as an actual producer or be a shareholder in a corporation, a member of a co-operative or a partner in a partnership that is named as an actual producer. A person may become a candidate in an electoral district in which he or she is registered as an actual producer or in an adjacent electoral district.

A comprehensive candidate information package will be sent to all potential nominees. For detailed information about the election process, regulations and voting districts, potential candidates are encouraged to visit the election website at cwbelection.com, or call the toll-free election information line at 1.877.500.0795. Questions may also be emailed to: questions@cwbelection.com

The key dates are as follows:

September 2, 2008 - Election period begins and nominations open
October 20, 2008 - Nominations close at 6 p.m. CDT
November 14, 2008 - Deadline for Application to Vote at 5 p.m. CT
November 28, 2008 - End of election period and ballot postmark deadline
December 7, 2008 - Election results announced
December 31, 2008 - Elected directors take office

Rolf Penner running in Manitoba CWB elections

August 28, 2008 -- Rolf Penner of Morris, MB announces today that he is seeking election as the Canadian Wheat Board director in district 10 in this fall’s farmer elections.

Rolf is determined to bring a new direction and greater accountability to the CWB board of directors. He believes farmers will be better served by a voluntary CWB operating in a competitive market.

“I stand for marketing choice,” says Penner. “I believe that with the right leadership and direction, farmers can have a strong, viable CWB as one of many marketing options.”

Rolf Penner, age 41, operates an 1900 acre grain farm and hog operation with his family at Morris, MB. He has been a frequent commentator on agricultural policy issues as the former Agricultural Policy Fellow of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and most recently as the Manitoba Vice President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. Rolf has a diploma in Agriculture from the University of Manitoba.

Rolf brings a strong desire for improved financial accountability and stronger marketing performance from the CWB. He believes that introducing competition and a “can-do” attitude around the board table will help re-position the CWB as a successful marketer of your grain.

“Farmers need a board of directors with a positive, forward-looking attitude,” says Penner. “I believe I have the skills that can help transform the CWB into a marketing tool that works for you.”

Olds Area Farmer Jeff Nielsen Runs in CWB Election

July 31, 2008 -- Olds area farmer Jeff Nielsen announced today he will run for director of district 2 in the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB's) fall elections. Nielsen will run on the platform that marketing choice can and will work for farmers - and for the CWB.

"Marketing choice is a goal of mine not just for district 2 but for all of western Canadian wheat and barley producers," says Nielsen. "I have been encouraged by many of my farmer colleagues to run for the CWB director position and I look forward to the opportunity to serve the farmers of district 2."

Nielsen adds: "I personally support more choice for farmers and if elected I will work hard at the board table to achieve that objective while also preserving the CWB. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can continue to be a successful marketing alternative, just as the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board (OWPMB) is for Ontario producers, even though the OWPMB doesn't have monopoly powers.

"It is time to move forward and I will bring my experience to the CWB board table in advocating for policies and programs that will achieve marketing choice while also preserving principles of the CWB, like pooling, for the benefit those producers who want that option."

In his years as director of both United Grain Growers and Agricore United, Nielsen worked with proactive farm leaders to represent the needs of farmers in district 2. If elected, he will continue to represent them.

Nielsen operates J. E. Nielsen Farms Inc., a 1,350-acre grain and oilseed farm near Olds, Alberta and is currently the president of the Western Barley Growers Association. He has also been on numerous trade missions to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, promoting more trade liberalization to provide the grains, oilseed, pulses, pork and beef producer's better market access and returns.

What the CWB is Doing for YOU!!
Based on a 1500 acre farm in the Killarney area

Canadian Farmer price under CWB marketing				Prices as of Jan. 9/08
Crop	Yield	Total Bushels	x CWB Pro	Total
500 ac Canola	30	15,000	$11.00	$165,000
300 ac Winter Wheat	60	18,000	$6.83	$122,940
400 ac Red Spring	38	15,200	$7.51	$114,152
300 ac Barley Malt	70	21,000	$4.07	$85,470
Gross Income				$487,562

**Possibility of getting LESS than CWB Pro is likely.

Canadian Farmer price without CWB marketing				Prices as of Jan. 9/08
Crop	Yield	Total Bushels	x CWB Pro	Total
500 ac Canola	30	15,000	$11.00	$165,000
300 ac Winter Wheat	60	18,000	$9.73	$175,140
400 ac Red Spring	38	15,200	$10.23	$155,496
300 ac Barley Malt	70	21,000	$6.00	$126,000
Gross Income				$621,636

**CANOLA price is the same on both sides of the border without CWB control

US price is based on BTR Farmer's Elevator, ND and Bottineau Elevator, ND. These are all within a 90 mile radius of Killarney. There are no US subsidies included in these prices. Grain prices as of January 9, 2008.

Loss of income with CWB marketing: $134,074

"Thank you, CWB, for what YOU think is a "great" job of marketing our grain." - A Canadian Farmer

Contact Your Local Member of Parliament

For more archived news, please visit