Here we go again.... on the subject of the Canadian Wheat Board. As Ottawa and the new Parliament settle in, Bill-C-300 is rapidly focusing the attentions of farmers across Canada.
Keeping us all up to date is Wendy Holm on her website:
http://.www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html
Juicy items to watch for include the latest from the Hansard re questions in the House and the latest meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Also on the menu are letters from farm organizations as they spread the alarm far and wide. Rural Conservative MP's and the Minister need to take note. This issue strikes to the very core of the strongly held beliefs about the need for market power for farmers, as they battle to swim against the likes of enormous multinationals. -cg
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 052
CONTENTS
Monday, September 25, 2006
ORAL QUESTIONS
Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is under attack. The minister has begun the systematic destruction of an internationally recognized Canadian success story. His parliamentary secretary has already told farmers it is their right to have a vote, but “the final decision will be made by the minister”. The legislation clearly states that changes to the structure of the Board must be approved by the farmers.
Will the minister allow the 85,000 farmers, who use the Wheat Board, to vote on its future, or does he intend to break the law?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting time for prairie farmers who know they have a government on this side of the House that finally believes they should maximize their returns and maximize their choice.
We are moving ahead, as promised during the election campaign. We are moving ahead with consultations with farmers. I appointed a task force last week that will give us some of the technical details on what a voluntary but strong Wheat Board will look like going forward. I look forward to the report in a month or so.
We will continue to make changes to ensure that farmers get the most they can from their production.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP has uncovered documents that prove this so-called support is nothing more than professional spin doctors from the disgraced Devine government posing as farmers.
In this email, from Charlton Communications to three anti-Wheat Board lobby groups, it says that having farmers sign letters they write would “get us into the propaganda game”. The email was also copied to a current member of the minister's Wheat Board killing task force.
Is the minister aware of this campaign? Is his department paying for it? What is he going to do to stop it?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I do not have the faintest idea what the hon. member is talking about. It is not the first time that I do not have the faintest idea what members of the NDP are talking about. However, in this case, I really do not know to which campaign the hon. member is referring.
I do know that farmers from coast to coast, particularly on the prairies on this issue, have said that they want to receive more value from their farms and they want to have more choice.
Maximizing the choice and maximizing return for farmers comes about in part by having a voluntary marketing choice Wheat Board, something that farmers can choose to use, but are not compelled to use.
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 054
CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
ORAL QUESTIONS
Agriculture
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food attempted to deny knowledge of a fake letter-writing propaganda campaign on behalf of government and government MPs for the purpose of undermining the Canadian Wheat Board.
Will the minister come clean today and inform the House of which government MPs and officials and whether he or his parliamentary secretary were involved in this blatant and unscrupulous effort to manipulate public opinion and, in the process, violate the laws of Canada?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member for Malpeque up on his hind legs talking about agriculture, sort of.
As I told the member the other day, no one on this side of the House has a clue what they are talking about over there. No one over here has ever approached any company to write letters.
Farmers are able to get their point across to governments and members of Parliament. I encourage them to do that. Farmers do not need a consultant to do that.
On this side of the House we are listening. Farmers can be assured after 13 years of being ignored that this side of the House is paying attention to what they are saying.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, grain producers will not be impressed by that answer.
My question is for the acting prime minister. This minister, adding to yesterday's $20 million cut, is proposing to undermine the Wheat Board which will reduce collectively western grain incomes by $265 million a year. It is another attack on Canadian farmers.
Worse is using fake letters, manipulating the media, stacked government task forces and circumventing the laws of Canada. Is this the Prime Minister's definition of ethics and democracy?
Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member could say that without wearing his tinfoil hat on a grassy knoll.
What we do know is that this government has not cut $20 million. The government has added $1.5 billion to the agriculture department.
The government continues to work with farmers to make sure the programming that was brought in by the Liberal government, such as an improperly brought in CAIS program, lack of a green cover crop program, lack of facilities for farmers from coast to coast in science and technology; after 13 years of neglect, finally this side of the House, this new government is getting the job done for farmers, notwithstanding the scare tactics of the member opposite.
Return to CWB under attack page.
Return to The Holm Team home page.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Spinach & Walkerton??
The latest Food Scare is screaming across the headlines this week. If you Google 'contaminated spinach' over 4000 entries come up, most form the last week! The headlines are not destined to make anyone comfortable about their salad greens.
Contaminated spinach found in victim's fridge
Health Authorities Warn Americans Not to Eat Contaminated Spinach
Spinach being pulled from shelves due to E.coli
Spinach pulled after E. coli outbreak
Eat your spinach?
More Cases of Contaminated Spinach Reported Across Country
I was lunching with friends and the 'big scare" came up as we were considering salads. The waitress actually recommended that we not order the spinach salad on the menu. When we asked if they imported their produce from the US, she said 'No, but better safe than sorry!' So if Canadian producers have been selling to restaurants, you can bet they are seeing a problem with sales.
I was finally relieved to see :
Don't eat fresh spinach imported from U.S.
But this CBC story ( see CBC News ) didn't show up among all the clutter. Obviously the news hadn't filtered down to our waitress! Since E. coli 0157 was also the cause of the Walkerton water disaster (and look where that led!) it is mentioned in this story as well. Just try the CBC search for stories under " E. Coli". Many results come up but you do NOT have to read very far to find the words Walkerton..... it will haunt agriculture for years.
And then this article:
Coli Toll: 146 in 23 States: 76 victims are hospitalized
(See CBC News )
There is an untold story here. Our vegetable growers & their organizations should have had some sort of 'crisis management' material prepared. More and more, stories about contaminated fruits and vegetables, once unheard of, are hitting the media. Many are sourced out of Canada. Consumers do not know what or if our fruit and vegetable growers are doing anything to protect their customers. Many do not even realize that even 'in season' many places source their 'fresh' products from other countries. By extension, Canadian produce is tarred with the same feathers.
Where are the media advisories from Ontario fruit and veg growers to help educate the public? Why not keep making the distinction between local (Ontario) and imported (bad)? Canada and Ontario do have different rules and regulations vis a vie our foods than our neighbours to the south.
All this, is the best reason ever, that agriculture MUST remain proactive about their food safety and quality initiatives. Bravo, for those that have done something. Shame, for those who have not. They risk all your futures.
Contaminated spinach found in victim's fridge
Health Authorities Warn Americans Not to Eat Contaminated Spinach
Spinach being pulled from shelves due to E.coli
Spinach pulled after E. coli outbreak
Eat your spinach?
More Cases of Contaminated Spinach Reported Across Country
I was lunching with friends and the 'big scare" came up as we were considering salads. The waitress actually recommended that we not order the spinach salad on the menu. When we asked if they imported their produce from the US, she said 'No, but better safe than sorry!' So if Canadian producers have been selling to restaurants, you can bet they are seeing a problem with sales.
I was finally relieved to see :
Don't eat fresh spinach imported from U.S.
But this CBC story ( see CBC News ) didn't show up among all the clutter. Obviously the news hadn't filtered down to our waitress! Since E. coli 0157 was also the cause of the Walkerton water disaster (and look where that led!) it is mentioned in this story as well. Just try the CBC search for stories under " E. Coli". Many results come up but you do NOT have to read very far to find the words Walkerton..... it will haunt agriculture for years.
And then this article:
Coli Toll: 146 in 23 States: 76 victims are hospitalized
(See CBC News )
There is an untold story here. Our vegetable growers & their organizations should have had some sort of 'crisis management' material prepared. More and more, stories about contaminated fruits and vegetables, once unheard of, are hitting the media. Many are sourced out of Canada. Consumers do not know what or if our fruit and vegetable growers are doing anything to protect their customers. Many do not even realize that even 'in season' many places source their 'fresh' products from other countries. By extension, Canadian produce is tarred with the same feathers.
Where are the media advisories from Ontario fruit and veg growers to help educate the public? Why not keep making the distinction between local (Ontario) and imported (bad)? Canada and Ontario do have different rules and regulations vis a vie our foods than our neighbours to the south.
All this, is the best reason ever, that agriculture MUST remain proactive about their food safety and quality initiatives. Bravo, for those that have done something. Shame, for those who have not. They risk all your futures.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
More Canadian Wheat Board.....
In the dog days of summer... the discussion on the fate of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has started to really heat up. Champion of farmers rights, agrologist Wendy Holm has given up much to save us from ourselves(?). Understanding your legislative rights and legalities is imperative for farmers.
In the year 2006 I am blown away by the belief of some farmers that they can go it alone and win. With all the staggering blows from other countries re BSE, trade, etc. and the control exerted by huge companies like Cargill and ADM, in this day of cries for COP for grains and oilseeds, it is mind boggling to see the responses from farmers who should know better!!
I am posting Ms. Holm's most recent call for action for all to see AND think about.-cg
I am posting Ms. Holm's most recent call for action for all to see AND think about.-cg
Help Stop the Murder of the Cdn Wheat Board
AS AN AGROLOGIST, I BELIEVE THIS TO BE AN URGENT PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITY FOR CANADA.
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS SAID IT WILL ACT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CWB ACT.
THIS WILL DESTROY THE CANADIAN WHEATBOARD,TRANSFERRING $800 MILLION A YEAR FROM CANADIAN FARMERS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGE TRANSNATIONAL GRAIN COMPANIESAND THEIR SHAREHOLDERS .
IT IS TIME FOR CANADIANS TO COME TOGETHER IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS .
It contains:
PDF's
* The Canadian Wheat Board Under Attack - WHY YOU SHOULD CARE!
* One page briefing on Bill C-300
* Factors behind the impending death of the Canadian Wheat Board
* The big fib. Opinion. Page 6. Sept 06, Central Alberta Farmer.
* Safety Nets, CWB a matter of public trust. Opinion, Apr 13, 06, The Western Producer.
* Code for disaster, part two. Opinion, Mar 9, 06, The Western Producer.
* Dual desk is code for disaster. Opinion, Feb 9, 06, The Western Producer.
SCHEMATIC - WHERE THE DUAL-DESK PRESSURE IS COMING FROM
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
BACKGROUND:
What is the Canadian Wheat Board?
The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is a farmer-controlled organization that markets wheat and barley grown by western Canadian producers. Based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the CWB is the largest single seller of wheat and barley in the world, holding more than 20 per cent of the international market.As every respected farm economist who has studied it has affirmed, the Canadian Wheat Board is a well-designed and sustainable policy mechanism that delivers price equity to Canadian grain growers -equity that amounts to over $800 million a year in benefits to Prairie communities.
It is also overwhelmingly supported by Canada's grain growers.
BILL C-300
This fall, Bill C-300, An Act to Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, will come before the House of Commons for Second Reading. Under the banner of "freedom of choice", this Bill, if passed, will destroy the one desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, the only leverage standing between prairie grain farmers and the market power of the highly concentrated transnational grain sector.
American grain interests have been gunning for the CWB for over 20 years, yet Canada has won every trade challenge. We should be touting the CWB model for farmers in other countries to emulate.
Instead, Bill C-300 would wipe it off the table, and with it, the future of Canadian agriculture.Seemingly innocuous, Bill C-300 purports to simply offer growers "choice" in the marketing of their wheat. When introduced in the House, it will be couched in terms such as "grower choice" and "support for bio-fuels development". And supportive of a strong CWB.
Make no mistake. Bill C-300 will destroy the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, opening the door to take-over of Canada's grain sector by powerful, transnational grain conglomerates.
What this is and isn't about.
This issue is not about debating the merits of the CWB. Surely we must agree that farmers in a given commodity sector know what is working best for their sector. The Canadian Wheat Board has withstood challenges under both the WTO and NAFTA and has emerged intact.
Despite this, Ottawa is poised to destroy it, and in so doing turn Canada's grain sector over to powerful, US based transnationals...
Ottawa prepared to act in contravention of CWB ActSection 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act expressly forbids the Minister to change the act without a prior referendum in support of such changes by the growers. Chuck Strahl and his new government says that doesn't matter. It matters to farmers. It matters to this Agrologist.
Implications for Suppy Management:
If this can happen to the Canadian Wheat Board, it can happen to supply management. Both stand between concentrated market players and the price-spreads they can capture if they can only diminish farmer pricing power in the marketplace.
Destroying the independence and sustainability of Canada's grain, dairy, poultry and egg farmers will destroy the fabric of Canada's farm sector, and with it all hope of food security and food sovereignty.
Defeat Bill C-300 this fall.
It is time to stop this train in its tracks. Bill C-300 is bad for Canada and must be defeated in the House this fall.
HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Send an email to your MP** explaining to her/him why it is important that they defeat Bill C-300 and refer them to the web site
2. Copy it to MP Chuck Strahl at Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
3. Copy it also to Stephen Harper at Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
This is the hill to die on. Unless Bill C-300 and the intent behind it is defeated, Canadian agriculture as we know it will disappear.
Take the time to send an email Please.
Wendy
** Don't know your MP's email? Get it at
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca________________________________________________
WENDY R. HOLM, P.AG. THE HOLM TEAM Economist, Agrologist, WriterAgriculture. Economics. Policy. International Co-operationphone: (604) 947-2893 fax: (604) 947-2321
Food for Thought for Dairy Farmers
A recent issue of Ontario Dairy Farmer, had a really timely article about consumers and farm family buying habits. Written for the "Vets Corner" by Dr. Rod Weireinga, I was pleased to see this take on things and a veterinarian who cares enough about the dairy industry to do a little 'research' to prove a point. I hope it is taken to heart by all.-cg
Talking to Consumers
When reading Vet’s Corner you are probably expecting to read an article dealing with some emerging or active health concern involving dairy cattle. This one is a little different in that it deals with the health of our industry. The topic of this article stemmed from this past Christmas when I was reminded how disconnected our consumers are from our industry.
We had friends and family over for Christmas dinner this year. Most of our guests were from Toronto and have limited or no exposure to agriculture.
Discussion started to revolve around the “little blue cow” on a package of butter we had in our fridge and how it represented Canadian dairy product. They had seen it in advertising but they had no idea what that little blue cow meant. I was very happy to try my best to explain to them what that cow represents and to further encourage the purchase of Canadian dairy products.
That discussion lead us to circulate a survey at our clinic’s annual dairy information day this past year asking some questions about our client’s knowledge of what was in their fridge. The survey would not be considered to be “properly designed” by a true statistician and the wording of the questions may have encouraged people to give the “right” answer showing support for their industry. Even in spite of this poor survey design, I was surprised how often the “right” answer was not given.
Approximately half of those in attendance (84 surveys returned) took time to answer the questions on the survey in at least some shape or form. There was a very large range of knowledge in regards to dairy product pricing, ingredients and even what brands of dairy products that were in their fridges. It seemed quite clear from the survey that those that listed the brand were also those that most consistently knew the correct price.
The large majority answered that it was important to them to buy Canadian, and that they would choose Ontario Foodland produce over imports and that product choice was not always based on price even if they felt it was of similar quality, however when it came to dairy products the responses to the survey would indicate what they said and how they acted were two very different things. The majority of brands of dairy products purchased by those in attendance were those of companies known not to use Canadian dairy products and others that are not labeling their product with the little cow.
I spent some time in the grocery store that weekend rechecking prices on dairy products. The difference between a local cheese (the only one with the little cow on it in our local grocery store) and the least expensive cheese was only about 10 cents per 100 grams. The local cheese was only 3 cents per 100 grams more expensive than the most commonly purchased cheese. To buy 1 pound of butter with the cow on it was an extra 98 cents. Alright so that seems like a lot, however the average family in our survey was only eating a pound a week.
As for ice cream, the survey would indicate that the most often purchased brands had the least amount of “real” dairy ingredients. One of my clients commented that he is not even sure if he knows what real ice cream tastes like anymore. I was unable to find a little cow on the packaging of any ice cream products in our local grocery store, but it was quite obvious when looking at the list of ingredients which ice creams used real cream or milk. It would cost you an extra $3.00 a week to eat the good stuff if your family ate the average amount reported on our survey.
So what would it cost the average family as reported by our survey to switch totally from the lowest cost dairy products to those branded Canadian, used real dairy ingredient or that was local product in their shopping habits? According to the reported consumption rates in our survey would mean it would cost our average producer’s family an extra $24 in cheese, $156 in ice cream, and $50 in butter a year or about $225/year. Seems like a lot of money?
How much did we lose this year in quota cuts? $225 sure seems cheap. Besides, when friends and family come over you will have a hard time convincing them to support the Canadian dairy industry if you yourself are not.
We all have opportunity to talk to our consumers, friends and even our own families about the importance of supporting our industry. The Canadian Dairy industry is currently looking at new ways to identify our domestic product and ways to promote it. I would encourage all of you who are a part of this great industry to speak up and start promoting it as well.
Comments came back from producers suggesting that it is DFO’s job to promote our industry but we are all the DFO. I think that we as an industry need to take every opportunity to support Canadian agriculture.
Don’t focus on asking for government regulation of imports, focus on buying Canadian products ourselves, educating our consumers on the importance and value of buying Canadian products and demonstrate to processors the need to identify Canadian product.
If we can influence some of our consumers to choose Canadian it will make an appreciable difference to the Canadian dairy economy. It will also send a message to processors that their consumers value Canadian products and encourage them to increase their support of the Canadian dairy industry.
I like to ask my producers what they would think if I told them that I brought my dog to a neighbouring vet clinic to be neutered because it was less expensive or that I felt it was more convenient……….they would laugh me out of their barn.
Should we not feel the same way about supporting non Canadian dairy products as a Canadian dairy industry?
If you are not the one doing the grocery shopping, then consider passing this article on to the one who is.
A healthy industry is as important as healthy cows.
Rod
Talking to Consumers
When reading Vet’s Corner you are probably expecting to read an article dealing with some emerging or active health concern involving dairy cattle. This one is a little different in that it deals with the health of our industry. The topic of this article stemmed from this past Christmas when I was reminded how disconnected our consumers are from our industry.
We had friends and family over for Christmas dinner this year. Most of our guests were from Toronto and have limited or no exposure to agriculture.
Discussion started to revolve around the “little blue cow” on a package of butter we had in our fridge and how it represented Canadian dairy product. They had seen it in advertising but they had no idea what that little blue cow meant. I was very happy to try my best to explain to them what that cow represents and to further encourage the purchase of Canadian dairy products.
That discussion lead us to circulate a survey at our clinic’s annual dairy information day this past year asking some questions about our client’s knowledge of what was in their fridge. The survey would not be considered to be “properly designed” by a true statistician and the wording of the questions may have encouraged people to give the “right” answer showing support for their industry. Even in spite of this poor survey design, I was surprised how often the “right” answer was not given.
Approximately half of those in attendance (84 surveys returned) took time to answer the questions on the survey in at least some shape or form. There was a very large range of knowledge in regards to dairy product pricing, ingredients and even what brands of dairy products that were in their fridges. It seemed quite clear from the survey that those that listed the brand were also those that most consistently knew the correct price.
The large majority answered that it was important to them to buy Canadian, and that they would choose Ontario Foodland produce over imports and that product choice was not always based on price even if they felt it was of similar quality, however when it came to dairy products the responses to the survey would indicate what they said and how they acted were two very different things. The majority of brands of dairy products purchased by those in attendance were those of companies known not to use Canadian dairy products and others that are not labeling their product with the little cow.
I spent some time in the grocery store that weekend rechecking prices on dairy products. The difference between a local cheese (the only one with the little cow on it in our local grocery store) and the least expensive cheese was only about 10 cents per 100 grams. The local cheese was only 3 cents per 100 grams more expensive than the most commonly purchased cheese. To buy 1 pound of butter with the cow on it was an extra 98 cents. Alright so that seems like a lot, however the average family in our survey was only eating a pound a week.
As for ice cream, the survey would indicate that the most often purchased brands had the least amount of “real” dairy ingredients. One of my clients commented that he is not even sure if he knows what real ice cream tastes like anymore. I was unable to find a little cow on the packaging of any ice cream products in our local grocery store, but it was quite obvious when looking at the list of ingredients which ice creams used real cream or milk. It would cost you an extra $3.00 a week to eat the good stuff if your family ate the average amount reported on our survey.
So what would it cost the average family as reported by our survey to switch totally from the lowest cost dairy products to those branded Canadian, used real dairy ingredient or that was local product in their shopping habits? According to the reported consumption rates in our survey would mean it would cost our average producer’s family an extra $24 in cheese, $156 in ice cream, and $50 in butter a year or about $225/year. Seems like a lot of money?
How much did we lose this year in quota cuts? $225 sure seems cheap. Besides, when friends and family come over you will have a hard time convincing them to support the Canadian dairy industry if you yourself are not.
We all have opportunity to talk to our consumers, friends and even our own families about the importance of supporting our industry. The Canadian Dairy industry is currently looking at new ways to identify our domestic product and ways to promote it. I would encourage all of you who are a part of this great industry to speak up and start promoting it as well.
Comments came back from producers suggesting that it is DFO’s job to promote our industry but we are all the DFO. I think that we as an industry need to take every opportunity to support Canadian agriculture.
Don’t focus on asking for government regulation of imports, focus on buying Canadian products ourselves, educating our consumers on the importance and value of buying Canadian products and demonstrate to processors the need to identify Canadian product.
If we can influence some of our consumers to choose Canadian it will make an appreciable difference to the Canadian dairy economy. It will also send a message to processors that their consumers value Canadian products and encourage them to increase their support of the Canadian dairy industry.
I like to ask my producers what they would think if I told them that I brought my dog to a neighbouring vet clinic to be neutered because it was less expensive or that I felt it was more convenient……….they would laugh me out of their barn.
Should we not feel the same way about supporting non Canadian dairy products as a Canadian dairy industry?
If you are not the one doing the grocery shopping, then consider passing this article on to the one who is.
A healthy industry is as important as healthy cows.
Rod
Monday, September 18, 2006
Do Farmers Get it?
Now that you all have taken time to explore the extensive data Wendy Holm has collected, it is time for you all to have the benefit of the chatter from a discussion list that is widely ‘monitored’, by both farmers AND governments!!!
In response to Ms. Holm’s request for action, the emails below appeared on the list:
*********************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
and the next present on George Bush's breakfast tray is the Canadian Wheat Board. (emphasis mine-cg)
(If you don't know why, read The Big Fib http://www.theholmteam.ca/ the_big_fib.pdf)
But farmers can stop that, no?
This IS a minority government, yes?
(for more, click on http://www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html)
Wendy
***************************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
at present, the CWB is alive and well.... :-) and putting over $800 million a year
(through pricing and producer car benefits) into the pockets of prairie farmers.
money that the transnational grain companies of course want to put in THEIR pockets instead.
this isn't a CWB argument. (farmers in western canada know the cwb is working. that's why they consistently elect pro-cwb directors.)
its a farmers rights argument.
the CWB Act requires that ANY CHANGES to the Act must have been supported by producer vote.
section 47.1 clearly states:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period,... unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister
for some reason, harper thinks his new government is not bound by this.
this is a perfect issue for farmers to stand together on.
Bill C-30 must be stopped. this is not a partisan issue.
it is an issue of farmers' rights.
wendy
*************************************************
Wendy,
Don't take this the wrong way but I prefer those affected by the action to do the talking. I know your are an agrologist and I am only a farmer, but dual marketing is the only way to actually make the CWB effective. As most boards, they have become complacant and are not as effective as they could be. Competition seems to wake up even the worst of them.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to make whatever statement you wish. However your opinion although welcome holds no more weight in my book than any farmer who sells wheat.
Free votes in any marketing board setting are seldom actually free votes and change in all marketing boards is so slow that watching paint dry is more exciting.
Love to have all the droves of farmers wanting to keep the CWB actually write in. If they are so passionate, where are they?
By the way Wendy, grain companies already control price but they do it through Chicago. CWB is more a grain allocator than marketer.
Note: spelling not mine!-cg
*********************************************************
Thanks Wendy - I sent a letter to our MP and copied to Strahl and Harper asking that a producer vote be held before changing the way collective marketing works for the Western farmer. I think we would still have a collective marketing style board in Ont for wheat but it was too small and got neglected by producers - failed its job and was voted out.
**********************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
sigh...
do you really believe that legislative framework has no standing?
w canada grain producers are LEGALLY entitled to a vote on the matter. it is simply not up to harper nor anyone else to sweep those rights aside.
if such transgressions of legal rights are allowed, where are the boundaries?
agri-food trans-nationals are into margin capture.
ideally, they want to leave $1 more in the pocket of the farmer than would cause him/her to turn away from the land.
this is not a moral issue, it is the physics of capital.
capital, like water, moves predictably in accordance with immutable principals. like water flowing downhill to the sea, capital moves to its own aggregation.
the role of the state is to know where capital will go in any given opportunity topography
then construct the small, run of the river dams to make it slow down and stick a little (irrigate a strong middle class) as it moves through our communities.
we haven't done that... and right now,it is only the CWB that stands between canada's wheat and barley growers and a highly concentrated grain sector. without the wheat board, where do you think the bargaining power will rest?
and kid yourself not: if this "new" government can act in direct contravention of the CWB Act, farm enabling regulation cannot be relied upon, and no commodity group is safe. if the single desk selling authority of the CWB falls, SM is next.
opposing bill c-300 is not about supporting the wheat board.
it is about supporting and protecting farmer's rights.
let the farmers decide the fate of the wheat board.
farmers in the sector know the sector.
let them speak, for god's sake.
it is their legal right.
surely this should be supportable across commodity sectors?
(and this is my FINAL COMMENT! ;-) )
wendy holm, p.ag.
*****************************************************************
Yes - I do really believe legislative framework has no standing. That's why it's called "framework" - it's a guide, not an absolute.
That's why governments can, and do, change legislation when it's deemed to be in the "national interest" to do so, and they take their chances at the next election.
I don't know why anyone in Western Canada, or anywhere else in Canada, is the least surprised at Harper's stance on the CWB. I seem to recall his position was abundantly clear both during the last election, and well before.
As to a "vote" - why should it be restricted to grain growers? Do grain buyers, processors, and exporters, not deserve at least an equal say in the matter? - after all, they do pay a lot of corporate taxes, and provide a lot of jobs.
The welfare of grains farmers is only but one consideration in any decision to end the CWB monopoly. Politics, love it or hate it, is the process of weighing the concerns of all the competing factions in the process, and making a (hopefully) sound decision.
I suggest, with respect, Wendy, you are becoming so welded to the concept of what you believe your legal rights might be, that you "can't see the forest for the trees"
Furthermore, there's a well-known axiom in both law, and business, which is that "legal rights are what people hide behind when their position makes no sense otherwise". There's another more colourful, and equally apt saying - "the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - I'm not implying that either you, or your supporters are scoundrels, but when you hide behind the law, rather than justify your position solely on its merits, you do run considerable risk of being marginalized.
****************************************************
Welcome to the new democracy of Canada Wendy While you were worried about third world countries and their plight many of us here have had other atrocities perpetrated on us You are worried about rights for a vote?
When farm area elected mpp’s here voted to zone our land as greenbelt for the good of a country? With out compensation? These were/are our homes, our rural communities, our lively hood and our pensions. I did not see you rise up and cry foul when this was downloaded on us. I did not see you or any others from afar cry “foul our rights could be next.”
So what makes you think the same strong arm undemocratic procedures are foul if they are decreed and are the termination of a dysfunctional board? Dysfunctional because it is all about the money and no board with monopoly control could ever be said to have their producer members best interest at heart with a price that they set at less than COP What is the COP the board has determined for western wheat ...any wheat and why is that not the floor?
****************************************************
Fair enough, Howard, but lets be honest. Individuals who disagree and have opposing views of most boards are tar and feathered by current board members and staff alike. Theirs is an uphill battle just to be heard let alone become elected and have influence. I do not think that running for the board is an option for one who wants to do away with the board, nor would you a board supporter want to see an anti board board member elected.
So I think that your suggestion is rather simplistic and really not a wise one. There has to be a better way and government intervention is another way. Howard, would you really want anti anti SM board member on your milk board?
Kind of odd that dairy was forced into SM by government and yet you are campaigning against government involvement. If not for government you would just be one of us. Maybe just maybe, Harper might be right on this one. It worked out for you in dairy didn't it?
*************************************************
Further to my previous posting, not only was supply management imposed on the Ontario egg industry, there was no compensation whatsoever, for anyone adversely affected by this dictum.
Therefore, if supply management can come in, without a poducer vote, and with no compensation for anyone adversely affected, what would be so wrong to end it the same way?
More to the point, why should the "legal rights" of those adversely affected by the legislated end of something, receive any more consideration than the "legal rights" of those adversely affected when legislation established the system in the first place?
***********************************************
Good luck in your cause Wendy...although I KNOW that allowing dual marketing in Ontario made the OWPMB stronger and put thousands of extra dollars in MY pockets, period! In Ontario we have the Board, multinational players (that control the majority of export terminals) and independent players...I would suggest that your much lambasted multinationals have actually been the big losers since the market opened up!
Additionally dual marketing also allowed us to much more easily diversify our wheat production classes...without this I strongly doubt that I would have the chance to grow durum for the third year running next spring.
Furthermore, there is a very clear line between those that wish to continue to grow commodity wheat and those that wish to niche market and value add wheat. You may quote your flawed $800 million number but what has been the cost to the prairies by not allowing entrepreneurism to flourish?? What would be the multiplier of shipping frozen dough, pasta, etc overseas rather than raw wheat to be blended?
In principle and theory your argument holds merit however in the real world the CWB has become too bureaucratic, slow to respond, and created a culture of dependency. Must be my circle of peers because the overwhelming majority of my Western friends can't wait for the opportunity to control their own destiny...and they are considered the leaders in their sectors/communities.
What is the elevator price for HRS in the northern tier US vs what prairie farmers have in their pocket today? Enough said.
PS: "Alive and well"??? How much communist era debt is the CWB still carrying on its books as an asset? And treating compounded (but not collected) interest as income? If it is so 'well' why is it pulling out all the stops to prevent dual marketing, and why is it so afraid of some competition??
Spelling not mine again!-cg
***********************************************
What about the rights of everyone, not just the rights of those within a supply managed commodity.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we at the right of association. Does that not also mean that we have the right of disassociation? Meaning that we cannot be forced into being part of a marketing board?
I am hoping for the day, when the option is given for all commodities, as is being given now with the CWB.
IF SM, or CWB is so wonderful, the producers will choose to sell through them, instead of being forced.
*****************************************
In response to Ms. Holm’s request for action, the emails below appeared on the list:
*********************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
and the next present on George Bush's breakfast tray is the Canadian Wheat Board. (emphasis mine-cg)
(If you don't know why, read The Big Fib http://www.theholmteam.ca/ the_big_fib.pdf)
But farmers can stop that, no?
This IS a minority government, yes?
(for more, click on http://www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html)
Wendy
***************************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
at present, the CWB is alive and well.... :-) and putting over $800 million a year
(through pricing and producer car benefits) into the pockets of prairie farmers.
money that the transnational grain companies of course want to put in THEIR pockets instead.
this isn't a CWB argument. (farmers in western canada know the cwb is working. that's why they consistently elect pro-cwb directors.)
its a farmers rights argument.
the CWB Act requires that ANY CHANGES to the Act must have been supported by producer vote.
section 47.1 clearly states:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period,... unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister
for some reason, harper thinks his new government is not bound by this.
this is a perfect issue for farmers to stand together on.
Bill C-30 must be stopped. this is not a partisan issue.
it is an issue of farmers' rights.
wendy
*************************************************
Wendy,
Don't take this the wrong way but I prefer those affected by the action to do the talking. I know your are an agrologist and I am only a farmer, but dual marketing is the only way to actually make the CWB effective. As most boards, they have become complacant and are not as effective as they could be. Competition seems to wake up even the worst of them.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to make whatever statement you wish. However your opinion although welcome holds no more weight in my book than any farmer who sells wheat.
Free votes in any marketing board setting are seldom actually free votes and change in all marketing boards is so slow that watching paint dry is more exciting.
Love to have all the droves of farmers wanting to keep the CWB actually write in. If they are so passionate, where are they?
By the way Wendy, grain companies already control price but they do it through Chicago. CWB is more a grain allocator than marketer.
Note: spelling not mine!-cg
*********************************************************
Thanks Wendy - I sent a letter to our MP and copied to Strahl and Harper asking that a producer vote be held before changing the way collective marketing works for the Western farmer. I think we would still have a collective marketing style board in Ont for wheat but it was too small and got neglected by producers - failed its job and was voted out.
**********************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
sigh...
do you really believe that legislative framework has no standing?
w canada grain producers are LEGALLY entitled to a vote on the matter. it is simply not up to harper nor anyone else to sweep those rights aside.
if such transgressions of legal rights are allowed, where are the boundaries?
agri-food trans-nationals are into margin capture.
ideally, they want to leave $1 more in the pocket of the farmer than would cause him/her to turn away from the land.
this is not a moral issue, it is the physics of capital.
capital, like water, moves predictably in accordance with immutable principals. like water flowing downhill to the sea, capital moves to its own aggregation.
the role of the state is to know where capital will go in any given opportunity topography
then construct the small, run of the river dams to make it slow down and stick a little (irrigate a strong middle class) as it moves through our communities.
we haven't done that... and right now,it is only the CWB that stands between canada's wheat and barley growers and a highly concentrated grain sector. without the wheat board, where do you think the bargaining power will rest?
and kid yourself not: if this "new" government can act in direct contravention of the CWB Act, farm enabling regulation cannot be relied upon, and no commodity group is safe. if the single desk selling authority of the CWB falls, SM is next.
opposing bill c-300 is not about supporting the wheat board.
it is about supporting and protecting farmer's rights.
let the farmers decide the fate of the wheat board.
farmers in the sector know the sector.
let them speak, for god's sake.
it is their legal right.
surely this should be supportable across commodity sectors?
(and this is my FINAL COMMENT! ;-) )
wendy holm, p.ag.
*****************************************************************
Yes - I do really believe legislative framework has no standing. That's why it's called "framework" - it's a guide, not an absolute.
That's why governments can, and do, change legislation when it's deemed to be in the "national interest" to do so, and they take their chances at the next election.
I don't know why anyone in Western Canada, or anywhere else in Canada, is the least surprised at Harper's stance on the CWB. I seem to recall his position was abundantly clear both during the last election, and well before.
As to a "vote" - why should it be restricted to grain growers? Do grain buyers, processors, and exporters, not deserve at least an equal say in the matter? - after all, they do pay a lot of corporate taxes, and provide a lot of jobs.
The welfare of grains farmers is only but one consideration in any decision to end the CWB monopoly. Politics, love it or hate it, is the process of weighing the concerns of all the competing factions in the process, and making a (hopefully) sound decision.
I suggest, with respect, Wendy, you are becoming so welded to the concept of what you believe your legal rights might be, that you "can't see the forest for the trees"
Furthermore, there's a well-known axiom in both law, and business, which is that "legal rights are what people hide behind when their position makes no sense otherwise". There's another more colourful, and equally apt saying - "the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - I'm not implying that either you, or your supporters are scoundrels, but when you hide behind the law, rather than justify your position solely on its merits, you do run considerable risk of being marginalized.
****************************************************
Welcome to the new democracy of Canada Wendy While you were worried about third world countries and their plight many of us here have had other atrocities perpetrated on us You are worried about rights for a vote?
When farm area elected mpp’s here voted to zone our land as greenbelt for the good of a country? With out compensation? These were/are our homes, our rural communities, our lively hood and our pensions. I did not see you rise up and cry foul when this was downloaded on us. I did not see you or any others from afar cry “foul our rights could be next.”
So what makes you think the same strong arm undemocratic procedures are foul if they are decreed and are the termination of a dysfunctional board? Dysfunctional because it is all about the money and no board with monopoly control could ever be said to have their producer members best interest at heart with a price that they set at less than COP What is the COP the board has determined for western wheat ...any wheat and why is that not the floor?
****************************************************
Fair enough, Howard, but lets be honest. Individuals who disagree and have opposing views of most boards are tar and feathered by current board members and staff alike. Theirs is an uphill battle just to be heard let alone become elected and have influence. I do not think that running for the board is an option for one who wants to do away with the board, nor would you a board supporter want to see an anti board board member elected.
So I think that your suggestion is rather simplistic and really not a wise one. There has to be a better way and government intervention is another way. Howard, would you really want anti anti SM board member on your milk board?
Kind of odd that dairy was forced into SM by government and yet you are campaigning against government involvement. If not for government you would just be one of us. Maybe just maybe, Harper might be right on this one. It worked out for you in dairy didn't it?
*************************************************
Further to my previous posting, not only was supply management imposed on the Ontario egg industry, there was no compensation whatsoever, for anyone adversely affected by this dictum.
Therefore, if supply management can come in, without a poducer vote, and with no compensation for anyone adversely affected, what would be so wrong to end it the same way?
More to the point, why should the "legal rights" of those adversely affected by the legislated end of something, receive any more consideration than the "legal rights" of those adversely affected when legislation established the system in the first place?
***********************************************
Good luck in your cause Wendy...although I KNOW that allowing dual marketing in Ontario made the OWPMB stronger and put thousands of extra dollars in MY pockets, period! In Ontario we have the Board, multinational players (that control the majority of export terminals) and independent players...I would suggest that your much lambasted multinationals have actually been the big losers since the market opened up!
Additionally dual marketing also allowed us to much more easily diversify our wheat production classes...without this I strongly doubt that I would have the chance to grow durum for the third year running next spring.
Furthermore, there is a very clear line between those that wish to continue to grow commodity wheat and those that wish to niche market and value add wheat. You may quote your flawed $800 million number but what has been the cost to the prairies by not allowing entrepreneurism to flourish?? What would be the multiplier of shipping frozen dough, pasta, etc overseas rather than raw wheat to be blended?
In principle and theory your argument holds merit however in the real world the CWB has become too bureaucratic, slow to respond, and created a culture of dependency. Must be my circle of peers because the overwhelming majority of my Western friends can't wait for the opportunity to control their own destiny...and they are considered the leaders in their sectors/communities.
What is the elevator price for HRS in the northern tier US vs what prairie farmers have in their pocket today? Enough said.
PS: "Alive and well"??? How much communist era debt is the CWB still carrying on its books as an asset? And treating compounded (but not collected) interest as income? If it is so 'well' why is it pulling out all the stops to prevent dual marketing, and why is it so afraid of some competition??
Spelling not mine again!-cg
***********************************************
What about the rights of everyone, not just the rights of those within a supply managed commodity.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we at the right of association. Does that not also mean that we have the right of disassociation? Meaning that we cannot be forced into being part of a marketing board?
I am hoping for the day, when the option is given for all commodities, as is being given now with the CWB.
IF SM, or CWB is so wonderful, the producers will choose to sell through them, instead of being forced.
*****************************************
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Message to My Readers
The purpose of this blog was to 'rant' , expose political issues affecting supply management, provoke ideas, post relevant articles and editorials for all to see AND think about , to bring a slightly different perspective about consumers to light and provoke comment.
Either you agree or disagree with the content of the posts. I urge those of you with "opinions", for or against or different, to send comments to this page. Comments can be made by name or nick name or initials. E-mails are NOT made available to me or anyone else!
Any blog is only as good as it's content and readers comments are needed to make improvements, provoke discussion and task the author with re-thinking direction. Other readers have access to these comments and these can vastly expand any debate. This blog is my communication tool with you and anyone who is directed to this blog. Your comments can be a means of communicating between me and all other readers as well.
Except for the surprising lack of comments after 46 postings, readership IS doing well. I have access to a stats page that tells me how many visitors I get by the day, the week the month and a final total to date. Since the inception of 'Dairiblawg', it has had 834 visitors who have implemented 1029 page views! I thank you all.
I am sure that there are many additional ideas, issues and elements out there, that have not been addressed simply because you have not shared those with us all. I hope I will hear from you!! -cg
Either you agree or disagree with the content of the posts. I urge those of you with "opinions", for or against or different, to send comments to this page. Comments can be made by name or nick name or initials. E-mails are NOT made available to me or anyone else!
Any blog is only as good as it's content and readers comments are needed to make improvements, provoke discussion and task the author with re-thinking direction. Other readers have access to these comments and these can vastly expand any debate. This blog is my communication tool with you and anyone who is directed to this blog. Your comments can be a means of communicating between me and all other readers as well.
Except for the surprising lack of comments after 46 postings, readership IS doing well. I have access to a stats page that tells me how many visitors I get by the day, the week the month and a final total to date. Since the inception of 'Dairiblawg', it has had 834 visitors who have implemented 1029 page views! I thank you all.
I am sure that there are many additional ideas, issues and elements out there, that have not been addressed simply because you have not shared those with us all. I hope I will hear from you!! -cg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)