I was pleased to speak before this committee as well, Henry Vos did a great job as well. For those who want to watch it here is the link.
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=8039
will note how it was interesting to hear from Ian McCreary, a blast from the past for sure. Also Ken Rosaasen from the U of S.
Thank you for allowing me to come and speak with you tonight.
I’d like to start by saying that western Canadian grain, oilseed and pulse producers are some of the most innovative, progressive and adaptive people I know. We’ve seen the continued growth and value added in our oilseeds and pulses and other speciality crops and now with finally with the passage of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act I know we will see and explore those same opportunities in wheat and barley. By allowing this freedom finally, these producers see a profitable future to their businesses, and with those more prosperous rural communities.
But the idea of moving forward, being allowed to be progressive, innovative business operators in our production of wheat and barley, just like canola and pulses, wants to be derailed by the majority of the directors of the CWB.
I’d like to speak on a couple of intertwining items
Firstly, the total lack of listening to all farmers within the CWB jurisdiction, and what they have been telling the CWB for years, secondly how that lack of listening by a majority of this board has affected the relationship with our federal government
And thirdly, how these coupled with a lack of respect of their fellow directors, these single desk directors on the CWB board have grossly disenfranchised themselves from reality.
Firstly, failure to listen to western farmers, I’ll quickly back to 2007 when the federally run barley plebiscite results came back in favour of allowing marketing choice. Then Chair Ken Ritter commented;
“The results of the barley plebiscite announced today are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings.”
I’ve looked back to confirm those comments, and in the past13 years of CWB producers surveys, not once was their support for marketing barley under the single desk. Where was the listening to barley farmers?
Our malting sector made it clear in 2007 that there will be no new builds or investment in existing facilitates until the single desk is gone. Yet I’m happy to see that will soon be changing. I was pleased to be at Alix, Alberta yesterday, it was great to hear of RAHR’s expansion plans and their commitment to build long lasting partnerships with producers to ensure quality barley for RAHR and therefore a quality malt product to their customers. Even recent comments from Canadian cattle feeders saying that growth in varietal development, along with clearer market signals in barley will increase usage and acres once the single desk is gone. What’s next for barley? Increased food fractionation for health benefits? Perhaps higher starch varieties for biofuels?
I hear durum producers are also excited with a new pasta plant in the west.
In our producer surveys we’ve seen a growth in the numbers of younger farmers (those under 45) that want more marketing freedom. Who is going to be the producer of the future? Shouldn’t the CWB be focusing on the needs of those who will be producing the grain in to the future and working to ensure that there is a strong viable future?
We’ve seen farms getting bigger, with the majority of those bigger farms supporting an open market. Stats Canada figures that there are about 20,000 commercial grain producers in western Canada. So how come the past summers CWB non verified plebiscite went out to 66,000 producers? A good quote comes from Allen Oberg who was quoted as saying at the senate ag committee in 2006 - if a plebiscite is to be held - “it should be all inclusive the cwb act defines voter eligibility of any producer of the six major grains”.
The question of a dual market has been asked for years with results showing majority support the CWB participating in a dual market, honestly folks, farmers know what a dual market means, it means a voluntary CWB. To suggest that we don’t know what a dual market means and not allowing the dual market question on this past summer’s ballot was insulting to all producers.
In my three years I’ve seen a constant standoff between the majority of the board and the government of Canada. We’ve seen that with the laker purchase, spending farmer’s money on a non verified non binding plebiscite, a series of so called producer meetings where special interest groups and the Communist party of Canada were allowed to attend and spread their propaganda. And most recently with the legal challenge on bill C-18 spending more of producer’s pool account monies. I’ve seen it go as far as not allowing management to move forward and start to work into the next crop year. All along supporting their special interests, and not representing all producers, I believe these directors breached any sense of good corporate governance.
More and more I’ve noticed a clear disconnect between the single desk directors and the rest of the directors. I feel decisions were, in several cases, made at private meetings of these directors - with resolutions brought forth at board meetings. Even with debate and discussion I felt the decision was already made. Working more and more on their own special interests I noticed how this went deep into the organisation as well, as press releases and action plans were prepared in advance just waiting for the boards rubber stamp of approval.
In closing, I cannot and will not tell my neighbours how to manage their farm business and what to do with their wheat and barley, and no one should feel they have the right to tell me what to do with my grain on my farm.
Democracies don’t work that way.
Jeff Nielsen
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=8039
will note how it was interesting to hear from Ian McCreary, a blast from the past for sure. Also Ken Rosaasen from the U of S.
Thank you for allowing me to come and speak with you tonight.
I’d like to start by saying that western Canadian grain, oilseed and pulse producers are some of the most innovative, progressive and adaptive people I know. We’ve seen the continued growth and value added in our oilseeds and pulses and other speciality crops and now with finally with the passage of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act I know we will see and explore those same opportunities in wheat and barley. By allowing this freedom finally, these producers see a profitable future to their businesses, and with those more prosperous rural communities.
But the idea of moving forward, being allowed to be progressive, innovative business operators in our production of wheat and barley, just like canola and pulses, wants to be derailed by the majority of the directors of the CWB.
I’d like to speak on a couple of intertwining items
Firstly, the total lack of listening to all farmers within the CWB jurisdiction, and what they have been telling the CWB for years, secondly how that lack of listening by a majority of this board has affected the relationship with our federal government
And thirdly, how these coupled with a lack of respect of their fellow directors, these single desk directors on the CWB board have grossly disenfranchised themselves from reality.
Firstly, failure to listen to western farmers, I’ll quickly back to 2007 when the federally run barley plebiscite results came back in favour of allowing marketing choice. Then Chair Ken Ritter commented;
“The results of the barley plebiscite announced today are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings.”
I’ve looked back to confirm those comments, and in the past13 years of CWB producers surveys, not once was their support for marketing barley under the single desk. Where was the listening to barley farmers?
Our malting sector made it clear in 2007 that there will be no new builds or investment in existing facilitates until the single desk is gone. Yet I’m happy to see that will soon be changing. I was pleased to be at Alix, Alberta yesterday, it was great to hear of RAHR’s expansion plans and their commitment to build long lasting partnerships with producers to ensure quality barley for RAHR and therefore a quality malt product to their customers. Even recent comments from Canadian cattle feeders saying that growth in varietal development, along with clearer market signals in barley will increase usage and acres once the single desk is gone. What’s next for barley? Increased food fractionation for health benefits? Perhaps higher starch varieties for biofuels?
I hear durum producers are also excited with a new pasta plant in the west.
In our producer surveys we’ve seen a growth in the numbers of younger farmers (those under 45) that want more marketing freedom. Who is going to be the producer of the future? Shouldn’t the CWB be focusing on the needs of those who will be producing the grain in to the future and working to ensure that there is a strong viable future?
We’ve seen farms getting bigger, with the majority of those bigger farms supporting an open market. Stats Canada figures that there are about 20,000 commercial grain producers in western Canada. So how come the past summers CWB non verified plebiscite went out to 66,000 producers? A good quote comes from Allen Oberg who was quoted as saying at the senate ag committee in 2006 - if a plebiscite is to be held - “it should be all inclusive the cwb act defines voter eligibility of any producer of the six major grains”.
The question of a dual market has been asked for years with results showing majority support the CWB participating in a dual market, honestly folks, farmers know what a dual market means, it means a voluntary CWB. To suggest that we don’t know what a dual market means and not allowing the dual market question on this past summer’s ballot was insulting to all producers.
In my three years I’ve seen a constant standoff between the majority of the board and the government of Canada. We’ve seen that with the laker purchase, spending farmer’s money on a non verified non binding plebiscite, a series of so called producer meetings where special interest groups and the Communist party of Canada were allowed to attend and spread their propaganda. And most recently with the legal challenge on bill C-18 spending more of producer’s pool account monies. I’ve seen it go as far as not allowing management to move forward and start to work into the next crop year. All along supporting their special interests, and not representing all producers, I believe these directors breached any sense of good corporate governance.
More and more I’ve noticed a clear disconnect between the single desk directors and the rest of the directors. I feel decisions were, in several cases, made at private meetings of these directors - with resolutions brought forth at board meetings. Even with debate and discussion I felt the decision was already made. Working more and more on their own special interests I noticed how this went deep into the organisation as well, as press releases and action plans were prepared in advance just waiting for the boards rubber stamp of approval.
In closing, I cannot and will not tell my neighbours how to manage their farm business and what to do with their wheat and barley, and no one should feel they have the right to tell me what to do with my grain on my farm.
Democracies don’t work that way.
Jeff Nielsen
Comment