Nothing is Clear....

The results of the Barley vote are in and the controversy does not appear to over. There have been a number of press releases complaining about the process, scrutineers (or lack of) and so on, leading up to the results of the vote becoming public. However, the results are being disputed, vigorously. This past weeks' offerings............

OTTAWA, Ontario, March 28, 2007 - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today announced that Canada's New Government has listened, and will deliver, to Western Canadian barley producers who voted in favour of marketing choice.

A clear majority of the farmers who cast votes in the barley plebiscite indicated they wanted to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley and have the freedom to market their own product.

"We have delivered on our promise to give farmers a voice on the future of barley marketing in Western Canada," said Minister Strahl. "Their decision in favour of marketing choice is clear and we intend to give them that that opportunity in the coming crop year."

Minister Strahl said that nearly 30,000 producers participated in the plebiscite and a majority has provided the Government with a mandate to move ahead.

"Over 60 percent of producers want to decide how to market their own product. We will now begin work on the appropriate amendments to Canadian Wheat Board regulations to remove barley from the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly," said Minister Strahl.

"We will move forward decisively because producers and the sector need clarity and market certainty. I will be consulting with the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board about the changes we will be making," said Minister Strahl. "It is the Government's intention that marketing choice for Western Canada's barley growers - including an option to continue to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board - will be reality by August 1 of this year."

For the results and more information on marketing choice, please visit
www.agr.gc.ca/cwb.******************************

For Immediate Release March 28, 2007

Agriculture and Food
FLAWED PROCESS SKEWS WHEAT BOARD PLEBISCITE RESULTS

Saskatchewan's Agriculture Minister said today that his federal counterpart has no mandate to change the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).

Mark Wartman said federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl was repeatedly warned about the need for clarity in the plebiscite on barley marketing, but refused to listen.

"We told the Minister that there would be problems with the results if he followed the process that he did," Wartman said. "And now, we have 45 per cent of producers in Saskatchewan favouring the CWB single desk and less than 13 per cent wanting the CWB out of barley marketing. I can get no clarity from this result. Those choosing the option to have both the CWB and an open market did so for a variety of reasons."

Wartman said he is not surprised by this outcome, given the three option plebiscite design and the inclusion of the impossible "best of both worlds" second option.

"We warned Minister Strahl that this would confuse the issue and we now find ourselves with no clear result," Wartman said.

Wartman added that the plebiscite was designed to produce the result the federal government sought. It was not designed for farmers to have a real say on the marketing systems they support. He posed several questions for Minister Strahl:

1. The federal government's own Task Force noted that it would be
difficult for the CWB to operate in an open market and the CWB yesterday indicated that it could provide no value in an open, multiple-seller market.

What has changed to make this a viable option?

2. Will the Minister pursue a similar approach on supply management, asking producers of those commodities if they want supply management and choice? Will he give them a similar three question plebiscite?

3. Why is Ottawa not prepared to respect the direction provided by the
producer-elected directors of the CWB?

Out of the Mouths of ...Consumers?

This article simply points out to me the lack of disconnect we have with our customers. They want to buy from Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers want to sell to these consumers. Somehow, the stuff is NOT making it to the right market.

The culprits are large retail food chains, government policy or the lack thereof and farmers who imagine their issues and their products will somehow (by osmosis perhaps?) be available or even recognized by the buying public. This disease is endemic in all sectors of agriculture.

Processing capacity disappears, consumers are being hoodwinked and farmers are unable to compete, as Canada spirals into the status of a nation that may not be able to feed herself!-cg

Produce tasty policy we can munch all winter
Mar 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Joe Fiorito

My interest in Canadian food policy begins with breakfast and continues throughout the day. As you also know from previous columns, we are on the verge, as a nation, of developing new food policy.

Oh, momentous occasion.

I went to one of the public consultations a while back. There were many farmers in attendance; also many food processors and crop marketers, and a surplus of farm bureaucrats. But there were no home cooks and no supermarket shoppers.

That's a shame because we are the end users of Canada's agricultural policy.
Oh, I am sure Ag Canada knows that most of us can't take time off work to go to policy development meetings, but if they took us seriously, they would be asking questions up and down the aisles of my local supermarket.

You get what you pay for, I suppose.

I got a ton of mail from two previous columns on this subject. To summarize: We want good Canadian food at a fair price and we want our farmers to make a decent living.

Allow me to pass along some of my own urban observations, and to draw some city-boy conclusions.

Our growing season is short, but a winter-long diet of cabbage is out of the question. We therefore need tender lettuce, ripe tomatoes and sunny fruit; this is our reward for living in darkness half the year; we will always import oranges and kiwi fruit.

But how do we lessen our dependence on foreign growers? And how do we keep our own farmers in business?

Most of us, if given a choice, would happily buy Canadian produce. Oh, turn that on its head: buying Canadian ought not to be a choice, it ought to be the default position.

Alas, the big supermarkets seem to prefer to sign long-term contracts with foreign suppliers, even for foods that keep, like potatoes and garlic and carrots.

Our farmers suffer as a result.

Because we live in a harsh climate, you and I suffer at the table in the winter because perishable foreign produce must be picked before it is ripe so that it can be shipped; food picked before it is ripe does not taste good.

What to do?

It ought to be easy for us to eat well and locally in the summer. We are a smart and nimble people with a network of roads and rail lines. We should have no trouble getting our best seasonal stuff into stores when it is at its freshest.

An aside: Why isn't the last car on the GO train packed with fresh fruit in the summer and the fall?

What about the winter?

The priciest frozen berries and vegetables in my supermarket this past weekend were from Mexico, Chile and China. Do we not know how to freeze food in the land of ice and snow?
A nice woman spoke up at my table during one round of the consultation.

She is a member of the Toronto Food Policy Council. She said, "I have plum tarts in my fridge from when plums were in season." Good for her.

But most working people I know don't have the time – and few have the expertise any more – to put up a dozen tarts and store them for the winter. And yet the woman is onto something.
Our food processors should lock up all the surplus summer plums – not to mention the peaches and the raspberries – and add value by producing exceptionally high quality, reasonably priced frozen tarts, providing us with sunny comfort during our long and ugly winter.

Another woman at my table – she grows asparagus – said, "There were growers throwing away their asparagus last year. We were sending stuff to Michigan for processing." I rest my case.

As for the winter table, if the Dutch can grow the best and sweetest tomatoes in the world in their greenhouses, why on earth can't we do the same here?

Incidentally, I listened to four hours of talk about food policy and I never once heard anyone talk about juiciness and crispness, nor did anyone wax poetical about the sheer pleasure of the taste of the good food grown here.

Make a policy out of pleasure.

And be industrially creative. I rely on a premium brand of pasta, Rustichella D'Abruzzo. Inexplicably, it sells for the same price here as it does in Italy. This is not just wrong, it's wasteful and foolish, and it may be good for my belly but it is bad for the environment.

A modest proposal:

We grow the best wheat in the world; the Italians import our grain by the ton and they sell it back to us as priest-stranglers. Why can't Rustichella D'Abruzzo be enticed to set up a pasta factory here? If Toyota can turn a profit making cars in Ontario ...

Speaking of which:

The corner store went out of fashion when the car gave birth to the supermarket. We need a more efficient network for the distribution of produce throughout the city. Let the big grocers think small. Let them resurrect the corner store.

These are my modest thoughts on food policy.

Joe Fiorito usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email:

jfiorito@thestar.ca

So You Really Don't Get It?!??- Part 2

I had to do a bit of looking, but this second Article by Brewster Kneen , is the long article I was referring to in my earlier post. This one is also about the wheat board. As another in-depth look at the whole sorry situation, Mr. Kneen brings his vast historical knowledge about Cargill and the gradual weakening of farmers' power over the last 30 or so years. He stitches together the many seemingly , unconnected events, into something we had all better begin to think about very, very, hard.

Note to Internet Beginners: the blue colour means that is a link to the complete story/article or whatever.-cg

Canadian Government Seeks to Throw Grain Farmers to the Corporate Dogs

Written by Brewster Kneen
Friday, 26 January 2007

“Plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board single desk will be done in conjunction with changes to the Canadian Grain Commission, Canada Grain Act, grain transportation, and variety registration.” --Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, 6/11/2006

This autumn Canadians have been treated to a crude horse opera starring Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture in what the Prime Minister insists we call “Canada’s New Government."............

A Food Movie....

To-day I was referred to this site: http://www.informationstation.livedigital.com/
I had no idea what the "Information Station was about. So I went for a visit. The movie currently open on the site is interesting. Some of it makes sense. The main focus is the 'Green" Revolution and now the "Gene" Revolution. Commentary about the patenting of nature or life forms is thought provoking at the least.

The clip takes about 10 mins. to view. Worth a look.-cg

I've Been Thinking ...... ?

Ever since our esteemed Minister of Agriculture announced to Dairy Farmers of Canada, that the Government would pursue Article 28 for the dairy industry.... I have been concerned. It is just something I would not and cannot believe the Conservative Party would do. I bet they have not spent any time explaining to farmers any real downside or fallout that may accrue to dairy farmers.

So, what might really be going on...? I do still believe that keeping DFC happy until the Government can find a way to force an election is something the government has figured out. I now believe that it is just a little side benefit in this Grand Game the Conservatives are playing. One must remember that they have been and still are demonstrating some very elegant strategy. They have been consistently outmanoeuvring the other parties from day one. So far, they have manged to keep it up. What are they up to?!?!?

Well, I think it goes like this.
..............

Once Upon a Time ....... there was a group of dairy farmers that wanted Article 28 really badly. They worked hard to convince several Ministers of Agriculture to agree to this idea. They thought it would stop the bleeding across the border of MPC and other protein powders that were being used to alter the composition of the cheese being sold to consumers. Now, standards that would benefit everyone (especially the public) would be the BEST way to do this, but many of these dairy farmers didn't really believe this was a solution. That's really too bad, because it WOULD stop the bleeding and keep the product more palatable for the consumer. I digress.

So dairy farmers continued to demand Article 28 from their Ministers. At the same time, the WTO had fallen off the rails. The Minister of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture were quoted in public with diverging views of how the WTO should play out for different farm groups and the Minister of Trade was NOT friendly to dairy.

Other groups (who do really HAVE the EAR of the Ministers) think the dairy farmers must lose so they will gain. No one has been able to convince them differently. And large enemies of farmers (ADM and others) have supported these groups. This time, their views have fallen on fertile ground (remember the comments of the Minister of Trade).

So how do you put a spoke in the dairy farmers' lobby power and yet not seem to do so? How do you get what you really want to do at the WTO and not seem to do it? Hmmmmmm? The same strategists who are hoodwinking Canadians AND other political parties though very hard.

It goes like this. First you have to cut dairy farmers and their friends off from the discussions, so they don't know what is really being discussed! That leads to 'How'? Well, if you gave them the ARTICLE 28 process, that might make other countries ticked off enough that they would freeze you out of the discussions. Gee! I think Mr. Verheul has told farmers before that that might be the case! Wow!

Which is the game you can win the biggest on? Gosh! I think that the big win would be the WTO. If you started Article 28 and then an election is conveniently called , the whole process would be toast! Why, boys...THAT would be great!! It might not take that long at the WTO, if you were willing to give up something big. After you have finished dairy off in the WTO, you can tell those farmers you gave them what they wanted (Article 28) so they can't blame you. Your pals in the other farm groups are really happy. Conservative dairy farmers will not want to believe they were snookered and will still support you. They will blame their leaders. Dairy won't be able to stop the WTO process. Someone else calls an election and blows Article 28 out of the water. You have the good spin to defend yourself and THAT is THAT. Fait à compli!

The end!

MORE Dirty Tricks!?

FYI everyone.-CG

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 22, 2007

ATAMANENKO ASKS PRIVACY OFFICER TO ADDRESSBARLEY PLEBISCITE CONCERNS>
OTTAWA – NDP Wheat Board Critic Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior) sent a letter to the Privacy commissioner and the Ethics commissioner, asking that concerns over voters’ privacy and ethical concerns are addressed.>
“There are some very serious questions about how serious the Ministry of Agriculture is about the privacy of farmers’ who are voting in the plebiscite,” said Atamanenko.”Minister Strahl must explain why he feels that farmers’ votes should not protected by stringent privacy rules contained under the elections Canada Act.”
******************
Conservative MP’s Using Discredited Information to Attack CWB
Fri 23 Feb 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OTTAWA – NDP Agriculture critic, Alex Atamanenko, MP – BC Southern Interior - is criticizing the Conservatives for misleading the public in their communications. “Conservative MP’s are using discredited information in flyers to their constituents, on their websites and in media interviews to attack the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB)”, stated Atamanenko.

The Conservatives claim that Algeria receives preferential low prices from the CWB at the expense of Canadian farmers was first made by the US Wheat Association (USWA) who misquoted an Algerian Official as the result of an inaccurate translation. “The USWA has since retracted and apologized for this error and Conservative M.P.’s should stop repeating this false allegation and apologize to the CWB”, demanded Atamanenko.

Atamanenko says Conservatives should also stop using spot barley prices from the US market in their communications to imply that farmers could get higher prices without the CWB. “A good analogy can be found by comparing spot barley prices with what occurs in the stock market. As we all know not everyone is able to access a high price on a stock in one particular day,” stated the NDP Agriculture critic.

The CWB prices reflect a pooled price made up of sales made last spring averaged with some sales being made at the current high spot prices.Atamanenko points to an article in the Star Phoenix by Richard Grey, Professor of agricultural economics at the University of Saskatchewan, who writes about the results of an extensive study which found that the posted daily U.S barley prices have little to do with the price actually received by farmers. Professor Gray says that without the CWB’s single desk powers the high premiums farmers now receive for malting barley prices would quickly fall to prices close to feed barley levels. Atamanenko recommends visiting www.kis.usask.ca to access this study.

Atamanenko is also concerned about several anti-CWB websites sporting similar domain names to the official barley plebiscite that have been created to intercept people looking for information on the internet. “Even the official barley plebiscite website, which should be providing links to information on all sides of the debate or none at all, only directs them to the government’s point of view,” said Atamanenko. “In a fair fight the CWB would be able to defend itself against all the false information being issued, but they have been muzzled by the Minister of Agriculture’s gag order”.

Farmer organizations have put together a website called www.savemycwb.ca to counter the websites offering false information on the barley plebiscite. “I urge everyone to double check their information sources and make sure there are hard facts behind information that affects how they are choosing to vote in the plebiscite,” concluded Atamanenko. “The marketing future of ordinary farmers absolutely depends on it”.
****************
Some farmers worried barley vote won't be private
Last Updated: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:56 AM CT
CBC News

Some farmers say they're worried about the confidentiality of ballots in Ottawa's barley plebiscite.

The federal government is asking Prairie farmers if they want to change the way barley is marketed and has sent out ballots with identification numbers that match numbers on voter declaration forms.

Bill Kruzko, who farms near Maple Creek, Sask., is among those who say they're not comfortable with the system.

"They'll know exactly how every producer in Canada voted because it has the identification number at the bottom of the ballot," he said.
There must be other ways of cross-checking information without putting identification numbers on the ballot, Kruzko said.

However, the accounting firm handling the plebiscite insists it's a good system and farmers have no reason to worry about the confidentiality of their votes.

KPMG spokesman Jeff Thomas said the vote is secret, even though there is a number on each ballot that identifies the farmer to whom it was sent.

Thomas, one of several accountants at KPMG who developed the form which allows farmers to declare their eligibility to vote, said it was imperative to have a system that verifies the authenticity of the information.

The firm had to have a way to trace the ballots of those declared ineligible to vote, but even with the identification number, the vote remains secret.

"Certainly with a combination of the information technology controls, the physical access controls, and the procedures that we are using, we can maintain that confidentiality and still provide for an efficient process and a timely tabulation," he said.

Meanwhile, voting for wheat board directors is handled somewhat differently, an official says.
Peter Eckersley, the election co-ordinator for the wheat board's director elections, says they used computer bar codes on the return envelopes.

"The Canadian Wheat Board Act and its related regulations specifically prohibits there being any mark on the ballot which could be used to identify the voter," he said.

However, the act does not apply to plebiscites so the rules could be different, Eckersley said.
The plebiscite asks barley farmers if they want to keep the existing system where the wheat board has a monopoly on barley exports, to stop the board from marketing barley, or to have a choice of marketing their barley through the wheat board or others.

The Conservative government says it's committed to giving "marketing choice" to farmers so they can get the best grain prices, but some farmers believe they already get the best prices from the wheat board and are worried change could hurt their bottom line.

Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl has said a plebiscite on wheat could be held at some point, but not any time soon.

Barley ballots were mailed out Feb. 7 and must be returned by March 13.

Notes & Notions

Well now... it looks like the current government has risen to the occasion, at least for dairy farmers. Minister Strahl made a major announcement at the Dairy Farmers of Canada Annual Meeting last week. The subject was Article 28, which DFC has been demanding for quite some time. The real issue of compositional standards for cheeses was left blowing in the wind, the Minister imposed no decisions but again asked the players to come back to the table to continue their discussions. So, the prospect of an all out lobby war by one of the most vocal and well organised farm groups in Canada, has been avoided.

But what did DFC really get? I believe they got sidelined very neatly. Since Article 28 involves a lengthy process, notifying the players (at the WTO), providing for a comment period (sounds like the rule in the BSE dispute) and other bureaucratic stuff, it is highly unlikely that this issue will be addressed in any concrete, measurable manner, any time soon.

But in appearing to give the dairy farmers what they have wanted on the Article 28 issue, I am sure the Minister has been able to calm the fears of Canadian processors by reminding them how long it can take for any of these things to grind their way through the twisted corridors of the WTO and it's related agreements. The single largest issue to remember is that this process has been implemented by a Minority Government!!! It is very likely the government will fall, long before Article 28 sees any concrete results for dairy farmers.

The Minister has also now given DFC a reason to keep a low profile on the Canadian Wheat Board issue. Hmmmnnn?!?

Meanwhile, rumours are rife, that the government is actively trying to find a way to force/direct/contrive an election issue. One joke has it, that the new nasty commercials about M. Dion might be all about making the Liberals angry enough to force an election.

In their obvious desire to find a way to lull Canadians into voting in a majority Conservative Government, much of the government's activities have been all about stall, stall, stall. The exception is the Wheat Board issue, which they are actively trying to rush through! It makes no sense to me that this government would want to make any progress for dairy, when on every other major portfolio, they obfuscate!

Whomever designed this cute little smoke screen for the Minister must be smiling..-cg